[Hindsite]

And perhaps you're wrong.

Not likely.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Besoeker]

Not likely.

You have no basis for that assertion. But that's par for the course.

[Hindsite]

You have no basis for that assertion. But that's par for the course.

Whether or not I have a basis for my assertion, it is what I believe. You can choose not to believe me and disagree with me all you want, but the truth is the truth and only God can change truth, because He is the Father of truth just like Satan is the father of lies.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Besoeker]

Whether or not I have a basis for my assertion, it is what I believe.

Yes. Believe. Note that word "believe".

but the truth is the truth and only God can change truth, because He is the Father of truth just like Satan is the father of lies.

What if your god doesn't exist? Without proof you have to accept the possibility that such an entity does not exist. But you won't.

[Hindsite]

Yes. Believe. Note that word "believe".



What if your god doesn't exist? Without proof you have to accept the possibility that such an entity does not exist. But you won't.

We all believe. That is what humans do. Even what we call facts depends on what we believe. You not believing is something that I believe in does not make my belief false.

How did the heavens, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the plants, the animals, and man come into existence, if God did not create them? Do you believe in electricity? Do you believe in protons, electrons, and neutrons? Do you believe you will go to sleep tonight and wake tomorrow? Do you believe if you go to the mailbox that there will be mail in there at some time? There are many things we believe in that we also consider facts. So what's the big deal?

[Besoeker]

We all believe. That is what humans do. Even what we call facts depends on what we believe.

A fact is a fact regardless of your belief.

[Hindsite]

A fact is a fact regardless of your belief.

And God is a fact regardless of your belief.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[ingliz]

How did the heavens, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the plants, the animals, and man come into existence, if God did not create them?

[youtube]DkPH4_Yd4_Q[/youtube]

We all believe.

"At best these arguments show that certain sets of sentences (beliefs, etc.) are incompatible—one cannot reject the conclusions of these arguments while accepting their premises. But the arguments themselves say nothing about the reasonableness of accepting the premisses. So the arguments themselves say nothing about the (unconditional) reasonableness of accepting the conclusions of these arguments. Those who are disposed to think that theism is irrational need find nothing in ontological arguments to make them change their minds (and those who are disposed to think that theism is true should take no comfort from them either)."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So what's the big deal?

The capacity to hold a belief in God is not evidence of a God. Proving God's existence is impossible; the supernatural is not testable.

[Besoeker]

And God is a fact

No. It's your apinion. You have no basis for asserting it to be fact. Not even verifiable, repeatable, testible evidence. None.

[Nonsense]

No. It's your apinion. You have no basis for asserting it to be fact. Not even verifyable, repeatable, testible evidence. None.

Some people ^ will NEVER,EVER let the FACTS get in the way of a 'good' story.

In particular, when that story is pure unadulterated FICTION.

ALL religious literature, books, text et cetera are either 'biographical' in relation to someone else, in other words, 'anecdotal' ,or mostly fictional made up fairy tales.
Ideal bedtime reading for those with candles, too much time on their hands or those susceptible to delusions of grandeur arising from their infantile brains reading such tales.

It doesn't take too much imagination to think of someone just like that ^ now does it?

[Besoeker]

Some people ^ will NEVER,EVER let the FACTS get in the way of a 'good' story.

In particular, when that story is pure unadulterated FICTION.

ALL religious literature, books, text et cetera are either 'biographical' in relation to someone else, in other words, 'anecdotal' ,or mostly fictional made up fairy tales.
Ideal bedtime reading for those with candles, too much time on their hands or those susceptible to delusions of grandeur arising from their infantile brains reading such tales.

It doesn't take too much imagination to think of someone just like that ^ now does it?

He can believe what he likes. Assering those beliefs to be facts is just plain silly.
But he does it all the time.

[Hindsite]

No. It's your apinion. You have no basis for asserting it to be fact. Not even verifiable, repeatable, testible evidence. None.

The basis is that without God being a fact, then there are no facts. It would be whatever you imagined, like in a dream. And we all know that our dreams are not real facts when we wake from our sleep.

[ingliz]

The basis is that without God being a fact, then there are no facts.

What facts? Moral facts... Are you trying to make the moral argument and failing; the bullshit, "morality consists of a set of commands/commands imply a commander," argument.

