Atheism vs Theism Debate (Part 2) Justin Winstead

[littlebit19801]

Why don't names like Buddah stir people up? I'm assuming he's never been out of the USA.

[littlebit19801]

Humans create a moral system over time based on what allows us to live and co-exist in peace and harmony with eachother. For e.g. God does NOT say it's wrong for a 40 year old person to marry a 5 year old, so biblically there would be NOTHING wrong with a 40 year old and 5 year old getting married, BUT we as a human race say that would morally wrong, b/c of the harm it would do on so many levels.

[littlebit19801]

So everything that exists has a begging? Except for God!!!!

[spareaxe]

The design thing has been shot down already, even some smarter x-ians. Waste of time.

[SmokexFFx]

So it's quite clear everyone came in here with a predetermined winner, 1:22 - 1:30

[DonMezzo]

C'mon Joseph, don't fuck this up, Justin's whole argument is pretty much one big ass chain of fallacies.

[jimmycanmakecrack]

I can't seem to understand why most (not all, of course) christians see atheists as ignorent and closed-minded. Just becuase we don't live in your fantasy world you think we don't listen to your side of the story? I can tell you from my own expirences that some of us don't believe BECUASE we had to listen to your illogical jibberish since the day we were born. Maybe if christians would back up and see our side of the story there wouldn't be as much hostility between us.

long live logic!

[jinseikage2]

eye witnesses 2000 years ago?

SEEMS LEGIT

[gebash0rt]

Even the adjusted thesis 2: "Given time&space, everything that has a beginning has a cause."

is false. Example for the falsification:

Quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. There is no absolute vacuum because of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. So there are virtuel particles who come to existence out of nowhere.

Also I could argue that there is no object in our universe that has a "beginning" (your def?) because of the conservation of energy. Objects just recompose from other former atoms.

[gebash0rt]

Thesis 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Thesis 2: (..)

->The universe has a cause.

This is true if the 2 thesis are true.

Thesis 2 is obv. right and the first thesis is in this form not correct.

The first thesis should be: Given time&space, everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is just an example of missing an assumption, which you used in your def. But with this thesis, you can't conclude that the universe has a cause because space-time only begin with the big bang.

[gulyguff]

idiot



[rossmat707]

societies develop these "absolute" moral values through socializing. In order for a society to be stable certain rules must be agreed upon by the majority. That doesn't mean these morals were instilled in us by some divine power. We learn them from our environment/culture using emotional intelligence and logic.

[atimor]

LMAO this guy totally failed.... really badly...

[915headbanger1992]

JUSTIN LOSES

[shaneanthonypitts]

This guy is an idiot

[jabberwock11]

Argument 1: I’m willing to make up an answer and you aren’t.

Argument 2: I roll 20 dice and … woha! What were the chances of that combination!?!

Argument 3: Argument 3 = Argument 1

Argument 4: Hmmm? Male lions often kill existing cubs when they take over the pride. Are they evil Lions?

Argument 5: Ummm …Buddha doesn’t stir you because … well …. You aren’t a Buddhist …. Duhhh!

Argument6: Not an argument

Next…..

[appa609]

Ever heard of the anthropic principle?

By the way, you show no proof for undeniable objective moral law. In truth, there is nothing fundamentally important about moral laws, which are in truth no more than semi- logical, self consistent social standard of behavior created by humans.

[jojogonzo]

...so who created god?

[YouAdmireThisName]

Listen my response is that I BELIEVE if god does or dosen't exist, or if you are a Theist or Atheist, whatever you believe or don't believe, just live a happy life, and i am perfectly happy with that :)

[Momentimum]

We can't figure out how the universe began, so it must be God. Humans should be able to figure out everything so we must have it right. Sounds pretty stupid when simplified.

I also don't think using an atheists quote -- Albert Einstein -- is acceptable to use as a defense for theism.

Lastly, Atheism isn't trying to prove anything, it's just the rejection of the idea of God, and to be open to plausible reasons to the universe beginning.

[YouAdmireThisName]

Okay, i don't know if i am the only one who thinks this but,

Atheism and Theism are just things YOU choose to believe or not believe, it's YOUR life, believe or don't believe, it's what YOU choose. Anyone else feel that way?

[BlotBlackInk]

@YouAdmireThisName That's true, but the truth is exists without you, it doesn't depend on you believing it, it's truth whether you acknowledge it as being truth or not.

