All Forums | General Discussion

If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 256994
Posts: 5358
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #1726
And just to clarify, the purpose of the above statement is because the position we have is NOT, I REPEAT, IS NOT "I am certain god does not exist."

The position we have is "I choose not to believe in god because there is no evidence of his existence. However, I am open to the possibility of god existing and believing in him should future evidence present itself."
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #1727
Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:



Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

You're taking for granted a principle that is still not known for certain. This is not a "fact" that you can use as a premise of an argument because it has never been (and may never be) proven, so your hypothetical question is irrelevant in this regard (although I'd argue it is irrelevant anyway). What you have failed to understand through all of this, amongst other things, is that to a sane, logical human being, your idea that there is a magical being who created the universe is ludicrous.

Think about the scientific world for a second: when a scientist makes an outrageous claim, what do you think happens? Do you think: (A) The other scientists dismiss him as a maniac unless he shows some real proof, or (B) The other scientists rush out to conduct millions of tests to show why he's wrong? The answer obviously is (A), and you consistently ask for (B) behavior. I'm trying once again to explain the Celestial Teapot ANALOGY, although you'll probably tell me that it's testable to find a teapot the size of an atom somewhere in the universe anyway and once again miss the point of the ANALOGY.

I can't prove a god doesn't exist, but you definitely can't prove he exists either. This axiom applies for unicorns, ghosts, fairies, Santa Claus, Harry Potter, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. So why is it that all of these examples are ridiculous to you when the idea of a god is not? Because a book told you? Harry Potter has seven of them. Because your parents told you? They also told you Santa Claus was coming to visit every Christmas Eve. You don't have a valid reason to believe in god and not in the other mystical beings. Until you show me otherwise, you need to stop arguing semantics and start showing me some facts because, quite frankly, you and SirJohnDrake are making yourselves look very bad by doing so.

Just moving this onto the new page so you fine gentlemen can access it much easier.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #1728

Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:



Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

You're taking for granted a principle that is still not known for certain. This is not a "fact" that you can use as a premise of an argument because it has never been (and may never be) proven, so your hypothetical question is irrelevant in this regard (although I'd argue it is irrelevant anyway). What you have failed to understand through all of this, amongst other things, is that to a sane, logical human being, your idea that there is a magical being who created the universe is ludicrous.

Think about the scientific world for a second: when a scientist makes an outrageous claim, what do you think happens? Do you think: (A) The other scientists dismiss him as a maniac unless he shows some real proof, or (B) The other scientists rush out to conduct millions of tests to show why he's wrong? The answer obviously is (A), and you consistently ask for (B) behavior. I'm trying once again to explain the Celestial Teapot ANALOGY, although you'll probably tell me that it's testable to find a teapot the size of an atom somewhere in the universe anyway and once again miss the point of the ANALOGY.

I can't prove a god doesn't exist, but you definitely can't prove he exists either. This axiom applies for unicorns, ghosts, fairies, Santa Claus, Harry Potter, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. So why is it that all of these examples are ridiculous to you when the idea of a god is not? Because a book told you? Harry Potter has seven of them. Because your parents told you? They also told you Santa Claus was coming to visit every Christmas Eve. You don't have a valid reason to believe in god and not in the other mystical beings. Until you show me otherwise, you need to stop arguing semantics and start showing me some facts because, quite frankly, you and SirJohnDrake are making yourselves look very bad by doing so.

The majority of cosmologists and physicists AGREE the universe began to exist.

The second law of thermodynamics also backs this claim up.

This points to a beginning of a universe....

"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin

Atheists can no longer hide behind a eternal past universe. Eisnteins special relativity also confirms the universe began to exist.

I just sit back here and laugh at the atheists who have no where to go and cornered into a wall since this discovery.

Again, no where have i said this discovery in isolation proves the Christian God. However it certainly renders atheism false unless you want to believe things can pop into existence uncaused like KK seems to think.

Then you go on and commit a fallacy of equivocation by comparing God to santa, etc etc....Not only have you commited this fallacy but you have also compared something that is testable to something that is not...

