I love how Rostos' only argument is the infinite regress. Even if we accept his argument, it does nothing to combat the notion that there is no evidence for his particular god; nor does it do anything to change the fact that all of these posts of "crazy christians" are real life events of people doing terrible things because they think god wants them to.
If the definition of God is that he is eternal, how can he be subject to an infinite regress?
Furthermore, KK, you still haven't debunked my argument, ignoring it doesn't mean God does not exist. As I said, put up or zip it.
Oh , and listening to Christians who say God made me do these bad things is equivalent to an alcoholic blaming AA for their drinking problems. If you want to believe them, then that's your problem.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
I love how Rostos' only argument is the infinite regress. Even if we accept his argument, it does nothing to combat the notion that there is no evidence for his particular god; nor does it do anything to change the fact that all of these posts of "crazy christians" are real life events of people doing terrible things because they think god wants them to.
If the definition of God is that he is eternal, how can he be subject to an infinite regress?
Furthermore, KK, you still haven't debunked my argument, ignoring it doesn't mean God does not exist. As I said, put up or zip it.
Oh , and listening to Christians who say God made me do these bad things is equivalent to an alcoholic blaming AA for their drinking problems. If you want to believe them, then that's your problem.
If the definition of God is that he is eternal, how can he be subject to an infinite regress?
Furthermore, KK, you still haven't debunked my argument, ignoring it doesn't mean God does not exist. As I said, put up or zip it.
Oh , and listening to Christians who say God made me do these bad things is equivalent to an alcoholic blaming AA for their drinking problems. If you want to believe them, then that's your problem.
Don't need to debunk it. You have to make the argument. And you haven't. You have defined god as eternal. Well I say whatever caused the big bang is eternal. Neither of us can prove it. So what's the point?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
If the definition of God is that he is eternal, how can he be subject to an infinite regress?
Furthermore, KK, you still haven't debunked my argument, ignoring it doesn't mean God does not exist. As I said, put up or zip it.
Oh , and listening to Christians who say God made me do these bad things is equivalent to an alcoholic blaming AA for their drinking problems. If you want to believe them, then that's your problem.
Don't need to debunk it. You have to make the argument. And you haven't. You have defined god as eternal. Well I say whatever caused the big bang is eternal. Neither of us can prove it. So what's the point?
Don't need to debunk it. You have to make the argument. And you haven't. You have defined god as eternal. Well I say whatever caused the big bang is eternal. Neither of us can prove it. So what's the point?
I haven't made an argument? Space, time and matter began to exist, the cause of space, time and matter must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. What under naturalism fits that description?
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
Don't need to debunk it. You have to make the argument. And you haven't. You have defined god as eternal. Well I say whatever caused the big bang is eternal. Neither of us can prove it. So what's the point?
I haven't made an argument? Space, time and matter began to exist, the cause of space, time and matter must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. What under naturalism fits that description?
I haven't made an argument? Space, time and matter began to exist, the cause of space, time and matter must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. What under naturalism fits that description?
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
I haven't made an argument? Space, time and matter began to exist, the cause of space, time and matter must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. What under naturalism fits that description?
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
So if you do not know then why would you say that you can say the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't know...you don't know.
And if you don't know why do you call yourself an atheist? You should be an agnostic.
Too funny! You don't even know where you stand...lol
You are just like your brother system...both of you are married bachelors...lol
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
So if you do not know then why would you say that you can say the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't know...you don't know.
And if you don't know why do you call yourself an atheist? You should be an agnostic.
Too funny! You don't even know where you stand...lol
You are just like your brother system...both of you are married bachelors...lol
So if you do not know then why would you say that you can say the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't know...you don't know.
And if you don't know why do you call yourself an atheist? You should be an agnostic.
Too funny! You don't even know where you stand...lol
You are just like your brother system...both of you are married bachelors...lol
LOL. It takes a real idiot to not know how to read the definition of a word in a dictionary. Allow me to reiterate. Atheism is defined as "not believing in any deity." I do not believe in a deity. THEREFORE, I am NOT agnostic.
Knowledge or theories on how the universe started is completely irrelevant to atheism vs theism.
I use the flying spaghetti monster as an example. I can say ANYTHING. You are attacking my specific example because you are incapable of comprehending the argument. Your intelligence level is too low. Please stay out of these discussions for the same reason I could not have a sophisticated argument about politics with a 5 year old; your brain simply is not advanced enough.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:
So if you do not know then why would you say that you can say the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't know...you don't know.
And if you don't know why do you call yourself an atheist? You should be an agnostic.
Too funny! You don't even know where you stand...lol
You are just like your brother system...both of you are married bachelors...lol
LOL. It takes a real idiot to not know how to read the definition of a word in a dictionary. Allow me to reiterate. Atheism is defined as "not believing in any deity." I do not believe in a deity. THEREFORE, I am NOT agnostic.
