Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Special Pleading with no evidence to support it whatsoever. It violates basic logic. If theists can say God can create something from nothing then they're not really in a position to disagree with materialists who say the same thing, even though most of them don't actually say that.
    It's not special pleading. God has the ability to create things and he did. But nothing is nothing and can't create anything.

    I say Cause and Effect not nothing can come from nothing. God is a uncaused cause and so he caused the rest.

    Creation came into existence by God's divine command and if you don't believe it, good for you. He's supernatural not natural.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Again, you are not reading what I wrote. The Big Bang most certainly describes how our universe inflated from a singularity. What the theory doesn't explain is the origin of the singularity and no one has claimed it does. But that doesn't mean "God did it". I'd say the only reason science hasn't yet been able to answer that is simply because it's a relatively new theory and there hasn't been centuries of work on it. Give it another century or less and I'm almost certain we'll have concrete answers for "before" the Big Bang.

    You could not compare that to abiogenesis and evolution because again, they are two separate theories. Evolution does not bother dealing with how life actually arose. Whereas the Big Bang theory will most probably eventually answer the origins of the singularity, the theory of evolution will never address the origins of life because it's not concerned with it.

    Saying "evolution depends on abiogenesis because without life nothing would evolve" is a pretty moot and bizarre point. It's like saying "windows depend on sand because without sand you couldn't make windows". It is a total non-point.
    I never said that means God did it. I believe God created the universe though.

    I'd say in a 100 years, they still wouldn't know.

    I can compare abiogenesis with evolution just like people can compare the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe.

    It's pointless but it's still true.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    It's not special pleading. God has the ability to create things and he did. But nothing is nothing and can't create anything.
    It is special pleading. It goes against basic logic and thus we can conclude it isn't true.

    You haven't provided evidence for God's existence, let alone that he can create something from a literal nothing.

    I say Cause and Effect not nothing can come from nothing. God is a uncaused cause and so he caused the rest.
    No evidence for this claim.

    Creation came into existence by God's divine command and if you don't believe it, good for you. He's supernatural not natural.
    No evidence for this claim.

    I never said that means God did it. I believe God created the universe though.
    You can believe what you like, but you haven't provided any evidence for this.

    I'd say in a 100 years, they still wouldn't know.
    We probably will.

    I can compare abiogenesis with evolution just like people can compare the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe.

    It's pointless but it's still true.
    It's not true. Your comparison is false, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis regardless of how many times you say it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hamzah17)
    I do not believe in a diestic God because as I pointed out in my initial post, an eternal creator can only create something that is finite in existence if it chooses to rather than due to necessity. This means since it had the choice to create the universe it must be personal. It can therefore choose to do things like for example it can listen and grant prayers due to this attribute of being personal. *
    It can choose to but that wouldn't mean necessarily that it does, no? I could choose to murder somebody right now for example but I'd rather just sit on my ass doing nothing instead.

    This is ignoring your strange leap from infinite creating finite has to be personal because I can't quite work out how it being personal is at all related to infinity creating a finite.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    There can still be an outside time even if time if infinite *even bigger facepalm*

    I used Godwin's law correctly but okay.

    Being outside of time doesn't mean before time - it means outside of a place where time exists.
    And there can be an outside of outside of time *facepalm*.

    No, you didn't use Godwin's law correctly, nokay.

    There can't be an outside a place where time exists. Time came into existence with space, which is why we refer to the space-time continuum as the space-time continuum.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You see the Big Bang as an ongoing event that is happening now when most people see it as the inflation. The universe is still expanding obviously but whether you see the Big Bang as ongoing, it still wouldn't be eternal.
    I didn't say that I believed the big bang was ongoing. I said that other researchers had recently postulated that the big bang could be ongoing and so could be eternal.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    No, you didn't at all which I detailed above. Your condescension didn't accomplish anything but making you look more triggered than was seen in your first post.
    I absolutely did. My condescension helped you understand somethings. Further condescension may help you understand other things. Although you being so triggered in your last post that you felt the need to shout was an inadvertent result.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I'm not saying you said I related - I'm just using them as comparisons too.

    If you didn't know, you can type in 'define eternity' in Google and you will get multiple definitions.

    One of these is:
    a state to which time has no application; timelessness."the encounter between time and eternity.
    You've confused the word 'state' to mean a place which is why you think there is a place where time doesn't exist (which you said above). 'State' in this context means a certain condition. Critical thinking skills would've helped you here.

