>Obviously, religion is beyond that realm
because God does not exist in a directly observable way
in our physical universe.However, the atheist model
of the universe and its history, however, MUST be
observable and testable and, therefore, provable. Or
disprovable.<br><br>You make it appear though that atheism needs evidence
but theism does not - many would say it is the other
way around but I think both sides are mistaken, you
don't need evidence for a belief, and you definitely do
not need evidence for not believing in
something.<br><br>>So, basically, I find that the best proof of A god
(not specifically the God of Christianity, but just A
god or other supernatural entity) is the DISPROOF of
atheism<br><br>Not true, if I have a proof against his existence,
then the point would still be clear. One easy example
would be the problem from evil, God would not allow
evil to exist for any reason, even something like free
will because it would be an evil means for a good
action - which contradicts his perfect moral (something
you should expect of God).<br><br>>In the
beggining, nothing created the heavens and the earth.
<br><br>First problem, the universe may have not ever had a
beginning - if the universe is infinite, there is
definitely no proof for God's existence.<br><br>>They
say, in their desperation to deny the existance of
God, that a singularity suddenly exploded outward,
creating all matter and beggining time. <br><br>Second
problem, the theory that an effect must have a cause even
applies to God, if one truly believes a cause must have
an effect (nothing comes from nothing), they have to
admit that God has a cause, more than likely another
God - but this idea is inconceivable, meaning that a
cause must always have an effect is not
absolute.<br><br>>So, we haven't even gotten to the explosion and
already we have extreme problems<br><br>Not really,
especially no problems with atheism.<br><br>So in
conclusion, any thinking person would probably change their
mind after realizing that your theory:<br>Is not based
on conclusive evidence (isn't guaranteed) because it
only works if the universe was sure to have a
beginning, is self conflicting (it says something cannot
come from nothing, therefore God should never exist),
and it has a defeater, the problem of evil
existing.<br><br>Perhaps we should analyze this subject a bit more, it
seems you still have a bit to learn on it.

Interesting views, but they seem to be the result
of missunderstandings. Probably my fault. I'll try
to clarify them.<br><br>1: "You make it appear
though that atheism needs evidence but theism does not -
many would say it is the other way around but I think
both sides are mistaken, you don't need evidence for a
belief, and you definitely do not need evidence for not
believing in somethnig."<br>A: I am not saying that atheism
needs evidence but theism does not, in the way you mean
it. I am saying that to get any evidence for theism
it must be done indirectly because theism is beyond
the realm of physical observation in our universe
(you cannot touch God or study God in a tangible way).
Getting evidence this way, in this case, means finding
fault in the other possible explanation for the
universe's existance, which is the atheist's big bang right
now. That is all I meant by that.<br><br>2: "Not true,
if I have a proof against his existence, then the
point would still be clear. One easy example would be
the problem from evil, God would not allow evil to
exist for any reason, even something like free will
because it would be an evil means for a good action -
which contradicts his perfect moral (something you
shold expect of God)."<br>A: Where are you getting this
stuff. Your "proof" against God's existance makes almost
no sense. Let me try to explain. The reason that God
made us in the first place is for us to love him. He
gave us free will because there is no gratitude in
someone telling them that they love you if they have been
forced to say it. Just as you would get no gratitude
from your computer telling it that it loves you, since
you would have to program it to do that. So he gave
us the option to either love him and follow him or
turn from him and sin. Obviously, any time when you
give people a choice in a matter, there will always be
different choices made by different people. When Adam and
Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,
they sinned and went against God's wishes. That is why
we have evil, it is not that God condones evil, it
is just that it is a by-product of free will.
<br><br>3. "First problem, the universe may have not ever
had a beginning - if the universe is infinite, there
is definitely no proof for God's existance."<br>A.
Well, here we go. The universe MUST have had a
beginning. You have no choice in the matter if you claim to
be an atheist. Whether you admit it or not, by
saying that the universe has always been there you are
contradicting your own idea of no supernatural forces existing,
because you are saying that the universe itself is
supernatural. Physical laws apply the universe if it is not
supernatural, and physical laws contradict something coming
from nothing. So, is the universe supernatural or not?
If it IS, then you are lying to yourself by saying
that you are an atheist, and if it ISN'T supernatural,
then it violates unchangable physical laws. Take your
pick.<br><br>I will run out of room if I go into this next
subject so I will continue in my next post.<br><br>Best
wishes,<br>Jon

Ok, this is the continuation of my last post. I
was about to run out of room in my other one. Here we
go.<br><br>4. "Second problem, the theory that an effect must
have a cause even applies to God, if one truly
believes a cause must have an effect (nothing comes from
nothing), they have to admit that God has a cause, more
than likely another God - but this idea is
inconceivable, meaning that a cause must always have an effect
is not absolute."<br>A. Are you implying that God is
subject to the same rules and limits as physical,
tangible beings and objects? Perhaps you are debating
against a different God than the God of the Bible. Or
maybe you are just misinformed. The theory applies
strictly to physical, tangible things. The God of the
Bible, whom you are debating against when debating
against me, is eternal and limitless. Eternal meaning
that he always has been and always will be. Cause and
effect does not affect a supernatural entity beyond our
physical laws. Sorry. You saying that God cannot exist
because he must have had a cause is the same as me saying
that the moon cannot exist because it is green.
Obviously, the moon is not green, so I would be saying that
the moon cannot exist based on a trait that it does
not possess. Not a good argument.<br><br>5. "Not
really, especially no problems with atheism."<br>A. Did
you even read what I was saying about it? I was not
referring to atheism. Rather, I was referring to the Big
Bang theory. I said we already had extreme problems
because the Big Bang cannot have happened. Atheists do
not necessarily have a problem if they can think of
some other naturalistic explanation for the existance
of the universe. <br><br>6. "So in conclusion, any
thinking person would probably change their mind after
realizing that your theory: Is not based on conclusive
evidence (isn't guaranteed) because it only works if the
universe was sure to have a beginning, is self conflicting
(it says something cannot come from nothing,
therefore God should never exist), and it has a defeater,
the problem of evil existing. <br><br>Perhaps we
should analyze this subject a bit more, it seems you
still have a bit to learn on it."<br>A. I have already
addressed the universe's requirement of a beggining if you
claim to be an atheist. If it didn't have a beggining
then the universe is itself supernatural. If it did
have a beggining then it is in violation of physical
laws. (I explained most of these in my post on the Big
Bang) The theory is not self conflicting. God is not
subject to physical laws or theories such as cause and
effect. So there is no conflict. It has no defeater. Evil
is allowed by God because it is the only other
choice to him, which is a by-product of free will. I
explained all that at the top of the last post.
<br><br>Hope this helps clarify things for you.<br><br>Best
wishes,<br>Jon