The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as evidence of God’s existence. According to this argument, there couldn’t be such a thing as morality without God; to use the words that Sartre attributed to Dostoyevsky, “If there is no God, then everything is permissible.” That there are moral laws, then, that not everything is permissible, proves that God exists.

[Hindsite]

What facts? Moral facts... Are you trying to make the moral argument and failing. That "Morality consists of a set of commands/commands imply a Commander" bullcrap.

Not just moral laws but also physical laws depend on God being a fact.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Godstud]

Not just moral laws but also physical laws depend on God being a fact.

Utter stupidity. Your argument is simplistically childish, and silly.

Water boils(physical law of thermodynamics), regardless of whether you believe in you stupid-ass god, or not.

[Besoeker]

:lol: Utter stupidity. Your argument is simplistically childish, and silly.

Water boils(physical law of thermodynamics), regardless of whether you believe in you stupid-ass god, or not.

As does gravity, the sun, mars, the internet, obtusity..........

[Hindsite]

:lol: Utter stupidity. Your argument is simplistically childish, and silly.

Water boils(physical law of thermodynamics), regardless of whether you believe in you stupid-ass god, or not.

The water would not be there to boil, if God had not created water and the law of thermodynamics. God also made the law of gravity that holds the Sun and each of the planets together, as well as the laws that allows for internet communications. God is above all things.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Nonsense]

The water would not be there to boil, if God had not created water and the law of thermodynamics. God also made the law of gravity that holds the Sun and each of the planets together, as well as the laws that allows for internet communications. God is above all things.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

Hindsite is an oxymoron, a completely ignorant oxygen waster, incapable of learning anything, never engages his miniscule brain before opening his gaping mouth.

'Christian' people preach all the virtues one day(Sunday)a week, then practice all the vices the other six days.

As Schopenheur once said , " To 'preach' morality is easy, to found it difficult".

The idea that 'physics' is entwined with 'religion' is just total BOLLOCKS, 'religion' purports to inject it's illusion of a supernatural 'creator' into the real world of physical reality.

His assertion that,"God also made the law of gravity that holds the Sun and each of the planets together", is exemplary proof of his absolute ignorance, presumably his 'god' 'created' individual souls incapable of independent thought & reasoning as personified with perfection by himself?

The message for Hindsite is , " wakeup & smell the coffee", though it's whistling in the wind trying to urge him to.

[ingliz]

The basis is that without God being a fact, then there are no facts.

A professor shows you why your (Leibniz’s) argument is false.

The argument.

the principle of sufficient reason, in virtue of which we believe that no fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise.

1. Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.

2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.

3. The fact that there are contingent things must have an explanation. (1,2)

4. The fact that there are contingent things can’t be explained by any contingent things.

5. The fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent. (3,4)

Conclusion: There is a necessary being. (5)

A rebuttal.

Let us suppose that the fact that there are contingent beings is explained by some necessary being, whom we can call N. Then it seems as though if the cosmological argument is to be convincing, the following must be true: N creates contingent things. So far, so good, you might think. On closer examination, though, this claim leads to a dilemma. If we are supposing that this claim is true, then it must be either a necessary truth or a contingent truth.

contingent <- N creates contingent things -> necessary

The first horn of the dilemma first - absurdity:

1. Suppose that the claim that N explains the existence of contingent things is itself contingent. Then by the principle of sufficient reason there must be some explanation for the fact that N explains the existence of contingent things.

But this sounds absurd.

What could explain this? N itself can’t explain the fact that N explains the existence of contingent things, since this is circular. And what else could.

The second horn of the dilemma - a contradiction:

2. Suppose that this claim about N is necessary. Then we avoid having to find an explanation for this claim, which is good - no?

No, we end up with a worse problem, if it is a necessary truth that N explains the existence of contingent things, then it is a necessary truth that there are contingent things. Which contradicts a premise of your original argument.

Therefore

If the claim that N explains the existence of contingent things is neither contingent nor necessary, it must be false. But if it is false, then (5) must be false, and the argument collapses.

[Besoeker]

The water would not be there to boil, if God had not created water and the law of thermodynamics. God also made the law of gravity that holds the Sun and each of the planets together, as well as the laws that allows for internet communications. God is above all things.

It's just your opinion, sunshine. Just your opinion.