Knowledge or theories on how the universe started is completely irrelevant to atheism vs theism.
I use the flying spaghetti monster as an example. I can say ANYTHING. You are attacking my specific example because you are incapable of comprehending the argument. Your intelligence level is too low. Please stay out of these discussions for the same reason I could not have a sophisticated argument about politics with a 5 year old; your brain simply is not advanced enough.
LOL. It takes a real idiot to not know how to read the definition of a word in a dictionary. Allow me to reiterate. Atheism is defined as "not believing in any deity." I do not believe in a deity. THEREFORE, I am NOT agnostic.
Knowledge or theories on how the universe started is completely irrelevant to atheism vs theism.
I use the flying spaghetti monster as an example. I can say ANYTHING. You are attacking my specific example because you are incapable of comprehending the argument. Your intelligence level is too low. Please stay out of these discussions for the same reason I could not have a sophisticated argument about politics with a 5 year old; your brain simply is not advanced enough.
don't even bother KK, dude is a moron as you can see by his posts...
another one of those against education...
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
LOL. It takes a real idiot to not know how to read the definition of a word in a dictionary. Allow me to reiterate. Atheism is defined as "not believing in any deity." I do not believe in a deity. THEREFORE, I am NOT agnostic.
Knowledge or theories on how the universe started is completely irrelevant to atheism vs theism.
I use the flying spaghetti monster as an example. I can say ANYTHING. You are attacking my specific example because you are incapable of comprehending the argument. Your intelligence level is too low. Please stay out of these discussions for the same reason I could not have a sophisticated argument about politics with a 5 year old; your brain simply is not advanced enough.
don't even bother KK, dude is a moron as you can see by his posts...
thought this was an article about auburn. turns out it's about something else. i figured members would like it. it's kind of what we are talking about here and this person is a good writer.
thought this was an article about auburn. turns out it's about something else. i figured members would like it. it's kind of what we are talking about here and this person is a good writer.
I love how Rostos' only argument is the infinite regress. Even if we accept his argument, it does nothing to combat the notion that there is no evidence for his particular god; nor does it do anything to change the fact that all of these posts of "crazy christians" are real life events of people doing terrible things because they think god wants them to.
If you accept his argument? You have no other option if you want to be rational! Like Aristotle posed the question, over 2000 years ago, of the unmoved mover. The best description is God (whatever the particular details are I am not sure.)
Also a spaghetti monster doesn't have the characteristics of being eternal
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
I love how Rostos' only argument is the infinite regress. Even if we accept his argument, it does nothing to combat the notion that there is no evidence for his particular god; nor does it do anything to change the fact that all of these posts of "crazy christians" are real life events of people doing terrible things because they think god wants them to.
If you accept his argument? You have no other option if you want to be rational! Like Aristotle posed the question, over 2000 years ago, of the unmoved mover. The best description is God (whatever the particular details are I am not sure.)
Also a spaghetti monster doesn't have the characteristics of being eternal
If you accept his argument? You have no other option if you want to be rational! Like Aristotle posed the question, over 2000 years ago, of the unmoved mover. The best description is God (whatever the particular details are I am not sure.)
Also a spaghetti monster doesn't have the characteristics of being eternal
What? Of course he does! How can you possibly say he doesn't?
0
Quote Originally Posted by GSP10:
If you accept his argument? You have no other option if you want to be rational! Like Aristotle posed the question, over 2000 years ago, of the unmoved mover. The best description is God (whatever the particular details are I am not sure.)
Also a spaghetti monster doesn't have the characteristics of being eternal
What? Of course he does! How can you possibly say he doesn't?
What? Of course he does! How can you possibly say he doesn't?
Did your spaghetti monster god reveal itself just to you? And if it did, did you start some kind of documentation like a bible? Tell us what you have written in your first chapter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
What? Of course he does! How can you possibly say he doesn't?
Did your spaghetti monster god reveal itself just to you? And if it did, did you start some kind of documentation like a bible? Tell us what you have written in your first chapter.
Did your spaghetti monster god reveal itself just to you? And if it did, did you start some kind of documentation like a bible? Tell us what you have written in your first chapter.