>I am saying that to get any evidence for
theism it must be done indirectly because theism is
beyond the realm of physical observation in our universe
(you cannot touch God or study God in a tangible way).
<br><br>I see what you are saying, that to take<br>A: God
exists<br>You want to show that the opposite is flawed. This is
easy to say, but much more difficult to actually do,
carry on though.<br><br>>Getting evidence this way,
in this case, means finding fault in the other
possible explanation for the universe's existance, which
is the atheist's big bang right now. <br><br>Hmmm...
I would say that even if you did disprove the big
bang, it would still not prove God's existence. The
option that something else caused the universe to exist,
something that we cannot explain with our current
techology, was the cause. Perhaps the universe always
existed as well... just some random thoughts off the top
of my head.<br><br>>A: Where are you getting this
stuff. Your "proof" against God's existance makes almost
no sense. Let me try to explain<br><br>Obviously I
disagree, and I could suggests that your "evidence" does
not make sense as well, it's all a matter of opinion
in the end.<br><br>> The reason that God made us
in the first place is for us to love him.
<br><br>There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this
claim. If your argument is based upon this, then I am
attempted to dismiss it from the start.<br><br>>He gave
us free will because there is no gratitude in
someone telling them that they love you if they have been
forced to say it. <br><br>How does not having someone's
love damage God? Does God somehow feel inadequate
without our love? Is it possible for God to not love us?
Why do you think he loves us? Is there any incentive
at all? If he loves us, why does he not allow free
will, but still perform supernatural acts to stop
suffering in the world? All of these questions deserve to
be answered.<br><br>>So he gave us the option to
either love him and follow him or turn from him and sin.
<br><br>So you cannot love him and still sin? I know quite a
few christians who would disagree, just so you
know.<br><br>>When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil, they sinned and went against God's
wishes. That is why we have evil, it is not that God
condones evil, it is just that it is a by-product of free
will. <br><br>So if Adam and Eve didn't eat from the
tree, we wouldn't have evil and thus would not have
free will, right? So God intended on us to not have
free will? This would contradict your earlier
statements. Also, where is the tree of knowledge of good and
evil located at today?<br><br>>The universe MUST
have had a beginning. You have no choice in the matter
if you claim to be an atheist<br><br>Absolutely not.
Nothing suggests that universe must have a
beginning.<br><br>>Whether you admit it or not, by saying that the universe
has always been there you are contradicting your own
idea of no supernatural forces existing, because you
are saying that the universe itself is supernatural.
<br><br>Wrong again, if the universe is infinite, it is not
supernatural, yet it would always be there.<br><br>>Physical
laws apply the universe if it is not supernatural, and
physical laws contradict something coming from
nothing<br><br>The idea of an infinite universe side steps this
completely, something was always there, and always will
be.<br><br>>So, is the universe supernatural or not? If it IS,
then you are lying to yourself by saying that you are
an atheist, and if it ISN'T supernatural, then it
violates unchangable physical laws. Take your
pick.<br><br>This is nonsensical, I'll take the third option, that
the universe is infinite, not supernatural, and no
physical laws have been violated.

>A. Are you implying that God is subject to
the same rules and limits as physical, tangible
beings and objects? <br><br>I am implying God is limited
to the rules of logic. You most certainly should
agree with this. God cannot do what he does not do, it
is a simple matter once one really looks at it. You
agree that God cannot sit in the corner of the oval
office, right? In the same sense, if one believes that
anything cannot come from nothing, they are living a
double standard if they believe God exists
independently.<br><br>>Perhaps you are debating against a different God than
the
God of the Bible<br><br>Well, now that you mention
it, it seems that the God of the bible is extremely
unlikely. If were simply debating about whether God exists
or doesn't (not including the biblical god), I'd say
that theist would have much more of an
advantage.<br><br>>Cause and effect does not affect a supernatural entity
beyond our physical laws. Sorry. <br><br>You cannot just
say sorry, I deserve an explanation as to why he can
be unlimited and the universe cannot, otherwise, you
have proven nothing. <br><br>>You saying that God
cannot exist because he must have had a cause is the
same as me saying that the moon cannot exist because
it is green. <br><br>Definitely not, this analogy is
very poor. I can say "you saying that the universe
cannot exist without God is like me saying that the moon
cannot exist if it is green", but nothing is
accomplished, you will need to explain in detail why - but you
can't, because we cannot examine the supernatural, we
don't even know if it exists.<br><br>>. I have
already addressed the universe's requirement of a
beggining if you claim to be an atheist. <br><br>But what
you have stated was flawed, the universe obviously
does not need a beginning. <br><br>>If it did have
a beggining then it is in violation of physical
laws. (I explained most of these in my post on the Big
Bang) <br><br>I did not see this explanation in the big
bang theory, but I will retort to this anyways, if the
universe is infinite, it does not violate any physical
laws. <br><br>I think I see the problem here though,
you think that if the universe is infinite, something
must have created it to be infinite - but this cannot
possibly be true. Why? Because to be infinity has no
beginning or end, if it did, it would *not* be infinite*.
<br><br>>God is not subject to physical laws or theories such
as cause and effect. <br><br>You have provided no
evidence for this point.<br><br>>So there is no
conflict. It has no defeater. <br><br>Once again, I highly
disagree.<br><br>Although I disagree with many of your points, I do enjoy
debating with you.

