Gospels

[Dex]

The Gospel according to Matthew says (27:52-54) 'the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept rose up and came out of their graves after His resurrection, and went into the Holy City and appeared to many'. Do you believe this happened? If Yes: How could this amazing event have escaped everyone else's notice, even the other evangelists? If No: How could the author of Matthew get away with such a lie?

[JoeyKnothead]

If you look around
and can't see there is a creator,
I won't try beating it into you!

I'm with ya man,
The earth is in the perfect place in orbit
There is just enough oxygen
The second law of thermodynamics
The banana is perfectly shaped

[Cathar1950]

Disprove the Creator.
Disprove the worldwide flood.
Disprove the resurrection of Jesus.
Disprove...

Why bother trying to disprove something that hasn't been proven? It's illogical to even try. To disprove something would mean that it would first have to be proven, otherwise what is there to disprove? Perhaps if you were to prove your claims, then we could try to disprove them then.

There are fairies in my garden. Why don't you disprove that?

That is easy I had my gnomes kick your fairies out. At least they said they did when I paid them to do it.

You bastard! I just went out there now and the garden is swarming with bloody gnomes!

It seems your fairies were very persuasive and cute, the gnomes have now joined forces with them and are now extorting me for money.

Who created the creator?

[InTheFlesh]

"Who created the creator?"

The creator is the author of the big bang!
He created all things.

[Cathar1950]

"Who created the creator?"

The creator is the author of the big bang!
He created all things.

So you say.
If the universe needs a creator beause everything does then God would also need a creator and simply stating otherwise is begging the question.
One thing that the universe and God do have in common is that they have both evolved.
The concept of God have evolved or changed.
This is found in the Hebrew writings as we also see the evolution of the Christ concept evolving in the gospels as they were being created.

[OnceConvinced]

"Who created the creator?"

The creator is the author of the big bang!
He created all things.

So God created himself?

[McCulloch]

"Who created the creator?"

The creator is the author of the big bang!
He created all things.

1. The Creator created all things.
2. All that exist are things.
3. Therefore, if the Creator exists, then the Creator is a thing.
4. All things were created by the Creator.
5. Therefore, the Creator created himself.
6. Therefore, there is at least one thing that can create itself.

If one thing can create itself, then why insist that all things must be created? Why not simply posit a self-creating universe? If things cannot create themselves, then God is not a thing and does not exist.

[Fisherking]

If one thing can create itself, then why insist that all things must be created? Why not simply posit a self-creating universe? If things cannot create themselves, then God is not a thing and does not exist.

I agree and believe the argument is much stronger when framed like this:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists
(Kalaam Cosmological Argument)

Of course, many will take issue with (2) hoping to explain it away with some type of wishful thinking -- but if we are to go where the evidence leads, we find the evidence leading straight to premise (2), making conclusions (3), (4), and (5) valid.

[JoeyKnothead]

"Who created the creator?"

The creator is the author of the big bang!
He created all things.

Man created the creator. God is unable to even produce something as simple as a book, which means humans have to produce His word for him. How else could we have the Bible, if it were not for the many publishers who provide it? As many theists like to holler on about, we humans are all faulty, and capable of error. Who would then be so arrogant a human to think error could not be introduced into the Bible? Wouldn't it be much wiser, and more fair to the individual, if God were to impart His word on the newborn. Do it then so the errors of 'man' cannot be introduced? This would also help with the 'heathen' societies which don't have access to the Bible, and who are thus condemned to hell for not even knowing about it.

[Cathar1950]

If one thing can create itself, then why insist that all things must be created? Why not simply posit a self-creating universe? If things cannot create themselves, then God is not a thing and does not exist.

I agree and believe the argument is much stronger when framed like this:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists
(Kalaam Cosmological Argument)

Of course, many will take issue with (2) hoping to explain it away with some type of wishful thinking -- but if we are to go where the evidence leads, we find the evidence leading straight to premise (2), making conclusions (3), (4), and (5) valid.

(3 problem)There is no reason to asume the cause is God, as you define God, it could have been a positron that got lost from the future that it now created and have no attibutes you call God except "cause".
You do not know what that cause is and now you are calling it God.

[McCulloch]

If one thing can create itself, then why insist that all things must be created? Why not simply posit a self-creating universe? If things cannot create themselves, then God is not a thing and does not exist.

I agree

Actually, you don't agree. I'll explain further.

and believe the argument is much stronger when framed like this:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
   Therefore:
5. God exists

(Kalaam Cosmological Argument)

Of course, many will take issue with (2) hoping to explain it away with some type of wishful thinking -- but if we are to go where the evidence leads, we find the evidence leading straight to premise (2), making conclusions (3), (4), and (5) valid.

Let's first deal with my original logic.

1. Everything that exists has a beginning to its existence.
2. God has no beginning.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

I expect that you may have difficulty with (1), pleading that God is the one exception, being the one existing thing with no beginning.

Restated

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. Nothing can be its own cause.
3. God is the ultimate cause of all things.
4. God must be his own cause.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.

Again, I expect special pleading regarding (1), Everything except God has a cause. Or regarding (2) Nothing except God can be its own cause.

Now, on to the Cosmological Argument.

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
   Therefore:
5. God exists

(1) cannot be shown to be true.
(4) is not necessarily true. Calling the alleged ultimate first cause, God, is not particularly helpful. The term God is a loaded word with lots of implied meaning. Why not say that (4)If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is X.
Therefore: X existed at least at the beginning of the universe.
What then can be inferred about X?

1. X still exists - No
2. X is intelligent - No
3. X has will - No
4. X shows intent - No
5. X is omnipotent - No
6. X loves us - No
7. X communicates to humans - No
8. X became a human and died for us - No

I think this is enough to show that X is not necessarily equal to God.