NewStats: 3,261,149 , 8,173,179 topics. Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 11:10 AM 572q2e

In all my time looking over theological arguments for god, I am yet to see one that proves His existence at all. Philosophy don't even come close to proving the existence of one or more creators in general, much less a muslim or christian god. It's also really tedious seeing the same arguments recycled by the religious and it just starts to get tiring. I want to see if there are actually any good arguments for god that already haven't been debunked, so at least I can have something to think about for awhile. I'll try my best to keep up with thread amidst my mostly busy schedule. Its just that I haven't had a good debate in a while

Cc. LordReed, Martinez39, Michellekabod2, 1Sharon, JeromeBlack, tintingz et al. Watch this space.

Lol.... The Other possible possibilities crew are looking for a fight.

Atheist: Nothing created something that created everything.
Theist: Seriously?! Do you believe in magic and the supernatural?
Atheist: hahaha, they don't exist.
Theist: How can something miraculously come from nothing?
Atheist: I don't know.
Theist: Then, It was magic!!!!

Blabbermouth:
[s]Lol.... The Other possible possibilities crew are looking for a fight.

Atheist: Nothing created something that created everything.
Theist: Seriously?! Do you believe in magic and the supernatural?
Atheist: hahaha, they don't exist.
Theist: How can something miraculously come from nothing?
Atheist: I don't know.
Theist: Then, It was a magic!!![/s]!

Wow! You're smoking hot today . Careful you don't set fire to all those straw men

What next after the 'Arguments for God'?

XxSabrinaxX:

Wow! You're smoking hot today . Careful you don't set fire to all those straw men

Sure love. At least, you can always run back to your "I don't know" cave.��

Lol........you have fallen.
For true christians, we don't just believe in a God, we know God.. Seek and ye shall find.. No argument for/against is needed.

A real god especially one that does things in the real world does not need arguments for its existence just like that sun doesn't need arguments for its existence.

I'm waiting if there is any new argument for God.

If you must disbelief in God , then you must provide explaination for everything in Creation

In as much you cant provide explaination for everything

That means there is a mystery somewhere

Check your dictionary for the word Mystery

God is a Mystery unto Man.

What you people don't get is , that. The word Mystery exist in dictionary because there are some things which science will never get till the o world end



Let me Explain Who Is GOD

Life doesn't start from physical reality,

The spirtitual reality control the physical reality

GOD is three in one. ,. The Holy Trinity.

Check your candle light,. With camera

You will see the 3 color

The Red

The yellow and

The blue
T
and in the center , you will see white

Where do you think these colors come from and why are they not other color

Why do you think the primary colour is. RBG ,.

RED

BLUE

GREEN


Add the 3 Colors together, you will get White

Which is the Kingdom of Gods color


Where do you think gravational force comes from

Its the mother Nature energy,. A downward spiral Energy,

And that why scientist can't really understand it

The Universe balancing Force which hold Earth and other planet in place is the force of our Master Jesus

Check the Jesus image you will see a sun behind him

He own the Sun, and that why he is the Morning Star

The Upward force , in space belong to God the Father

Asscoiated with color Red

These aren't coincidence, wake up

Spirituality is everywhere, ony if you are attune and question reality
y

So you can believe whatever y you feel like. We have free will of decision


And I will not be arguing withb you anymore
.

I am beyond that

'Let there be light...' But there can be no light without darkness, thus, the creator came from the dark...

Blabbermouth:
Lol........you have fallen.
For true christians, we don't just believe in a God, we know God.. Seek and ye shall find.. No argument for/against is needed.

The lie in your first post here was exposed in the first line of your little, creative, story time, narrative:
"Atheist: Nothing created something that created everything."

I have yet to meet an atheist that says that. And even if I did, that is their opinion and has nothing to do with the fact the person is or is not an atheist.

This atheist, (me) I leave it at: "I do not know."

I am also a skeptic, I do not believe anything that is unevidenced because: "faith."