Hello. I will answer your questions first and
then move on to your statements.<br><br>(Note: Some of
these are assumptions on my part and other Christians
will have varying views. Many of these questions only
God can answer because only he know why he does
certain things, but I will do my best to try and explain
what I think the most logical answers are.)<br><br>Q:
"How does not having someon's love damage God?"<br>A:
It does not damage God. However, in the same way a
parent's feelings are hurt when their children do not love
them, God is upset when we do not love him.<br><br>Q:
"Does God somehow feel inadequate without our
love?"<br>A: No. If you want to go into speculation, I believe
that it comes down to us being inadequate without HIS
love. He knows that we need to be loved to function as
we were intended to, and that by giving love we will
improve ourselves aswell. He is just the hub for that in
some cases because he IS love. (like I said, this is
MY idea on it)<br><br>Q: "Is it possible for God to
not love us?"<br>A: No. God loves us as a parent
loves his/her child. It is an unconditional love from
Father to son/daughter. This is supported by the
bible.<br><br>Q: "Why do you think he loves us?"<br>A: I believe
that He loves us because we are his children (that is
what the bible tells us). And, like I said, God IS
love, so it would only be natural for him to love us,
though he may not always love or like what we do or
decide.<br><br>Q: "Is there any incentive at all?"<br>A: See
above.<br><br>Q: "If he loves us, why does he not allow free will,
but still perform supernatural acts to stop suffering
in the world?"<br>A: Once again, this is my personal
assumptions based on the bible and my own thoughts. God does
love us, but as I said, it is a parental love. Parents
don't always save their kids from what they get
themselves into. If a child spends all of his lunch money on
the first day of the week, most parents will make
them not have lunch for the rest of the week in the
hopes that they will learn their lesson and not spend
it all next time. I believe it is the same way with
God. Also, if noone asks God to help them (through
prayer) because of their pride, why would God want to,
knowing that they obviously think they can handle it
themselves. And, another point would be that even if suddenly
in India everyone had enough food to last them the
rest of their lives, and all the medicine they need,
you and I both know this would not be attributed to
God. Another explanation would be invented. <br><br>Q:
"So you cannot love him and still sin?"<br>A: Sorry,
that was my fault. I phrased that wrong. You most
definitly CAN love Him and still sin. Believe me, I and
everyone else on this planet is guilty of it. But the
difference is that if you have turned from God then you will
sin without fogiveness. How can He forgive you if you
won't let Him?<br><br>Q: "So if Adam and Eve didn't eat
from the tree, we wouldn't have evil and thus would
not have free will, right?"<br>A: Nope. If Adam and
Eve didn't eat from the tree then we would still be
living in the Garden of Eden. (All of us who didn't eat
from the tree, anyway) We would still have free will,
of course. We would always be able to choose to eat
from the tree. Just as all the nuclear powers in the
world have the free will to use their nuclear weapons,
but they exercise that free will in a good way by NOT
using them. Just because they haven't used them doesn't
mean that they don't have free will to do
so.<br><br>Q: "So God intended on us to not have free
will?"<br>A: Nope, see above.<br><br>Q: "Also, where is the
tree of knowledge of good and evil located at
today?"<br>A: Good question. No one but God knows that. Perhaps
he simply removed it from the earth after Adam and
Eve gave up trying to return, perhaps it is buried
with the Garden somewhere we have yet to find. Who
knows? It says nothing of what happened to it in the
Bible.<br><br>I am getting close to running out of space, so

Hey again. Ran out of space in my last post, this
is the continuation.<br><br>Now for
statements.<br><br>"There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this
claim." (God made us to love him)<br>Well, actually the
bible makes it clear that we are to love God as our
number 1 priority. It says it over and over and
over.<br><br>"Absolutely not, nothing suggests the universe must have had
a beginning."<br>Except for physical laws you mean?
Sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic. But just about
every atheist scientist and even many scientists who
believe in some form of supernatural force or another
support the Big Bang theory. And, yes, the universe must
have had a beginning, because infinite is just another
word for eternal in this tense. You can change the two
around. If something has always existed then it never had
a cause. If it never had a cause it can't exist in
the physical world.<br><br>"Wrong again, if the
universe is infinite, it is not supernatural, yet it would
always be there."<br>If this is the case, then the
universe is supernatural. If it never had a cause, it
violates physical laws. If it never had a beginning, what
was its initial form? Has it always been the way it
is now? <br><br>"The idea of an infinite universe
side steps this completely, something was always
there, and always will be."<br>What was this
"something"? The universe as it is now? Matter? Energy? Was it
always organized or disorganized?<br><br>"This is
nonsensical, I'll take the third option, that the universe is
infinite, not supernatural, and no physical laws have been
violated."<br>And you say I was being nonsensical? If the universe
is infinite then it never had a beginning. If it
never had a beginning it IS violating natural laws. So
actually it would have to be supernatural to avoid
this.<br><br>It boils down to these two choices for an
atheist:<br>A-The universe had a beginning without supernatural
intervention.<br>B-The universe is infinite/eternal.<br><br>The second
choice isn't a choice if you want to remain an atheist
because if something is infinite or eternal then it has
always existed and never had a cause. So it would have
to be supernatural or created by a supernatural
force or it could never have existed. <br><br>I think
that's all of it...<br><br>Until next time,<br>Jon