You are embarrassing your atheist friends...

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14749
Posted: #1729
Quote Originally Posted by Mikniks:


Why dont you understand that you cant just make shit up and tell people to prove you wrong??

I didn't make anything up. The first book in the Holy Bible was written close to 3,400 years ago by Moses who was inspired by God to write it. The Holy Bible is the word of God and I believe it.

I would like to add that I am only one of a little over 2 billion Christians today who believe in God.

If you don't want to believe...well fine, move on then, don't come to this thread because I notice you and your buddies always seem to be in a foul mood.

All the cussing and put downs shows frustration. You don't see Rostos or I getting frustrated. We are Christians who believe in Almighty God!

You all get angry because you just hate that hell deal...well sorry I didn't make that up. The Holy Bible which is God's Word is telling us that.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #1730
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

But if there is no God then how will anybody know anything after they die?...lol

How would I be able to look back and say oh why did I waste my time for nothing?...lol

When he dies and if there is no God, how is he going to know he is right?  

However, if he is wrong.........

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 1384
Posted: #1731
SANTA CLAUS IS NOT TESTABLE!!!
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 1384
Posted: #1732
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

I didn't make anything up. The first book in the Holy Bible was written close to 3,400 years ago by Moses who was inspired by God to write it. The Holy Bible is the word of God and I believe it.

I would like to add that I am only one of a little over 2 billion Christians today who believe in God.

If you don't want to believe...well fine, move on then, don't come to this thread because I notice you and your buddies always seem to be in a foul mood.

All the cussing and put downs shows frustration. You don't see Rostos or I getting frustrated. We are Christians who believe in Almighty God!

You all get angry because you just hate that hell deal...well sorry I didn't make that up. The Holy Bible which is God's Word is telling us that.


Even better, you believe in shit that was made up and ask people to prove it wrong.  You're intelligent...
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #1733
SJD - we've already established that the Bible is NOT a valid document to use as evidence (since its reliability is contingent upon god's existence, thus creating a circular argument).

Rostos - Just because the universe "began" to exist, that does not support the god theory AT ALL, it gives you absolutely ZERO additional credence. All it does is invalidate a prior theory that the universe was eternal. There is not wall we're being cornered into because we have the mental capacity to admit when we know there is no answer. The fact that your best answer for how the universe began is magic says it all.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #1734
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

The majority of cosmologists and physicists AGREE the universe began to exist.

The second law of thermodynamics also backs this claim up.

This points to a beginning of a universe....

"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin

Atheists can no longer hide behind a eternal past universe. Eisnteins special relativity also confirms the universe began to exist.

I just sit back here and laugh at the atheists who have no where to go and cornered into a wall since this discovery.

**Again, no where have i said this discovery in isolation proves the Christian God. However it certainly renders atheism false unless you want to believe things can pop into existence uncaused like KK seems to think.

Then you go on and commit a fallacy of equivocation by comparing God to santa, etc etc....Not only have you commited this fallacy but you have also compared something that is testable to something that is not...

You are embarrassing your atheist friends...



So Rostos, how would you test the hypothesis that there is no Santa Claus? Please tell me the experiment that you would design, and write it in detail in your next post.

You also don't know what equivocation means, but that's OK. It's a difficult word.

Also, I'd like for you to tell me what the second law of thermodynamics IS, because something tells me you don't know.

**By the way, I LOVE this statement, because it really proves that you have no capability for logical debate. In this statement you say that atheism is PROVEN false. What does this mean? That means that you have PROVEN God's existence. Isn't it interesting that not a single other scientist of any merit has come to this same conclusion?

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #1735
Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:



So Rostos, how would you test the hypothesis that there is no Santa Claus? Please tell me the experiment that you would design, and write it in detail in your next post.

You also don't know what equivocation means, but that's OK. It's a difficult word.

Also, I'd like for you to tell me what the second law of thermodynamics IS, because something tells me you don't know.