Blabbermouth:
Sure love. At least, you can always run back to your "I don't know" cave.��

So nothing worthwhile then from the blubber brain blabbermouth. What a killjoy, NOT!

LOL. OK junior. Keep it moving . Don't let sense and reason molest you on your way out

---

I've got plenty of time on my hand now so let's deal with the "atheists believe something out of nothing" canard once and for all, shall we?

Item one. Atheists dispense with belief altogether. Instead, if they're contemplating a postulate properly, they ask "what evidence exists in of this postulate?", and look to whichever discipline is supplying the evidence.

Item two. The people who REALLY think the universe came from "nothing", are those supernaturalists who think their imaginary magic man from their favourite mythology, waved his magic todger and poofed the universe into existence from nothing. So even before I move on to the next items, this alone stuffs the "atheists think the universe came from nothing" excrement down the toilet and pulls the flush hard.

Item three. The question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with atheism. This question is the remit of cosmological physics. And, once again, those of us who paid attention in class, turn to that discipline, and ask what postulates arise therefrom, and what evidence is supplied in thereof.

Item four. No cosmological physicist presents the fatuous notion that the universe "came from nothing". Instead, cosmological physicists postulate that testable natural processes, involving well-defined interactions acting upon well-defined entities, were responsible for the origin of the observable universe in its current form.

Item five. The question of the origin of the universe is an active research topic, and as a corollary, a number of hypotheses are extant in the field, with respect to the origin of the observable universe. Indeed, it's a measure of how far cosmological physics has progressed, that researchers in the field are able to postulate a number of pre-Big-Bang cosmologies, and then work out how to test those cosmologies and the hypotheses underpinning them.

Item six. As an example of the ideas extant in the literature, I'm aware of two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which they propose a pre-Big-Bang cosmology centred upon braneworld collisions, and which possesses three elegant features. Namely:

1> It provides a mechanism for the donation of energy to the newly instantiated universe, facilitating subsequent matter synthesis;

2> It eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;

3> It provides a testable prediction, namely that the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves will take a specific form, with the graph skewed towards short wavelengths.

Indeed, <3> above is one of the reasons scientists have been labouring diligently, to produce operational gravitational wave detectors, precisely so that they can test this prediction, once they've learned how to distinguish between primordial gravitational waves and gravitational waves of more recent origin. The moment they learn to do this, the requisite tests will be conducted. Furthermore, if those tests reveal a power spectrum that matches the Steinhardt-Turok prediction, then Steinhardt & Turok walk away with the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Message to all you supernaturalists out who may be viewing this thread: read the above, and learn from it. The next time you peddle the "atheists think the universe came from nothing" bullshit, you'll know from the above why we regard you with scorn and derision for posting this bullshit.

Cc. LordReed, Martinez39

ElidaxZiel:
[s]f you must disbelief in God , then you must provide explaination for everything in Creation

In as much you cant provide explaination for everything

That means there is a mystery somewhere

Check your dictionary for the word Mystery

God is a Mystery unto Man.

What you people don't get is , that. The word Mystery exist in dictionary because there are some things which science will never get till the o world end



Let me Explain Who Is GOD

Life doesn't start from physical reality,

The spirtitual reality control the physical reality

GOD is three in one. ,. The Holy Trinity.

Check your candle light,. With camera

You will see the 3 color

The Red

The yellow and

The blue
T
and in the center , you will see white

Where do you think these colors come from and why are they not other color

Why do you think the primary colour is. RBG ,.

RED

BLUE

GREEN


Add the 3 Colors together, you will get White

Which is the Kingdom of Gods color


Where do you think gravational force comes from

Its the mother Nature energy,. A downward spiral Energy,

And that why scientist can't really understand it

The Universe balancing Force which hold Earth and other planet in place is the force of our Master Jesus

Check the Jesus image you will see a sun behind him

He own the Sun, and that why he is the Morning Star

The Upward force , in space belong to God the Father

Asscoiated with color Red

These aren't coincidence, wake up

Spirituality is everywhere, ony if you are attune and question reality
y

So you can believe whatever y you feel like. We have free will of decision


And I will not be arguing withb you anymore
.