[YouAdmireThisName]

@BlotBlackInk

I am religious (Hindu), so i believe the same as you, I just think that even if god really dosen't exist, then th bottom line is to just be happy :)

[Avishur18]

@YouAdmireThisName

i agree with blotblackink. the truth is there whether u choose it or not. im going to say that both of these arguements are not strong. im hebrew not atheist (used to be). but i feel like the right questions arent being posed and the right points defended. i guess im disapointed on the theist defense, and not impressed by the atheist...

[YouAdmireThisName]

@Avishur18

Lol i posted that comment a week ago, but here is what i think in a nut shell-

Atheist or theist, you choose what to be, it's up to you and that's perfectly fine.

If you believe in god, that's okay, just live a happy life, and if you don't, that's okay, just live a happy life.

I think we should all just be happy being what we choose to be, and I respect EVERYONE'S opinion.

[YouAdmireThisName]

@Avishur18

Oh and one more thing, yes, i AM religious (Hindu).

[clipsryan]

What's the difference between an open mind and an open heart. How can you make your heart do more than it's job (pumping blood). Sounds like Justin wants you to use emotion (the poetic function of the heart) to believe in something without evidence.

[geniusjas87]

wooow... The universe exists so there MUST be a reason for its existance? And because of that reason there MUST me a God? lol.. This is like shooting at the sky hoping to hit a star. And the PROOF!! of resurrection is that Jesus tomb was empty? Eyewitness testimony? The "eyewitness" could be the same people who took Jesus out of his tomb... It's funny how he mentions these absurd things and thinks he presented something worth considering...... No proof what.so.ever.

[BRADizKING]

He really said a whole lot of nothing.

[TrevorBlack79]

This kid is such a retard. These are the most basic arguments, the most easily refuted. He pretends "atheism" is a positive state of mind, a "worldview," or even a religion of sorts. Regardless he misrepresents the atheist perspective, presents nothing, ignores any semblance of reason or evidence based logic, and ultimately winds up thumping the Bible, using it to validate itself. The theists seriously couldn't find anyone better than this walking parody?

[arsenalskate123]

this guy really said nothing. he just kepped saying "atheism doesn't"

[BuuMoe]

nothing cannot be created from nothing is right but only God can create something from nothing somehow. It's not impossible for Him because we don't know for sure what He can fully do or not do. 2D has its limits but if you move to 3D you have more possibilities and same goes for God. We have our limits as humans in this realm with the existing universe but when it comes to God the possibilities are a lot higher and beyond our comprehension. So its not impossible for Him but who knows what is?

[BuuMoe]

nothing cannot be created from nothing is correct. The thing with God is that He's not created so He does not need to come from anything. He is contingent upon nothing while everything else, because it was created, is contingent upon something and that something must be an unmoved mover or an uncaused causer God. He is infinite and by definition must be self existent because He is above time which implies that He has no start nor end hence, He must be self existing.

[makemegood5two]

if nothing + nothing =\= anything what created god. nothing cannot be created from nothing you said it yourself.

[BuuMoe]

There is such a thing as moral absolutes. Someone mentioned there isn't a moral absolute because it comes from a Being's subjective opinion. This does not mean there are no moral absolutes. It simply means that moral absolutes come from God, the subject. Objective reality or moral absolutes comes from God because He IS the CREATOR of that objective reality. Without an Agent capable of starting anything, knowing reality becomes unreasonable which is supposedly what atheists are looking for.

[resinscraper13]

I encourage all Humanists, Evolutionists, Atheists, Agnostic, Satanists, Buddhists and Luciferians to participate in the facebook group, Lucifer's Constellatory Vanguard.

No Deities, Devils, Ghouls, Ghosts, Spirits, or self deceit...

Just knowledge, light, and understanding...

The need for the propagation of staunch atheism stems from the humanistic necessity to rid the world of self deceitful handicaps. Traditional religions, ) have hindered us long enough.

[ForbesFortune]

You lost me with the first argument, there is not one single thing rational about deism. Every argument and atheist makes is rational by proof of evidence with association of science.

[GMunny5]

What the hell does he mean Atheism doesn't make since. Atheism is simply a response to a claim, nothing more. In fact, Christianity is nonsensical if anything. If there is an all-power God, and an anti-christ or Devil, supposedly responsible for all corruption in the universe. Then why doesn't this all-powerful deity, simply destroy Satan, and then everything would be peaches and bliss........if he's all-powerful, Satan should be inferior. This alone fails to deem sensible. Religion is stupid...

