Posts by Pika

277

What say you Christians ???

by wobble in

it seems to me that most, if not all christians are really hung up on sin and redemption from sin and how naturally evil we all are.. my question, and observation is this : i had nothing to do with whatever you say adam and eve did wrong, i have always, throughout my life, treated whoever i came into contact with compassion, respect and love.. i have lived by the golden rule.. not many people, hand on heart, can say that, i can.. so, is your god going to judge me for the "sin" of some mythical forebears of mine ?

is he going to say that , because i did not believe in him, i willl be judged adversely, even though i lived by the precepts he is supposed to support ?.

all i can say is, if your god is like that, i refuse to worship or acknowledge him.. and i certainly do not want to get to know him.

Pika_Chu

I still go back, ad nauseum to you by now, to my contention that if God is Love and practices true justice, He has no basis to order that I should perish.

He has given me nothing to prove that he even exists, so how can I "believe" or have trust in Him ? How could I possibly avoid being godless ?

Exactly how I feel.

I've got something for Godrulz to think about:

We have free will.
Free will is the ability to choose between good and evil.
Free will is empowering (premises 1 and 2).
Good means choosing God. Evil means choosing a "false religious worldview."
God cannot choose evil. He is only good and benevolent. God cannot also refuse to believe in himself.
Therefore, God does not have free will (premises 4 and 5).
Therefore, we are more empowered than God (premise 6).

Then here's the wrap-up:

To be God is to be higher than his creation.
God is not empowered with free will like he empowers his creation (see argument above).
Therefore, he is not more empowered than his creation.
Therefore, he is not higher, and cannot be considered "god."
Since "God" is not "god," he must not exist in the sense that he is more empowered than us.
Thus, God does not exist.

Anyone see any loopholes, please point those out. This was the first atheological argument I made up by myself, so it may be flawed and I appreciate your criticism. Peace.

77

To My Fellow Atheists...

by Pika_Chu in

i present to you:.

quite possibly the worst attempt at apologetics ever.... .

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html.

Pika_Chu

@Psac, I know. But an all-powerful being capable of making himself perceptible never has and never does make himself perceptible. I'm not just talking about invisibility. He never does anything. A god who doesn't reveal himself either doesn't exist or he loves playing mind games. One who wishes to be connected with humanity cannot hide away in obscurity and absolute imperceptibility and expect a connection.

77

To My Fellow Atheists...

by Pika_Chu in

i present to you:.

quite possibly the worst attempt at apologetics ever.... .

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html.

Pika_Chu

He could exist objectively. For example, you exist and not everyone knows you. However, you can't know someone who doesn't exist, and after meeting you, and knowing other people who have met you i can conclude you exist. But if you are invisible and you speak in code, and all that stuff, I wouldn't see a reason to believe you are a real person.

38

this is you

by BD7 in

jw
friends

.

Pika_Chu

This is you also. You see, you are a member of this forum. Now we hold your soul captive.

77

To My Fellow Atheists...

by Pika_Chu in

i present to you:.

quite possibly the worst attempt at apologetics ever.... .

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html.

Pika_Chu

@Psac, Are all people who know you believers of you? At least, everyone you talk to? Maybe they don't listen to you or take your advice, but everyone who actually knows you would not question your existence.

25

The Bible - is it really the GOOD Book - if so why?

by cantleave in

afterall , it condones murder, genocide, infanticide and a plethora of other nasty things.

it is contradictory and unscientific.. hell; lets be honest it's hard to read and harder to understand.. so why is it called the good book?.

discuss!.

Pika_Chu

I think this demonstrates just how far people will go to please their Gods. God wants you to commit atrocities? Fine. Justified. He WANTS you to. That's my big beef with religion. It's not INHERENTLY bad, but people will do some screwe up things for it. Then again, people will do some messed up things for love...It's just that some people love bloodthirsty gods.

77

To My Fellow Atheists...

by Pika_Chu in

i present to you:.

quite possibly the worst attempt at apologetics ever.... .

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html.

Pika_Chu

I know, Fadeout. That's what I'm saying. Some people convert to theism after being atheists, but their accounts of personal revelation are subjective. People will believe in anything if it has "revealed" itself to them. But if each account is subjective, who's to say it's not confiend to one's own mind. Such personal feelings, without outside verification, are more than likely constructs of the mind. No supernatural explanation needed. God shouldn't be this hard to prove if other people aren't hard to prove.