I am beyond that[/s]

Jeez what a load of hot air! . I hope you haven't been taking lessons in How To Ramble Senseless Verbose For Pages Unending from fish brain Blabbermouth

Seriously. I come back after roughly two days and you Christian clowns are still peddling the same argumentum ad ignorantiam or "god of the gaps" fallacy I see. Known common logical fallacies don't become less irrational through bloody minded repetition. I wonder what you and your superstitious ilk will move your imaginary deity into if this gap is closed, as all the others you had previously inserted it into were.

I like to when confronted by stubborn wilful stupidity of the sort you and Blabbermouth espouse, that in fact you disbelieve in almost as many deities as I do, so you're only one deity away from reality after all. Again this is progress of a sort I suppose.

XxSabrinaxX:

Jeez what a load of hot air! . I hope you haven't been taking lessons in How To Ramble Senseless Verbose For Pages Unending from fish brain Blabbermouth

Seriously. I come back after roughly two days and you Christian clowns are still peddling the same argumentum ad ignorantiam or "god of the gaps" fallacy I see. Known common logical fallacies don't become less irrational through bloody minded repetition. I wonder what you and your superstitious ilk will move your imaginary deity into if this gap is closed, as all the others you had previously inserted it into were.

I like to when confronted by stubborn wilful stupidity of the sort you espouse, that in fact you disbelieve in almost as many deities as I do, so you're only one deity away from reality after all. Again this is progress of a sort I suppose.

The male and female distinct sex organs ... Evidence of design?

If we come from one single source, why then do we speak different languages ?

Jozzy4:


The male and female distinct sex organs ... Evidence of design?

If we come from one single source, why then do we speak different languages ?

You must have directed this post to the wrong moniker, or you are committing a massive straw man. I'm an atheist, not theist. FYI

XxSabrinaxX:

You must have directed this post to the wrong moniker, or you are committing a massive straw man. I'm an atheist, not theist. FYI

I directed it to you.

I believe the Male and Female sex organs is an evidence of design, What do you think ?

Also, if we originate from one source, Why then do we speak different languages ?

XxSabrinaxX:


In all my time looking over theological arguments for god, I am yet to see one that proves His existence at all. Philosophy don't even come close to proving the existence of one or more creators in general, much less a muslim or christian god. It's also really tedious seeing the same arguments recycled by the religious and it just starts to get tiring. I want to see if there are actually any good arguments for god that already haven't been debunked, so at least I can have something to think about for awhile. I'll try my best to keep up with thread amidst my mostly busy schedule. Its just that I haven't had a good debate in a while

Cc. LordReed, Martinez39, Michellekabod2, 1Sharon, JeromeBlack, tintingz et al. Watch this space.

"Atheists" have no argument.

NO NEED TO PROVE WHAT'S OBVIOUS TO THE MAJORITY. MANY OF US SEE AND EXPERIENCE GOD EVERYTIME.

orunto27:
NO NEED TO PROVE WHAT'S OBVIOUS TO THE MAJORITY. MANY OF US SEE AND EXPERIENCE GOD EVERYTIME.

how do you experience him? Cause I have never experienced such before

hakeem4:
how do you experience him? Cause I have never experienced such before

"I GIVE YOUR FATHERS AND MY PROPHETS DREAMS TO TEACH YOU MY WAYS'", says God.

OLAADEGBU:


"Atheists" have no argument.

....because we don't make positive claims. Do you know what they call the null hypothesis?

XxSabrinaxX:


....because we don't make positive claims. Do you know what they call the null hypothesis?

Your profile picture shows that you are actually a winch, no?

OLAADEGBU:


Your profile picture shows that you are actually a winch, no?

The same way your profile picture reveals you're a car, huh, genius?

