toldailytopic: What is the main reason(s) you accept, or reject, God that exists?

[Nathon Detroit]

In order to have created the vast complexity of the universe, a creator god would have to be immeasurably more complex than its creation. On one hand, creationists posit that the complexity of the universe cannot be eternal and that it could not have arisen from nothing as it is too complex. On the other hand, an immeasurably more complex creator god is eternal/uncreated. What is impossible on one hand is possible on the other, only to an immeasurably greater degree. This kind of incoherent, self-destructing logic makes it impossible for me to take the idea of a personal creator god seriously.

What a silly and yet sad oversight.

God isn't natural. (in fact by definition God is Supernatural) Therefore God is not bound by the laws that bind the natural universe.

The natural universe could not create itself out of nothing based on natural laws.

Yet the supernatural has no such limitation.

Therefore, while you may not be compelled to believe in a creator God that view certainly isn't "incoherent, self-destructing logic". It's only that way to you because you have failed to understand the argument from it's very foundation.

 

[elohiym]

No real scientific evidence.

There's probably no "scientific evidence" for many things you believe. Is archeological evidence and eyewitness testimony not evidence enough for you?

If tens of thousands of people witness the Red Sea part, is that not evidence enough that the Red Sea parted and then came back together and drowned a whole bunch of Egyptians?

 

[Persephone66]

Getting into the specifics of a particular deity strikes me as a little bit off topic... but I like your enthusiasm!

I thought it was about a particular deity.

 

[allsmiles]

What a silly and yet sad oversight.

God isn't natural. (in fact by definition God is Supernatural) Therefore God is not bound by the laws that bind the natural universe.

The natural universe could not create itself out of nothing based on natural laws.

Yet the supernatural has no such limitation.

Therefore, while you may not be compelled to believe in a creator God that view certainly isn't "incoherent, self-destructing logic". It's only that way to you because you have failed to understand the argument from it's very foundation.

Ah yes, the supernatural: explain the unexplainable by introducing something that's even more unexplainable

Wacky presuppositions don't impress me and they don't change a thing I've said.

 

[allsmiles]

There's probably no "scientific evidence" for many things you believe. Is archeological evidence and eyewitness testimony not evidence enough for you?

If tens of thousands of people witness the Red Sea part, is that not evidence enough that the Red Sea parted and then came back together and drowned a whole bunch of Egyptians?

There's no reason to believe anyone watched the Red Sea part. There also exists no reason to believe the Hebrews were ever captive in Egypt.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Wacky presuppositions don't impress me and they don't change a thing I've said.

The "thing" you said only proved you haven't put much thought, or don't understand, the argument.

 

[allsmiles]

I thought it was about a particular deity.

I could be wrong. It's probably not that important of a distinction.

 

[Persephone66]

There's probably no "scientific evidence" for many things you believe. Is archeological evidence and eyewitness testimony not evidence enough for you?

If tens of thousands of people witness the Red Sea part, is that not evidence enough that the Red Sea parted and then came back together and drowned a whole bunch of Egyptians?

Is there archaeological evidence?

How did it part? What caused it to part?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I thought it was about a particular deity.

Not necessarily.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is there archaeological evidence?

How did it part? What caused it to part?

You are missing his point. Read his post another time and try again.

 

[Persephone66]

I could be wrong. It's probably not that important of a distinction.

It's not, most wacky ancient mythologies talk about weird magical stuff. I could have just as well said people being turned in animals or trees.

 

[allsmiles]

The "thing" you said only proved you haven't put much thought, or don't understand, the argument.

It should be beneath you to redact anybody's posts.

You can't explain the unexplainable by introducing a solution that is immeasurably more unexplainable. The supernatural doesn't solve your problems, it compounds them. Getting snippy with me and merely asserting that I don't understand your "argument" is superficial and vain and that too should be beneath you.

 

[elohiym]

There's no reason to believe anyone watched the Red Sea part.

Are you implying that tens of thousands of people who witnessed the event didn't really exist or conspired to fabricate a myth? You should realize that it would not only be logistically improbable, but logistically impossible to do that.

 

[Persephone66]

You are missing his point. Read his post another time and try again.

I did, my question still stands, where is the evidence? How did it happen? Did it really happen?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You can't explain the unexplainable by introducing a solution that is immeasurably more unexplainable. The supernatural doesn't solve your problems, it compounds them. Getting snippy with me and merely asserting that I don't understand your "argument" is superficial and vain and that too should be beneath you.

Who's getting "snippy"?

Clearly you are incapable of understanding the argument which was made self-evident from your post. It's not my fault you are as dumb as a rock. :idunno:

 

[allsmiles]

Are you implying that tens of thousands of people who witnessed the event didn't really exist or conspired to fabricate a myth? You should realize that it would not only be logistically improbable, but logistically impossible to do that.

Not at all what I'm suggesting and it's rude to redact someone's post the way you have chopped up mine.

First, there's no reason to believe the Hebrews were held captive in Egypt, that's a fairy tale and if it isn't you'd be best served beginning there rather than putting the cart before the horse with some wacky story about the Red Sea being parted.

Second, I'm saying the entire thing is a myth, that there were no Hebrews in Egypt, that there were no witnesses, there was no supernatural event, that nothing happened. Your silly strawman about tens of thousands of people making a story up is your failure to think critically.

 

[elohiym]

I did, my question still stands, where is the evidence? How did it happen? Did it really happen?

Will you believe anything based on eyewitness testimony? :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I did, my question still stands, where is the evidence? How did it happen? Did it really happen?

:sigh:

That isn't the point.

elohiym stated to you...

There's probably no "scientific evidence" for many things you believe. Is archeological evidence and eyewitness testimony not evidence enough for you?

If tens of thousands of people witness the Red Sea part, is that not evidence enough that the Red Sea parted and then came back together and drowned a whole bunch of Egyptians?
​

Possible responses could be....

No. that is not evidence.

Or...

Yes. That's evidence, but it's not compelling for me.​

It's bad enough that you guys are morons. It's much worse that we have to hold your hand through every step of a conversation. Don't people know how to think anymore?

 

[elohiym]

...I'm saying the entire thing is a myth, that there were no Hebrews in Egypt, that there were no witnesses, there was no supernatural event, that nothing happened...

So at what part of the Hebrew genealogies are myth? Since we know that many of the historical figures in the genealogies existed, else there would be no Jews, the burden of proof rests on you to show which people in the genealogy were fabricated.

 

[Persephone66]

Will you believe anything based on eyewitness testimony? :idunno:

If I told you I magically parted the water in the pool at the apartment complex I live in, would you believe me? If I told you other people saw it too?