What is this "God"?

Quoting Conrau K from page 1, as some people seem to have missed that: "Appears to me an entirely christian God. What would define God in general. What do pagan Gods have in common with christian Gods?"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Frantically google-searching.

When you get that one go to "proof by contradiction." Then you will understand why I can be certain that no proof exists showing that the sum of a rational number and an irrational number is a rational number.

God omnipotent and all forgiving allows children in africa to have their eyes eaten out by worms from the water they drink before they are old enough to have the language to be able to describe what they see.

Originally posted by dj2becker
John 4:24 - God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 6:33 - For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Romans 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

...[text shortened]... e are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

this bible must be old. hath hath hath thou

Originally posted by bbarr
Haven't you heard? The atheist is committed to the claim that the universe came from nothing. From nothing! 😲

But, as everyone knows, nothing comes from nothing, because everything that exists has to have a cause!

Except God, He doesn't have to have a cause! Hooray for God!

[Refute at your leisure.]

So you have left the atheist with two possibilities. Either matter is its own uncaused cause (absurd) or there exists some other uncaused cause enacting agent (probability-wise more logical). The atheist chooses the absurd over the logical.
Hooray for the atheist!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you have left the atheist with two possibilities. Either matter is its own uncaused cause (absurd) or there exists some other uncaused cause enacting agent (probability-wise more logical). The atheist chooses the absurd over the logical.
Hooray for the atheist!

Or the atheist says the universe was uncaused, and doesn't have a beginning.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Tell you what: I'll list the standards by which these types of claims can be measured, and you tell us which of the list are arbitrary.

Are you going to post this or just drivel nonsense about what you think is entailed in the stance of the atheist ?

Originally posted by Starrman
Lol, what? Perhaps you'd care to justify such a ludicrous claim.

EDIT: And are you going to post that list?

Here's an outline of historiography, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Some of the common questions of historiography are:
Who wrote the source (primary or secondary)?
For primary sources, we look at the person in his or her society, for secondary sources, we consider the theoretical orientation of the approach.
What is the authenticity, authority, bias/interest, and intelligibility of the source?
What was the view of history when the source was written?
Was history supposed to provide moral lessons?
What or who was the intended audience?
What sources were privileged or ignored in the narrative?
By what method was the evidence compiled?
In what historical context was the work of history itself written?

Issues engaged in so-called critical historiography includes topics such as:
What constitutes an historical "event"?
In what modes does a historian write and produce statements of "truth" and "fact"?
How does the medium (novel, textbook, film, theatre, comic) through which historical information is conveyed influence its meaning?
What inherent epistemological problems does archive-based history contain?
How does the historian establish their own objectivity or come to terms with their own subjectivity?
What is the relation of historical theory to historical practice?
What is the "goal" of history?
What is history?

Under this discipline, three principles emerge which can be used as the standard of ascertaining veracity.
1. Bibliographical test
2. Internal evidence test
3. External evidence test

Please inform me which of the above factors are arbitrary and should thus be removed.

Originally posted by bbarr
Or the atheist says the universe was uncaused, and doesn't have a beginning.

Which science seems to have a problem with.

Originally posted by bbarr
Or the atheist says the universe was uncaused, and doesn't have a beginning.

In essence, the same thing. Either it caused itself, or it always was. So either God is God, or matter is God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you have left the atheist with two possibilities. Either matter is its own uncaused cause (absurd) or there exists some other uncaused cause enacting agent (probability-wise more logical). The atheist chooses the absurd over the logical.
Hooray for the atheist!

"Either matter is its own uncaused cause (absurd)"

hence god is absurd. as god doesn't have to have a cause to be, he is by your own logic "absurd".

Originally posted by Starrman
Are you going to post this or just drivel nonsense about what you think is entailed in the stance of the atheist ?

The atheist believes something other that what I've presented?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The atheist believes something other that what I've presented?

Atheism is not a state of belief.

Originally posted by Starrman
Atheism is not a state of belief.

The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god.

Originally posted by Rolfey
"Either matter is its own uncaused cause (absurd)"

hence god is absurd. as god doesn't have to have a cause to be, he is by your own logic "absurd".

God, not being matter--- moreover, being outside of matter--- does not, therefore, require a cause.