Staredit Network

With all these god topics going about here, none of us christian people are really trying to prove his existance. I think that's because we dont know enough about it to be able to prove it. However, some of these sites i've seen actually brought up lots of interestings even i haven't thought about.

6 reason to believe in god: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Someone's testinomy on leaving atheism: http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/PastLife.html
Just an overall thing: http://www.existence-of-god.com/

There's much much more out there. But these were ones that actually caught my attention.

Argh - you're trying to force a god on people who aren't going to accept it, no matter how hard you try.

I'm not forcing god upon you people. Most of you guys have been asking us why we believe in God.

Those links there contain some of our answers

as a little kid i used to beleive in god, but now i beleive church is brain was, u can beleive in god but you don't have to go to church..yes i know that, but still i'm getting off the pint, after reading thoses i still do n ot beleive in god, and i probably never will. i've tryed praying to god about stuff, like saving my brother when he was in the hospital(didn't happen) about my sister(didn't happen) and a lot of other stuff

Yes i understand why you wouldn't believe in God.

But i hope people now understand why we believe in God

A lot of the sites I read say the chances of such a perfect world is nearly impossible

The good part is, you realize it's only nearly, not is

So you see, as time reaches infinite, the chance of anything happening reaches 100%.
Since we don't know how old the universe is, I can assume it happened long enough for life to come from nonliving things.

That's my thought right there.

Now for me to tackle one of the sites!


Good job! That proves nothing yet.


Of course, people believed that the earth was flat a long time ago. They couldn't possible be mistaken!


Once again, this proves nothing. People back in the days relied on religion to have morals. We're past the enlightenment for anyone who didn't know.


Refer to my response at the top.


Grand Canyon, Great Coral Reef, the Sun. All of these are proven to be natural effects. All of these are great effects of nature. Much better than the carvings on some mountain.


Don't care.


"Nature". Suuuuuuuuure. "Human Life". Suuuuuuuure. "Bible". Yeah, I guess, luckily the bible is just a book.


And yet, we can't find evidence of what he did when he was alive that was claimed in the bible.



Sure, once I have proof he exists.


I found out that people think we're superior to animals. Can someone tell me how this is? Animals and Humans (just another animal) are both alive, we both have organic cells, etc. The only difference is, we're smarter. Dogs are better at running than us. Birds can fly. Why do we not see those as advantages? Because we were able to build something that can beat both?

So you see, we're not superior, we are only "stronger" and "faster" because we use enhancements not given by nature. Which means, we're not superior, but our advantage is one that was huge.

Blah, end rant.

Tackle you say? All of your comments dont say anything; almost as worthless or than some of the arguments u quoted. You were trying to pick apart things from the last link which actually didn't even present an argument. That site is just an introduction with lots of links to actual arguments. It has the weakest arguments compared to the other two. Why dont you try tackling the other two?

kudos to MillenniumArmy. Cheeze, your off your rocker, but I'm not complaining.

Go, Milleniumarmy! I'm wit ya, as I am a believer of God too! Cheeze is just another obstacle in life, like marajuana to get in the way of God... (I learned that in a retreat i went to! )

About the guy that left Athiesm... would you really trust a guy that nearly committed suicide? I'd have to say I'm agnostic, but I do not mind going to church because I actually find it fun, most of the time. We all just need open minds...

*Edit* Cheeze was just poking fun at the first horrid and empty "argument" you posted Millenium. I almost thought the site was sarcastic when they expected me to believe in a god based on the overwhelming evidence they presented.

Chease: Agreed and Well said

I think all thats stuff is BS... "god" dnt exist because anything they can say about "God" There is a logical explination...

"god" is in quotation marks because it is jsut a name you don't know what it is...

Well why dont u guys go send those people a personal e-mail or something and tell em they're wrong?


You can't just say it's BS without actually stating your reasons why. How about u go try picking apart every single word in all those sites and tell me whats wrong with each and every one of them with a good thorough explaination. I'll be waiting.

How about you first tell us one thing that is right. Then I'll start listing the things that are wrong.

Ummm... I hate to say it but that's a dumb remark.

I posted those sites because they had proof for my reasons for believing in God. If nothing they said was right, why would i even post those links? Cmon use ur common sense. I believe in just about everything they say. Beside, he's the one who wanted to disprove those pages and began the "offense." I think he should actually present something rather than just say "I think all thats stuff is BS" and look like a fool. THEN as a defense, i might present my arguments.

No, in fact it was not. I would like to see some cold, hard evidence please. I would not like to see "theoretical" proof of statistics of people's beliefs.

But that's not the point.

TheOddAngel made a statement saying "I think all thats stuff is BS." He didn't state his reasons as to why he thinks that way. I was just telling him to do so so he wouldn't look stupid just by saying that "I think all thats stuff is BS" without any valid arguments.

