@JazzTheist

Yeah; I assume you'd have had researched the topic thoroughly before deciding that there's no God.

I do not have to research every possible god idea to conclude there is no god idea the evidence for god is just a human made up idea is overwhelming for any god idea, just the concept of "an all powerful timeless being that cannot be detected but must still be worshipped, prayed to, thought about and organized over" has lots of very powerful evidence against it. Just like you did not have to learn about every possible god idea before you settled on your particular one as being the "correct one" difference is, real testable evidence backs my conclusion up, where the various "god/religion" conclusions do not.

I may ask why does anything exists at all, and you'd throw in cosmological theories which don't quite answer the question.

I imagine some people that consider them selves atheist may throw in "cosmological theories" of why anything exists at all, I don't. I say I do not know why, because we can not detect or figure out what happened before the big bang. During/after the big bang we can say with some degree of evidenced back confidence that we are here because of the big bang. But before the big bang we simply do not know. And do not know gives just as much space for your god idea as well as any other number of ideas. Which means all of the "why" answers before the big bang are just as useless as the next.

I don't need to know anything about it; I only need to infer its existence.

Inferring it's existence does not mean much. I infer the existence of a rainbow pooping unicorn god, that is meaningless, it is useless the idea beyond considering it simply an idea has no merit or value, other then possibly making a person feel good about their made up answer (or someone else's made up answer that person uses for themselves.)

The first cause, by definition, doesn't need a cause to it.

Oooh we get to play the definitions game! Well, my first cause is the flying spaghetti monster, it is a first cause and by definition it does not need a first cause! Woooooo go me! And the flying spaghetti monster entered my thoughts to have me write to you that your first cause idea is wrong! Besides you cannot prove me wrong! Do I get a cookie from you because my idea is right and my idea told your idea is wrong?

Just like how a perfect sphere can't be more spherical than it.

Hmm a thought idea/concept that does not exist being measured/ruled by another thought/idea concept that does not exist. What a useless pile of nonsense. Ideas that do not exist describing other ideas that do not exist.

It's simple to infer. Consciousness exists. Something must have caused its existence. Since nothing comes from nothing, this ''something'' must already be conscious in all possible ways.

1. How do you know nothing comes from nothing? We can not even really understand nothing, and as soon as you begin to define nothing, it is no longer nothing! Yes, in this universe, chemistry, physics etc in your highschool and early college classes will talk about how within this universe currently known rule set, the generalized concept of "something" can not come from nothing. But we are talking about before the known universe, we cant study that, we do not even know if there was a before or not, the nothing come from nothing argument is a terrible argument, it is taken badly out of context from the high school chemistry book. The nothing can come from nothing rule only works in the closed system of the universe as we know it, and is just a general useful rule, that when you climb into the higher classes you will find that people are beginning to discover possibility of exceptions to that rule even within our known universe that people a whole lot smarter than both of us on this topic are studying and attempting to prove through careful study and experimentation right now.

Ever heard of the dead sea scrolls? It's the original Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament. And guess how similar it is to the modern version of the Old Testament? 95%. That's right.

I have heard of the dead sea scrolls quite a bit, comes up fairly often on these debate boards. You state it is 95% similar to the "modern version of the old testament." I call bullshit.

A majority of it is indeed written in Hebrew, 1000+ year old hebrew, plus a few written in ancient paleo-hebrew alphabet. Ever read real old written english? Ever get confused by the words and possibly what the written words mean, even if you have a high mastery of modern written english? Were you ever forced to guess even in modern english what a person meant when they wrote something? Is this modern old testament you speak of (but not identify) written in ancient paleo-Hebrew alphabet that has not been used in well over 1000 years with any regularity? Do you think they got it at least 95 percent correct even trying to translate it as best as possible word for word into a modern language? What about all the words that we no longer use today, concerns we no longer have today, why do the dead sea scrolls not seem timeless at all? But instead something written by humans over 1000 years ago? Even if the dead sea scrolls were accurately translated, what does that mean? What does that prove? That there is mostly accurate copy something today that existed over 1500 years ago? How come we can find similarities of stuff written in dead sea scrolls to other old surviving writings? That predate even the sea scrolls? The dead sea scrolls does little to help the argument that various religious ideas constantly plagiarize off each other? Taking what ever bits and pieces works best for the writers at the time of writing? Just like any other fictional piece of work? How does the dead sea scrolls add authenticity to what you read right now? I am guessing you do not believe/put all your faith/trust into the old testament. (I certainly hope not, especially if you actually READ IT.)

And to demonstrate the validity of the New Testament, let's compare it with the texts of another religion: Confucianism.

I would of picked a different comparison myself, then again I can see using one completely unsupported invalidated idea to compare to another is better then comparing to something actually validated and tested and proven to be likely real.

There are only three books that say anything about Confucius, all written at least a century after Confucius' death.

There is obviously a lot more than that, but I am guessing you are talking about surviving well recognized books written within a century or 2 of Confucius' death. Yeah and? Are you attempting to use argument ad popularium?

One the other hand, there are 27 books written about Jesus, all written within the 1st century.

Really? Exactly 27? What if someone wrote a book about jesus but it did not survive to make that count? Does not count unless it survived long enough to make some arbitrary this day count list? If I destroy all 27 of these books (and their exact copies) does that mean the next count the next day means there is zero surviving books? Does that change your argument?

There is every reason to acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead.

Every reason?? Careful starting to sound an awful like an absolutist. I thought you stated you were not like that? Worse still I have yet to see a single reason to acknowledge this "jesus" character ever rose from the dead or had any other special powers or is the son of the particular god idea people have.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

JazzTheist - Ever heard of the dead sea scrolls? It's the original Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament.

Who told you that, and why on Earth did you believe them?

Because you have never been in a real school?

rmfr

JazzTheist,

"Why wouldn't I hear about evolution?"

If you have heard about evolution then you should know that everything evolves. Elemental particles evolve into morecomplex elemental particles that eventually evolve into hydrogen atoms. Then hydrogen atoms for basic stars that cook up new elements. Eventually those "dead" elements evolve into organic compounds that become "alive" and create life forms. Those life forms continue to evolve as long as the environment is suitable for their existence.

We don't know how large the universe is or what it is but it is probably a living organism that is constantly evolving. The galaxies probably form some type of organic molecules.

If your favorite imaginary prophet from the 7th Century had said something like that you would believe it without question. But when I reveal it to you in the 21st Century you dismiss it. Why do you believe in an ancient 7th Century Middle Eastern Arabian religious fairy tale and not what an educated person tells you over a computer in the 21st Century? Does living in the past give you comfort? If you were traveling on an interstellar space ship how would you observe Ramadan? Your 7th Century religion and moon god is not fit for the future.