[ForbesFortune]

@GMunny5 That is the most annoying claim made by a deist. They fail to realize that atheism is not a religion or anything like it.

[shanabell420]

@DonHamburger Richard Dawkins makes alot of great points and he should have been in this argument cause he would have put them all to shame with his well spoken approach

[shanabell420]

Theist says nothing can come from nothing, i whole wholeheartedly agree, however, where did god come from if you are going to make such a claim.he is supposedly a FAR more advanced creation, if that is so he had to come from somewhere right? Also Atheism doesn't claim that the universe came from nothing. It started with the intermingling of mass, energy and time (in the physical sense) and imploded outward.If theist understood physics they have no argument but almost all are ignorant to it.

[Tarateesh]

Im muslim, i just wanna know why atheists always seem to attack christianity the most?

[shanabell420]

@Tarateesh They dont . They also think Muslims have it wrong and all other faiths. Look up Richard Dawkins and REALLY watch and try to grasp what he is saying because if you truly did ..you may turn atheist yourself.

[HowardFair]

The length of the solar day is exactly 24 hours? Check out the wikipedia article on Tidal Acceleration. 620 million years ago the day was over two hours shorter.

[shanabell420]

@HowardFair well the earthquake in Chili made the day 1.5 microseconds shorter this past year lol

[TheBeardedJeffersons]

This guy totally ripped off Frank Turek's case from the debate Turek vs. Hitchens atheism vs theism debate. The video can be found here on youtube. Such a dunce.

[MxDem]

@husker6914 I realize it's kinda hard to think that our intelligence is just an accident, but you have to see the whole picture and realize that, if it was the case that the atmosphere didn't have enough oxygen or maybe that we needed another gas to live, we wouldn't be alive. And all of those things are the process of millions of years through evolution, and those animals and plants that didn't evolved the way they required to, simply died and couldn't evolve further

[MxDem]

@husker6914 There are two things here. 1.- "Survival of the fittest" is not the process that makes evolution possible, evolution would happen even if the weakest were the ones that had descendants.That term refers to communities of the same animal,the fittest "should" survive and maybe even kill the weakest,that way the next evolutionary population would,in theory,be stronger.2.- Intelligence, as any other evolutionary characteristic,is an accident. That accident allows us to think rationally.

[MxDem]

Argument #6, It DOES NOT have any weight because this is a "discussion" not a preaching contest. You are basically saying that if you think something it's true just because you think it is. Do people who see monsters that talk to their ears are right? No, because it doesn't matter that they believe it's true, it is not, it's a mental illness that is causing that people to see or hear things that are not there. I hope you answer to my opinions but please don't preach on me, this is a discussion

[husker6914]

@MxDem That is all this about. No one knows! You have an opinion, I have an opinion, she has an opinion. This has nothing to do with factual evidence. What this is is a debate at a lower level college. You want to get really into it, try the debates on the national level. Things will be brought up that will make you sit back and ponder.

[shanabell420]

@husker6914 or just watch Richard Dawkins lay it all out for you

[MxDem]

(Part 2 of Argument #5)... and the "the birth of the early church"... Who even doubts that? And what if it's actually true? That doesn't mean anything, it just means that a group of people decided to create a club and convinced people to join, what ever reason they claimed to have for other people to join is irrelevant here. The Manson Family had a club and people joined too, and even when it was an evil cult, nobody doubts it existed

[MxDem]

Argument #5, you are assuming that indeed happened. I saw your comment about "The eyewitness testimonies of people who claim they saw Jesus resurrected, the empty tomb, and the birth of the early church are largely accepted by historical scholarship"... If my dad's tomb is empty tomorrow, most likely somebody took the body, those testimonies are from people who founded that church, is like saying "My dad is god!" and the only testimonies I had were my family and friends, would you believe me?

[MxDem]

Argument #4, "slavery"... Your god accepted and promoted slavery, he even said for how much you could buy a slave and how hard you could hit him, it's on the bible, not making this up but I don't have the exact quote, sorry. Atheism does not have a list of moral values because we don't need one, I understand that it is bad for society to kill somebody for no reason, or steal something. It's not because a god told me it's bad, my brain says "Hey, it's not good for anybody to do that"

[husker6914]

@MxDem I have to disagree with you on this. According to evolution, "survival of the fittest" has been the founding thought process concerning our evolution. So if you have to kill to ensure the survival of the herd it would happen. As humans, with an intellectual thought process to choose this, where did this come from? I am thinking there has to be more to it than we just happened to be the species that evolved farther.

