CALLING ALL ATHEISTS TO A CHALLENGE!!!

Tory, is there anything that would invalidate this reasoning as with the red balloon?

1) All things which begin to exist are things that require a cause
2) God is not a thing which began to exist
3) Therefore God is not a thing that requires a cause

if this is still hard to understand im basically asking why do you belive

2) God did not begin to exist
3) God does not require a cause

Ok Jimmy Diggs how can a natural object such as myself see a supernatural object? Ramon seems to think I need a second set of eyes. I think he is full of chit. He keeps adding layers of complications to everything. He talks about the one true god then he adds a layer of complication by saying that god had a son. Now there are two gods. Next your going to say his mother was a virgin.

God has always existed, has he not?

to cause to me asking why is because your giving me answers without reasons so again why is there no need for a cause for god and is your reason for that is because god did not begin to exist (which makes no logical sense) then again why did he not begin to exist. if he doesnt exist how did he become the cause of the universe what made him exist

if this is still hard to understand im basically asking why do you belive

2) God did not begin to exist
3) God does not require a cause

By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause, and is the ultimate creator. This eliminates the infinite regression problem.
Some may ask, "But who created God?" The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry <--- click

let me ask ramon do belive the world will start to end this year on may 21st

I'm also going to call BS on this 'absolute truth', method, maybe i'm not trying hard enough? (as typical of claims to be unfalsifyable) ... although I was praying to the Deist God, withholding judgement of the bible etc. Either way, i'm not going to sit around moping waiting for something that hasn't come and doesn't show any sign of coming. I just don't see evidence the method works, if it works for others, why can't they demonstrate it?

Read the new testament front to back twice before, genesis a couple of times, the rest is just peripheral quotations and information from people, have read Luke and John since I've been on CC, even gone to christian 'bibletalk/sermons' to participate-listen in at uni. Maybe I didn't read it hard enough? with an open mind? ...well, I prefer my brain doesn't fall out of its head.

Here's how I went about it
1. Assuming a God exists
2. Open an invitation (in mind) for said God 'creator of the universe sort' to approach you if he warrants, leaving a blank slate of any stereotypes of said God until communication is open.

Ok Jimmy Diggs how can a natural object such as myself see a supernatural object?

Ramon seems to think I need a second set of eyes. I think he is full of chit. He keeps adding layers of complications to everything

He talks about the one true god then he adds a layer of complication by saying that god had a son. Now there are two gods. Next your going to say his mother was a virgin.

To the extent I have any sense of what good and evil is, i don't think they are supernatural forces, or bestowed by a creator.
There are some good rules of morality where I can't conceive of a situation existing to oppose that ruling.
I do think our morality is formed through our life experiences; what we come to value (philosophical stances, relationships, life etc).

Is your question of good and evil leading to a proof? or just curiosity?

To the extent I have any sense of what good and evil is, i don't think they are supernatural forces, or bestowed by a creator.
There are some good rules of morality where I can't conceive of a situation existing to oppose that ruling.
I do think our morality is formed through our life experiences; what we come to value (philosophical stances, relationships, life etc).

Is your question of good and evil leading to a proof? or just curiosity?

Okay, what is the standard of good and evil. What scale do we weigh it on? Do tell.

Transcendental?
Universally applicable?

When I refer to 'the golden rule'; treat others as you would have yourself treated, it doesn't mean it occurs in practice, or even if people are aware of the consequences of their actions, since peoples different values will lead to an application of this rule being different, its just an idealistic perspective on what I think morality should stem from, i.e. synonamous with morality.

Morality- N. Golden Rule

Me personally? anothers?, or society? who's standard?

So that morality shoudl be defined as...

'The Golden Rule'

Is this accurate, or do I not understand?

Yes, my tentatively held opinion from the idealist perspective. In practice, taking it too far usually leads to getting walked over, which I suppose creating some barriers to how 'helpful' one should be, could also come under the golden rule as I wouldn't expect over-exertion of another.