who created god.

[Mous]

I can't put up much of an argument but you're asking who created God, if there were to be something or someone who created God, who created it? I read an article somewhere that basically said that many people believe in everything having a creator but there has to be one eternal creator which in this case, is God. I'm a Christian and I believe and have faith in God. Despite whatever is posted on this thread or anywhere else on the internet, I won't change.

You don't have to change, nobody is saying you do.
What I'm curious to know is, how do you know the Christian God is the
*correct* God?

You said most people believe that there's a creator for everything, but,
there's another Creator above whoever created everything we see today.
If I'm not mistaken, that's not really a christian belief, since Christians
believe in *one* God, and his holy trinity.

[Swat Runs Train]

I'm pretty sure that OP related the lack of a belief in "God" and science
together. That was the entire reason I started saying "you can't prove
God with science". Maybe you should actually read the thread.

My point still remains valid, why are atheists exempt from having to provide
proof of God's non-existence?
The only way that someone would think that is if they took that
statement as an unalienable fact. "We don't have to prove God doesn't
exist, because him not existing is so OBVIOUS." That's like saying "I know
what *insert word* means!" but when asked to provide an explanation
the reply is "I don't have to! I don't want you to know!"

As I said, the burden of proof doesn't lie with Atheists, the religious people making illogical claims need to prove those claims. It`s just like walking into a court room and saying Stephen Hawkings raped you, you better bring some evidence because that`s a pretty tall tale.

[Socrates]

Read up, your first post had to do with science disproving God.
Don't agree with him, when that's what you've been saying the entire thread.

Mous lol I can agree with whoever I want. Honestly you are quiet annoying lol. Don't post back being arrogant just let people post their opinions, If I want to quote him so be it.

[Mous]

As I said, the burden of proof doesn't lie with Atheists, the religious people making illogical claims need to prove those claims. It`s just like walking into a court room and saying Stephen Hawkings raped you, you better bring some evidence because that`s a pretty tall tale.

You're just reiterating what you said, maybe you could try answering my question.

Or rather, maybe you should Realize that Atheists aren't exempt from
providing proof. Considering you're basing God's non-existence off logic,
LOGICALLY, there's probably some things in this world that
can't be explains using logic, or things you can't understand by calculation.
So LOGICALLY, providing proof that the above statement isn't true is
needed, and not just some unalienable fact. "God doesn't exist because of
logic" isn't a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Try that. That uses logic/reasoning/intuition to deduce the existence of
"God".

---

Mous lol I can agree with whoever I want. Honestly you are quiet annoying lol. Don't post back being arrogant just let people post their opinions, If I want to quote him so be it.

Wow. I'm the one being arrogant, when the only thing you've done
is talk about how science is proving that God doesn't exist,
tell me that I don't know about The Vatican, and I need to "brush up on my
studies" and that my *opinion* is wrong.

Maybe you should follow your own advice before talking any more.

My entire point when I said "Don't agree with him" Is that the entire
thread you've been going on about Science disproving God. He *just8 said not all
Atheists believe in the big bang, therefore, that goes against your original post.
So agreeing with him doesn't help your standpoint at all.

[Socrates]

You're just reiterating what you said, maybe you could try answering my question.

Or rather, maybe you should Realize that Atheists aren't exempt from
providing proof. Considering you're basing God's non-existence off logic,
LOGICALLY, there's probably some things in this world that
can't be explains using logic, or things you can't understand by calculation.
So LOGICALLY, providing proof that the above statement isn't true is
needed, and not just some unalienable fact. "God doesn't exist because of
logic" isn't a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Try that. That uses logic/reasoning/intuition to deduce the existence of
"God".

---

Mous lol I can agree with whoever I want. Honestly you are quiet annoying lol. Don't post back being arrogant just let people post their opinions, If I want to quote him so be it.

Wow. I'm the one being arrogant, when the only thing you've done
is talk about how science is proving that God doesn't exist,
tell me that I don't know about The Vatican, and I need to "brush up on my
studies" and that my *opinion* is wrong.

Maybe you should follow your own advice before talking any more.

My entire point when I said "Don't agree with him" Is that the entire
thread you've been going on about Science disproving God. He *just8 said not all
Atheists believe in the big bang, therefore, that goes against your original post.
So agreeing with him doesn't help your standpoint at all.

Haha Molus you are funny. Everyone remembers how he said I do research from wikipeida . Lol who is the one that is quoted with a wikipedia post. Lol but the internet lies. Molus you are simplistic beyond means. ROFL you just posted wikipeida on here, but kept flaming me for saying I do research there. How hypocritical

[Mous]

Wow. I'm the one being arrogant, when the only thing you've done
is talk about how science is proving that God doesn't exist,
tell me that I don't know about The Vatican, and I need to "brush up on my
studies" and that my *opinion* is wrong.

Maybe you should follow your own advice before talking any more.

My entire point when I said "Don't agree with him" Is that the entire
thread you've been going on about Science disproving God. He *just8 said not all
Atheists believe in the big bang, therefore, that goes against your original post.
So agreeing with him doesn't help your standpoint at all.

Haha Molus you are funny. Everyone remembers how he said I do research from wikipeida . Lol who is the one that is quoted with a wikipedia post. Lol but the internet lies. Molus you are simplistic beyond means. ROFL you just posted wikipeida on here, but kept flaming me for saying I do research there. How hypocritical

[/quote]


Okay, let me go find a PDF file for the entire works of Descartes, so you
can read that.

Quoting a philosopher on a webpage, based on his works (Which were
his opinions) and saying that the internet disproves "God" because the
internet says so are two VERY different things. You're still just attacking
a straw man in an attempt to make yourself look better. Not only that,
you're not even saying anything worth while, 70% of what you say is
ad hominem attack. Also, don't even say "Everyone" as if there's a troop
of people waiting to defend you, If I weren't posting in here this thread
would've died already. Now KINDLY use your brain and stop being
so defensive about everything.

[Socrates]

If I quit responding will you shutup lmao?

[Mous]

If I quit responding will you shutup lmao?

Probably not.

Point out your logical fallacies, your childish discussion manner,
and the complete lack of intellect being use in your statements
is just too fun to pass up.

[Swat Runs Train]

You attempt to reduce science to something based solely off logic, when plenty of what science has found throughout time has been verified as true in the form of visual evidence that concurs with the prediction made beforehand, you can't equate that to logic alone and you certainly can't equate that to the logic (I use the term loosely) behind a God.

[Mous]

You attempt to reduce science to something based solely off logic, when plenty of what science has found throughout time has been verified as true in the form of visual evidence that concurs with the prediction made beforehand, you can't equate that to logic alone and you certainly can't equate that to the logic (I use the term loosely) behind a God.

And the thing is, I'm not reducing science to pure logic, I'm saying that science
works in predictable calculations. Which is the essence of science in the first place.
Proving that a specific result happens when X action is initiated in Y order.

Also, YOU can't simply say that "God" can't exist because there isn't
any visual evidence that proves him. As I said WAAAAY back in the
beginning of the thread, if that were the case, there would be no reason
for faith/belief.