    And you categorically stated that evolution was dependent on abiogenesis. Which it's not. You didn't compare them.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I do have critical thinking skills but if you want to say I don't, then good for you.
    No, you don't, as shown above.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    They don't go against what I said, but okay. I've already explained above that infinite time still doesn't mean God can't exist outside of time.
    They completely go against what you said. I've already explained that there can't be a place outside of time (see: space-time continuum)

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I didn't redefine anything - it's just funny because scarecrow and strawman are similar words and you can make a scarecrow out of straw or hay.
    You absolutely redefined a word for your purpose. I could say 'fairlough' instead of strawman and try to pretend it's an acceptable alternative as that word is similar to scarecrow in that they're homonyms. The point is fairlough is not an alternative word for scarecrow and neither is strawman.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    If life never came into existence, then evolution couldn't have happened so it is pretty dependent, like how the Big Bang is dependent on the universe starting.Yes, it's pretty obvious but I'm learning from your book and being a pedant.
    Linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated. See, I can make tenuous links as well.

    You're learning because of my condescension to you. My methods are evidently working so the best thing is probably for me to continue to deal with you as such.

    And if you're taking your lead from me (by being a pedant) then you shouldn't be easily led.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You got cornered on your first reply when you suggested the Big Bang could be eternal which is obviously not true - even another atheist went against that. I said the outside of time makes sense BECAUSE that is literally one of the definitions of eternal.You can't suggest there is an outside of an outside of something if you don't know what the first outside is.
    You failed from the get go and now you're just trying to flog a dead horse. Even another atheist supported my position and against yours. Even the Pope believes that the big bang cause the universe. Do you know something Pope doesn't? I would think the pope has a better grasp of christianity and god than you?

    Eternal is not defined as outside of time. The only people that use that are religious folks like yourself.

    Outside of outside of time makes perfect sense if outside of time does. In order to believe my proposition you just have to have faith, ain't that right?

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    No, you don't understand how the Big Bang works when you tried to suggest that is it is how the universe started and how it could be eternal.
    I understand the big bang. You should take your lead from the pope as he understands that's how the universe came into being.

    Again, I never said I thought the big bang was eternal. I referred you to the researchers who postulated that.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    That's not Christianity, that's the Mosaic Law God gave to the Jews. There's nothing evil about the Bible Just because someone said God told them to kill their kids doesn't mean God did it. I don't see the point in bringing that up.
    That absolutely is christianity. It's in the bible. Do you not believe in the bible now? I could even offer you the passages encouraging the evil I mentioned if you'd like? You see, using evidence helps your cause. You should try using evidence sometimes, instead of feelings.

    You said that christianity isn't evil but these people categorically state that god told them to kill their children. And so christianity is evil.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    It is really safe, thanks. But commenting 'Oh, burn' on your own remark which didn't seem to ignite anything at all just seems pretty sad and perhaps reveals your own triggered nature.

    Condescension is rude and it had no positive effect as I detailed above.
    Don't be so triggered. You need to chill out. At least you're not shouting in this thread ("oh, no he did not just go there. Oh, yes he did" ). You see, not only did my condescension work in teaching you something, it stopped you from being angry. I'd say that learning and being calmed is a positive effect.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I said I believe God is the uncaused cause. :]I'm not angry, I just used CapsLock to emphasis the words but if your triggered nature interprets it as that - I'll just use bold next time.
    No, you said god is the eternal first cause. So if god can be an uncause cause then the big bang can be the unbeginning beginning.

    You used Capslock because you were so angry. Perhaps when you calm down you could just converse normally. I'll be condescending the next time you get angry. You seem to stop shouting when condescended (oh, in case you forgot, that word means I patronize you).

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Theory and hypothesis are synonyms and although different can be used interchangeably as they both have different meanings.Linking abiogenesis and evolution is just me being a pedant in response to your being a pedant earlier in this thread because you could also simply link the beginning of the Universe and the Big Bang.
    Theory and hypothesis are used interchangeably by people who don't understand what the terms mean, as you've been doing but they mean different things. Ask any scientist or academic and they'll tell you the difference.

    You linked abiogenesis and evolution by saying one followed the other. You even reiterated this to another user here. If you're a pedant here and to others, then maybe you are in fact a pedant without my help? But the detail you've been showing in your posts is wrong. So that's kind of like a contradiction in terms.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You have overwhelming misconceptions about Christianity, it is not evil but if you actually want to debate on that, you can start a thread.
    I have no misconceptions about christianity. I got those acts of evil direct from the bible (you see, evidence is all it takes to help your point). Do you not know your own bible? Are you saying those acts aren't in the bible?
    A little less student room and a lot more reading would've helped you there.

