How so? There is nothing approaching consensus on how the universe came about outside of the big bang.

the negation of the "A being created the universe" is a "-being (or no being) created the universe". Which leaves you with either the universe is eternal (which we know is not true in at least its current state) or that the universe created itself.

So you are right that there is not a consensus, but I do not need there to be to find the idea of the universe creating itself (among many other things) to be absurd and lacking the extraordinary evidence that the theory requires.

I cannot be an atheist because to me the negation of the creator God is so implausible and lacking evidence that I am forced to be a theist.

Most atheists reply "I don't know" when asked how the universe was created.

And the negation of "A being created the universe" is not the "universe created itself".

How many times do we have to explain these things to you before you finally understand?

Or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I only care to understand things from the point of view of the God of the bible and all the lemming in group board opinions don't interest me as they are mainly aimed at propping up the New Atheism. A belief system I find dangerous and offensive.

The free thinkers will consider all the evidence even if they don't like it but that's probably a small % of the board since most posters have tied their ego to their opinions and take solace from clustering together.

It isn't about opposing views, it is about whether or not people honestly want an open conversation. Splendour admits that they do not and openly and purposely refuse to try and see things from the perspective of others or entertain their ideas as serious. And hopefully if someone knows that their way of coming across is resulting in people ignoring them, they will re-evaluate how they engage others if they are actually interested in a two-way dialogue.

Do you think I got over 11,000 posts by not discussing viewpoints?

They are ideologues and can't best me so they react in a frustrated manner.

I only ignore insulters.

If they ignore I win.

When I ignore I win.

Splendours well on her winning goal of turning this into her personal blog that's read by no one. When the entire forum has written her off as a blabbering nutcase, she wins!

Pretty much agree. Not that i dont get why people ignore her.

I am stealing this.

Also lol at thinking Norman Geisler has done anything. That guy is nearly as bad as Ray Comfort.

I don't know Comfort but Geisler has a degree in philosophy.

In his book dealing with Jesus' personal apologetic he explains a few of Hume's proof errors.

nothing surprising here

He tries to do the same in I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. If you are looking for credible sources you could do a lot worse than steering clear of him. He is not quite a nutjob, but he is pretty close to a fundy.

He's doing exactly what most atheist forum posters are asking be done but everyone is responding to him emotionally and writing him off without even reviewing what he has to say.

Jib, assuming the universe was created, what forces you to believe that it was created by God?

Are you asking me why I would believe it is a being versus some impersonal mindless force like the laws of physics?

Huh?

No. You said you cannot be an atheist and that you are forced to be a theist because the negation of the creator God is so implausible and lacking evidence. It seems to me that the universe was either created or it wasn't - and I see no way to show one or the other right now. But you seem to believe it is almost beyond doubt that the universe was created.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the universe was created. It still seems to me that there is no way to draw any conclusion about what created the universe - being or force or whatever - yet you are solidly in the being camp.

So now let's assume that the universe was created by a being. Once again, it seems to me that we can draw no conclusions about the nature or attributes of this being - yet you say that you are forced to be a theist.

Now perhaps I am reading too much into the term. To clarify, when I say atheist, I mean one who lacks belief in God or gods - which could include, but does not require, the belief that no gods exist. For me, deism refers to belief in a creator god, but one that is non-intervening, and has no expectations of worship (though perhaps many would disagree on that point). And theism refers to belief in a creator God that has a personal relationship with those It has created - usually including supreme powers, ongoing intervention in the universe and expectations of worship.

I find no basis to conclude whether or not the universe was created, and if created, whether or not it was created by a being, and if created by a being, whether or not that being is God. Yet you feel so strongly about it that you are forced to that final position, when I cannot even get to the question that leads there. So I am curious, and asked about that belief. I granted that the universe is created, because I see no way to resolve that question, and in any case, it is one more step away from your God - which is the part I am most interested in hearing about.

If there is some sort of uncaused cause/Prime Mover, it makes far more sense to me that it would be an impersonal, non-agent type of "thing" than a deity with some sort of agenda. The idea that THAT sort of being could be uncaused is far more nonsensical to me, but that sort of information is probably empirically closed.

An interesting read showing Hume's reasoning is not airtight:

On Miracles and David Hume (part 1 and part 2)
http://christiantheology.wordpress.c...orman-geisler/

No. Granted, I have only read I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, but I considered what he had to say in that and it was wrong. He makes the same mistakes most apologists do.

Will try to give it a read tonight, though I was trying to take a break from RGT for a little.

I think it falls more into the category of "not even wrong."

Well I'm no logician, but according to the Wikipedia entry for Kurt Godel:

So in other words, any attempt to reduce our knowledge about the world to a computable system is doomed to failure. I take this to mean that rationalism cannot be the ultimate arbiter of truth. Therefore, the OP is correct, and the universe is ruled by the blind idiot god Azathoth and the formless entity called Yog-Sothoth. Or something like that...

Hm. OK, so I introduce a novel claim within an existing framework. Why is it that I must use this framework to validate and support my claim? If the claim is weak, it will fall apart anyway. And if it doesn't, there are two possibilities: the claim is strong and the framework needs to adjust/modify/reform to accommodate and integrate it, or it's outside such framework and thus doesn't need justification through said framework.

The fact that you guys are arguing against religion is already a move towards it. It's like how you hate a someone so much, but you end up being good friends with them in the end. It might not appear like you are any near religion, but your heart is pushing you towards it, in the form of dissent, right now. There is nothing anyone here can do to 'make you believe' all is a process and it is all already in motion. Why do I say this. I was an once there myself. For those already on the path to believing, these are the people I would really like to reach out to, because i was there myself not quite long ago, and I hope I can be assistance to people who believe but still have some problems with aspects of religion etc.