Ok, this is continued from my last post.
<br><br>Anyway, on to the reply.<br><br>"I am implying God is
limited to the rules of logic." ... "You agree that God
cannot sit in the corner of the oval office, right? In
the same sense, if one believes that anything cannot
come from nothing, they are living a double standard
if they believe God exists
independently."<br><br>Actually, God doesn't have to obey any rules of logic,
since he made the universe I don't see why he can't go
beyond our level of understanding. Just as you can draw
a 2d image, which (if it had a brain) would not be
able to understand a 3d image, God can "draw"(create)
a universe and beings in it who cannot fully
understand Him. It actually does make sense if you think
about it. I don't see why God CAN'T sit in the corner
of the oval office. It says he is omnipresent, so
that means that he actually IS in the corner of the
oval office right now. I don't know whether he is
sitting or not; ). No, they would not be living a
double-standard. Believing that something doesn't come from
nothing is not something I just decided to believe. It is
a scientific, thoroughly tested theory. But, it
only applies to physical, tangible objects. It has no
effect on something beyond our realm, no more than the
laws and regulations enforced in Russia affect me here
in the United States.<br><br>"Definitely not, this
analogy is very poor."<br><br>I don't know, I think the
analogy is pretty good. You just have to look into it a
bit farther. The only place that you find a
description of God is in the bible, and the bible is the word
of God, so we use that as our "model" of God. Using
the description we find in here, God can be
determined to be all powerful, loving, eternal, etc. The
argument against God having to have been created is
pointless against an eternal God. Just as the argument that
the moon is green is pointless against a white moon.
Does that clear it up?<br><br>"you think that if the
universe is infinite, something must have created it to be
infinite - but this cannot possibly be true. Why? Because
to be infinity has no beginning or end, if it did,
it would *not* be infinite*."<br><br>Actually, I
said that if the universe is infinite it must be
supernatural ITSELF. Not necessarily that it was created to be
infinite. But that is quite an interesting idea, now that
you say it. If you think about it, something COULD
"be created" to be infinite in THEORY, though it is
rather mind boggling. For example, if an eternal being
was, then I suppose it could *create* an infinite
thing such as an infinite universe... but to *create*
something means it would take TIME... and the MOMENT any
time was used it would not BE infinite... but then...
if something always was... it never had a
beggining... but if something infinite made something that
always was with it... my mind is going numb now, lol.
But you know what I'm saying? Just a thought, nothing
to do with the debate.<br><br>"You have provided no
evidence for this point." (God not being subject to
physical laws)<br><br>I believe I have. It isn't that
difficult to understand that a limitless God would not be
affected by LIMITS (or He wouldn't be limitless, now,
would He?)<br><br>"Once again, I highly
disagree."<br>Well, I'm already pretty sure neither of us will
convince the other of much, but we can still make some
good points. I do appreciate your views on the
subject, despite not agreeing with them.<br><br>Until next
time,<br>Jon

>A: It does not damage God. However, in the
same way a parent's feelings are hurt when their
children do not love them, God is upset when we do not
love him.<br><br>Why is God upset? Does he expect us
to love him and get upset if we do not? Do you get
upset if someone does not love you?<br><br>>and that
by giving love we will improve ourselves
aswell<br><br>I'd disagree with this idea that giving love to God
makes us better. For an example, giving love to the
Easter bunny at my age does not really benefit me much,
in fact, it'd seem outright silly. The difference
between God and the easter bunny, not much, unless you
already presuppose he exists.<br><br>>God loves us as
a parent loves his/her child. It is an
unconditional love from Father to son/daughter. This is
supported by the bible.<br><br>The bible for me is
inadequate support, since I see it as being the thoughts of
mere men, but let's presume that God does have
unconditional love - this would definitely negate the idea of
hell existing. Would you send your son/daughter to
hell if they did not love you? I would most certainly
hope not, even if they disrespected you greatly, it
would show that you are much worse off then
them.<br><br>>And, like I said, God IS love, so it would only be
natural for him to love us, though he may not always love
or like what we do or decide.<br><br>If God is love,
then why does he not love us to the point where we
know for certain the he exists? Obviously we do not
know, as your religion whole heartedly agrees that you
need faith aka belief without conclusive evidence. If
God wants us to believe in him and love him, it would
be unlikely that he would allow us to actually think
of him as not existing in a rational manner, but
this may be new stuff for you. The bottom line is
though, since we can think of God as not existing, it
makes it unlikely that a version of God that cares if
we believe in him exists.<br><br>>Also, if noone
asks God to help them (through prayer) because of
their pride, why would God want to, <br><br>Then your
God is a pretty crappy God, he should love you and
want to help you whether you believe in him or not,
because his love should not have
conditions.<br><br>>and all the medicine they need, you and I both know
this would not be attributed to God. <br><br>Not
really, if God did many supernatural acts, it'd seem that
people would believe in him. Since there are no
documented acts that are credible, you conclusion does not
hold.<br><br>>We would still have free will, of course<br><br>So
we can go on without knowing evil and still have
free will? So why doesn't God do this? Why doesn't God
not let us know about evil but still let us have free
will? It seems that you are contradicting yourself on
this point.<br><br>>Good question. No one but God
knows that<br><br>I think the answer is obvious, the
tree probably never existed. You obviously will
disagree, but I think my answer is definitely better than
yours because yours leaves questions hanging, such as
why did God put the tree there and then remove it
later?

>Well, actually the bible makes it clear that
we are to love God as our number 1 priority. It says
it over and over and over.<br><br>Once again, I see
no reason why the bible is considered evidence on
the account that it is not credible. You will have to
provide something else. It is cheating to counter
arguments that suggest God does not exist by using
arguments that presuppose his existence (the bible does
this).<br><br>>Except for physical laws you mean? <br><br>Nope, no
physical law does not suggest that.<br><br>>And, yes,
the universe must have had a beginning, because
infinite is just another word for eternal in this tense.
<br><br>No it is not, I must apologize for my tone, but you
are way off on this topic. The universe does not need
a beginning if it is infinite because it cannot
possibly have a first cause if it is infinite. It would
contradict the idea of infinity. As for every atheist
scientist believing the big bang, that is your opinion - I
know many atheist philosophers who believe in the idea
of infinity, but I do not use this as an argument in
itself.<br><br>>If this is the case, then the universe is
supernatural. If it never had a cause, it violates physical
laws. <br><br>This is where you misunderstand, it did
have a cause, just not a first one. The idea of
infinity may take you awhile to grasp, but your
supernatural idea simply does not hold water. You say it's
supernatural because it does not have a first cause, but that
is only if the universe is finite, which I am not
arguing.<br><br>>If it never had a beginning, what was its initial
form? Has it always been the way it is now?
<br><br>This is what I mean when I say you misunderstand
infinity, infinity has no initial form, it is not possible
for it to. Has it always been the way it is now? Who
knows, not knowing does not hurt the
theory.<br><br>>If it never had a beginning it IS violating natural
laws<br><br>Nope, it goes perfectly well with every cause and
effect law. You will have to make more of a point,
otherwise I don't see you having anything
here.<br><br>>It boils down to these two choices for an
atheist:<br>A-The universe had a beginning without supernatural
intervention.<br>B-The universe is infinite/eternal.<br><br>Where you
are getting the "eternal" idea from I don't know. All
I am simply saying is that the universe has an
infinite ammount of cause and effects.<br><br>>The
second choice isn't a choice if you want to remain an
atheist because if something is infinite or eternal then
it has always existed and never had a cause.
<br><br>Once again, it had a cause, an infinite amount to be
exact, but it never had a first cause, and you can still
be an atheist. <br><br>>So it would have to be
supernatural or created by a supernatural force or it could
never have existed. <br><br>Once again, it would not.
Mainly because the universe wouldn't need anything to
cause it - it was always there in the first place.