    I don't particularly want to talk about christianity but since you originally mentioned how christianity wasn't evil, I simply responded.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    It can choose to but that wouldn't mean necessarily that it does, no? I could choose to murder somebody right now for example but I'd rather just sit on my ass doing nothing instead.

    This is ignoring your strange leap from infinite creating finite has to be personal because I can't quite work out how it being personal is at all related to infinity creating a finite.
    I haven't read the whole thread, i think the trust of his point is that the universe is contingent. Arguing the PSR, the universe's explanation for it's existence is a neccessary being which has a number of attributes that God has. One of these includes free will or the ability to choose, otherwise you wouldnt be able to explain contingency will necessity, everything would follow necessarily and you would have modal fatalism.

    http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    i read like the first few pages of the thread and
    - yeah, the big bang explains how the universe came into being but not the point before it because LITERALLY at that point all of physics breaks down, as in a singularity the rules of physics do not apply and therefore nothing can be predicted
    - the whole thread is stupid because the argument in the title cannot be thrown out as it is BASED on the pro-god argument that purpose and cause are seen in nature, so everything must have a cause, meaning the only thing great enough to cause this is god, and so god must exist, but then something must have created god (2 years of gcse re guys XD)
    - the whole of philosophy is based on making assumptions WHETHER THEY ARE TRUE OR NOT in order to think through an argument (my mother is a philosophy professor so I hear a lot of this)
    - athiests rule :bl:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atomicjellyfish)
    i read like the first few pages of the thread and
    - yeah, the big bang explains how the universe came into being but not the point before it because LITERALLY at that point all of physics breaks down, as in a singularity the rules of physics do not apply and therefore nothing can be predicted
    - why can't we all just agree with aristotle in that the universe just spontaneously came into being
    - the whole thread is stupid because the argument in the title cannot be thrown out as it is BASED on the pro-god argument that purpose and cause are seen in nature, so everything must have a cause, meaning the only thing great enough to cause this is god, and so god must exist, but then something must have created god (2 years of gcse re guys XD)
    - the whole of philosophy is based on making assumptions WHETHER THEY ARE TRUE OR NOT in order to think through an argument (my mother is a philosophy professor so I hear a lot of this)
    - athiests rule :bl:
    I hope your mum didnt teach you about Aristotle! He thought the world was eternal

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    I hope your mum didnt teach you about Aristotle! He thought the world was eternal

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    nah that was my biology teacher
    was he wrong
    i'd be very glad to inform him of his ignorance XD
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    I hope your mum didnt teach you about Aristotle! He thought the world was eternal

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    google has now made me more informed XD thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atomicjellyfish)
    nah that was my biology teacher
    was he wrong
    i'd be very glad to inform him of his ignorance XD
    Inform him with a vengeance Aristotle was explicit that he thought the universe was eternal. Perhaps your biology teacher was mistaken because of the unmoved mover argument? People seem to think its like the Kalam cosmological argument which argues for a beginning, or a first mover to start the dominoes falling. Its quite a common misconception.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Inform him with a vengeance Aristotle was explicit that he thought the universe was eternal. Perhaps your biology teacher was mistaken because of the unmoved mover argument? People seem to think its like the Kalam cosmological argument which argues for a beginning, or a first mover to start the dominoes falling. Its quite a common misconception.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ah i think i got confused with his theory of spontaneous generation
    he though life spontaneously arose from non-living matter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atomicjellyfish)
    ah i think i got confused with his theory of spontaneous generation
    he though life spontaneously arose from non-living matter
    Yeh that makes sense too

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    I haven't read the whole thread, i think the trust of his point is that the universe is contingent. Arguing the PSR, the universe's explanation for it's existence is a neccessary being which has a number of attributes that God has. One of these includes free will or the ability to choose, otherwise you wouldnt be able to explain contingency will necessity, everything would follow necessarily and you would have modal fatalism.

    http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    OK gimme like 12 years and I'll figure out what's actually going on and give some sort of response that might make sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    It is special pleading. It goes against basic logic and thus we can conclude it isn't true.

    You haven't provided evidence for God's existence, let alone that he can create something from a literal nothing.

    You can believe what you like, but you haven't provided any evidence for this.

    We probably will.



    It's not true. Your comparison is false, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis regardless of how many times you say it.
    Evolution depends on abiogenesis needing to happen just as the Big Bang needs the universe to start before it can happen.

    There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Evolution depends on abiogenesis needing to happen just as the Big Bang needs the universe to start before it can happen.

    There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
    Sigh, no it doesn't. You need life for it to evolve but abiogenesis =/= life, it's a theory describing how life came from non-life. They are independent theories.

