Do you believe in God or not?

Well, exactly - that's what he was unable to do throughout. The proposition behind his argument is that God is eternal and created the universe. He has given nothing to corroborate this.

Didn't see any quote. You also responded to my post when I argued against your first one. Whatever you say mate.


Whatever that was, it was pretty useless in the whole question of "is there a deity?" If you don't want to admit that then fine by me.



How Genesis 5 11 says the Earth's age is 6000.

OK there doesn't have to be one. What's your point? The point of the argument of relating God and God's creator leading to infinite regress is defeated. Atheists will say "how can a God have a creator when that creator will need a creator and hence up to infinite?" In this case an infinite of God's is impossible. The argument of maybe there is more than one but not infinite does nothing to counter if there is a deity.

The point is regarding God's existence which is what is being debated here. There's no use in just talking about the idea of God because that doesn't explain anything, it is just an arbitrary idea.

It would counter specific versions of God, including that of Islam and Christianity if the being that created the universe were created.

Erm, you do realise that in that post you quoted my reply to the other person, right? So yeah, "whatever"

"Whatever that was" - are you serious? You literally disqualified what I said without even understanding it (and admitting it). It is not irrelevant at all, for a deity can have many characteristics. As I said, "God" may be a dragon (let's assume). Are you going to generalise all versions of God into that?

Hydeman has already explained it. Nonetheless, I will explain it later on or tomorrow, since I'm on my phone now.

But yeah, unless you provide proof that God exists and created the universe, your whole argument is both superficial and irrelevant.

Posted from TSR Mobile

A God is a being that created the universe - that's the main idea. Whether there is one or two God's does not counter the existence. If you would somehow prove there was an infinite number of God's the argument makes more sense.

It would counter specific versions of God sure. But this is irrelevant since one can believe in God without religion. What you end up doing is countering a religion rather than God.

That's a definition you have just made up now. Traditionally gods have created universes in mythology but that hasn't been what's made them gods. After all, if Allah had decided to never create a universe would you concede that he's not a god?

What has traditionally been a characteristic of God is being eternal, so a being that created the universe that was itself created would disqualify it from being God, at least the God of Christianity and Islam etc.

Yes but the point of religions is they subscribe to particular versions of deity. Saying this only disproves religion and not God adds nothing to your argument because if your particular god (Allah) were disproved it would be, in all practical terms, as if God has been disproved for you because the real deity would be nothing like the one you worshipped.

So the argument can be used to try and disprove a traditional God but cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe? Also, we can see there doesn't need to be a creator of a creator. All I'm doing is analyzing the argument, I wouldn't say it has compromised Islam or Christianity.

Erm, that made no sense...


A deity is a supernatural being which created the universe. It may look like a dragon or whatever. That's what the discussion is on. Not whether the Christian God exists or not.



He didn't explain your quote. I think my counter argument for God having a creator is still standing. See you tomorrow.

Are you being deliberately naive? You said there was no quote and that I (emphasis) replied to YOUR post. In fact, YOU replied to my quote, which was directed at a different person. Of course it won't make sense when you don't even pay attention to yourself. Lol.

No, that is your definition of a deity. There are people who don't believe a God created universe, even though they believe in God. You're defeating yourself here. The reference to the Christian God was based on the other poster's reply. How many times do I have to say this? Jeez.

What are you talking about dude? What quote? He explained the 6000-yr old Earth. Did you actually read what I referenced?

And sorry to disappoint, but it does not stand. Your whole argument was based on an "if" - unless you actually provide proof to substantiate that if, there is no argument at all. It's no different to saying that "If I myself were God, I'd have created the universe". It's only a conditional - nothing more (that kind of conditional, grammatically speaking, signals the impossible. See how everything wraps up?).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well you can't really disprove something for which there is no evidence in the first place so that's kind of a moot point.

Islam and Christianity haven't been proven in the slightest using this argument so saying they haven't been compromised doesn't really make sense.

You can post the quote you're referring to.



You replied to both of us.



I'm talking about Genesis 5 11. How does that explain the 6000 year old Earth?



It's a counter argument to your argument of "if there was a God." You asked who created God- that's your argument. Then I say God is outside space and time so does not need to be created. You try and defeat the belief in God by proposes the challenge of who created him. If this argument is not countered then you would have a way of possible disproving God's existence. What I was doing is countering it. What your doing now is making a new argument of where is evidence for God.

You understood the quote I'm referring to - it the one where is replied to both if you. If you go back to that, you'll see that the original quote of the poster was "How was the Earth created then" - which is what led that argument on. I can't make this any clearer.

As I said, I will explain this later on/tomorrow. In the meantime, you may find it useful to refer to Hydeman's posts.

A question is not an argument, for starters. You make no sense, nonetheless. I asked you to provide, for the hundredth time now, proof that God is "outside of space and time and does not need to be created" - which is, as you say, your own argument. All you've done is evade this request for proof. So, either stop claiming this or corroborate your argument. And I am not making a new argument, it is the very same one.

And what? Have you ever heard of the burden of proof? It is he who has made an exorbitant claim that must prove the validity of such claim (in your case, that God exists, outside of time and space and did not need to be created). You cannot possibly ask me to disprove his existence. YOU are the one making the claim that he exists. It's like me saying that dragons exist and asking you to disprove their existence. Lol.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Lol. This convo is killing the thread. I'll be happy to hear your answer via pm/vm?