[MxDem]

Argument #3, basically the same explanation I gave for number 2. Also... If the human body was created by some intelligent form, why do we have almost useless organs that have to be removed? Such as the appendix (Google it) or even the wisdom tooth, which gives more problems now and will eventually disappear because with evolution of the way we eat food, and also that we don't need it anymore, it will disappear

[MxDem]

Argument #2, he says that everything is just so perfect that it must have been created with that intention. Just because you are alive today, doesn't mean that the Earth was meant to be that way so you could be alive. If the earth was too hot, or too cold, or didn't have gravity for us to live, you would not be alive and would not be able to say that. It's kinda hard to explain, but put simply... Every little thing you are/have, was evolved so you could adapt to the ambient you now live in

[MxDem]

This guy doesn't make any sense at all. All he did was preaching, and it was a pretty weak and predictable preaching btw. Argument #1, the primary idea of Atheism is that we don't know what happened and therefor we can't say it was god because there is no proof, if you think Atheism is certainty about anything, then you need to read a little more or even ask an Atheist who is objective and doesn't want to just fight against religion.

[thesparitan]

Poor guy, he used kalam. Never use that if you are a theist, its so so so weak.

[LampPlaceThing]

Atheists are more immoral.

Proof: 6 dislikes, and no little respect for the opposing speaker "6 likes" compared to the previous speaker (pro Atheist).

[RJPBurtonBoards]

@LampPlaceThing If you think 6 people on youtube, people who you cant even prove are atheists, speak for all Atheists. You are horribly mistaken and delusional.

[LampPlaceThing]

@RJPBurtonBoards actually there is a LOT of people that hate the idea of a "God"

Do they fit criteria for Atheism...? who knows, they probably are wondering fools who haven't made their mind up, and act on impulse.

[420HashSmoker]

Also, EVERY single moral and ethical principle is SUBJECTIVE. There are NO moral or ethical absolutes; even IF a god exists and it says that 'x' is right and 'y' is wrong, that's not an absolute, that's that beings' OPINION being passed on to it's slaves/followers.

[420HashSmoker]

If everything has a beginning then the concept that is 'god' must have also had a beginning; however I'm willing to bet that this guy isn't willing to concede to that fact. The "fine tuning" argument also fails in that the universe which we occupy ISN'T "fine tuned", it's in a constant state of flux and change. We, and by we I mean the primate species that is humanity, only exist because of two principles that apply to our existence; time and evolution.

[boricuamm707]

That was ridiculous, I would be embarrassed to post this argument then name myself Justinwins1

You did not bring a single bit of evidence that God exists. And being an Atheist means you dont believe in God, doesnt mean you know God doesnt exist. Much like I dont believe fairies are real, but I cant say I know they dont exist because that would require proof.

Something came from nothing doesnt prove a thing, even if thats true it doesnt mean God created it, you have no argument you failed.

[blazereef]

did he say an "open mind and an open heart"? what the fuck does heart have to do with evidence and logic? i already know hes going to play on peoples emotions and will have no logical arguments, pathetic

[TwoHandedSledge]

In your "debate" you say you want people to open their minds and hearts to truth, and simply not cheer for their side, but yet you firmly stick to the side of god/creationism, and pretty much state that's the ONLY RATIONAL explanation, and that people must accept it. You offer no other plausible ideas/arguments for the existence of the universe or anything serving inside of it, you do not bring any new concepts to the table, just the same recycled rhetoric that has been destroyed over and over.

[TwoHandedSledge]

@1982witchcraft Yeah because using God's name in vein, and then telling someone they're gonna burn in hell is real Christian like huh? Doesn't the bible say not to use the lord's name in vein, and also that humans do not have the right to judge others, and that right is reserved for God, and God only? Therefore, it is wrong for you to tell someone else they're going to burn in hell? How about you actually learn the bible before preaching damnation, you mindless, hypocritical fuck.

[cobytyler84]

Atheism does not need to prove that god does not exist, not at this stage. They do however need to introduce the atheist perspective on these 6 points/arguments that Justin states. Whether being directly quoted or not, these statements are exactly the same as many other theists. For example, William Lane Craig. The problem with debating the existence of god is that neither side can show evidence, only theory and expressed faith in such things as eye witnesses which in fact prove nothing.

[ultradevon04]

WOW, this dude FAILS. Every single one of his arguments are copy and pasted and have been refuted SOOOOO many times. He should have read up on the counter arguments before rambling on like this.

[TheSoJuicy]

umm, maybe God exists, and maybe he doesn't... i put my faith in nuclear annihilation

[CavalloDiSpade]

Theres a problem with the fine tuning argument: emergence. all these properties that we cal 'complex' are emergent ones, that is, we dont really understand how they arise based on the fundamental laws. therefore, we have no idea what emergent properties would arise in other universes tuned differently. is it crazy to assume that some properties there would be WAY more interesting and complex than anything that could ever happen here?

[villeppi]

This guy is a retard. Nuff said.

[brody1kenobe]

Quoting science and cramming it to fit the creation myth of the bible is heretical. its saying that the bible cannot be taken littoral and for almost two thousand years anyone could have been put to death or have been put to death for what you do. that is and example of setting ridged laws on morality. Also by adapting science into your framework you are attempting to change your religion with the times which is inevitable and what any thinking reasonable compassionate humble person does.

[brody1kenobe]

if you set up fixed laws of morals you become inflexable and you defeat the purpose of morals which is to relieve suffering. any of this is redundant anyways because in practice all anyone ever does is take each situation as it comes applying what they know based experience on how they think the end results should turn out.

[ohmc303]

you're absolutely right that both sides don't know. yet scientists aren't quick to put in gods of the gap quite yet because there's still evidence. if god makes moral values, the buddhist must be killing and stealing from each other like crazy. and you said "....envied more than all people", so humble of you.

have you read the old testament? the rape, murder, human sacrifice? that's the god you get your morals from?

[everlasthero32]

@ohmc303 Christians dont go by the Old Testament Following the new testament the point of being Christian, Jesus Christ is the point of the new testament. If you want to talk to people who get there morals from the old testament then talk to the Jews.

[HA3OP]

@everlasthero32 so you reject the essence of the god you believe in if you don't believe that the god described in it was not the true one. moreover, what about the justfication of slavery in the new testament?

[brody1kenobe]

there are no absolutes. ideas of justice or right or wrong change with time and varies in culture even person to person. this is obvious. the principles that do stay with us and that are found through various cultures are as useful to us as much as they relieve suffering.

[justinwins1]

@brody1kenobe you're commenting on so many of these clips, I simply will not have time to go through & refute every one of your arguments, however, i would like to point out that your opening sentence is, "there are no absolutes." ironically that sentence itself IS an ABSOLUTE statement; therefore self-refuting. So I ask, are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

the relativistic worldview doesn't have the explanatory scope/power needed to be taken seriously by anyone, including you.

[brody1kenobe]

you are right no absolutes is an absolute in the same sense as the old saying everything in moderation including moderation. which are statements of observation. in principle its the same thing as saying as the only thing that is constant is change. a paradox can be confusing.

[Mr2Obi]

@justinwins1 Your first paragraph is positively irrelevant, I'm sure you can see that. Second, the relativistic worldview absolutely has the power to be taken seriously. You're not providing any evidence here. It is easily visible that different cultures have different morals, as do the individuals in each one. There is no one set of morals acted upon consistently even by culture, that's easily visible and predictabe. It's obvious that there are definitely no absolutes, morally speaking.

[blazereef]

@justinwins1 it only self refuting if its true, but it cant be true because it refutes itself o.0 just messing with ya

[thesparitan]

@justinwins1 I have a question, do you actually think these arguments are good or logical? and do you honestly think you made a effective case against the other debaters statements?

Oh and one more, you think you are a rational person?

[tsarenvy]

@justinwins1 i think he meant there are no MORAL absolutes, which there aren't

[hamsalad13610]

Atheism is a lack of a beleif in a god. It has no oppinion on the origins of the universe, and makes none.

[BillKiernan]

"in today's scholarship there is almost no debate that the tomb was empty" um, there sure as hell is. he must be referring to evangelical "scholarship"

[BillKiernan]

right after he mentions theists he brings up einstein, a deist.

[BillKiernan]

ok, complete fail. "why don't confucious or buddha move us the way jesus christ does? it's because jesus rose from the dead." Ok, you're an idiot. Don't you think MAYBE it moves you more because you were brought up, or sold, chrisitianty, rather than buddhism, taoism, etc? Dipshit.