**By the way, I LOVE this statement, because it really proves that you have no capability for logical debate. In this statement you say that atheism is PROVEN false. What does this mean? That means that you have PROVEN God's existence. Isn't it interesting that not a single other scientist of any merit has come to this same conclusion?


Too many questions. You should know better than to drop 3 unanswerable questions at once. One at a time for the simplefolk.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #1736
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

It's weird that this article doesn't contain the header: "Proves that there is a god." You'd think that's something they'd put in there, ya know?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #1737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Just for future reference too
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14749
Posted: #1738

Did somebody say they believe in Santa Claus?...lol

Ok...fine...but believe me I'm not going to want you to prove it to me that he exist...lol

So, please don't ask me to prove that he doesn't exist...because frankly I just don't care if he does exist or doesn't...lol

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #1739
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

Did somebody say they believe in Santa Claus?...lol

Ok...fine...but believe me I'm not going to want you to prove it to me that he exist...lol

So, please don't ask me to prove that he doesn't exist...because frankly I just don't care if he does exist or doesn't...lol


I have no idea what this means...
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 1384
Posted: #1740
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

Did somebody say they believe in Santa Claus?...lol

Ok...fine...but believe me I'm not going to want you to prove it to me that he exist...lol

So, please don't ask me to prove that he doesn't exist...because frankly I just don't care if he does exist or doesn't...lol


Good logic...  Essentially you're saying, "I don't care if he exists so it renders that argument invalid."
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 117
Posted: #1741
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

Did somebody say they believe in Santa Claus?...lol

Ok...fine...but believe me I'm not going to want you to prove it to me that he exist...lol

So, please don't ask me to prove that he doesn't exist...because frankly I just don't care if he does exist or doesn't...lol



Did somebody say they believe in GOD?...lol

Ok...fine...but believe me I'm not going to want you to prove it to me that he exist...lol

So, please don't ask me to prove that he doesn't exist...because frankly I just don't care if he does exist or doesn't...lol


Interesting... we feel the same way about how insane the premise is that either one of them is real


 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14749
Posted: #1742
Quote Originally Posted by Mikniks:


Good logic...  Essentially you're saying, "I don't care if he exists so it renders that argument invalid."

Yes because he is not going to punish me for not believing in him...get it?

So let's stick with God ok fellas?

Any wise man would fear the Lord and not Santa....you get it now?

 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 1384
Posted: #1743
Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:



Did somebody say they believe in GOD?...lol

Ok...fine...but believe me I'm not going to want you to prove it to me that he exist...lol

So, please don't ask me to prove that he doesn't exist...because frankly I just don't care if he does exist or doesn't...lol


Interesting... we feel the same way about how insane the premise is that either one of them is real



Drake just goes with the public: everyone thinks there is no santa claus, so he thinks there is no santa claus.  A lot of people think god exists, so he thinks god exists...

I guarantee he bets all the public plays too 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #1744
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

Yes because he is not going to punish me for not believing in him...get it?

So let's stick with God ok fellas?

Any wise man would fear the Lord and not Santa....you get it now?

 


this is a different argument. please address the one previously made. thank you.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #1745

Let me address the Santa Claus, tooth fairy, big foot and why it is a fallacy to compare it with God....

What is the hypothesis of Santa Claus?

Santa is based in the north pole, making presents all year, then around Christmas, hops on his reindeers, goes down chimnies, delivers presents, eats carrots and cookies left at the door etc etc.

Has Santa been ever seen in the north pole?

Has ANY present ever not been accounted for?

Has anyone ever seen Santa flying around on his reindeers?

Now, the important thing here is NOT the answers to the questions above, rather the fact is, it would be possible to test the above hypothesis.

It will be possible to test if a present has never been accounted for, it will be possible to test a witness if they have seen santa flying around....

You will be able to see, that the hypothesis of santa is TESTABLE. As i said, it is not important what the answers are to the above, the fact is, they are testable.

Look at another example, what if i said there are kangaroos playing baseball on Mars? The important thing here is not if what i am saying is true, but that it is testable. It is physically possible to test my claim.

