Prince of Ravens

Ironically, you guys/gals are talking about atheism being lack of religion. It is your religion! You believe that there's nothing to believe. You must see the irony. Actually, I can't lose. There's just no way to prove it to you, unfortuonatly, which is why I directed your attention to someone who can answer any number of your questions more clearly than I can. This way, you can try to utterly and completely refute my religion in front of someone who knows exactly what their talking about, making your victory complete. Yeah, I know. Inaccurate is not an... accurate word. Unprecise is more accurate. With the original Hebrew and Greek translations, we can get extreemly close to the original meaning. Problems arise when you some across something like the Leviathan in Job. The creature it describes sounds like a dragon, but those don't exist (anymore, anyway). Thus, it must be a different creature, say a crocodile. Then, later when you go back and read of this crocodile that breathes fire and flies, you begin to wonder. Another problem comes from folk sayings or slang. Suppose I wrote down, "I need to upgrade my software", then someone 8000 years later tries to translate it. He/she sees 'software'. Well, 'ware', sounds like 'wear' (maybe it was a different/misspelling) and what do you wear? Clothes? So soft clothes. Or comfy clothes And upgrade? Simple! So the phrase becomes, "I need to buy better comfy clothes." Which wouldn't make sense in context. Fortunatly for you, it's easy to discern what a folk saying or slang phrase is in the original language, so our base beliefs are without major flaw. The only flaw would be semantics. The other thing, the removed books, were removed for a reason. I could explain why, but you probably wouldn't care, because to you the point is that there are books missing. You should ask that pastor if you want to know.

To whom it may concern, Should anyone want to continue the off-topic argument, he/she should consider calling/talking to a pastor. Anyway, I doesn't, unless Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth were considering voting for him. The only statement he made was that Atheism causes brutality, and he gave the reasons that are supported by the athiest's beliefs. That since there's no consequences, you can do whatever the hell you want, and that, in turn causes brutality. I don't know what the problem is. Is this not true?

So you're not talking about actual infinity? I guess that you're wasting your time then, as your counter-arguments aren't relevant. The last (farthest back) member of the list is the supernatural. Because the Laws of Supernature only apply to the Supernatural. I can define it. It's rather simple, really. The Laws of Supernature are the Laws that bind the Supernatural, just as the Laws of Nature bind the natural. If what you're saying is that the Laws of Nature were created at the same exact moment as Nature itself, then yes. They weren't created by Nature, but rather by Whoever created Nature. What caused the universe to become natural then? Another Supernatural? God maybe? Because there must be something that doesn't need to be caused, so it could ultimitly cause everything else. This something cannot be bound by the Laws of causality. He might. I don't doubt that He could, but what would a miracle be if it was possible by nature? Just a rare happpenstance, right? If something supernatural was caused by natural, then what caused the natural? No, I highly doubt that the natural can cause unnatural. In retrospect, I don't think it's possible. Even if it was, the natural couldn't have caused God, because the natural couldn't have come into being on its own. No. If the universe was caused by God, then it and God couldn't have been caused simultaneously.

It can't grow and be infinite. There's no number you could add to 1 to make it infinite. The shape has nothing to do with it. Allow me to clarify. By 'back', I don't mean along a timeline. Rather, I mean along the list of causes/supporters. It wouldn't be supernatural if it followed the same rules as natural. The 'Laws of Supernature', as I call them, can't apply to natural things, because natural things aren't supernatural, and vice-versa. I can't define the actual laws, because the only supernatural Being observable doesn't seem to have to follow any precieved Laws, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, considering there would be no reason for me to be able to observe Supernatural Laws, being a natural being. The Laws of Nature must have existed at the beginning of existance. Otherwise, nothing would be holding it together. The Laws of Nature could not have existed before the existence of the things that they applied to. As for the Laws of Supernature, since they apply to something(s) that have always existed, they don't seem to have a beginning. A supernatural being would be something that doesn't need to be supported or caused, and can support itself/doesn't need to be supported. An example of a supernatural being would be God. Supernatural beings aren't bound by Natural Laws, just as we, as Natural beings, aren't bound by supernatural laws. The laws of causality are natural laws. They don't apply to God, being supernatural. With the current definition of 'god', I doubt they/He could be natural. They would have to break the Natural Laws to fufill their definiton. Same holds as to why the universe isn't God, because He'd be bound by laws He doesn't follow that can't be broken. Supernatural beings don't need a causing, because that limitaion is only for natural beings. I doubt supernatural could be created by natural, because since they don't need to be caused, they might not be able to be caused. And I don't think I understand that last one. Is it your suggestion that God was caused at the same time as the universe?

