Search results

It's not for certain that it has to abide by those rules, If you're willing to accept that something came from outside of the universe to create the universe why not accept that something with magical powers from outside the universe could come in and magically give people cancer ? Err yea...

So God is; - The thing that began the universe. - Therefore also powerful. It didn't 'define' the Law, that seems to suggest consciousness - you have no reason to add consciousness/thought or even continued existance. Naturalistic theories are always more plausible than any theory...

The problem there is that you've simply found something we cannot yet sufficiently explain with a naturalistic explanation and have said 'that's god'... it proves nothing, if you want to call god 'whatever' thing began the universe, than fine, but that's a pretty damn loose definition of God...

Atheism admits it doesn't know the answers for certain because it is an honest position anyone should take. No it wasn't... Atheists were around long before the Big Bang theory you dope. Alot of atheists used to support the idea of a 'constant universe', the big bang theory/begining of the...

Err... But really, like I made sure to establish it with you about 6 times already but i'll do it again. You believe that god is the 'something' that created the universe and nothing more?

A religion is not a race... something you can't choose... it's an ideology... you have choice... it's open to judgement/critique. I don't think judgements of the religion as a whole should be made off of radical groups (that would be selective sampling), but if you're examining that radical...

What I mean is... We're fairly positive that the universe came into existance somehow. That somehow, sam calls 'god'... other people just call it 'something'. Err no, what you've proven is that there was 'something' that brought the universe into existance. You call this God. That is it, it...

Why not say so then? If you simply want to claim God is the 'x' that began the universe and nothing more beyond that... well... ok?

Everyone accepts that something which we cannot explain began the universe.

Maybe convenient for you. So essentially in the end all you've proven is that something created the universe that we can not yet explain (a supernatural thing is something we can't explain). Grats. By claiming that is 'proof' for the existance of 'God' imo is to take the meaning of God quite...

No I don't think Israel is doing the right thing.

Why does this 'God' / Prime mover have to be a conscious being? Imo it's just a convenient guess you've made based on nothing that fits in with your pre-concieved religious beliefs. I am open to the idea that some sort of 'power' that to us may appear supernatural could have started the...

Well depending on how broad/narrow you want to be, I think you can come up with an acceptable operational definition. For example, to study all christianity I would use an operational definition of something like "Belief in Christ / <Insert basic story of christ, resurection and its' general...

Err... no that would obviously be a selective group. If christianity was made up entirely of members of the KKK and they're claiming the KKK is based on christianity, then fine I accept that example.

I posit that a magical batman did it.

They're fighting an urban war, where else would they keep their rockets/weaponry than in civilian structures?

lol here you go; http://www.leftbehindgames.com/ Necessary daily show link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct-hzYodttU

Unsuccessful attempt. Even if it's just made up for parody etc, that doesn't disprove the existance of the flying spaghetti monster - nor is it necessarily any likely that a God 'created' by a religion in a serious manner is more likely to exist. I don't mean all, I just mean some. For example...

Hahhahahaha There really is a computer game that's about the rapture and kicking non-believer ass, no joke.