How is God testable?

Is the hypothesis of God that there will be a cross in the sky showing that he exists? If there is a God there is no evil? If there is a God, will he be down at the local mall on Sundays?

Cmon, i want to hear it, how is he testable?

This is clear that Santa, big foot etc are all TESTABLE, God isnt.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #1746
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

SJD - we've already established that the Bible is NOT a valid document to use as evidence (since its reliability is contingent upon god's existence, thus creating a circular argument).

 
Rostos - Just because the universe "began" to exist, that does not support the god theory AT ALL, it gives you absolutely ZERO additional credence. All it does is invalidate a prior theory that the universe was eternal. There is not wall we're being cornered into because we have the mental capacity to admit when we know there is no answer. The fact that your best answer for how the universe began is magic says it all.

Oh dear....

So SJD cannot use the bible because it presupposes theism, BUT,your rejection of the KCA is ok because in this case you are allowed to presuppose atheism?

I never said that the KCA in isolation proves the Christian God, but it renders atheism false.

On one hand, you say you dont know, ok , fine, then at the same time you say its not God?

Which one is it? Either you are an agnostic or an atheist that has a belief.

I am only stating my mind here, but the atheists on here are really stupid, they dont even know the implications of there statement.

The ducking in and out between atheism and agnostocism is astounding by you, and Mikniks....

On one hand, they duck and hide behind, "i dont know", then when pushed they say God doesnt exist because i only believe in emprical evidence even though one cant disprove God with emprical evidence....

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #1747

Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:



So Rostos, how would you test the hypothesis that there is no Santa Claus? Please tell me the experiment that you would design, and write it in detail in your next post.

You also don't know what equivocation means, but that's OK. It's a difficult word.

Also, I'd like for you to tell me what the second law of thermodynamics IS, because something tells me you don't know.

**By the way, I LOVE this statement, because it really proves that you have no capability for logical debate. In this statement you say that atheism is PROVEN false. What does this mean? That means that you have PROVEN God's existence. Isn't it interesting that not a single other scientist of any merit has come to this same conclusion?

The second law of thermodynamics in lamens terms is pretty much that the universe has a certain amount of non renewable energy which is being consumed at a certain rate..Ie, your gas tank, as you drive, gas is being used, however you are not allowed to re-fill your tank, what will eventually happen if you keep on driving it? You will stall.

Now, assuming it was never possible to refill your tank, and your tank size is an average tank size, is it possible and logical for you to say, for the infinite past, my car was getting driven every day? Of course not, it would have stopped a long long time because you would have used up all your petrol......

Exactly the same with the universe, if the universe had an eternal past, the universe would have been consumed a long long long time ago........

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #1748
Rostos - your lack of intelligence is PROVEN by your response to the santa claus argument. You keep attacking the specific examples given. You completely miss the point. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

Here: you believe in god. You say god is not testable. I believe in a different god. Call him whatever you want, I don't care. He exists. I said so. Prove me wrong,
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 1384
Posted: #1749
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

Oh dear....

So SJD cannot use the bible because it presupposes theism, BUT,your rejection of the KCA is ok because in this case you are allowed to presuppose atheism?

I never said that the KCA in isolation proves the Christian God, but it renders atheism false.

On one hand, you say you dont know, ok , fine, then at the same time you say its not God?

Which one is it? Either you are an agnostic or an atheist that has a belief.

I am only stating my mind here, but the atheists on here are really stupid, they dont even know the implications of there statement.

The ducking in and out between atheism and agnostocism is astounding by you, and Mikniks....

On one hand, they duck and hide behind, "i dont know", then when pushed they say God doesnt exist because i only believe in emprical evidence even though one cant disprove God with emprical evidence....


It renders Atheism false...  So this proves there is a god??  Interesting...

Do you even understand what you're saying???  Renders Atheism false 
 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 1384
Posted: #1750
It's actually the complete opposite.  There is no god until you provide at least a little evidence for him...  This renders Atheism true!! 

And maybe Santa Claus is invisible!!
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

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.