'If it's growing larger, it's not infinite. I win. Something must've ultimitly caused the universe. It has to stand alone, otherwise, you haven't gone back far enough with the ultimatly. That something is God, or something very God-like to the point of not mattering. I'll answer this one because it's more summarized. Nothing says that the Laws of Supernature are the same as the Laws of Nature. The natural universe and its Laws have to have happened at the same time. The uiverse to house the Laws, the Laws to define the universe. This is only observed in the natural universe. Supernatural isn't a fallback. God isn't natural, therefore He doesn't need to follow the natural Laws. Unless you say God is natural, then something must've caused Him. Something unnatural, so it doesn't need to be caused/supported. That would be either God, or something so God-like to the point of the difference not mattering.

Incorrect. The universe is expanding/contracting. It cannot be infinitly large. Space started expanding at some point. Just as with a number line, where you can't count to infinity, you can't add size to the universe to make it infinite. The only way they're compatable is if something caused an infinite universe, which brings us to here Except the universe is natural, therefore must be caused. God is supernatural, therefore does not need to be caused nor supported. Nothing says it shouldn't, unless we've witnessed the Laws of Nature changing. Which they haven't, otherwise, they wouldn't be Laws. And yours. Your beliefs are founded on that something natural always existed/created itself, thus breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics (I think it's those). My beliefs are that something unnatural always existed and isn't bound by Laws of Nature, being not natural itself. Again, care to name them? Ouch. Regardless, it doesn't matter if that's the scenario.

The event must be supported. Something cannot come from nothing. This is a scientific Law (and if you understand QVFs, you should know which one). The universe must be caused, otherwise it is infinite. The universe cannot support itself, otherwise it'd already have to be in place at the time of first existance. I understand what you're saying. There might be self sustaining events in the universe, but they would have to be supernaturally created that way. Care to name them?

Quantum vacuum fluctuations exist in the universe. Thus the universe supports them. They could not exist without existance. The premise stands.

Well then... The universe exists. This is a given. Any conclusion reached that refutes this is incorrect. Either the logic is wrong, or the original premise is. There are 2 possibilities that explain the current state of existance of the universe. (1.) The universe always existed. The univierse is infinite. (2.) The universe had a beginning. If not (1.), then (2.). Not both. One. Otherwise it contradicts the original given statement. There is no way to directly prove that the universe was created. Therefore, I must discount the possibility of endless universe. For something to be truly infinite, all possibilities in it must be realized. This is because no matter how slim a chance something has, either the Set of occurances for that action are infinite, thus an infinite amount of chances in any moment, or the amount of draws for that occurance are infinite, thus the occurance had an infinite amount of chances to be realized. Suppose the universe had the possibility to stop existing. This must be a possibility, because if something exists, so must it be possible for it to not exist. Regardless of the chances of this possibility, it must be met, for there was an unlimited amount of time available for this possibility to be realized. Thus the universe does not exist anymore. This goes directly against the given statement. Something must be wrong with this premise. Either: (A.) The rules of infinity are skewed; or (B.) The universe is not infinite. Not (A.), then (B.); and not (A.) (B.) being the counter to the first of the original options for the existane of the universe. (1.) If not (1.), then (2.). The universe had a beginning at some point. How then, was it brought into being? Since something cannot cause itself, it must require some outside force. It could be said that this outside force is a natural force, however, what caused that? The chain of forces supporting forces cannot be infinite, lest we fall into another paradox, so there must have been a beginning at some point. The universe cannot cause something that supports the creation of itself, for it didn't exist before the creation of the universe. The universe cannot also be self sustaining. If A causes B, and B causes C, then C cannot cause A. All would need to be in place at the exact same moment, unless one is independant. Thus something completely separate from the universe must have caused it and sustains it. Ultimatly, something that's independant must have caused it. The Independant must have no possibility of un-existance. Otherwise, it could no longer support the existance of the universe. This is not possible, or rather, unnatural. Thus the Independant must be unnatural; supernatural. So the universe was ultimatly caused by a Supernatural Independant Force. God. I'm talking ultimatly here. 1. I win, because I'm justified. 2. We both lose, because God word could not be trusted and we both wind up in hell, or both in heaven. For the former, we both definitly lose. For the latter, there's no point. 3. Perhaps. No sadder than yours. I live for something greater than myself. If it doesn't exist, then I didn't lose anything, because there's no meaning to life.

