dark_stumpy, I must say that you have passed my stress test. Nice going. And apologies for taking so long to respond.

Now let's get to answering.

OK, background info first: I'm male.

Next: I once tried to calculate the number of decision points that have to be made during one single day. I started to multiply and add, and after I got an approximate number ending with E32 (10 raised at the power 32), I simply didn't go further.

You are basing your assumption (which is practically only an assumption) that 1000.....000 (32 zeros) decisions are being taken completely according to God's knowledge by coincidence? By "will not" and not by "cannot" ? I find that quite hard to believe. Actually, I'd rather believe that Yahweh exists than that. The statistical odds are a lot higher for Yahweh than for this.

That question as "why would God allow more people to fulfill the same prophecy?" is actually the downfall of your entire argument. Because if we are to take old prophecies into account, it means that Jesus, Muhammad, that guy from the Mormons (can't remember his name), Jim Jones, Confucius, Siddharta, Olmec, etc. were all "messiahs"...

I don't expect you to understand, but perhaps you will, with one small example: Let us presume that you are the commanding officer of a commando unit sent to elliminate... something... no matter what. Let's say an alien base (excuse the fantasy). Things go awfully wrong, and you, as the commander, have to make a choice: you can all stay there and fight to your deaths, or you can sacrifice one of your men, leaving him behind to manually detonate an A-bomb. Which one will it be? To me, it would obviously be the second choice. Applying the analogy to the situation of Jesus, as described in my original response, I can see a resemblance: Jesus, being the Son of Satan, sacrificed certain opportunities of doing bad things and did good things instead. But through that, he lured billions of people into believing in the Bible, which is actually the word of Satan. Sacrifice a little, but have a far greater reward.

This style of deception would take quite a sharp intelligence (and throughout the OT Satan has proven that he doesn't lack it). I wonder from what age the comprehension of such deception can become possible.

It may be simply me, but I think there were quite some historians throughout the ages. We have their writings (many of them were contemporary to the events recorded), we have the writings of the persons themselves (Machiavelli stands out as a great example), etc. What do we have on Jesus? A collection of spooky books that might just have been a fairy-tale.

Muhammad, from this perspective, or Confucius, or Siddharta, are far better than Jesus... as their historical existence is not doubted by nobody. They left teachings and manuscripts of their own (well, some of them weren't exactly moral or modern, but at least they exist). Jesus, however, is a mystery. He didn't leave any trace of his existence. No writing, no histrical records, no nothing.

You say romans telling the same story. Name some of them. But before you do that, PLEASE take a look at Rook Hawkins' essays, just to save some of our time.

I frankly can't believe you are serious while saying this, but I'll go on to respond at the end.

Though I myself admit that not all of the SAB is of worth, I'm going to give you a challenge to show the correct interpretation of the Bible. Pick one part of it and interpret it for me. And once you do that, give me the proof that your interpretation is correct.

So God magically transported them to a desert that's about 10,000 times bigger than the desert between Egypt and Canaan, so that they would have a good reason to wander around for 40 years, is that what you're saying?

Because if you're talking about the same desert as we have here on Earth, I'd have to say you must be blithering stupid to wander around for 40 years in an area that one could easily go through in two weeks tops. And perhaps Moses was that blithering stupid, but were the other Israeli people the same? Are you willing to back up your statement with something that doesn't require a lobotomy to understand?

OK, then I would ask you where is the line that separates paramedics from which-doctors?

I'm sorry, but this part of the argument only supports the fact that certain people don't understand certain things. Using this to prove your god would be equivalent to using dynamite to patch your stove.

You don't realize it, but I'm saying the same thing as you are here.

Could you give me an example of situation in which this happened?

I took ten minutes straight to laugh at this part of the argument. DUDE ! Wake up and smell the coffee! ALMOST ALL THE "PROPHETS" SUPPOSEDLY DID THAT. Do you think that Jesus is a unique character?

You THINK you have the answers we all seek, because you DON'T KNOW much about them. Atheists aren't arguing theists because they're stupid, but because they have a reason to do that. If you're ignorant on a topic, that doesn't mean that you are right.

This is again an argument out of ignorance. I'll take it down piece by piece:

- brain electrical impulses are set off by stimuli. That may include light, chemicals, thermical energy, sound waves, etc. (all the "senses" that we have). Nothing miraculous here

- about the brain being a mixture of parents: deludedgod had an essay on this that can easily be considered a chapter of a whole book. I am not going to repeat it here, just for you

- if you take two identical people, with identical brains/memories/genetic code/attributes, etc. (in other words, perfect clones) and place them in different places, after one hour only you will not have two identical persons anymore. This has also been dealt with before, so read before you post

Your argument isn't thin. It's inexistent right now. Do clarify, if needed.

GREAT ! That's absolutely great. You're dismissing your own argument! Thank you for your help.

Couldn't your god just say "Let there be forgiveness for sins", just as he said "let there be light", instead of going through all that painstaking process? I had the impression that your god was omnipotent... the way you just rephrased makes me think he isn't.

Why did he have to do that? If he's omnipotent, he can do whatever he wishes, that including just pasting the words in the apostles' heads. And to whom did he have to pay the price for? Satan? Why Satan? Is Satan at least as powerful as your god? If Satan is more powerful than God, then why we are bowing down to God, and not Satan, is beyond me. If Satan is just as powerful as God, then what makes the difference between them? If Satan is less powerful than God, then why the heck would God need to "pay the price" for?

