Isn't the universe suppose to be ended one day? If you think so then maybe you should change your statement.
If you aren't willing to accept that the Universe could have come into existence without god, how could god have come into existence? 'God did it' is not an acceptable answer for the origin of the Universe. Not only is there no evidence for it all it does is increase the complexity of the original question without answering it. Like RoyalAnarchist said, no-one said the Universe was eternal.
I am willing to entertain the idea of a universe without a god. I was referring to a earlier debate which you probably chose not to read.
An omnipotent being (God) can not "come into existence". In the Hebrew text there is a reason Yahweh means "I am" rather than "I came into existence" or "God".
If you are looking for great debates between Christian Theist and Atheists, go to http://www.shockawenow.net The owner of the site is a former atheist and now Christian Theist. He provides great arguments and evidence supportng Christian Theism. He never lost a debate so far so if any of you atheists want to go debate him, type in the address above and have a blast. The chatroom starts at 7:00 p.m. American Pacific time. And all the christians here go to the chatroom and listen to the debates and learn some things about debating against atheists. I am a Roman Catholic and I firmly believe that there is good proof supporting Christian Theism and no proof or lack of proof for Atheism.
I checked out the site you linked and the first thing I noticed was that he seems to be a creationist, which pretty much discredits him right off the bat for me. Then I see this: "Not one atheist can answer this question below...no not one" “Please provide proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct!” If this is an example of the type of arguments he uses then I’m not impressed. My response to his "question" is that the burden of proof is on theists, not atheists. We don't need to provide evidence for anything because we are not the ones making the claim. What is this good proof supporting Christian Theism that you speak of?
The burden of proof lies on us both. Making claims about the existence and nonexistence of a god or gods is extraordinary and cannot be tested.
You're driving me crazy with this nonsense. I'm not claiming that god doesn't exist, my position is the default position, you should know this by now.
What would really clear things up is if people who don't want to use the literal meaning of atheism would just say what they mean instead.
The vast majority of people who call themsleves atheists are agnostic atheists. "Strong" atheists hardly exist at all. Oh so I should call myself an agnostic? According to you if someone believes in the very high probability that god exists and strongly believes in God and lives their life on the assumption that a god exists, they should also be called an agnostic. Yeah, that's a real nice labeling system you've got there, very useful in helping understand where people's position is on god's existence. :roll: We've gone over this. Atheism is already well established as meaning a lack of a belief in a god or gods. I didn’t come with this, no point arguing with me over it, that’s just the way it is, accept it already.
Yes, you are an agnostic so that would make sense. As I stated, none of that ancillary crap matters. If you believe a god or gods do not exist you are an atheist. If you believe a god or gods exist you are a theist. If you believe that it's impossible to know for certain you are an agnostic. Don't use the term unless you intend to call up its meaning. Self identification and all that rot is useful in some limited sense I'm sure, but when you're participating in a debate use the proper terms.
So there's no in between? Atheists don't believe that god does not exist. They just lack a belief in god. Anti-theists are the people who are certain god does not exist. Agnostics are people who are open to both sides.
That's just straight up wrong... Oy vey I've had enough semantics for now. Say it how you like but expect me to do the same.
Beliefs about what is knowable is completely different from what someone believes the probability is of a god existing. When I debate the existence of god, I'm not debating whether god's existence is knowable (though that might come up). I'm debating probabilty, because if god's existence is improbable, then it is an irrational concept to believe in. It would be silly to use terms that apply to beliefs about knowledge when I'm arguing about the probability of a god's existence. As was demonstrated with Dawkins' spectrum, you can have one opinion on what is knowable and another opinion about what is probable.