Legitimate answers to your questions SJD. That link will provide you with the information you need to know about the eternal flying spaghetti monster.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:
Did your spaghetti monster god reveal itself just to you? And if it did, did you start some kind of documentation like a bible? Tell us what you have written in your first chapter.
can you imagine what kind of freakshow that school must be.
however, to be honest, while the Church of ClubDirt does recognize the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, it is a sworn enemy of our congregation. our preferred diety is Helernus, God of Vegetables (forget about that underworld part ), and we are morally, physically and calorically opposed to any competing supreme being brainwashing the masses into thinking that a high carb diet is beneficial.
https://www.musesrealm.net/deities/helernus.html
0
can you imagine what kind of freakshow that school must be.
however, to be honest, while the Church of ClubDirt does recognize the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, it is a sworn enemy of our congregation. our preferred diety is Helernus, God of Vegetables (forget about that underworld part ), and we are morally, physically and calorically opposed to any competing supreme being brainwashing the masses into thinking that a high carb diet is beneficial.
If you accept his argument? You have no other option if you want to be rational! Like Aristotle posed the question, over 2000 years ago, of the unmoved mover. The best description is God (whatever the particular details are I am not sure.)
Also a spaghetti monster doesn't have the characteristics of being eternal
nope sorry... the Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
you have more then one person on this thread attesting to that... and with this many people so sure about it, then logically I must also have the same blind faith that it is...
See how groupthink/blindfaith works?
The Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
Now prove me wrong...
Oh you cant?
Then it only proves that without a shadow of a doubt that the Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
0
Quote Originally Posted by GSP10:
If you accept his argument? You have no other option if you want to be rational! Like Aristotle posed the question, over 2000 years ago, of the unmoved mover. The best description is God (whatever the particular details are I am not sure.)
Also a spaghetti monster doesn't have the characteristics of being eternal
nope sorry... the Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
you have more then one person on this thread attesting to that... and with this many people so sure about it, then logically I must also have the same blind faith that it is...
See how groupthink/blindfaith works?
The Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
Now prove me wrong...
Oh you cant?
Then it only proves that without a shadow of a doubt that the Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
you have more then one person on this thread attesting to that... and with this many people so sure about it, then logically I must also have the same blind faith that it is...
See how groupthink/blindfaith works?
The Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
Now prove me wrong...
Oh you cant?
Then it only proves that without a shadow of a doubt that the Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
Yes, the spaghetti monster is eternal, it will forever be eternally fiction...lol
And God, the Creator of the universe and everything that exists will forever be eternally true.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
nope sorry... the Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
you have more then one person on this thread attesting to that... and with this many people so sure about it, then logically I must also have the same blind faith that it is...
See how groupthink/blindfaith works?
The Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
Now prove me wrong...
Oh you cant?
Then it only proves that without a shadow of a doubt that the Spaghetti Monster is eternal...
Yes, the spaghetti monster is eternal, it will forever be eternally fiction...lol
And God, the Creator of the universe and everything that exists will forever be eternally true.
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
Nothing fits that description UNDER NATURALISM....That is your presupposition, so of course you are going to say that.
So you are left with thinking space, time and matter created space, time and matter. That is, space , time and matter created itself out of nothing.
That is your ultimate belief.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
NOTHING fits that description. We do not know. And there is no evidence for anything in particular. You can say god. I can say flying spaghetti monster. And they are equally viable.
Nothing fits that description UNDER NATURALISM....That is your presupposition, so of course you are going to say that.
So you are left with thinking space, time and matter created space, time and matter. That is, space , time and matter created itself out of nothing.
So if you do not know then why would you say that you can say the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't know...you don't know.
And if you don't know why do you call yourself an atheist? You should be an agnostic.
Too funny! You don't even know where you stand...lol
You are just like your brother system...both of you are married bachelors...lol
SJD, he is following a trend of Atheists that do this when they get cornered. System was found out when he pretty much called himself an Atheist that doesn't know, ie, married bachelor.
They are quick to scream and shout that God is not the cause of the universe, then when presented with 2 choices, natural or supernatural, because they are the only 2 choices available, they say they don't know.
Its like there are 2 horses in a race, horse A and horse B. I ask, you is going to win, they say, well its not Horse A, so I say, then Horse B? To which they reply , I don't know......
That's another reason why I could never be an atheist, simply because it leads to intellectual dishonesty.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:
So if you do not know then why would you say that you can say the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't know...you don't know.
And if you don't know why do you call yourself an atheist? You should be an agnostic.
Too funny! You don't even know where you stand...lol
You are just like your brother system...both of you are married bachelors...lol
SJD, he is following a trend of Atheists that do this when they get cornered. System was found out when he pretty much called himself an Atheist that doesn't know, ie, married bachelor.
They are quick to scream and shout that God is not the cause of the universe, then when presented with 2 choices, natural or supernatural, because they are the only 2 choices available, they say they don't know.
Its like there are 2 horses in a race, horse A and horse B. I ask, you is going to win, they say, well its not Horse A, so I say, then Horse B? To which they reply , I don't know......
That's another reason why I could never be an atheist, simply because it leads to intellectual dishonesty.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.