>Actually, God doesn't have to obey any rules
of logic, since he made the universe I don't see why
he can't go beyond our level of understanding.
<br><br>Actually, he does. Even christian philosophers like Thomas
Aquainas agree that God cannot break the rules of logic,
becase they are definition. An easy one would be: God
cannot be a married batchelor. The proposition is simply
impossible. <br><br>Further, if God can break logic, then
your idea that God needs evil for free will is
completely worthless, because God can have both if he can
break logic (this is the main reason why most theist
philosophers think God cannot break logic, by the
way).<br><br>>I don't see why God CAN'T sit in the corner of the
oval office. It says he is omnipresent, so that means
that he actually IS in the corner of the oval office
right now<br><br>Not really, would you honestly think
that God exists in non-existant places? For God to sit
in the corner of the oval office, it would actually
have to be possible to do this. Can you explain how it
would be possible? <br><br>>It is a scientific,
thoroughly tested theory. But, it only applies to physical,
tangible objects. It has no effect on something beyond our
realm, no more than the laws and regulations enforced in
Russia affect me here in the United States.<br><br>But
how do you know this? How do you know that a realm
exists outside of our own without already presupposing
it? How do you know that this realm does not follow
the same physical laws as our own? You have provided
no evidence, only opinion. This conversation is
fruitless if you cannot prove this realm exists, without
already presupposing it does, I might add.<br><br>>The
only place that you find a description of God is in
the bible, <br><br>This is false, descriptions of God
existed before the bible ever did.<br><br>>and the
bible is the word of God<br><br>Once again, I disagree.
<br><br>>so we use that as our "model" of God. <br><br>No we
cannot, unless we presuppose that the bible is actually
the word of God, but that is
pointless.<br><br>>The argument against God having to have been created
is pointless against an eternal God. <br><br>No,
because it means that some things do not need to have a
cause - and since we have no proof that supernatural
activity exists, we do not need to think that supernatural
activies are the reason for the
universe.<br><br>>Actually, I said that if the universe is infinite it must
be supernatural ITSELF. Not necessarily that it was
created to be infinite. <br><br>You are not supernatural
if you are infinite, at least in the universe's
case, since it is completely natural (everything is ok,
cause and effect and everything). Also, if the universe
is infinite, it was *not* created,
ever.<br><br>>something means it would take TIME... and the MOMENT any
time was used it would not BE infinite...
<br><br>Interesting thought, but this actually leads to an argument
against God's existence. It goes like this:<br>God is
infinite and thus does not experience time,<br>Creating
the universe and time means one experiences
time,<br>Therefore, God cannot have created the universe with
time.<br><br>>I believe I have. It isn't that difficult to
understand that a limitless God would not be affected by
LIMITS <br><br>I don't think you have, you have yet to
provide proof that God actually exists in some world
outside the physical one. Saying, "the bible says so" is
not evidence.<br><br>Anyways, it's late and I've been
in a cranky mood of sorts due to studying, but I
enjoy debating with you. I do not think we will
convince eachother either, I've been in tons of debates
like this with the same arguments and counters, and
nobody ever really changes their views. I must say
though, I think it's better off that we do this than sit
there and never really wonder about our religious
beliefs.<br><br>Good day... err.. night.

You're a teen...and an atheist...so WHO cares
what YOU think? I guess that's why we have
polls.<br><br><a href=http://pub11.bravenet.com/vote/vote.asp?usernum=866908569
target=new>http://pub11.bravenet.com/vote/vote.asp?usernum=866908569</a><br><br>\
Click it. It's just 5 questions with radio buttons
about what we should do about the terrorists.

Im kind of suprised that nobody has really posted
anything about the Sept 11th attack. I would have but its
been a really emotional time for me, despite the fact
that I did not know any of the victims personnaly. I
guess watching a plane hit a large skyscraper on live
television is traumatic enough for me....<br>This post is
basically to encourage everyone to donate what you can to
the American Red Cross. Also set up an appoitment to
give blood, if you are of legal age to do so.
<br>During this time I think its important for people to see
that despite the fact that we are
atheists/non-religous, we are also Americans. Remeber the words of
President Lincoln that "United We Stand".

Ok, let's start with you saying "Why is God
upset? Does he expect us to love him and get upset if we
do not? Do you get upset if someone does not love
you?"<br><br>This seems like the same questions you asked before. I
thought I had addressed them. God is upset when we don't
love him for the same reasons a parent is upset if
their child doesn't love them. He DOES expect us to
love him. Once again, this is parental in essence.
Parents expect their kids to love them because they are
the reason they exist and they have provided for them
and tried to make their lives better.<br><br>"but
let's presume that God does have unconditional love -
this would definitely negate the idea of hell
existing. Would you send your son/daughter to hell if they
did not love you?"<br><br>Ok, this is a much more
complicated subject. Obviously, entire books have been
written on it. But I will try to sum it up. God made us
as ETERNAL BEINGS (not eternal bodys, but eternal
SOULS) Meaning our soul would exist forever after that
point. We CANNOT exist in God's presence without going
through Jesus, that is, accepting him as our savior. Now,
the reason we cannot be in God's presence directly is
because he is sinless, and if we enter into his presense
without Jesus having forgiven us of our sins, then we
would be destroyed. (this is bible based, but that's an
entirely different debate about the credibility of the
bible, so I won't go into that.) So, God has to put us
SOMEWHERE after we die, and if our souls cannot be with him
because we did not accept Christ, then they only have one
other option, and that is with Satan in Hell. God is
light, God is love, God is peace, God is joy. The
absense of light is darkness, the absense of love is
hate, the absense of peace is torment, the absense of
joy is despair. Hell is darkness, hate, torment, and
despair. <br><br>Yet again if I continue on to the next
point I will run out of room. More in the next
post.<br><br>Until next time,<br>Jon