Let me put forth a simple argument by deduction. Within the universe exists a law of conservation of energy as energy is neither created nor destroyed.

It is obvious that also the universe is not eternal and had a beginning . Therefore there must a source that existed before the start of time and the universe that in itself is eternal.

Physicists call it energy, I call him God. You can also call it the God of the gaps but that answer is fine by me

XxSabrinaxX:


The same way your profile picture reveals you're a car, huh, genius?

This confirms that most, if not all so called atheists are actually agents of darkness on a mission for their taskmaster.

OLAADEGBU:


This confirms that most, if not all so called atheists are actually agents of darkness on a mission for their taskmaster.

Ooooooh. You got me. Am shook
Keep it moving please

XxSabrinaxX:


Ooooooh. You got me. Am shook
Keep it moving please

Are you ashamed of being identified as a winch?

OLAADEGBU:


Are you ashamed of being identified as a winch?

Not at all . However, I am ashamed that I'm wasting my precious time actually conversing with a goofball who apparently has the IQ of a dying chicken. I'll now leave you to enjoy your morning in foolishness

XxSabrinaxX:


Not at all . However, I am ashamed that I'm wasting my precious time actually conversing with a goofball who apparently has the IQ of a dying chicken. I'll now leave you to enjoy your morning in foolishness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySscnbaGAy0

You don't have to be a coward hiding under the pretense of atheism, come out and speak boldly why you prefer to operate under the cover of darkness. Open a thread for instance, and say what your mission is really about.

Jozzy4:


I directed it to you.

I believe the Male and Female sex organs is an evidence of design, What do you think ?

How, Jozzy4, do you recognize design?

Methinks you need to demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim, and since all the objective evidence shows that species evolution through natural selection is a scientific fact you'll need to undo 160 years of global scientific research from multiple scientific disciplines. I think it's as likely we'll discover the world is flat and at the centre of the universe after all.

Also, if we originate from one source, Why then do we speak different languages ?

Languages evolve, just like species. Speakers get isolated from each other and their languages evolve in different directions. Sometimes invasion and migration bring them back to together, which is why we have so many Latin, Norse, and French words in English. Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales were both written in English in England. Yet most English-speaking people wouldn't even recognize them as English, because our language has changed radically in the past millennium. Imagine how much change could happen over tens of 1,000s of years as humanity migrated globally. By the time the Tower of Babel fantasy is supposed to have happened, there had been countless languages for millennia.

GeneralShepherd:
Let me put forth a simple argument by deduction.

Let's see...
"A deductive argument is the presentation of statements that are assumed or known to be true as premises for a conclusion that necessarily follows from those statements."

Right. Moving on...

Within the universe exists a law of conservation of energy as energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Wow are you behind the times .....
"To most people, the idea that conservation of energy is violated goes against everything they learned about the most fundamental laws of physics. But on the cosmological scale, conservation of energy is not as steadfast a law as it is on smaller scales. In this study, the physicists specifically investigated two theories in which violations of energy conservation naturally arise.

The first scenario of violations involves modifications to quantum theory that have previously been proposed to investigate phenomena such as the creation and evaporation of black holes, and which also appear in interpretations of quantum mechanics in which the wavefunction undergoes spontaneous collapse. In these cases, energy is created in an amount that is proportional to the mass of the collapsing object.

Violations of energy conservation also arise in some approaches to quantum gravity in which spacetime is considered to be granular due to the fundamental limit of length (the Planck length, which is on the order of 10-35 m). This spacetime discreteness could have led to either an increase or decrease in energy that may have begun contributing to the cosmological constant starting when photons decoupled from electrons in the early universe, during the period known as recombination."(First premise is rejected.)

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violations-energy-early-universe-dark.html

Dark energy emerges when energy conservation is violated

The conservation of energy is one of physicists’ most cherished principles, but its violation could resolve a major scientific mystery: why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? That is the eye-catching claim of a group of theorists in and Mexico, who have worked out that dark energy can take the form of Albert Einstein’s cosmological constant by effectively sucking energy out of the cosmos as it expands.

https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-energy-emerges-when-energy-conservation-...