    Saying there is evidence without able to produce it doesn't change the fact there is no evidence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Evolution depends on abiogenesis needing to happen just as the Big Bang needs the universe to start before it can happen.

    There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
    Are you high?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    And there can be an outside of outside of time *facepalm*.

    No, you didn't use Danth's law correctly, nokay.

    There can't be an outside a place where time exists. Time came into existence with space, which is why we refer to the space-time continuum as the space-time continuum.
    I said God is outside of time... So how is there an outside of him? okay

    I used Danth's law correctly. God is transcendent, he didn't come into existence with time or space, he was there before.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I didn't say that I believed the big bang was ongoing. I said that other researchers had recently postulated that the big bang could be ongoing and so could be eternal.
    I hope so, because you mentioning that I can't say the Big Bang happened seems to imply that. Whether the Big Bang is on-going on not doesn't mean its eternal because it's not the same Big Bang happening every second XD

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I absolutely did. My condescension helped you understand somethings. Further condescension may help you understand other things. Although you being so triggered in your last post that you felt the need to shout was an inadvertent result.
    It didn't really help anything - I don't see how I learned anything as you just got disproven in that regard as you did before when you suggested the Big Bang was eternal.

    I don't see how using CapsLock to put emphasis on a few words equates to shouting but I guess you're used to redefining words so much - it's hard for you to change old habits.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You've confused the word 'state' to mean a place which is why you think there is a place where time doesn't exist (which you said above). 'State' in this context means a certain condition. Critical thinking skills would've helped you here.

    And you categorically stated that evolution was dependent on abiogenesis. Which it's not. You didn't compare them.
    I didn't confuse the word. I repeatedly said God is outside of time - his condition - God himself is outside of time. Yes, heaven exists out of time but I said God is eternal which means he is out of time.

    Critical thinking skills would've helped you here.

    The Big Bang couldn't happen without the beginning of the universe, the same way evolution couldn't happen without the beginning of life. In that way, it is dependent.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    No, you don't, as shown above.
    I do but you seem to be lacking in them, as shown above.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    They completely go against what you said. I've already explained that there can't be a place outside of time (see: space-time continuum)
    Already disproved as shown above.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You absolutely redefined a word for your purpose. I could say 'fairlough' instead of strawman and try to pretend it's an acceptable alternative as that word is similar to scarecrow in that they're homonyms. The point is fairlough is not an alternative word for scarecrow and neither is strawman.
    Fairlough isn't homonym, you mean homophone and it's not a homophone either. You're really great at redefining words, aren't you? I mean, you've just done it twice in one sentence. Anyway, scarecrow can be made out of straw and so could be called a strawman scarecrow or straw scarecrow but whatever.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated. See, I can make tenuous links as well.

    You're learning because of my condescension to you. My methods are evidently working so the best thing is probably for me to continue to deal with you as such.

    And if you're taking your lead from me (by being a pedant) then you shouldn't be easily led.
    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like linking them starting their relationship with them breaking up.

    I haven't learnt anything, in fact all your 'learnt' points are just getting disproven again and again.

    Because I choose to take the lead from you in regards to being a pedant, how does that indicate I was easily led? Are you a bad person to copy pedantic behaviour from?

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You failed from the get go and now you're just trying to flog a dead horse. Even another atheist supported my position and against yours. Even the Pope believes that the big bang cause the universe. Do you know something Pope doesn't? I would think the pope has a better grasp of christianity and god than you?

    Eternal is not defined as outside of time. The only people that use that are religious folks like yourself.

    Outside of outside of time makes perfect sense if outside of time does. In order to believe my proposition you just have to have faith, ain't that right?
    I didn't fail from the get go, you were wrong in the fact the Big Bang could be an eternal first cause. Admit it. The other atheist realised what you were arguing and changed his mind at the end. The Pope believes God caused the Big Bang so how in anyway would that mean it is the eternal first cause. You could call it a first cause if you want but no eternal. The Cyclic Model is saying the universe is eternal not the Big Bang.

    The Pope certainly isn't credible in terms of Christianity. Forced celibacy? Pseudo-baptism? Apostolic succession and priest sexual abuse cover-ups? gr8 b8

    You already admitted the definition of where time has no application. Even if we were to agree with the definition that it means without beginning or end, how would that cause problems for God when he's also transcendent?

    God is outside of time (that condition of where time has no application). God himself. So saying outside of outside of time? What is outside of outside of time. How can something have time not applied to it in a place where there is no time applied? You don't need faith to understand that, it's something called 'critical thinking skills'

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I understand the big bang. You should take your lead from the pope as he understands that's how the universe came into being.

