Religion.

[Esau of Isaac]

Er...yes I would disagree. I don't think God wants people to be murdered for doing a sin though.

So you're in essence disagreeing with God.

I'm pretty sure that's not tolerated in the Christian religion.

Jobs...that the angels do.

...I think you need to expand your answer. I'm missing where it has ever been shown that everyone can become guardian angels.

There is a reason why we don't know what God did, and we will never know why.

I'm pretty sure it's because God doesn't exist. It's fair evidence your God doesn't exist.

I disagree, if you had the power to make something at will, why would you want them to be exactly like you?

Aww, did you just call me perfect? I <3 you too.

No, really. In all seriousness, perfection can't created imperfection. That's contradictory, because that would mean that perfection would be doing something imperfect, and thus the being doing this would not be perfect.

I don't think God wants another God. Which is why even angels aren't perfect.

Then God is not perfect. Nothing but absolute perfection can come from a perfect being.

He will be abolished. Just because He doesn't do it immediately, doesn't mean it won't happen. Blessings take some time too.

...God will be abolished? I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen in the Christian view.

Lucifer created it.

Evidence, please.

Why would I question? Even when God abolishes Lucifer, there will still be a hell. Like most say, every action has an equal, opposite reaction.

Did you really just try to apply Newton's Third Law of Motion to the existence of Hell? Really? Do you have any limits to how far you'll rape science?

The point (which you completely missed) is that a benevolent being would not allow for a place of eternal suffering and pain, especially for deeds performed in a mortal and finite lifetime. I don't think Saddam Hussein deserves an eternity in suffering. Hell, I don't think Stalin and Hitler deserve neverending torture. It doesn't make sense to subject someone to eternal pain; there's no point or reasoning.

There is no time. No time. Don't think about time. Don't think about skin, or your body. We won't have one, we will be spirit.

Time is paramount to existing. Don't dance around the issue if you're not willing to answer satisfactorily. Unless you can explain how it would be possible to exist without time. Or space, apparently, since people won't occupy it somehow.

Wait, how does this even make sense, since people can somehow have an eternal time of punishment in hell, but time doesn't exist in hell? Didn't you just get done saying they were exact opposites?

You keep thinking we WILL be ourselves. You are right, we won't be. We'll be cleansed, never to commit sin again. Also, just because we don't commit sin, doesn't me we become perfect. Thought I should add that.

Then you're not you. Nothing about you will be the same. At all.

So in order to go to Heaven, you have to stop existing as yourself.

Eternal damnation. Same difference.

You're missing the point; there are several different views. Some view it as the fires of Gehenna, the total end of existence when one's soul is completely destroyed.

I don't think you understand. The belief that He decides our fate without taking how we lived has been a killed belief for hundreds of years. We live, he decides on how we lived, our fate.

Why? Why should anyone be judging anybody? Why doesn't he just set up an area for everyone to be happy? Why just his chosen people?

Perfect does not get judged. Neither does Satan. But due to what I told you, you should know why Satan won't be judged.

Why? Why can't it be judged? What's the point of setting up a judicial system of justice when there is only one say in any and every situation?

That's tyrannical.

Naw he was punished. He was never judged.

That was when he was judged. And he was judged again in the Bible.

Do something horrible, you don't get a trial for it, you get punished. Plus, Lucifer was ALREADY an angel, so no second chances for it.

I don't think you understand the meaning of judgment.

Anytime someone uses logical science in this subject, they think it is proof that God doesn't exist. I think it is fair to say that THAT is like using your religion for debates.

It's proof that God doesn't exist because if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true. Do you think it is true that my brother got his arm stuck in the microwave and my mom dropped acid so my grandma had to hijack a bus full of penguins?

No. Because it doesn't make sense. Similarly, the idea that there is a being that just trumps any and every logical idea or reasoning is senseless and without any evidence or merit whatsoever.

Anyway, Citrusman seems to be getting the right idea about things! What scientific evidence proves God's nonexistance?

What scientific evidence disproves your God? Well, there are several entire branches of science that point out areas of inaccuracy in the Bible.

Carbon dating? How sure are these scientists of it being accurate?

How sure are you a foot is twelve inches?

Big Bang? I don't even know what evidence led to that idea.

Then you've never read up on the Big Bang theory.

Anyway, just because science has it's facts, I can't see how it disproves the Lord's existance.