If everyone was good, then no one would be. There could be no knowledge of goodness, because there would be nothing to compare it to, thus it couldn't be considered good. And, again, the issue is a matter of free will. God decided that He was going to let the bad people in question continue with what they knew was wrong and give them the consequences equal to their misdoings. What's the point of a novel without conflict? I'd be a really lame story. What would be the point of life? Just to sit around playing harps? God doesn't need our affection, but He wants it anyway. It's not like He feeds off of it or anything. I mean, suppose you were the greatest chess player in the world. Wouldn't you like some kind of acknowledgement? Assuming He exists, right? Evil: You'd be dead, or worse, there would be no death, you'd be born burning in hell for all eternity with the memories of all the sufferings ever inflicted. Not all good: God so far has only punished for wrong doings, or allowed temptation from Satan to strenghten you. Just like you would prune a tree or spank a child. You're not doing it because you feel like (although, if your doing the latter for fun, than you need help), you're doing it to help the kid/tree grow stronger. Not all knowing: If God made everything, I think he'd have to know how it all works. If you're talking about the future, then it's hard to prove without jumping in the Bible, but I kinda have to. Consider the Prophesies in the Book of Daniel. Some of them are hard to understand, and one of them is impossible (God says so), yet one of them actually has a time-frame. It gives the exact day from the destruction of Jerusalem to the 'Triumphant Entry' of Christ into Jerusalem. It could be really good planning, or it could be foreknowledge. Not all powerful: So He could make the entire cosmos, down to the inner construction and makeup of teensy little cells, design atoms, come up with the Laws of Nature, raise an army of supernatural spiritual beings known as angels, and He's not all powerful. Good luck proving that. The only other options are: 1. God exists and He's Good, all knowing and all powerful. 2. God is pulling a prank. 3. God doesn't exist. For the first, I win. For the second, God wins, though I don't know how great a victory it is. It'd be like kicking over an anthill and naming yourself King of the World. For the third, no one wins, but I get some satisfaction in life for living towards a higher power. And if you feel like debating the third, prepare to lose. The mere existance of the universe is proof enough for the existance of God.

Our imperfection is not a proof for God's imperfection. It just shows how more perfect He is than us. If God made us as perfect as Him, then we might as well be gods. Except God doesn't have any laws to follow, so he can't do any wrongdoings. You can though, because of the laws God gave you to follow. No, it's not fair. Did I ever say God was fair? Do you want God to be fair? By His rules, if he was fair, you and I would be dead right now. This argument is really off topic. Call/talk to a pastor if you want, but this isn't the place. On topic. What the author of the article implied is that he wasn't hired because 'somehow', his possible employer found out he was an atheist. I find this unlikely. For one, Christians don't have voodoo access to God's Google. All employers, however have internet access to search engines, so they can run a search for a possible employee's name and see what comes up. Employers can hire people based on personality. If the Hire-ee can potentially case strife in the workplace because of his distruptive atitude, then the Hire-er doesn't need to hire that person. This seems like the likely scenario. The article writer posted something questionable on Facebook, or he was fired from a job for some reason or whatever. I doubt it was because he was an atheist. For two, and I doubt anyone here would really care to believe this, but some Christians take hiring an Atheist as a ministry. For a Christian not hiring an Atheist based on religous discrimination goes agaisnt Christian religion, and thus, is a strange thing to do. Not that I doubt that there are idiot Christians (one should never underestimate stupidity), but I find the former reason more likely. Another possibility, that I find somewhat possible, is that the writer is lying to take a stab at Christians. It's happened before. I won't entertain this, if only to give him the benefit of the doubt As a Christian, if I find that I'm discriminated against because of my beliefs, I'll just move on. Apparently, I'm not supposed to work there. I'll be a little peeved that I wasted my time with an interview, but I won't go writing an article online to whine about the unfairness of the world or atheists.