The point is I want my proof!

every sunday after church he will be in the back room counting all the money the churches collect.

Look man, u're starting to act stupid. Please dont.

If you really want proof, go to google search and type in "Does God exist." Plenty of pages will pop up and perhaps your answer will be there.

Damn. At first, you said they were why you believe, something I don't hear from Christians often.
Now you're saying they're proof...

Proof as in they state why i believe.

Im not saying its proof of his existance, but proof of why if that makes any sense to you...

The topic is "Proof of God's Existence" not "Proof of Why I Believe in God."

So what you're saying CheeZe, is that as time reaches infinite, if God DOESN'T exist, he will come INTO existance because we have infinite time and the chance of anything happening reaches 100%.

Ok lets experiment. From what i've heard, Darwinists assert that science is built on observation and repetition. Okay, suppose we observe and repeat and experiment where we allow natural laws to work on rock for the next ten years. Will we ever get the faces on Mount Rushmore? Never. Of course one would say "natural laws would do it if we gave them billions of years." No it wouldn't because nature disorders, it doesn't organize things (fact that nature brings things toward disorder "entropy" is an aspect of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). More time makes it worse, not better.

Let's suppose we throw red, white, and blue confetti (like the little protein molecules in the socalled "premedorial soup") out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house. Whats the chance its going to form the American flag on your lawn? Not much. Natural laws are going to mix them up. You need more time? Fine. We'll throw them out of an airplane 10,000 feet above your house. Natural laws work upon them and makes the confetti even more disordered.

But wait.. of course... just because its 0.000000000001% chance... its still "possible" right? Wrong. Even though its virtually zero, we believe the possibly is actually zero. Why would someone make such an assumption? The word "chance" is not a cause. Chance is a word that we use to describe mathmatical possibilities. No power on its on. Chance is nothing. You could say it's what rocks dream about

If you flip a coin, whats the chance it'll be heads. 50% right? But what CAUSES it to flip? An intellegent being applies an amount of rotational torgue upon the coin, and the wind current and weight of the coin affects it's flip also. If you were to know all these variables you would be able to flip and know if it becomes heads or tails. Since we don't, we use the word chance to cover our own ignorance. Instead of not knowing a natural mechanism by which the first life came into being, Darwinists suggest a powerless word that just states possibility.

If your not sure if something doesnt exist and believe in it?
that's like me believing in some foreign middle-aged man named Yoh Ahmoma...and he doesn't even exist, or does he?

no matter what people say, i won't believe in anything except myself!

Ok, so you concede that website is null and void. You made that point more verbose than necessary.


MA, as every psuedoscientist knows and takes advantage of, it takes more time to debunk dubious arguments than to make one up. Links and sources are supposed to support your argument, not be your entire argument itself. You however, do what many of us call "link dropping," where a fundie will drop a link and expect the non-believers to actually debunk everything it in. 99% of the time, if some point is debunked, he won't bother defending it, but simply find another dubious website that slips past his balony detector and throw it at the rebuttal. Also 99% of the time, he hasn't even read the link himself and expects others to refute it.

With that said, I hope you're not one of those types. MA, I want you to pick three arguments that you think are the strongest for your case, and Cheeze(if he's still here) will examine those in detail. Once those three are dismantled, you can decide for yourself how well those other arguments hold up.


And why don't you write a book with the overwhelming evidence God exist and try to get it peer reviewed?


Because you don't have a balony detector.





Kind of like how you did it with Cheeze, eh?


Why not? After all, we do have figures such as the face of Mother Teresa on a cinnamon roll, the face of Jesus on a potato chip, and the face on Mars, the face of Vladimir Ilich Lenin appearing on my shower curtain, and a nebula giving us the finger, which were all arrived at blunderously. With a million cinnamon buns being made every day, or a million nebulas in the galaxy, it's really not a suprise and definately not a miracle for these chance happenings to occur.


Your right, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) doesn't impede evolution at all. My step-aunt will still be able to have her next kid, even though all the matter in her womb will have to go from a state of disorder to a state of order. The beautiful formation of a geometically symmetical snowflake isn't prohibitied by 2Lot, why? Because we are constantly recieving energy from the Sun available to do work, therefore we are not in a closed system. 2LoT only applies to closed systems.

If a lightbulb is shining on a plant, the plant will never have to worry about falling into a state of disorder, since it's constantly recieving energy from the Sun. If I take away the lightbulb, the plant will eventually go towards a state of disorder and eventually die.


What if it landed and gave you the finger? In any case, abiogenesis is not a part of evolution theory. Evolution also does not predict irreductably complex (IC) systems, which you seem to be alluding to, to develop within one generation. If something like that ever happened, it would actually be evidence against evolution. Evolution predicts that it will happen in gradual stages.


Not always.


Again, abiogenesis is not a part of evolution theory. After all, if we didn't know how the first atom came into existence, would that impede our ability to explain chemistry?