@Psac, I mentioned God, wanting to be worshipped, would mean he would make himself quite obvious. To be worshipped, he must be known, and, to be known, he must make it fairly easy to know him. There wouldn't be so many rational people questioning his existence. I rarely, if ever, question your existence, the existence of my friends, or the existence of my own father. But God makes himself questionable by hiding inside the universe/multiverse/creation. And I see your point about people turning away from God even with him revealing himself, but becoming and atheist and "turning your back on God" are two different things. Children do not "turn their backs" on the tooth fairy when they realise there is a perfectly good natural/human explanation that knocks out the old superstitious belief. They simply cease to believe. Turning your back on someone implies they are still there and you are simply not acknowledging them.

16

Stop and consider God

by StopTheTears in

jw
friends

is there really a god?

is there really a divine creator or did the universe around us just "evolve?

" what an incredible thought to even imagine that there could be a supernatural being so powerful as to create a universe.

Pika_Chu

What an incredible thought to even imagine that there could be a supernatural being so powerful as to create a universe. Wow!

Indeed. Couldn't have said it better. YOu condemn yourself with your own words.

For one thing, you assume the entire universe is fine-tuned for life. The solar system is but a speck of the universe. In fact, much of the universe is not (we can't even say THAT with much certainty) suitable for life. Much of the universe is hostile, unkind to life, like you said, 1 out of 9 planets (Pluto's no longer considered one, but I'm not going to split hairs). Now, what does that tell you? Such waste would imply poor design. If I design something that only works under very strict criteria, can you truly say I have designed it well? And what do you mean fine-tuning? Fine-tuning implies it wasnt' made right in the first place. Why would God have to make corrections? Furthermore, you assume atheists believe the universe came about by nothing. Whatever do you mean? I don't believe that.

If the sun was too far away, we'd all freeze to death (no, we would have evolved to live through that, just like we evolved to live in Earth's conditions).

If the sun was too close, we'd all burn to death. (see above).

Keep the sun right where it is, and people still freeze to death and burn to death in spite of it. Oh yeah, and I suppose the sun was so well designed that God made sure everyone who gets too much exposure dies of skin cancer. Adam and Eve were naked and didn't where sunscreen. And the vapor canopy only makes matters worse! And they lived hundreds of years under these conditions! Oh that's right, diseases didn't exist in a perfect world. I suppose they didn't evolve either. I guess they just popped out of nowhere.

77

To My Fellow Atheists...

by Pika_Chu in

i present to you:.

quite possibly the worst attempt at apologetics ever.... .

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html.

Pika_Chu

@Psac, like I said before, if he spoke to us, and I'm not talking about personal revelation. I mean, if he talked to all of us, directly, we would have a degree of objectivity. I know that you exist because I interact with you on the Internet, and others do as well. If someone asks you a question, you answer it. I'm going to bet that you exist because I am not the only one who hears you. Normally, people don't have to try very hard to prove someone exists; it's usually much easier. If God wants people to believe in him, why hide away in another dimension, invisible, imperceptible, and speaking to us indirectly by giving "signs" and "his word" and only talking to SOME of us? The mere fact that so many atheists exist in the world (and given that their atheism is based on rationality), raises serious questions as to why God only talks to people selectively, especially people WHO ALREADY believe in him. What we expect shapes what we see.

77

To My Fellow Atheists...

by Pika_Chu in

i present to you:.

quite possibly the worst attempt at apologetics ever.... .

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html.

Pika_Chu

God can't be disproved, this is true, neither can different dimensions, paralell universes, dark matter and a slew of other theoritical stuff.

Of course we can't prove any of those things either but that doesn't stop scientists from believing in them.

I have never been a fan of the "can't disprove" argument, it seems rather pointless.

Hi, PSac. Sorry I disappeared there. I would have to disagree that God can't be disproved. Well, it depends on what kind of proof we have in mind. I mean, I can't DIRECTLY disprove the existence of God just like I can't directly disprove that teapots are orbiting Jupiter. But the fact that such things lack POSITIVE evidence, indicates, to me, that there's no reason to believe it anyway. Not enough evidence to warrant such conlusions. It's just the philisophical side of things, if you ask me, that disproves certain gods. I mean, there's no such thing as a square circle. If God has self-contradictory traits, that doesn't make sense. No matter how much he's supposed to transcend our knowledge and our universe. That's just making excuses by saying "God is not restricted to x," "God doesn't exist in dimension y," "God is not contingent upon physical law z." There's an infinite number of ways we can refute atheological arguments by using "God is not..." type arguments, but a God who exists should leave some positive evidence behind. At best, these negative-trait comments are saying "you can't DISPROVE God." And that is not proof. It saves God from impossibillity, but it adds nothing to his possibility.

Pika_Chu

Posts by Pika_Chu