Because it directly contradicts the Lord's words on several points?

For everything stated by an athiest, a theist can explain how God did that. Then the athiests says what other science the theist's idea is conflicting with. The theist gives a different explanation. And repeat.

None of the explanations are at all satisfactory, and many are in fact quite horribly thought out without any sense or reasoning.

David and Goliath: "Illogical, therefore false."

Good and Evil: "Illogical, therefore false."

It seems like anything that messes with people's emotions are COMPLETELY thrown away. Why is that? Aren't emotions REAL? Why are they not considered?

You're being ridiculous again. Good and evil as objective terms are illogical, and therefore good and evil as objective terms do not exist. Emotions are real, but they're not something that can be necessarily quantified in an objective manner.

Is anyone alive from there, alive now? NO. Therefore, logically you cannot disprove David never fought with Goliath.

In the same sense that you can't disprove that there are invisible and intangible monkeys defecating on everyone's heads, perhaps.

You cannot disprove the existence of good and evil.

In an objective manner? Yes, yes I can.

The way athiests debate is only using real, proven (or almost proven) facts. And many of the facts used about the Big Bang and other things are NOT even close to being proven.

I challenge you right now to bring up one single point about God that is more sensible than any point brought up in the scientific view of the Big Bang. And I hope you have a damn good understanding of the theory, because I'm going to be pretty pissed if you come up with the equivalent of a Google search along the lines of "Big Bang is false".

[Phoenix Wright]

Actually, I can explain him logically.

He doesn't exist.

Oh look, I just did it.

That's retarded. Please stop that.

[Defeatist Elitist]

That's retarded. Please stop that.

Sorry, would it be better if I added all the reasoning behind it?

[Ragnell]

Answer: The Big Bang is False

I never said the Big Bang was false. Quite a while ago I said that the Big Bang may very well be true. Parts or segments may or may not be true. And they aren't sure what happened right after the universe started. What I said is that the Big Bang is not PROVEN, and it isn't, not even close. A hell of a lot closer than many things out there, but not proven.

[Meteor]

How is that (God doesn't exist) not the logical conclusion?

In the end, you're going to believe what you want to believe.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Meteor

[Defeatist Elitist]

Answer: The Big Bang is False

I never said the Big Bang was false. Quite a while ago I said that the Big Bang may very well be true. Parts or segments may or may not be true. And they aren't sure what happened right after the universe started. What I said is that the Big Bang is not PROVEN, and it isn't, not even close. A hell of a lot closer than many things out there, but not proven.

But being proven more than anything else means that it is proven...

[Meteor]

But being proven more than anything else means that it is proven...

So at one point the Earth was proven to be the center of the universe?

[Ragnell]

But being proven more than anything else means that it is proven...

No, it has more evidence in some ways. It is not proven unless there is no possible way it is wrong. And neither the Big Bang Theory or Religion is even close to that.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Ragnell

[Defeatist Elitist]

So at one point the Earth was proven to be the center of the universe?

No, because that had no proof whatsoever. But I can see your basic point, and yeah. Essentially so.

Newton's Theory of Gravity was proven up until it was disproven (well, parts of it, but the point still stands.).

[Phoenix]

Esau quote the crap out of this thread. Didn't get me though. Probably cause he's learned that I'm stubborn :P

Also Revan, saying God doesn't exist is still you just saying it without proof.

Quote from five minutes ago by Phoenix

That's still an illogical conclusion with nothing backing it up.

I haven't seen this girl I liked in a long time. Is she dead now? I could assume yes, but I might be wrong. Maybe I should look her up or not jump to conclusions.

[Defeatist Elitist]

No, it has more evidence in some ways. It is not proven unless there is no possible way it is wrong. And neither the Big Bang Theory or Religion is even close to that.

Learn reading comprehension please, we already addressed that nothing could ever be proven 100%.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Esau quote the crap out of this thread. Didn't get me though. Probably cause he's learned that I'm stubborn :P

Also Revan, saying God doesn't exist is still you just saying it without proof.

Quote from five minutes ago by Phoenix

That's still an illogical conclusion with nothing backing it up.

I haven't seen this girl I liked in a long time. Is she dead now? I could assume yes, but I might be wrong. Maybe I should look her up or not jump to conclusions.

Do you want me to post all the facts that do back it up? I could.