Here is the rest of the other post.<br><br>"Then
your God is a pretty crappy God, he should love you
and want to help you whether you believe hin him or
not, because his love should not have
conditions."<br><br>He DOES love us and DOES want to help us even if we
don't believe in him. The problem is, people don't want
HIS help. It would be like me offering to help you
build a house. If you tell me NOT to help you, or go
and ask Pete, Joe, or Leo to help you, then why would
I help you, especially when dealing with God and
his realm this is true. Think about it, all of those
people over in India are praying everday for Allah(Pete)
or Buddha(Joe) or Muhammad(Leo) or whatever god they
might believe in to come and deliver them from
poverty(build your house). So, if suddenly they are saved from
this poverty by some miraculous occurence(the house is
built by someone) who do YOU think they will give the
credit to, Allah, Buddha, Muhammed, or the God of
Christianity? If it were you, would you say that *I* built it
even though you TOLD me not to help you and DID ask
for all of their help. (Yes, this analogy isn't a
great one, because obviously you could ask pete or leo
or whoever if they did it, and you would probably
have SEEN whoever it was build the house, but you
understand what I am saying, right?)<br><br>"So we can go on
without knowing evil and still have free
will?"<br><br>Oh, we would have free will. God would have told us,
just as he did Adam and Eve, NOT to eat from the tree.
The fact that we would have a choice shows that we
still would have free will.<br><br>"I think the answer
is obvious, the tree probably never existed. You
obviously will disagree, but I think my answer is
definitely better than yours because yours leaves questions
hanging, such as why did God put the tree there and then
remove it later?"<br><br>Why did God put the tree there
and then remove it later? This seems obvious to me.
Once Adam and Eve had been BANISHED from the Garden of
Eden (where the tree was located) He sealed it off
from the outside world. This makes it pretty obvious
that He never intended for them to return. If He is an
all knowing God, He knew that in the future people
like us would have the means to locate and attempt to
enter this place. So, I think it quite logical for Him
to have removed it from the world. By the way, where
did the universe come from and if it didn't come from
anything what physical law allows this? (since science
cannot answer this, doesn't that mean that God is a
better answer than these theories because they leave
questions hanging?)<br><br>Until next time,<br>Jon

Ok, I just understood what you are saying. Sorry
for my ignorance on this topic. You see, I was under
the impression that you were saying "the universe has
always been here, which you are, but I understood it in
the tense that you were saying the universe was not
infinite, it had just existed forever without being an
infinite entity... sorry, my mistake. <br><br>Anyway, I
haven't really done any serious researh on this topic
beyond a few light notes on it. But sofar my
understanding of it is that it is much like a singularity, and
correct me if I'm wrong on that. Like a singularity, it
is an ifinite object. A singularity is an infinitely
small point, and an infinite universe is an infinitely
existing point. Here is the problem that seems to damage
this theory: Infinity is almost exclusively a
mathematical term. There can be an infinite amount of numbers,
but in real life application nothing is infinite. For
example, a singularity is an infinitely small point. It
gets smaller and smaller and smaller, it is smaller
than an atom, it is smaller than an electron, it is
900 times smaller than an atom, it is 9,000 times
smaller, it is 900,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller,
it is 9 x 10 to the 9,999,999,999,999th power times
smaller than the atom. And it goes on, because it is
infinitely small. Obviously, such an "object" only exists in
math. It would seem the same applies to an infinitely
existing universe. But, as I said, I have not performed
any real research into this, so I can't respond with
any ammount of certainty about this subject right
now, but I'll look into it and get back to you on it
eventually.<br><br>Sorry, again, for misunderstanding you.<br><br>Until
next time,<br>Jon

>This seems like the same questions you asked
before<br><br>You did not answer my question of whether or not you
get upset when people do not love them yet you expect
them too. You compared God's love to that of a parent,
but I think the analogy needs to be more clear, I
think it should be compared to a parent who gave birth
to the child but never contacted them since. Now, if
your mother and father gave birth to you, but you
never really knew who they were and never saw them for
your whole life, would you honestly think they were
worthy of your love? I'd definintely say
not.<br><br>>We CANNOT exist in God's presence without going
through Jesus, that is, accepting him as our savior.
<br><br>But this implies God is not all powerful, since an
all powerful being should be able to find another way
to go through him. <br><br>>Now, the reason we
cannot be in God's presence directly is because he is
sinless, and if we enter into his presense without Jesus
having forgiven us of our sins, then we would be
destroyed. <br><br>So we cannot be in God's presence even
though he is in all places? This sounds like a
contradiction. Further more, you probably believe Jesus was
sinless too, right? So why can we be in his presence and
not God's? To me it seems like christianity becomes
swiss cheese when it comes to these
topics.<br><br>>So, God has to put us SOMEWHERE after we die, and if
our souls cannot be with him because we did not
accept Christ<br><br>If God loves us, he should have not
created conditions like accepting Christ, this would also
mean he does not have unconditional love. This topic
has been done so many times, and I have yet to see a
christian who can make some sort of decent counter.

