OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

Is this irony? Was my post not civil? The rest of my post was a further explication of my concern.

Okay, so then random occurrences (accidents) can be creative. For example, two planets can collide by random chance and create new celestial bodies as a result, like a moon. No intentionality is needed.

This is why I was concerned. Given your answer that intentionality is not required for something to be created, the justification for this claim has been lost. Only intentional acts would imply a creator, nonintentional creation does not require agency.

 

As far as we know, no amputee asked Jesus for a new limb, however he did cure withered arms.
PS- he once spat in the dust to make mud pies to plaster on a blind mans eyes, then told him to wash it off and bingo! he could see, as if the atoms and molecules in the mud had re-formed themselves into new eyes.
Jesus said we could do miracles so go find an amputee and have a crack at making a new limb and let us know how you get on..

 

Creatures are too perfect?!? Like, we get 100 kinds of cancer, bad backs, bad eyesight, genetic diseases, women dying in childbirth, and 1000 other rotten diseases, and we're too perfect? What's your idea of imperfect, then?

 

Why blame God? That creep Satan can be a bit of a rotter-
Jesus said "Satan has bound this crippled woman for eighteen years" (Luke 13:16), then he cured her..
PS- think of 'Satan' as a mass of foul stinking vibes sloshing around the universe, disrupting the harmony.
We could further speculate that he feeds off and gets strength from all the bad vibes churned out by nonchristians, just as the invisible monster in 'Forbidden Planet' fed off the dark subconscious of Dr. Morbius.
Oops sorry, was I raving?..

 

No irony that I can see.

Your post was civil...albeit somewhat pretentious. I think you understand completely what I mean when I am saying the things I said...but you seem to want to do a "I can out-word" you thing.

I may be wrong. We'll see as the conversations proceeds.

We agree. Creation can be the result of random chance. No intentionality is needed or necessary.

THE NECESSITY for a god may be lost.

But we are not talking about a god being necessary.

In my statement of my agnosticism (which I repeat below) I acknowledge this.

We are talking about the statement, "there are no gods."

If the statement were, "there may be no gods"...all of what you are saying is appropriate.

As it is, though, the point you are making has no bearing.

If I have left off the "it is possible" please add it, because obviously I am including it in my thinking with each post.

MY AGNOSTICISM;

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

 

I'm glad you've refuted your comment and agree with me.

 

But this is not the discussion yet, I'm not making reference to the statements "there are no gods" or "there may be no gods" yet. That is a later concern of the discussion. I'm merely referring to your claim that "If the universe is a creation (we do not know it it is or not)...but if it is...it implies a creator."

This is an "if A then B" claim. B (the consequent) here is claimed to necessarily follow from A (the antecedent). You are claiming that if there is a creation, then there is a creator. As such, the consequent B (creator) is a necessary condition for the antecedent A (being created). This is what I was objecting to, by your own account accidentalness can be responsible for creation. This undermines your claim since you are making a necessary claim about creation entailing a creator. This does not follow if you grant that accidentalness can also create: creation does not imply creator. My comments only refer to this if A then B claim, not whether the universe is created or not.

For example, if I say that: "If something is a tiger, then it must be an animal." Being an animal is a necessary condition for being a tiger. It is impossible for something to be a tiger and not be an animal. If I say that: "If something is an animal, it must be a tiger" I am in error, because being a tiger is not a necessary condition for being an animal. It could be a tiger, but it could also be other animals. So too then for creation, if something is created it could be by a creator or it could be done by something not a creator (accidents caused by random occurrences like the planets/moon example). As you yourself agreed. Hence the error.

Obviously the last statement is the crucial one for our discussion. But we are not discussing that claim yet.

 

You were merely being a dork and diverting the thread ... calling you out on this silliness is not building a mountain and has nothing to do with being a grammar Nazi.

The fact that you do not get the point I am making (you were diverting the threat) and going all defensive is sad commentary.

 

How can we Whites in Christianity exist within not our God any answer thus question ?

 

I want not Jesus Christ and Lord. I want to faith on Swedish God.

 

Wrong.

We know much about how the universe formed although there is much more we have yet to learn.

Existence does not require a creative principle. The concept of a God is far more soecific than the mysteries of natural forces which formed everything.

A nature walk is fun but accomplishes nothing towards these ends

 

You lose!

 

Face it. Since nobody on this forum is willing or able to provide even an elementary definition of what is meant by a god the whole discussion is moot. No defininition or descriptors and thus no possibility of Determining existance or non existence.