Or you could read this thread again, they're all here.

[Phoenix]

Do you want me to post all the facts that do back it up? I could.

Or you could read this thread again, they're all here.

Oh right, the lack of evidence is proof of absence thing. Okay whatever floats your boat :P

[Defeatist Elitist]

Oh right, the lack of evidence is proof of absence thing. Okay whatever floats your boat :P

Why is it that you people fail at reading comprehension?

We not only have that, but a bunch of other things. Please. READ.

[Meteor]

No, because that had no proof whatsoever. But I can see your basic point, and yeah. Essentially so.

The proof was that the stars rotated around us every night. Not great proof by today's standards, but anyone could test it and see it to be "true" at the time.

You seem to have a quite different view of "proven" than I do.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The proof was that the stars rotated around us every night. Not great proof by today's standards, but anyone could test it and see it to be "true" at the time.

You seem to have a quite different view of "proven" than I do.

Perhaps we do have a different view. But Science accepts mine. :D

[Meteor]

Since when did evidence become scientific proof? It doesn't make the theory explaining it true, it makes it our best guess.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Meteor

[Esau of Isaac]

Answer: The Big Bang is False

I never said the Big Bang was false. Quite a while ago I said that the Big Bang may very well be true. Parts or segments may or may not be true. And they aren't sure what happened right after the universe started. What I said is that the Big Bang is not PROVEN, and it isn't, not even close. A hell of a lot closer than many things out there, but not proven.

It is more proven than your religion ever will be. It has a very large amount of evidence in its favor, and serves to illustrate the expansion of the Universe in a pretty satisfactory fashion.

No, it has more evidence in some ways. It is not proven unless there is no possible way it is wrong. And neither the Big Bang Theory or Religion is even close to that.

That will never occur for any theory. The entire idea behind any theory is that if it is wrong, it can be disproven. I invite you to do so with any scientific theory that you feel can be explained more satisfactorily with a God.

The proof was that the stars rotated around us every night. Not great proof by today's standards, but anyone could test it and see it to be "true" at the time.

You seem to have a quite different view of "proven" than I do.

Except it was shown that they don't rotate around the Earth, and thus the idea was rendered null, as the evidence was not actually evidence.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix]

Perhaps we do have a different view. But Science accepts mine. :D

Science accepts mine too :P

Me and science are best buds. He stays out of my religious issues and I don't tell him that he's impotent. We get along great. I'll write a summary of our activities together a little later on for ya k? :D

[Defeatist Elitist]

Since when did evidence become scientific proof?

Basically, what I'm saying is that Science (the idea), simply supports the best and most proven and accurate explanation that we can come up with at out current point in time. Scientists must all be fully willing to accept a totally new concept if it manages to usurp the old one.

[Phoenix Wright]

So you're in essence disagreeing with God.

I'm pretty sure that's not tolerated in the Christian religion.

I disagree to spread them as law. Not them altogether.

...I think you need to expand your answer. I'm missing where it has ever been shown that everyone can become guardian angels.

Really? Angels do specific jobs for God...

I'm pretty sure it's because God doesn't exist. It's fair evidence your God doesn't exist.

On the contrary, if we DID know why, there would be no reason for faith. Which deletes making a healthy relationship with God, etc.

Aww, did you just call me perfect? I <3 you too.

No, really. In all seriousness, perfection can't create imperfection. That's contradictory, because that would mean that perfection would be doing something imperfect, and thus the being doing this would not be perfect.

Then God is not perfect. Nothing but absolute perfection can come from a perfect being.

So my offspring will be EXACTLY like me? Is that what you are saying? Why can't perfect create imperfect?

...God will be abolished? I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen in the Christian view.

You were speaking of God? I meant Satan dude.

Evidence, please.

There isn't any. Big Bang, evidence please.

Did you really just try to apply Newton's Third Law of Motion to the existence of Hell? Really? Do you have any limits to how far you'll rape science?

Do you have ANY idea of how much I don't care?

The point (which you completely missed) is that a benevolent being would not allow for a place of eternal suffering and pain, especially for deeds performed in a mortal and finite lifetime. I don't think Saddam Hussein deserves an eternity in suffering. Hell, I don't think Stalin and Hitler deserve neverending torture. It doesn't make sense to subject someone to eternal pain; there's no point or reasoning.

