I'm just going to put it out there, but according to the scientific method, it's up to the person making the claim to back what they're saying before anyone else has to. Thus, someone like cheeze, would merely need to sit back and say to the religious that say he has no proof... "Prove God exists, to place the burden of disproving him on me".
The bible, although you might see it as "God's Works" is not solid enough evidence, nor by any means a usable resource in any debate.
So, you claim there's an all powerful man in the sky, who grants wishes and punishes people for all eternity after they die for breaking his rules?
Prove it.
You do realize that Cheeze is the one making the claim, right?
god isnt real its just not possible for him to be made and for him to create the earth religeon is for looneys
Have some sort of proof that God does or does not exist? Last I checked there wasn't enough information to empirically answer that question.
Despite your claim to understand science, you have completely failed in your application of it (either that or your reading comprehension). The argument you have implied (something easily seen as you make it quite obvious by what you're saying and who you're responding to as the point you are after) is the one that must back itself up.
And you come in and say "The bible, although you might see it as "God's Works" is not solid enough evidence, nor by any means a usable resource in any debate." You do realize this thread is about different interpretations of the Bible, right? Assuming the Bible is false and God does not exist, you're basically going into an English class and refusing to discuss a MacBeth because it is fiction.
little-cheeze said:
if god created everything then he created time but it is impossible for actions which follow one another without reference to time so its logically impossible of a creator who exists outside of time so god couldnt of always existed
You do realize that Aristotle used that argument in favor of God, right (prime mover unmoved)? Put simpler, every result must have a cause - the very first result had no cause. Thus, it is a supernatural action. This means that, according to Aristotle, whatever made that happen is 'God', be it some random atom, a magical taco, or an omnipotent benevolent God.
little-cheeze said:
and if god created us to experience love then why did he create depression and sadness and anxiety
You just asked this; It depends on whether you value free will more than a world without evil. By the Christian view, free will is more important (since the whole religion is based on making choices and throughout the Bible it says we have free will, starting with being created in God's image in Genesis). You can value security over cognizance, however that's your personal opinion, not an inconsistency with God.
I believe God parted the red sea, Moses was just the vessel. And i believe that back then, people did live for longer than we do now. It has numerical evidence, how can you take that contextually?
The fact that the Hebrew language has letters that double as numbers. For example:
"...it is worth noting that the number 13...is the numerical value of the word ahava (love, Alef-Hei-Beit-Hei) and of echad (one, as in the daily prayer declaration, G-d is One!, Alef-Cheit-Dalet). Thirteen is the age of responsibility, when a boy becomes bar mitzvah. We call upon G-d's mercy by reciting his Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, found in Exodus 34:6-7. Rambam summed up Jewish beliefs in Thirteen Principles. "
Judaism 101: Hebrew Alphabet
Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad baculum
How is he threatening you in any way? He even goes out of his way to say "[God] doesn't punish you for breaking his rules." You can disagree with what he's saying (as I'd tweak it a bit, but I'm not arguing the point he is) but throwing fancy words at him doesn't make you right and it makes you look dumb to those who actually know what those fancy words mean.