To put it simply ( for Frank) there is no point in discusding the existance or non existance of something that can't be described.

OK, now your turn to try another pathetic insult. Go for it!

 

"Natural Forces" is just "Creative Principle" in different words.

Your whole schtick is about vocabulary definitions.

 

Oh yee of little knowledge.
It took me about 15 seconds to find this...


http://www.prayer-and-prayers.info/healing-prayers/prayer-for-amputees.htm

Prayer for Amputees

Saint Anthony, you are glorious for your miracles and for the condescension of Jesus who came as a little child to lie in your arms. Obtain for me from His bounty the grace which I ardently desire. You were so compassionate toward sinners, do not regard my unworthiness. Let the glory of God be magnified by you in connection with the particular request that I earnestly present to you. {mention your petition} As a pledge of my gratitude, I promise to live more faithfully in accordance with the teachings of the church, and to be devoted to the service of the poor whom you loved and still love so greatly. Bless this resolution of mine that I may be faithful to it until death. Saint Anthony, consoler of all the afflicted, pray for me. Saint Anthony, helper of all who invoke you, pray for me. Saint Anthony, whom the Infant Jesus loved and honored so much, pray for me. Amen.

Prayer for Amputees​

On the other side...
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

 

Sometimes you just have to do your own works = http://abcnews.go.com/Health/double-amputee-shares-story-leaving-wheelchair/story?id=46661839

 

No.

Not only is it THE DISCUSSION...it is the only discussion until we resolve it.

My take on the assertion "there are no gods" was the reason our discussion began. How can you dismiss it as incidental to the discussion...when it IS the discussion?

I thought we had made that agreement...but the moment I moved the results of the agreement, you seemed to negate the agreement.

Please make the adjustment...or we will go back to where we were pages ago (your 1001).

 

Give up on irrationally claiming victories that don't exist...or continue to attempt to live up to your screen name.

Your choice.

Either way works for me.

 

I see where you are going and understand the thought process, I have similar issues but, for the sake of argument I just let it slip past because I knew I would get bogged down in evasion if I even attempted to try to unpick it. It is interesting that you are going there and it is no surprise to me that you are getting the response you are but, I wish you good luck with your attempt.

For me, you are right to ask for clarification of the use of the word 'creation', I don't know why the response to that request was so terse but, I can guess at why.

 

You must have got me mixed up with somebody else mate, I don't do "refute"..

 

Nice try mate, but no..
No offence to Antony (who lived around 300 AD), I Wiki'd him and he sounds like a nice guy, but the bottom line is that he was just a human, and nowhere did Jesus tell us to pray to humans.
You can try calling Antony if you like, but prepare to be disappointed because dead people can't pick up the phone..

 

Are we not clarifying terms and dealing with premise claims/qualifications, to be sure of the basics, as you suggested? See your earlier statement below...

Is this not what we were doing?

And here I argued that the reason why you make this move is in error. You can't move on to this claim until you address the confusion in your conditional statement that you use to justify the claim: "If the universe is a creation (we do not know it it is or not)...but if it is...it implies a creator." You already negated this claim when you agreed that accidental events like planet collisions can cause the formation of moons, and that these should be considered creations. Hence you have to address this before your argument can go forward. So post #1032 is absolute crucial to the discussion.

 

Thanks. I'm just looking for an honest discussion.

 

We are attempting to clarify and, if possible, reach agreement on a very fundamental aspect of this discussion...which you have brushed aside, Adorno.

I want to identify if we have agreement on the following:

IF there is a creator god...do you understand and agree that such a creator god would be included as a god when referencing the assertion, "no gods exist?" That such a god...IF IT EXISTED...would not, as some people here want to further assert, be exempted from consideration of the value of the assertion.

Let's do that...and THEN we can move on to other matters.

I thought we had reached agreement...but the moment I went to the next logical part of the discussion...you seemed to renege.

Now...maybe I am wrong...and you didn't. If so, I will offer a sincere and heartfelt apology. If I am not wrong...I want to discuss why you think it ought not to be considered as part of the "gods" mentioned in the assertion.

See above.

We'll move on...after settling this very basic item.

The issue can be settled easily...with a "No...that kind of god is not to be included when evaluating the assertion, "No gods exist." (Then we can discuss why you suggest that.)

Or...YES, Frank, of course if such a god existed...it would be considered when evaluating the assertion, "No gods exist."


So...?

 

We all are.