Then maybe hell is different. Maybe Hitler will be rewarded for the mass murder of 6 million European Jews.

Time is paramount to existing. Don't dance around the issue if you're not willing to answer satisfactorily. Unless you can explain how it would be possible to exist without time. Or space, apparently, since people won't occupy it somehow.

Hm, but isn't there a hypothesis that the first 44 seconds after (or before, I forgot) the Big Bang, there was NO TIME. Wow...so the first 44 seconds, there was no Big Bang?

Wait, how does this even make sense, since people can somehow have an eternal time of punishment in hell, but time doesn't exist in hell? Didn't you just get done saying they were exact opposites?

I meant it will never end. Like infinity...which is not a time period either.

Then you're not you. Nothing about you will be the same. At all.

So in order to go to Heaven, you have to stop existing as yourself.

Dying is ceasing to exist also, isn't it? That means you aren't you either right? You are right in a way, you will not have dirty thoughts anymore.

You're missing the point; there are several different views. Some view it as the fires of Gehenna, the total end of existence when one's soul is completely destroyed.

OK, that is a view too. I'm not downing it man, I don't really know.

Why? Why should anyone be judging anybody? Why doesn't he just set up an area for everyone to be happy? Why just his chosen people?

Good argument. When you die, ask Him.

Why? Why can't it be judged? What's the point of setting up a judicial system of justice when there is only one say in any and every situation?

That's tyrannical.

That justice system was a metaphor man. XD Get off of it.

That was when he was judged. And he was judged again in the Bible.

I don't think you understand the meaning of judgment.

There are different uses of the word you know. Just like some may say the N word, Blacks may take it a different way.

It's proof that God doesn't exist because if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true. Do you think it is true that my brother got his arm stuck in the microwave and my mom dropped acid so my grandma had to hijack a bus full of penguins?

No. Because it doesn't make sense. Similarly, the idea that there is a being that just trumps any and every logical idea or reasoning is senseless and without any evidence or merit whatsoever.

Whoa, whoa...proof He doesn't exist? Yeah right.

Just because it doesn't make sense. doesn't mean it won't happen. We fail to see each others' points.

What scientific evidence disproves your God? Well, there are several entire branches of science that point out areas of inaccuracy in the Bible.

OK, so what if the Bible is somewhat inaccurate? Wasn't almost everything inaccurate back then?

How sure are you a foot is twelve inches?

Actually, a king made up that way of measurement. The joke's on you.

You're being ridiculous again. Good and evil as objective terms are illogical, and therefore good and evil as objective terms do not exist. Emotions are real, but they're not something that can be necessarily quantified in an objective manner.

In the same sense that you can't disprove that there are invisible and intangible monkeys defecating on everyone's heads, perhaps.

Your right, I can't disprove that.

The barriers of good and evil are objective, good and evil exist none the less.

In an objective manner? Yes, yes I can.

Please stop. XD

You cannot. What you say, I will not believe. It is untrue.

[Meteor]

Okay, that makes sense to me. I can accept that.

[Phoenix]

Me and my buddy science.

Science says I'm slightly illogical. I laugh and say he's a loginator. We laugh and high five knowing neither of can be proven wrong in the end. Science doesn't think that my God can't exist, he is just ignoring it because he doesn't have the evidence. I am happy that he is considerate of reality and my feelings. Science has a lot of friends and is very popular. These friends like to use Science as a tool to disprove God on certain days of the year and I step in for my buddy Science and tell'em to go masturbate instead of abusing a friend. Science then thanks me for helping him recover his good name. We high five and skip to a funky beat and head on down the street.

*sniff* I love you, man :( *hugs science somehow*

[Meteor]

Science is in my top 8 on MySpace.

But seriously, in my mind, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Neither one trumps the other.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Meteor

[Wist]

Science accepts mine too :P

Me and science are best buds. He stays out of my religious issues and I don't tell him that he's impotent. We get along great. I'll write a summary of our activities together a little later on for ya k? :D

Phoenix, some of your posts in this thread are spectator-like in nature and aren't really contributing much to the discussion. It's evident that you're enjoying yourself, which is awesome, but can you make sure all of your posts contribute to the discussion a bit? Thanks, and sorry for the brief interruption.

Edit (2008.12.03):

Meteor....

Edited December 4, 2008 by Wist