If bad people didn't exist, then there would be no good people. There would be nothing great about God's goodness because everyone would be just as good. Besides, with God as the judge for good/bad, everyone's bad, so God would have to poof everyone out of existance. If the question is, "Why did God have to kill the Canaanites; why couldn't He just poof them?", then the answer is, "Because if God just poofed them, they wouldn't have a chance at life." If the question is, "Why did God make the people bad?", the answer is, "He didn't, they did that to themselves." If the question is, "Why couldn't God keep the people from being bad?", the answer is, "Because that would take away from free will." I could be completely missing the question, but I hope it's one of those. I'm really bad at this theology stuff, but I'm sure you realized that already.

Your debate over wether or not God is perfect comes from the fact that we, as humans, aren't perfect. We aren't perfect because we made ourselves imperfect. We did that by disobeying God. We were able to do that, not because we're imperfect, but because we had free will. In fact, our current imperfections stand only to make God more perfect.

What do you define as a bad person? From God's point of view, you're a bad person because you broke one His laws, so you would be poofed out. If you were to choose who the bad people are, you'd be biased, undoubtably. Basically put, the only one who could decide what a bad person is is God. To Him, everyone's a bad person, except for Him. He could kill everyone and start over, but (a.) He already did that, and (b.) He promised not to do that again. He could kill all the non-Christians/unsaved, but He wants to give everyone a chance. What is perfect then? Your definition.

God wants glory for Himself because HE'S FREAKING GOD. How many times do I have to say that? Well, God defined evil by defining good. Adam and Eve just... well, were the first physical creations to commit it. If angels couldn't defy God, then Satan wouldn't be evil. Do you think Satan is evil because God told him to be? Ha! God is setting the stage for the 'End of Times'. God doesn't care for your opinion because, a. He's probably wiser than you; b. because He considers you evil; c, because He knows more about the situation than you do. You were originally perfect. You made yourself flawed. You were perfect, but not immune to destruction. A flawless diamond can be broken, corrupted. That doesn't mean it wasn't really perfect. If he just stopped you, then you don't learn much because you have no consequences for your actions. He gave you the information to know not to commit crimes, so he doesn't need to slap your wrist when you decide to steal something. It's like a toddler with a fork and a light socket. If you tell the kid not to plug the fork in, he's going to want to disobey you. It's how it works. If you keep stopping him, he's going to keep trying. If you let him, after telling him that there would be consequences and not encouraging him, then he gets shocked, and never does it again. That's not what I'm saying. I don't need to be saved given the definition of need. I sure want to. I need to me saved if I want to see the 'Pearly Gates', but I don't need to see them. I want to. See the difference? Thus I need God, if only to get what I want. Sort of. Ironically, it seems like you're arguing my side... "Thou shalt not have no other gods before me, for the LORD thy God is a jealous God." God is selfish. He's allowed to be. Not absence of God then. Absence of Godliness is more precise. Angels start off as servants of God until they disobey. Then they're servants of Satan. For clarification, I agree with your last sentence, and it matches up with what I was trying to say. I don't mean to make it seem like that... I mean, He's God, so... Basically, stuff seems to abruptly change when things have been off track for a while, then everything goes 'back on track'. What I mean is, like before the Exodus, God appeared as fire. When Moses got the 10 Commandmens, God appeared as a lightning cloud. When God spoke to Job, it was out of a tornado. Nowdays, with the Holy Spirit active, He speaks through people. Building on that, God defined imperfection by defining perfection. If you have the option to stop being perfect, then you had to be perfect before you made that decision. The major problem is whether or not it's better (thus more perfect) to have free will, than the opposite. Both have their own quirks. For the former, your life is your own. For the latter, you can't do anything wrong. For the former, you can find meaning in life. For the latter, life is meaningless. I believe in the former because I can make my own decisions. They may be influenced by my experiences or 'divine intervention' in some way, but they are my own. God gave me my experiences to prod me to make the decisions He wants me to make, thus it could be said that I'm doing what God wants, but I've done things on my own accord. I'm also not saying that everything I do is what God wants, but whatever I choose, it will always fit into God's plan. Some things are more preferable to God for the situation.