Yeah... that's what you think! It's just fine if we are to simply forget all about history, biology, philosophy, physics and logics. But we can't, you know. The physics law of gravity applies to us all, regardless of how deep we believe in a sky-daddy.

I must admit that compared to... hmm... some people, you scored a lot higher, but you've got a lot to learn.

Well, let me tell you something. I consider myself a good person. I didn't kill anyone, I didn't steal (willingly, as I did take one guy's bag by mistake once, it looked just like mine, but I did take it back to him when I realized the mistake), I am trying my best to help people, etc. etc. etc.

If I had never heard of God before, if I die right now I'd go to Heaven, according to your argument.

Now you're coming on this site and telling us about God. Us, having no means to actually verify that fact, look at you skeptically, knowing that there are many other religions. We don't want to bow down to a false God, do we? But since your arguments are NO WAY different from what the other religions hold, we have absolutely no way of concluding that your God is actually the right one. But since we were introduced to him because of you, then we have had a chance to learn about him. So now I cannot go to heaven anymore because you had to tell us of God.

Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, as I have known of God before you came here. But I think the idea is obvious: your god isn't being fair in the example I gave you. Just because I have heard of his religion doesn't mean that I have a good reason to believe it more than any others.

Tell me, as a final question on this matter: Why do you think that your religion is better than the others? what makes you think that your religion is the true one?

Take just one wild guess... which one could it be ?

The only reason we're doubting your abilities, dark_stumpy (the same reason why Sapient once opened a thread in the mailbox section named "Why don't all problems hit us at 14 when we know everything?&quot is... well... I guess the sentence in the brackets told everything.

If you are a serious poster, I'll ask you my question.

Oh , and, you have god on your side right? no worries?

Question:

Could you be truely happy in heaven knowing that countless souls are being torchered in hell? 

That's Ok. We're used to theists not being able to prove their claims.

You do realize that was over a week ago, right? And, there hasn't been any activity in this thread for 3 weeks. At some point, you may have to admit that you can't answer anyones questions, nor can you prove the existence of a god.

By the way, before you begin the following does not in any way constitute proof of god:

1. quoting the Bible

2. The Universe and/or life exists.

3. "disproving" evolution (I mean some lame-ass strawman attempt to do so, but even if you really could it still wouldn't prove a god.)

4. Pascals wager, Ontological argument, unmoved mover, etc.

5. Personal feelings

6. urban legends

That list is by no means exclusive.

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! RaMen!

[edited to make fun of dark_stumpy's quote.]

The one that's basically a language trick rather than a rational argument - where you define God as "that which nothing greater can be thought" and argue that existing is greater than not existing so god exists. Commits so many logical errors it's not funny. Pure sophism. Anything that relies on language tricks is not valid.

If you think it's likely that we have seen the argument which you have been hyping up for so long, why not just read the threads here and see the counters? It seems like that will save all of us time, which apparently is a very limited commodity to you.

Alternatively, why not just at least post the premise of your argument to see if it's worth spending the time fleshing it out? Surely that can be done in less time then you've spent apologizing for the still-abscent proof that you keep promising.

Cobbling together three oft-debunked arguments in the hopes of making an original success?

the three arguments fit together like a puzzle. i find that 1 without the other 3 has less of an impact.

He lost one of the pieces last time he put the puzzle away. It is one of those funny shaped ones, kind of a corner piece but not really... 

HAHAHA!  No, first he has to find his hammer so he can force one of the pieces into place...it's the one call logic and it just doesn't seem to fit.   

dark_stumpy: I am enjoying your energy and humor. You seem wise for your age. I would like to hear your argument, in its entirety, as you see fit to post it.

ok, ok, i have all of thursday night free, so i'll get it done and posted then. any problems? dont answer that, i know what you people are like. lol.

probably, but as i said, i would like to see your responces.

anychance you can re-write that passage in english?

anychance you can re-write that passage in english?

The God concept as defined by classical theism (or even deism) is not only not proven, but is meaningless. It's proponents have never given any sort of rationality-grounded explanation for nonsense like supernatural vitalism. The concept is designed to be meaningless and unknowable. Therefore, it can never serve as a scientific explanation for anything, or any explanation at all because it terminates the line of questioning. In science, this is not acceptable.

27 responses that did nothing to expand on the topic. That was fun. > >

His brilliant argument consists of not only points that have been debunked here numerous times, but in best-selling books as well. He invokes the "watchmaker" argument, but steers clear of Pascal's Wager.

Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Here's the argument, he kinda put it in a weird spot:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/6198

No, energy cannot travel at 'infinite speeds'. What is light? A form of energy. How fast does light go? The speed of light!

Your theory of particles? They are actually probability waves and they do not travel at infinite speed as indicated by the particle's linear momentum.

I would personally love to see you prove your theories of particles.

This is the very first time I have agreed with a theist instead of an atheist in a scientific matter. The c-limit is set in stone. The only thing which can travel faster than light is the expansion of empty space.  

My personal theory of sub-atomic particles is that they are - literally - charges of energy orbiting/rotating one another at an infinite speed - they generate a polarity offset (giving them gravity and "weight&quot - and the more there is - the more this compounds.

The leading TOEs contradict that completely. Matter cannot be interchanged with energy or vice-versa, this is established by E=mc2. Particles do not have weight. Weight is generated by gravitational effect on mass, which is generated by the effect of mass on spatial fabric (put another way, gravity does not pull, space pushes) and when we fire up the LHC at CERN, we will almost certianly discover Higgs Boson and find out why particles have mass, the elusive force that keeps baryonic matter in motion. 

De-Broglie waves >_>

They have a phase speed faster than c, but not the wave itself.