Well, this is getting complicated. I haven't
really encountered views like your's before... I guess
sometimes I take it forgranted that these things are
already "presupposed" by people I debate with... here
'goes.<br><br>"Not really, would you honestly think that GOd exists
in non-existant places? For God to sit in the corner
of the oval office, it would actually have to be
possible to do this. Can you explain how it would be
possible?"<br><br>OOPS! Man, I musta been half asleep yesterday. The
CORNER of the OVAL office, NOW I get it! No, I suppose
God couldn't be in the corner of the OVAL office as
we know it. But, I would think that God could always
simply alter the oval office to be in the shape of a
square, and then he COULD sit in it. It would no longer
be OVAL, but it would still have the same
name.<br><br>"But how do you know this? How do you know that a
realm exists outside of our own without already
presupposing it? How do you know that this realm does not
follow the same physical laws as our own? You have
provided no evidence, only opinion." <br><br>Well, this is
indeed an interesting view. But, I would think the
answer is obvious. How do we know a realm exists outside
our own (which is where God must exist)? Well, do you
see Heaven sitting above the earth? Can you see God's
face when you look around our physical universe? No.
So, He must exist outside of our realm if he doesn't
exist in it.<br><br>"Further, if God can break logic,
then your idea that God needs evil for free will is
completely worthless, because God can have both if he can
break logic."<br><br>I believe God CAN break logic. It
is simply a matter of whether or not he chooses to.
He can break physical boundaries and "disobey"
physical laws. He is above our understanding, and
therefore above our level of logic. But he does more than
likely choose to use our logic as a standard when
working in ways that we can see or that have an impact on
us. It most assuredly is a very confusing part of it.
All I can say for certain is that, as many have said
before, "God works in mysterious ways."
<br><br>"descriptions of God existed before the bible ever did."
<br><br>The only way to explain why I use the Bible as the
description of the TRUE God is by going into a detailed
argument against all the other religions of the world.
This would take a very large amount of time and is
just like this debate in that noone will give in on
that front either. So it would just be a waste of
time.<br><br>"God is infinite and thus does not experience
time,<br>Creating the universe and time means one experiences
time,<br>Therefore, God cannot have created the universe with
time."<br><br>This is VERY strange of you to say. If you are saying
that something that is infinite does not experience
time, then the universe cannot be infinite as you claim
because of this very reason. If the universe was infinite
it would not experience time, and yet when you look
around, you see that the universe obviously DOES
experience time. Time is happening right now (obviously) and
we are in the universe. So this "proof" against God
wouldn't make any sense.<br><br>Well, I'll do some more
research so see if I can find some better answers on the
infinite universe, logical God, and other arguments.
<br><br>Until next time,<br>Jon

>He DOES love us and DOES want to help us even
if we don't believe in him. The problem is, people
don't want HIS help. <br><br>I don't see how this stops
him from offering help. If God wants to offer help to
us, he shouldn't wait for us to ask. If you saw
someone who was about to jump off of a cliff, would you
not try to stop them? It'd seem like God would sit
there and say "Go for it man".<br><br>>who do YOU
think they will give the credit to, Allah, Buddha,
Muhammed, or the God of Christianity? <br><br>This is a
sticky subject because pretty much all mainstream
religions contain a rather large amount of faith involved,
but anyway, if they pray to a different God, the real
God should not be worried about their religious
beliefs, I am personally not affected by anyone else's
religious beliefs, which suggests that I am more tolerant
than God. Furthermore, God should not allow other
religions to exist yet wonder why people believe in these
other religions once they start to become
popular.<br><br>> Once Adam and Eve had been BANISHED from the
Garden of Eden (where the tree was located) He sealed it
off from the outside world<br><br>But surely Adam and
Eve could see the garden, and we should be able to
see it as well. How come nothing is in the news about
people who have seen a strange garden which they cannot
enter? We've explored the entire world, it'd seem silly
to suggest that we just haven't found the garden
yet.<br><br>>If He is an all knowing God, He knew that in the
future people like us would have the means to locate and
attempt to enter this place<br><br>If he knew Adam and
Eve would eat from the tree, why did he put it there
in the first place? He obviously knew that he'd be
punishing the rest of humanity for Adam and Eve's mistakes
(which is obviously not fair), so why didn't he just get
rid of the tree in the first place?<br><br>>By the
way, where did the universe come from and if it didn't
come from anything what physical law allows
this?<br><br>It didn't come from anything, it was always there.
It'd have to be if it were infinite.

>Ok, I just understood what you are saying.
Sorry for my ignorance on this topic<br><br>No need to
apologize, we all make mistakes. <br><br>>There can be an
infinite amount of numbers, but in real life application
nothing is infinite. <br><br>The idea is that something
must be infinite, you simply say that it is God, while
I am saying that it is the universe. Also,
elementary particles cannot be created or destroyed, only
transferred into different things (by the way, elementary
particles are the things that make up atoms), so when one
thinks about it, they seem to be infinite as
well.<br><br>Also, I would not rule out infinity just because we
cannot find other objects that are infinite at our
current time.<br><br>It's an interesting topic, there's
quite a bit in religion that's interesting though.

This is becoming a circular argument for both of
us, so let me try a different tactic.<br><br>"But
surely Adam and Eve could see the garden, and we should
be able to see it as well."<br><br>Adam and Eve left
the land with Eden in it. They no longer could return
to the garden, so they never did see it again, or at
least there is no mention of it in the Bible. We
wouldn't be able to see it if God removed it after
original sin.<br><br>"If he knew Adam and Eve would eat
from the tree, why did he put it there in the first
place? He obviously knew that he'd be punishing the rest
of humanity for Adam and Eve's mistakes (which is
obviously not fair), so why didn't he just get rid of the
tree in the first place?"<br><br>The tree was there
because with out it Adam and Eve would not have had the
free will to go against God or to follow him. Either
they would eat from the tree and choose to turn
against God, or they would follow God and not eat from
it. The tree is simply what God chose as his
representation of choice for Adam and Eve. He could have put a
computer there I suppose, and told them not to touch it,
or turn it on. Anything that allowed Adam and Eve to
go against God and thus have free will would have
sufficed.<br><br>Until next time,<br>Jon

The point in the semester has come where my
school work and social life leave me with virtually no
internet time so I am leaving the club and will probably
not be back until winter break (round christmas).
Anyways, do not expect me to respond to anything until
that time (lol, sorry), but it was nice meeting your
scorcher.<br><br>Also, guerilla, sorry if I sort of snapped at you in my
posts, I've gotten little sleep as of late and have been
somewhat cranky. Hope all is well with you. <br><br>Adios
all.

