There is no God

Wolf said:
LOL.
Outed itself.
Thick as shite but doesn't know it.:)
Click to expand...
The various contributors to this 24 hour a day account should have at least exchanged information to get their story straight.
 
Tiger said:
Ok

@Declan

We all remember Tank and what he said. He’s clearly here as a disingenuous poster. Not to be trusted.

Can we just get rid of this Irish hating twat once and for all?
Click to expand...
FFS, when it joined here it's first username was M1A2......:ROFLMAO:
 
David if you look at the kind of FAQ Appendix you will see that was one of the atheist questions that was answered.
 
Its a Catholic Christian Deity, and whats wrong with a pdf? Its only a small size, easy to download and you can find what you want easily via the table of contents and index.
 
So have you read the chapter on the Thomist proofs? Yes its true that Aquinas draws on Aristotle a lot, but no harm in that and he was generous in acknowledging his debt to the great philosopher.
 
globeterminator.com

Scientific PROOFS of The Creator - The Globe Terminator

SCIENTIFIC PROOFS OF THE CREATOR There are ONLY Two Possible Worldviews (*Ontological Primitives*) that can be held to account for how we (Universe/Us) are here; . Nature (Matter) or Intelligent Agency (God)
globeterminator.com globeterminator.com

1. Information
2. Quantum Mechanics
3. Laws of Thermodynamics
4. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity
 
scolairebocht said:
So have you read the chapter on the Thomist proofs? Yes its true that Aquinas draws on Aristotle a lot, but no harm in that and he was generous in acknowledging his debt to the great philosopher.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the core reason for people rejecting the existence of God in the contemporary once you scratch even a bit is the so-called problem of evil.
 
Zipporah's Flint said:
The problem is that the core reason for people rejecting the existence of God in the contemporary once you scratch even a bit is the so-called problem of evil.
Click to expand...
but would you ask them does evil rule the world .
everything mutates normal cells will mutate to cancer cells and 3 out of 4 will die of some kind of cancer .
there is a volcano in iceland should god take the blame --some bodys child will die in the next few moments is god responsible and why is he responsible .
there are millions of people who hope for a messiah who will exterminate most of the worlds billions and leave them ""gods chosen people "" alive and able to enslave the remainder for eternity.
who are gods people who or what is the god who would do such a thing --the equation is their god is the most supremely evil based on his murder rate and therefore the supreme being is the most evil being .
 
An excellent treatise on the age old problem of evil in the world. Here's the thing fellas: Cleverer people than you an I have been addressing this issue for centuries, and doing a very good job of it.

When you bring up this problem, as being the basis for your unbelief, what you are in fact doing is telling us, is that you are not a reader, and have never honestly investigated the matter.
PXL_20231224_172946517.jpg
PXL_20231224_173103129.MP.jpg


Venite Adoremus!
 
It is disingenuous for the atheist to reject the idea of God based on the problem and existence of evil. For the material atheist, there logically can be no such thing as 'evil' per se, in a universe that is nothing more than the material results of a cosmic accident in the distant past.

There is no good or evil in the atheist's world, only accidental being. Any concept of evil for the atheist, is in fact, nothing more than a figment of his/her imagination. In a secular material world, things only happen, and there is no good or evil behind these events.

It makes no sense to be angry at a God that doesn't exist for you, when 'bad' things occur. The very idea of 'badness' is irrational in a purely material and accidental cosmos
 
Tuco Salamanca said:
This always struck me as a very simplistic reason to reject the existence of a God. It's really only relevant to religions where the deity is believed to actively intervene in human affairs.
Click to expand...

Why should God necessarily be good or more to the point good as you understand goodness?

This comes out of generally how Christianity (both Catholicism and Protestantism) is often taught or presented in the contemporary West.
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
It is disingenuous for the atheist to reject the idea of God based on the problem and existence of evil. For the material atheist, there logically can be no such thing as 'evil' per se, in a universe that is nothing more than the material results of a cosmic accident in the distant past.

There is no good or evil in the atheist's world, only accidental being. Any concept of evil for the atheist, is in fact, nothing more than a figment of his/her imagination. In a secular material world, things only happen, and there is no good or evil behind these events.

It makes no sense to be angry at a God that doesn't exist for you, when 'bad' things occur. The very idea of 'badness' is irrational in a purely material and accidental cosmos
Click to expand...
PG, did you actually write this yourself?

This is one of the best posts I have seen here.
 
Tuco Salamanca said:
This always struck me as a very simplistic reason to reject the existence of a God. It's really only relevant to religions where the deity is believed to actively intervene in human affairs.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is an at all rational reason to reject the existence of God or at least a God- so why it leads people to atheism in the contemporary West and not say Marcionism I find a bit odd, though when I asked that question of Mercurial he became interested in Marcionism which he had not come across before.

en.wikipedia.org

Marcionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Kangal said:
Hermit posted three that conform a spherical Earth.
Click to expand...
Literally the whole point of an earth curve calculator. They are merely spiting out numbers based on the proposed diameter of a globe Earth.

Which is why they are useful.

You can compare the proposed drop-off versus what we see with modern camera tech. The two don't align. Either the camera lenses are faulty or the Earth is much much bigger than we were told, or, it's flat.
 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom