That is a child's answer to a reasonable request, but I will reply anyway...
The fact that no christian, it seems, can present evidence for the existence of their god, is a strong indication that there is no evidence. And this vacuum of evidence for the existence of the christian god is a pretty strong indicator that It does not exist.
Put another way: it is reasonable to conclude that the christian god is a lie for the same reason that we assume Thor, Ixtab, Ra and hobbits don't exist.
It is OK to think this, but I think there are evidence for God, but I realized that atheists simply say that they are no arguments, so we have arguments but the atheists do not accept them.(what does not mean that they are no arguments)
OK, i think it is not easy for me to present this right and in english with youtube(I am german).
But short sayed: there is no evidence for what all call evolution(macro evolution) only variabillity in the kind(micro evolution) has been proved, because you can see it in the nature around you. You cannot explain how something came from nothing.(you need a God)and there is no real proof for the chemical evolution(means: creating less complex living structures like bacteria)
I think, when humans cannot explain/prove how all existing things (THE Universe, animals, and so on) came into existance, it is not too silly that a creator can do it. The problem is: both(atheists and theists) can explain why we are living but the atheists cannot know that evolution is is able to happen, theists know that an allmighty God is able to create all!
What you are proposing is a theory, namely that life cannot exist without having been created by dieties. That is fine, but a theory, on it's own, is not evidence. Who says that life cannot exist without dieties? I have no idea if evolution has actually occured on earth or not, but at the very least it certainly seems plausible - it does fit with the observations. So how can you suggest then that life is evidence of dieties, when there exists another plausible explanation.
I do not want atheists to believe that evolution is wrong but, they should think about it that believing in a God is not silly.
I would like to hear why believing in a God is silly. Even when evolution would be possible to happen(you are right we do not realy know, maybe, maybe not), it would not say that God had not created the whole Universe.
I don't particularly disagree with anything you said in your last post. But I asked you for evidence, and what you attempted to do previously, basically, was say that the fact that we don't know for sure how "THE Universe, animals, and so on came into existance" is evidence for a god. It is not!
Peel back the layers of the onion and there is nothing less than a complete vacuum of evidence for the existence of any gods. You have faith, that is fine, but no evidence.
Further... the "evidence" (theory) you have proposed could be used to try to prove the existence of any god or multiple gods. Thor, Ra Ixtab, Zeuss, the Flying Spaghetti Monster - any one of them or all of them could exist according to your "evidence". That ought to be a strong clue that your reasoning isn't really evidence for anything.
Also, what god is our god's god? If all things in existence require a creator then who created god? Who is this god-1? And what god created that god? god-2?
I know that this is no special proof for the christian God, but I did not want to prove that my God is this God(I believe it but now that is not the point).
The answer to your second question is this:
Time is a attribute of our Universe(The room we live in). God created this Universe(room) with all its attributes: time, natural laws, and so on. So do you think the creator of time had to come into existance(needs a creator)? God is eternal, there is no beggining of his existance.
Now you are just taking advantage of the fact that none of us really know the nature of your god to redefine him in such a way to support your "evidence" (theory).
You can't say that there is a rule: existence is evidence of creation which is evidence of gods, which are in turn an exception to the rule because they are gods. At best that is circular. In actual fact it is completely nonsensical. This is not evidence.
Again, there is no evidence for any gods. None. Zip. Zilch. 0.
Hey, thats not circular. existance is evidence for creation. Means all things which have a beginning, have an origin/genesis/source(whatever you call it in english). This means even the Big Bang. So, where is the origin(I have an answer: God). So now, when God is eternal he has no origin, so he does not need a creator.
Your nonsense is completely circular. What you are doing is using a vague definition for god, namely, that which created all which exists except itself, and then using that definition as "evidence" for the existence of god. So you are using a supposition, for which there is no evidence of its truthfulness, as evidence that the supposition is true. You are using horribly flawed logic in the absence of evidence.
So, 2 = 3 if 3 = 2, and we know 3 = 2 because 2 (by definition) must = 3. :-o
You misunderstand me. It is not like that: All existing things need a creator except of God.(this would be wrong/vague).
I sayed that all that has a beginning needs a creator, understand?(whats wrong with this? Please answer correctly.)
It is clear that time is an attribute of our Universe(room we live in/dimension). And it is clear for me that God created this all together. Time is no problem for him, he created it.
I know what you mean(exactly), but circular reasoning is something different.
So one more time:" I do not say: "all things need a creator". Only that all things that have a beginning need a creator."
I think you believe our Universe has a beginning.(Big Bang)
Beginning is a word describing time. So can you use the word beginning to describe the word eternity: Yes, beeing eternal means to have "NO" beginning, why should he need a creator, believing in this would be silly.(when he is eternal he does not need a beginning)
Okay, so it boils down to this... Please provide evidence that all things except gods must have a deistic creator. We are still right back where we started, without even the tiniest shred of evidence for any gods or evidence for your "gods-required theory". Simply re-writing the definition of god to mean "that which is required for something to exist (except another god)", does not qualify as evidence for the existence of gods.
du bist hammer ey :)
ich glaub uach an jesus christus :)
francescofdi 5 years ago
jea cool
gute aussage!
vongottgeliebt 5 years ago
Please present evidence for the existence of the christian god.
frid9999 5 years ago
Pleas present evidence for the non existance of God!
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
That is a child's answer to a reasonable request, but I will reply anyway...
The fact that no christian, it seems, can present evidence for the existence of their god, is a strong indication that there is no evidence. And this vacuum of evidence for the existence of the christian god is a pretty strong indicator that It does not exist.