First of all I'm sorry it has taken me so long to
respond. I've got the same problem that you now have. I
went to school and forgot about the existence of free
time. :-) Well when you get a chance here's my
responce. Finally. :-)<br><br><<it *is* true that God
existed at time1 and that at time1, time2 did not happen.
Even though for God all times are occuring at
once>><br><br>No this is not true! That doesn't even make sence.
Think about it. For God all times occur at once! How
can you say that and then turn right around and say
that a certian time happened before another one?
Although once again I'll play along. :-) If your statement
is true then so is this one God existed at time2 and
that at time2, time1 did not happen. So the future can
happen without a past to God. Does your argument still
make sence to you?<br><br><<this is not the same
for humans, who endure time the ol fashion
way.>><br><br>Actually you seem to uncounsiously be giving God and
humans the same method of dealing with time. You can't
do that. I explain a little further on.
:-)<br><br><<You can agree that if time2 hasn't happened, then it
should not be set, right?>><br><br>Sure. But how
do you define if it hasn't
happened?<br><br><<I disagree with this as well, let me start off by
making a few points clear:<br>- at points in the past,
God has existed>><br><br>Correct, but this
statement is more limited than reality obviously. :-)
Remember it's all points not just points.<br><br><<-
at any of these points, when God existed, he had
thoughts about the future (because he is all knowing). He
has thoughts about all times actually, but the future
is what I am interested in now.>><br><br>This
is not true. This is like claiming that you can be
observing all of a line segment. And at the same time be at
a specific point on the line segment you are
observing having thoughts about another point. That is a
complete paradox. He is at all points or no points, you
cannot seperate them.<br><br><<- if God has a
belief about the future, it in no circumstance can be
wrong - there is no way that he can possibly hold a
false belief.>><br><br>Once again you are trying
to seperate one time from another. This works ONLY
for humans. You cannot do the same for
God!<br><br><<- the future has not happened, but it is impossible
for it to not happen the way God thought it would,
making everything predetermined.>><br><br>Ok I've
heard an example before that I think is basically your
position. The example I heard was specific to being
predestined to be at a certian place at a certian time. So I
will use that example but obviously it could work for
anything eles as well. If you take a map (on a
transparency) and mark where you are right now, and then x
amount of time later on a new map mark where you are. If
you stack all the maps in chronological order, and
then look through the side of the stack you can see
this very defined "worm" showing your physical path
through time. So then by extrapolation, since God can see
your entire stack everything you do must be
predestined. Does that sound about right? I'll asumme it does.
:-) I have two answers to this. One asuming this is
true, God knows every single possible stack, so it
really doesn't help you out any. However I like my other
answer better. :-) When you talk about a stack as a
definite defined object. To assume this you have to
unconciously assume that our entire lives are somehow in God's
past, because only the past is set. However God calls
Himself I AM, he is in the "eternal present." Therefore
instead of a set stack you have a fluid stack that is
constantly changing with every descision you
make.<br><br><<I think though, that you feel I am unfairly stating
the argument because God exists at all
times...><br><br>I do I tried to clarify. How did I
do?<br><br><<In any event, it's fun to debate with you
:)>><br><br>Glad you like it.

Dear Jack,<br> I really enjoyed the very thought
provoking questions you raised.<br><br> When a person
breaks a leg, they may have to go through some pain or
trauma to have the leg straightened. However in order to
walk again properly most loving parents would allow
their son to go through pain, and suffering to get the
eventual gain of walking properly and running.<br><br>
Right now the human race is going through the pain
stage. None of the harm is caused by God, only by those
who break his laws.<br>We are learning very quickly
that man cannot rule the world, look after the
environment, or help all the people obtain basics like food
and clean water. So soon God like a master surgeon
will fix all the harm and hurt and everything will be
restored to the original paradise God
intended.<br><br>Harik

I've created 2 clubs in the heart of xian territory. Am looking for smart asses
to join and stir up the shit<br><br><a
href=http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/godhatesyou
target=new>http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/godhatesyou</a>

Well, i am quite a smart ass, but i must also be
more intelligent than you because you are just trying
to make trouble. you are one of the people who give
atheists a bad name, trying to make us look like we are
bad people when we are infact as decent as everyone
else on this planet. if you want to try to help
promote atheism, why dont you get a life and do something
good instead of trying to bring atheists down?

Aight people I havent ranted for awhile, but Im
gonna now cuz Im pissed off. Not long after 9/11 some
stupid fuck(s) started an email fwd telling people to
stay out of the malls on halloween b/c theres gonna be
a terrorsist attack. Now everyones cancelling safe
halloween events for kids b/c there scared shitless that
this is true. Ya know what I say? Fuck em. Thats right
fuck em all. I hope the person(s) who started this
email is found, drug out into the street and fucked up
the ass with a splintery 4x4. Well, i for one am
making a point of it to not only go to the mall on
halloween but also buy something and then make an
exageratted display about the fact that im in a shopping mall
when everybodys afraid to be. Then Im going to go out
and celebrate the holiday in all its sick glory! And
the christians who are all sayin that we shouldnt be
celebrating halloween anyway b/c its really "all hallows eve"
(All-saints day)? Fuck them! Halloween was originally a pagan
holiday that should be enjoyed by all. I hope everyone
will join me in striking out against the people who
want us to be afraid, want us to cower in churches and
pray to "god" that something bad dosnt happen to us
and go out and live it up! And even if your not all
that big on celebrating a holiday at least go to the
mall and show the pricks who get off by scaring people
that we are not afraid. Dont let the bastards get ya
down!!<br><br>Signing off,<br>Josh

Josh you loser. You know what you going to be
doing on hollowen. Your going celibrate it in its sick
glory. Yea youll go to the mall only because ill drag
you there. If it wasnt for me youd problebe stay at
home drinking beer with your dad talking about all
those sick twisted teenagers needing to burn in hell
you old prick. WEll at least im hear to save you.
love jessie

Okie that last message was posted by my girlfriend, she loves tormenting me, but
thats okie! Love u 2 Jess!<br><br>Josh

For those of you interested in another atheist
club for teens, I would like to recommend American
Atheist Teens. Find it at:
<a href=http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/americanatheistteens
target=new>http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/americanatheistteens</a><br><br>It is
intended as a place for atheist teens to
escape the debates and relax with others who share their
beliefs.