It is obvious that also the universe is not eternal and had a beginning

No, it's not, Mr. Obvious
The Big Bounce: Why our universe might be eternal."
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/big-bounce-theory

Therefore there must a source that existed before the start of time and the universe that in itself is eternal.

First, GeneralShepherd, you must prove a beginning. Next, you have to actually demonstrate a source. You do not get to magically assert a universe into existence.

Physicists call it energy, I call him God. You can also call it the God of the gaps but that answer is fine by me

GeneralShepherd wouldja try and keep the energy (pun, hundred percent intended) please? You just asserted "conservation of energy" and here you are citing energy outside the universe.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

XxSabrinaxX:

The lie in your first post here was exposed in the first line of your little, creative, story time, narrative:
"Atheist: Nothing created something that created everything."

I have yet to meet an atheist that says that. And even if I did, that is their opinion and has nothing to do with the fact the person is or is not an atheist.

This atheist, (me) I leave it at: "I do not know."

I am also a skeptic, I do not believe anything that is unevidenced because: "faith."


So nothing worthwhile then from the blubber brain blabbermouth. What a killjoy, NOT!

LOL. OK junior. Keep it moving . Don't let sense and reason molest you on your way out

---

I've got plenty of time on my hand now so let's deal with the "atheists believe something out of nothing" canard once and for all, shall we?

Item one. Atheists dispense with belief altogether. Instead, if they're contemplating a postulate properly, they ask "what evidence exists in of this postulate?", and look to whichever discipline is supplying the evidence.

Item two. The people who REALLY think the universe came from "nothing", are those supernaturalists who think their imaginary magic man from their favourite mythology, waved his magic todger and poofed the universe into existence from nothing. So even before I move on to the next items, this alone stuffs the "atheists think the universe came from nothing" excrement down the toilet and pulls the flush hard.

Item three. The question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with atheism. This question is the remit of cosmological physics. And, once again, those of us who paid attention in class, turn to that discipline, and ask what postulates arise therefrom, and what evidence is supplied in thereof.

Item four. No cosmological physicist presents the fatuous notion that the universe "came from nothing". Instead, cosmological physicists postulate that testable natural processes, involving well-defined interactions acting upon well-defined entities, were responsible for the origin of the observable universe in its current form.

Item five. The question of the origin of the universe is an active research topic, and as a corollary, a number of hypotheses are extant in the field, with respect to the origin of the observable universe. Indeed, it's a measure of how far cosmological physics has progressed, that researchers in the field are able to postulate a number of pre-Big-Bang cosmologies, and then work out how to test those cosmologies and the hypotheses underpinning them.

Item six. As an example of the ideas extant in the literature, I'm aware of two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which they propose a pre-Big-Bang cosmology centred upon braneworld collisions, and which possesses three elegant features. Namely:

1> It provides a mechanism for the donation of energy to the newly instantiated universe, facilitating subsequent matter synthesis;

2> It eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;

3> It provides a testable prediction, namely that the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves will take a specific form, with the graph skewed towards short wavelengths.

Indeed, <3> above is one of the reasons scientists have been labouring diligently, to produce operational gravitational wave detectors, precisely so that they can test this prediction, once they've learned how to distinguish between primordial gravitational waves and gravitational waves of more recent origin. The moment they learn to do this, the requisite tests will be conducted. Furthermore, if those tests reveal a power spectrum that matches the Steinhardt-Turok prediction, then Steinhardt & Turok walk away with the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Message to all you supernaturalists out who may be viewing this thread: read the above, and learn from it. The next time you peddle the "atheists think the universe came from nothing" bullshit, you'll know from the above why we regard you with scorn and derision for posting this bullshit.

Cc. LordReed, Martinez39

Damn girl I just burnt a significant amount of brain fat reading this write up and I must say I ire the ion and effort you put into your arguments.