[TwoHandedSledge]

@BillKiernan Ex fucking actly. I love how this moron does this whole analogy at the beginning, and that we need to stop cheering for our side and just listen to truth. Then he proceeds to contradict himself over and over, by only rationalizing GOD as the truth, and accepts no other possibility. What happened to having an open mind, there buddy? Then he downplays other faiths, because Jesus rose from the dead. That's the backbone of his truth; something that's a religious myth. Wow...

[BillKiernan]

some "pre-mordial soup." Learn how to pronounce the scientific theories you are grossly misrepresenting please. At least you can give us that much.

[PatrioticEagle50]

Everything complex has a designer? That is your argument? God is complex so he must have a designer then. You can't have it both ways. On a side note, you are taking examples (design) from within the constructs (time/matter) and inferring things out of that. You can't take examples from the creation to infer facts about things preceding it. That is unknowable and to claim otherwise is simply based on nothing scientific at all.

[zyrphath]

Please read the full text of the law of thermodynamics. Trying to argue against atheism by misunderstanding and misquoting SCIENCE, is 100% fail.

Also, you need to re-visit your education in how reason works, as well as logical arguments. You construct logic that is not sound, nor is it correct.

Sorry Justin, but your arguments collapse upon themselves in how they are invalidly constructed, meaning that you would lose even if Joseph forfeited the entire thing.

[zyrphath]

Example: you use the law of thermodynamics in an attempt to make your argument for God's existence sound. The part where you invalidate your own line of arguing is when you say "the universe exists, so it needs a creator" -- this is NOT true.

"Nothing can come from nothing" -- also not true. It is a colloquial term, not a scientific one.

The law of thermodynamics clearly states that energy (matter is a form of energy) CANNOT DISAPPEAR OR BE CREATED. So, no u.

[kidcoolfresh]

So how can everything be there in the first place?

[Fishqueen1972]

So how can god be there in the first place? It just isn't sound reasoning to infer knowledge of a creator. That is like reading a book and infering facts about the author.

[kidcoolfresh]

How can there be nothing, and we were created out of the blue?

[Fishqueen1972]

Listen to Lawrence Krauss video "A Universe from Nothing" on Youtube. It is very interesting. From a quantum level, think pop into and out of existence all the time. We don't quite understand it, but it makes certain predictions and it works every time.

[kidcoolfresh]

Ok, I'll listen to it.

[codyhill06]

Nice work. Dinesh D'souza would be proud, he's had some killer debates against atheists.

Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is filled of his glory!

[psandbergnz]

I will watch the rest of the debate.

[psandbergnz]

There's no good reason to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. It is purely an act of faith. The so-called eyewitnesses are from the pages of one book, the Bible - no independent accounts.

There are contradictions in the accounts of it between the 4 Gospels (e.g. compare the womens' reactions to the empty tomb in the Gospels). Nobody even knows - or has ever known - WHERE the "empty tomb" lay. There was never any pilgrimage to it, a bizarre non-ocurrence for the greatest event in history!

[justinwins1]

Lol. I won't even waste my time arguing this one. You should watch the rest of the debate. The eyewitness testimonies of people who claim they saw Jesus resurrected, the empty tomb, and the birth of the early church are largely accepted by historical scholarship. What you're giving is your opinion and would be scoffed at by real historians.

[psandbergnz]

justins, no, there is an increasing body of historians doubting the existence of the Jesus of the Gospels. Legends and myths can start rapidly after a charismatic man has lived. There are already myths surounding Ron Hubbard.

I suppose you would doubt the historicity of claims relating to other religions. This is because you want Christianity to be different. Nobody even knows the year that Jesus was born, nor when he died.

[PatrioticEagle50]

Where is the tomb then? God has defied the law of physics and no one knows where he did it. That just seems odd to say the least.

[kidcoolfresh]

Umm God has defied the law of physics? Hmm, do you even know what we define God as? An all powerful? All knowing? He doesn't even need to do with anything like "laws of physics" because it's a big thing for man unlike God who is all knowing, and doesn't need to have a debate against a "man" whom is too inferior against God.

[PatrioticEagle50]

Aren't you claiming to have godlike super powers by claiming knowledge of things that you couldn't possibly know? You keep talking as if you are god.

[druglover200]

@justinwins1 especially the fact that the bible is composed of MANY books its not just one book- one account.... there has been thousands of accounts of gods or god.

[iandude]

@justinwins1 you kind of went against your point there dude, you said eyewitness testimonies "claim" they say jesus.

well in fact a "claim" doesn't in fact make it true, go to any car insurance company and see the thousands of cases they have to mitigate because some people claim something happened, or they saw the light was green and the other saw it was red which incidentally caused an accident, eyewitness claims are not to be taken as fact, only as a subjective view on the situation.

[TwoHandedSledge]

@justinwins1 Sounds like you contradict yourself a lot, as do most people of faith. "I won't even waste my time.." and then you proceed to type an entire 500 character response, which is the opposite of not wasting your time. Also, "The eyewitness testimonies of people who claim they saw Jesus" you just destroyed your entire point. Keyword here is CLAIM. If I claimed I could fly, would you believe me and accept it as fact? My neighbor claimed she saw God in her tree. Is that a fact too?

[RJPBurtonBoards]

@justinwins1 resurrection is not accepted by historians, who are not religious. Real historians would not scoff at someone who does not believe in resurrection. There is a tomb, and some dead guy was there, there is no solid proof that it was Jesus, it could have been anyone.

[shanabell420]

@justinwins1 you are absolutely incorrect. The resurrection of Jesus has NO EVIDENCE what so ever. It is all just faith based and just because something is "excepted" doesnt make it right. Alot of historians of the Muslim faith would say you are wrong. also, Most, if not all, of the accounts of Jesus were written quite a few years after he died. The virgin birth idea wasnt even a part of it until the middle ages. Maybe you should do some research of your own to form your own opinion .

[psandbergnz]

The universe is eternal, just as it is infinite. A universe has always existed. After eons of time, it collapses, retracts, and then explodes again in a "big bang".

The universe that we know (the present one) had an origin, but there have been countless universes before ours, just as there will be countless universes after it.

It also has no boundary. If there is God, then that Being is the Universe.

[justinwins1]

It sounds like you're describing Oscillating Models.There are many problems with this idea. First, there are no known physics which would support this idea of a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion. Second, as a spokesman for a Harvard Smithsonian team stated that they were now at least 95 percent certain that the density of matter is insufficient to halt the expansion of the universe. Its hard to find legit scientists who accept Oscillating Models as an alternate theory.

[psandbergnz]

justinwins, I think most scientists accept that our present universe will collapse upon itself, perhaps brought about by the colossal gravitational pull of black holes. It is true that no one knows what will happen after this collapse, but I think science postulates a big bang event following this collapse,

Our minds cannot comprehend eternity or infinity. Yet we have no other option but to believe that the universe is infinite. Infinite would imply eternal too.

[PatrioticEagle50]

I don't believe in a Big Crunch either. I believe in an infinately expanding Universe which came from a singularity. However, the singularity could be eternal or branched off from another Universe. No one knows. To say that God did it is based on absolutely nothing scientific at all. I don't understand why people of faith use science to argue for God when they claim God is outside of scientific inquiry.

[shanabell420]

@justinwins1 there is no know physics that would support the existence of god either

[kidcoolfresh]

Umm, how could we have found the answers that you're talking about? Please tell me, how did we do that?

[PatrioticEagle50]

We use observation and repeatable tests. How do we fly in planes. How did we send man to the moon and return? How do we create new antibiotics when bacteria has evolved? Through observation and understand. How do you know the mind of God through unwitnessed hearsay?

[PatrioticEagle50]

And to point out another thing. I said, "No one knows." Reread what I posted so explain to me why you asked the question. I was describing what I believe are possibilities. Science is modest. Religion is arrogant.

[kidcoolfresh]

@PatrioticEagle50 Religion isn't arrogant, that's just your opinion, only reason you think that is because people are stupid when in the bible it says that we should love everybody the same, no matter who they are, love thy enemies.

[PatrioticEagle50]

Well, if people would view religion as a matter of PERSONAL faith instead of trying to use it to judge people or to force it on others through government by weaving into The Constitution then we would have no enemies. Unfortunately, many religious people are not happy unless everyone else believes it to. If everyone would just keep it to themselves then the world would be a better place.

[kidcoolfresh]

@PatrioticEagle50 Exactly, I'm glad you understand that. It's the people not the religion itself, people are the ones that are controlling.

[PatrioticEagle50]

But I believe that is one reason why religion was invented by people, so they can control other people. Now, that is not to say that someone can't be spiritual or have beliefs without religion. They can. You are an atheist when it comes to Zeus and Allah. I just happen to reject all manmade gods. Even deists (god believers) are not theists and reject all forms of holy books. I think once you claim that a book is the best moral book out there then we are held hostage to its contents.

[kidcoolfresh]

@PatrioticEagle50 True, you can still be spiritual without religion, but people made books to prove about God, I'm not sure I just read them and they do make sense, but people criticize about God because of what it says in the bible only because they don't really understand the words in the book and what the meaning of it was in the past, it wasn't the same as it is today, language and meanings were different in earlier times than it was now.

[PatrioticEagle50]

That doesn't change the fact of the situation. We have members of the Westborough Baptist Church holding signs at soldier's funerals that say "God hates fags" "Thank god for dead soldiers" "Thank God for IADs". We have a majority in the country voting against equality of state marriage because of their personal religious point of views even though there is a separate of church of state. Now how am I supposed to advocate love when so the majority is advocating hate who believe in the book.

[PatrioticEagle50]

Just to make a point did you know that the literal Jewish to english translation of the old testamate is different then the english old testimate of the english bible? They translated it wrong. So much of the history and meaning is misunderstood because they weren't true translations. Lets take the global flood, in Hebrew, the word for earth is the same as for land, so it could have been a misinterpretation of what they were really saying.

[PatrioticEagle50]

And the slaves in egypt, the hebrew text of the bible never used the word slave, but used the hebrew word for worker, as in paid. Just some fun facts about history. Not trying to make you change your beliefs, I have no right saying what you can or cannot believe, it is your life and I cannot tell you how to live it. Just pointing out that what you believe was not what was written down 3,000 years ago.

[kidcoolfresh]

@PatrioticEagle50 Yeh, I'm not sure about the hebrew text of the Bible, yeh the Bible may have been interpreted differently. I'm not trying to change your beliefs, I respect what you believe and I hope I get the same treatment in return.

[shanabell420]

@psandbergnz thats a wonderful idea :) kudos

[rbxCriss]

@psandbergnz So you're a deist?

[psandbergnz]

@rbxCriss, yes I think "deist" describes my belief or faith. I reject the notion we can ascribe a name to "God", such as "Jesus", "Father", because we don't understand what God is, and neither did the Gospel writers (about whom we know nothing) or St. Paul. The Bible does not present a convincing case, and we have no good reason to believe its stories are authentic.

I am interested in oriental and Buddhist mysticism. I conjecture that there are other dimensions beyond our physical reality.

[Sahrinzs]

1: You know the universe has a beginning, but then procede to assert knowing what created it, with no evidence to back your claim (there is a possibility a god created the universe does not count as positive evidence).

[Katalyzt]

Well said Sahrinzs...

Katalyzt

[justinwins1]

You're right. It doesn't prove the first cause was God. It just proves there was a beginning. The statement is that the most reasonable position to assume is the first cause is what we would call God. Assuming that God was the first cause, this "possibility is strengthened by the following obvious observations/deductions:

He must be supernatural, as He created nature, time, & space.

He must be incredibly powerful.

He must be eternal, since He would need to be self-existent.

[justinwins1]

He must be omnipresent, since He created space and isnt limited by it.

He must be timeless and changeless since He created time.

He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical materials.

He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).

He must be supremely intelligent since only a cognitive being can produce cognition.

He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two finites.

He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

This describes God.

[kidcoolfresh]

Wow, lol that just really shows the true meaning of God! I couldn't have explained it better! Plus, it's stupid that people think they know everything about Universe and Life because they believe that they have all the answers out of mere technology, made by man, that we can't be sure to tell if it tells us the right information or is just put there from the minds man, which isn't exactly shows proof. Just because people "think, or as they like to say "know" about universe because they can use

[PatrioticEagle50]

This is a strawman because no person seeking knowledge through scientific inquiry claims to know all the answers. And the argument could be turned around on you and I could say that it is stupid for people to think they have knowledge about the attributes of God or whether or not a book recorded by humans is the word of god. Anyone can imagine or believe in a god, but it is subjective, not objective. And whether or not god exists is still based on nothing but a guess.

[kidcoolfresh]

evidence means that we should be able to find evidence about God and Jesus, which is just plain stupid, a thought created by man, which isn't superior (as they like to think so) than any other life forms (as they believe so) somewhere in our Universe, which is just typical.

[kidcoolfresh]

Typical stupidity.

[Fishqueen1972]

Assuming there is a god, you cannot claim that god is good. This is something that you cannot claim based on observation. Fact, I would assume the vary opposite based on this indiscriminately cruel world where life consumes life. Our world is what I would expect from something very indifferentiate with no conscience.