Put another way: it is reasonable to conclude that the christian god is a lie for the same reason that we assume Thor, Ixtab, Ra and hobbits don't exist.
frid9999 5 years ago
It is OK to think this, but I think there are evidence for God, but I realized that atheists simply say that they are no arguments, so we have arguments but the atheists do not accept them.(what does not mean that they are no arguments)
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
What is your evidence then? Present it.
frid9999 5 years ago
OK, i think it is not easy for me to present this right and in english with youtube(I am german).
But short sayed: there is no evidence for what all call evolution(macro evolution) only variabillity in the kind(micro evolution) has been proved, because you can see it in the nature around you. You cannot explain how something came from nothing.(you need a God)and there is no real proof for the chemical evolution(means: creating less complex living structures like bacteria)
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
I think, when humans cannot explain/prove how all existing things (THE Universe, animals, and so on) came into existance, it is not too silly that a creator can do it. The problem is: both(atheists and theists) can explain why we are living but the atheists cannot know that evolution is is able to happen, theists know that an allmighty God is able to create all!
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
What you are proposing is a theory, namely that life cannot exist without having been created by dieties. That is fine, but a theory, on it's own, is not evidence. Who says that life cannot exist without dieties? I have no idea if evolution has actually occured on earth or not, but at the very least it certainly seems plausible - it does fit with the observations. So how can you suggest then that life is evidence of dieties, when there exists another plausible explanation.
frid9999 5 years ago
I do not want atheists to believe that evolution is wrong but, they should think about it that believing in a God is not silly.
I would like to hear why believing in a God is silly. Even when evolution would be possible to happen(you are right we do not realy know, maybe, maybe not), it would not say that God had not created the whole Universe.
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
I don't particularly disagree with anything you said in your last post. But I asked you for evidence, and what you attempted to do previously, basically, was say that the fact that we don't know for sure how "THE Universe, animals, and so on came into existance" is evidence for a god. It is not!
Peel back the layers of the onion and there is nothing less than a complete vacuum of evidence for the existence of any gods. You have faith, that is fine, but no evidence.
frid9999 5 years ago 2
Further... the "evidence" (theory) you have proposed could be used to try to prove the existence of any god or multiple gods. Thor, Ra Ixtab, Zeuss, the Flying Spaghetti Monster - any one of them or all of them could exist according to your "evidence". That ought to be a strong clue that your reasoning isn't really evidence for anything.
Also, what god is our god's god? If all things in existence require a creator then who created god? Who is this god-1? And what god created that god? god-2?
frid9999 5 years ago
I know that this is no special proof for the christian God, but I did not want to prove that my God is this God(I believe it but now that is not the point).
The answer to your second question is this:
Time is a attribute of our Universe(The room we live in). God created this Universe(room) with all its attributes: time, natural laws, and so on. So do you think the creator of time had to come into existance(needs a creator)? God is eternal, there is no beggining of his existance.
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
Now you are just taking advantage of the fact that none of us really know the nature of your god to redefine him in such a way to support your "evidence" (theory).
You can't say that there is a rule: existence is evidence of creation which is evidence of gods, which are in turn an exception to the rule because they are gods. At best that is circular. In actual fact it is completely nonsensical. This is not evidence.
Again, there is no evidence for any gods. None. Zip. Zilch. 0.
frid9999 5 years ago 2
Hey, thats not circular. existance is evidence for creation. Means all things which have a beginning, have an origin/genesis/source(whatever you call it in english). This means even the Big Bang. So, where is the origin(I have an answer: God). So now, when God is eternal he has no origin, so he does not need a creator.
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
with "origin" at the end, I meant beginning.
When God has no beginning, why should we need a creator for him?
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
Your nonsense is completely circular. What you are doing is using a vague definition for god, namely, that which created all which exists except itself, and then using that definition as "evidence" for the existence of god. So you are using a supposition, for which there is no evidence of its truthfulness, as evidence that the supposition is true. You are using horribly flawed logic in the absence of evidence.
So, 2 = 3 if 3 = 2, and we know 3 = 2 because 2 (by definition) must = 3. :-o
frid9999 5 years ago 2
You misunderstand me. It is not like that: All existing things need a creator except of God.(this would be wrong/vague).
I sayed that all that has a beginning needs a creator, understand?(whats wrong with this? Please answer correctly.)
It is clear that time is an attribute of our Universe(room we live in/dimension). And it is clear for me that God created this all together. Time is no problem for him, he created it.
I know what you mean(exactly), but circular reasoning is something different.
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
So one more time:" I do not say: "all things need a creator". Only that all things that have a beginning need a creator."
I think you believe our Universe has a beginning.(Big Bang)
Beginning is a word describing time. So can you use the word beginning to describe the word eternity: Yes, beeing eternal means to have "NO" beginning, why should he need a creator, believing in this would be silly.(when he is eternal he does not need a beginning)
Jesusismuchmore 5 years ago
Okay, so it boils down to this... Please provide evidence that all things except gods must have a deistic creator. We are still right back where we started, without even the tiniest shred of evidence for any gods or evidence for your "gods-required theory". Simply re-writing the definition of god to mean "that which is required for something to exist (except another god)", does not qualify as evidence for the existence of gods.
frid9999 5 years ago
wtf? omg...player4life, yeah!
H0000K 5 years ago
AMEN! Herr Wachtmeister, das war ein SUPER statement!
yours in Christ!
der doktor
phil120f 5 years ago