    Again, I never said I thought the big bang was eternal. I referred you to the researchers who postulated that.
    The researchers said the universe was eternal not the Big Bang, just stop. There were simply saying there were multiple Big Bangs.

    Your first post on this thread was 'why can't the Big Bang be the eternal first cause?'

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    That absolutely is christianity. It's in the bible. Do you not believe in the bible now? I could even offer you the passages encouraging the evil I mentioned if you'd like? You see, using evidence helps your cause. You should try using evidence sometimes, instead of feelings.

    You said that christianity isn't evil but these people categorically state that god told them to kill their children. And so christianity is evil.
    There is nothing evil about Christianity, I've already told you if you want a sufficient rebuttal then you will get one if you start another thread because that is not what this thread is about. You haven't used evidence yet so why expect me to first when you're making the claims? #triggered

    Oh and saying, that because people said God told them to kill their children (even though he condemns child sacrifice as an abominable act in the Bible) doesn't mean God told them to do anything, I love how you think that's evidence that Christianity is evil. (lack of critical thinking skills)

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Don't be so triggered. You need to chill out. At least you're not shouting in this thread ("oh, no he did not just go there. Oh, yes he did" ). You see, not only did my condescension work in teaching you something, it stopped you from being angry. I'd say that learning and being calmed is a positive effect.
    ??? Um... okay, seeing as you've been condescending from the near star and you're only claiming I got 'angry' in the last few posts then why didn't it stop me from getting angry in the first place?

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    No, you said god is the eternal first cause. So if god can be an uncause cause then the big bang can be the unbeginning beginning.

    You used Capslock because you were so angry. Perhaps when you calm down you could just converse normally. I'll be condescending the next time you get angry. You seem to stop shouting when condescended (oh, in case you forgot, that word means I patronize you).
    God is an uncaused cause but what is an 'unbeginning beginning'? I think you mean unbegun beginning but that doesn't make sense in the way that uncaused cause does. A cause can be uncaused. But how can a beginning not be begun?

    An uncaused effect wouldn't make sense but an uncaused cause is perfectly fine.

    Also, proved before, you've been condescending since the near star so that makes no sense. Using CapsLock on a few words about the definition of assumption doesn't mean I'm angry. When I typed in those words, I was like 'He's just going to say I'm angry or something' but I was like 'Nah, he's mature enough to know capslock on about 6 words on a around 500 word post doesn't mean I'm angry' - you proved me wrong lol.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Theory and hypothesis are used interchangeably by people who don't understand what the terms mean, as you've been doing but they mean different things. Ask any scientist or academic and they'll tell you the difference.
    They can be used interchangeably in a non-scientific environment. In the lab, many would call a hypothesis a prediction but it is fine to use them interchangeably out of one as each word has multiple definitions and if we are not in a scientific or academic environment, you can't assume which one is being used.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You linked abiogenesis and evolution by saying one followed the other. You even reiterated this to another user here. If you're a pedant here and to others, then maybe you are in fact a pedant without my help? But the detail you've been showing in your posts is wrong. So that's kind of like a contradiction in terms.
    I think I did that after I witnessed you being a pedant as I said but anyway.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I have no misconceptions about christianity. I got those acts of evil direct from the bible (you see, evidence is all it takes to help your point). Do you not know your own bible? Are you saying those acts aren't in the bible?
    A little less student room and a lot more reading would've helped you there.

    I don't particularly want to talk about christianity but since you originally mentioned how christianity wasn't evil, I simply responded.
    You simply said the Bible without quoting anything - that doesn't count as evidence but thanks for referring to the Bible for evidence but it is regarded as evidence for accounts of Jesus' life due to the accounts being written within 100 years of his life.

    Christianity isn't evil but I can tell you're too triggered right now to be disproven in another thread so you can leave it at that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Sigh, no it doesn't. You need life for it to evolve but abiogenesis =/= life, it's a theory describing how life came from non-life. They are independent theories.

    Saying there is evidence without able to produce it doesn't change the fact there is no evidence.
    (Original post by XOR_)
    Are you high?
    There is evidence for the existence of God and whether you accept it doesn't change that fact.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    There is evidence for the existence of God and whether you accept it doesn't change that fact.

    Bible verses don't prove God exists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    There is evidence for the existence of God and whether you accept it doesn't change that fact.

    I want to point out, the vastness and (subjective) beauty of the universe is not evidence for a god, it's possibly the reason you believe in one but certainly not evidence for one.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: November 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.