how old is God?

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

United States, North America

#154 Dec 19, 2012
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you retarded?
AGAIN, you went berserk and jumped into a "conversation" and replied with nothing to do with what was stated. Now THAT is being a jerk. And so here you are trying to win the jerk of the year award.
Kettle meet pot.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe

#155 Dec 19, 2012
Laci Ann 7 wrote:
<quoted text>The poster ask you a simple question, just as I have. Just goes to show I am not the only one you refuse to answer.
Boo Hoo... Tissue?

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

Buda, TX

#156 Dec 19, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you split up posts like that it would make it easier to respond to you lol.
Well lets speak of the system then. What if a person murders someone with no evidence to corroborate the murder? Then what? Does that mean he didnt do it?
If someone makes a claim then they have to prove it. That is what the "burden of proof" states does it not? So yes you have to prove it doesnt exist. Especially when we're talking about a Creator of the Universe. At best (if you dont want to provide proof for your claim) one could say that he might exist or might not. In other words they dont know. But to outright say "He doesnt exist" means that (again by YOUR logic) they have to prove this claim.
Now before you go and compare it to a fairy or any other strange creature let me ask you something. What do you think of ancient civilizations (such as the Hebrews, Sumerians, Egyptians, Aztecs etc..) that claimed that divine beings (for lack of a better word) came to them and did whatever? They were ALL lying? They ALL made them up?
Neither side can prove anything. It is beyond human comprehension. It is a belief system. What ticks me off is people telling me I am going to hell just because I don't believe the way they do. The truth isn't even debatable, because on this subject it is impossible to KNOW.
No one knows what happens when you die. Heaven and Hell? No one knows and those that say they know are just weird.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

United States, North America

#157 Dec 19, 2012
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Boo Hoo... Tissue?
Pot meet Kettle.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#158 Dec 19, 2012
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you retarded?
AGAIN, you went berserk and jumped into a "conversation" and replied with nothing to do with what was stated. Now THAT is being a jerk. And so here you are trying to win the jerk of the year award.
What you do not seem to understand is that the original poster (IamHim) is me hence the same sentence. Just a change of names since I didnt remember my original name. Nonetheless how did what I say have "nothing to do with what you stated?"
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#159 Dec 19, 2012
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Kettle meet pot.
Exactly lol
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#160 Dec 19, 2012
John from Texas wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither side can prove anything. It is beyond human comprehension. It is a belief system. What ticks me off is people telling me I am going to hell just because I don't believe the way they do. The truth isn't even debatable, because on this subject it is impossible to KNOW.
No one knows what happens when you die. Heaven and Hell? No one knows and those that say they know are just weird.
As long as you're non partial I have no problem with it. What I had a problem with is atheists (not all just some) making the claim that God does not exist but saying they do not have to prove this. But when someone says "God exists" they ask for proof. That is hypocritical.

I agree with your premise that no one knows for sure. With that said, I believe there are clues that can be taken to let us know of things that are passed human comprehension so to say.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe

#161 Dec 19, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
What you do not seem to understand is that the original poster (IamHim) is me hence the same sentence. Just a change of names since I didnt remember my original name. Nonetheless how did what I say have "nothing to do with what you stated?"
Thanks for proving my point that you replied without even knowing what it was about, since you never even read it. You just started spouting off.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

United States, North America

#162 Dec 19, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly lol
The really issue he/she refers to the "real god" and never gives any insight into it. I personally think he/she is just proving lies with more lies.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

United States, North America

#163 Dec 19, 2012
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for proving my point that you replied without even knowing what it was about, since you never even read it. You just started spouting off.
I disagree and it shows what a simple minded person you truly are.

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

Buda, TX

#164 Dec 19, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you're non partial I have no problem with it. What I had a problem with is atheists (not all just some) making the claim that God does not exist but saying they do not have to prove this. But when someone says "God exists" they ask for proof. That is hypocritical.
I agree with your premise that no one knows for sure. With that said, I believe there are clues that can be taken to let us know of things that are passed human comprehension so to say.
Yeah, cool! Many clues to ponder!
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#165 Dec 19, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you split up posts like that it would make it easier to respond to you lol.
Well lets speak of the system then. What if a person murders someone with no evidence to corroborate the murder? Then what? Does that mean he didnt do it?
If someone makes a claim then they have to prove it. That is what the "burden of proof" states does it not? So yes you have to prove it doesnt exist. Especially when we're talking about a Creator of the Universe. At best (if you dont want to provide proof for your claim) one could say that he might exist or might not. In other words they dont know. But to outright say "He doesnt exist" means that (again by YOUR logic) they have to prove this claim.
Now before you go and compare it to a fairy or any other strange creature let me ask you something. What do you think of ancient civilizations (such as the Hebrews, Sumerians, Egyptians, Aztecs etc..) that claimed that divine beings (for lack of a better word) came to them and did whatever? They were ALL lying? They ALL made them up?
The prosecutor (the one making the claim) is required to provide enough evidence to “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (denier) committed the murder. The defendant has the right to remain silent. The defendant (denier) is required to prove nothing.

Let me try to explain it this way.

If two people are discussing the Mars rover mission and man #1 says “there is life on Mars” and man #2 says “there is no life on Mars” the burden of proof is on man #1. Even though there is a very real possibility that there is life on Mars man #2 is correct based our present state of knowledge until man #1 can present proof of his claim.

To split posts:

1. Hit the reply button

2. COPY [QUOTE who="person's name?"]

3. PASTE [QUOTE who="person's name?"] at the beginning of the text that you want to quote.

4. At the end of this quote, TYPE [/QUOTE]

5. Place your response on the very next line.

6. REPEAT steps 3,4, and 5 for each quote.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#166 Dec 19, 2012
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for proving my point that you replied without even knowing what it was about, since you never even read it. You just started spouting off.
I AM THE ORIGINAL POSTER. I dont get what you do not understand about it. Actually I do. You've been going on and on about how Im "wrong" yet once you found out what it REALLY was, you keep repeating yourself till your blue in the face. Im not gonna stop though lol Everytime you respond Imma ask the same question. So if you're just tryna save face, just stop responding to me.

How was my question off topic to what you were discussing with me?
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#167 Dec 19, 2012
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
The really issue he/she refers to the "real god" and never gives any insight into it. I personally think he/she is just proving lies with more lies.
Lol I dont know what she/he believes. I believe this is my first time interacting with this poster. With that said he/she is VERY hard headed. But I guess it can be expected when backed into a corner I guess
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#168 Dec 19, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The prosecutor (the one making the claim) is required to provide enough evidence to “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (denier) committed the murder. The defendant has the right to remain silent. The defendant (denier) is required to prove nothing.
Well what happens when this person commits a murder with no evidence shown? Does that mean the murderer didnt do it? Since theres no evidence of course to show that he did do it.
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me try to explain it this way.
If two people are discussing the Mars rover mission and man #1 says “there is life on Mars” and man #2 says “there is no life on Mars” the burden of proof is on man #1. Even though there is a very real possibility that there is life on Mars man #2 is correct based our present state of knowledge until man #1 can present proof of his claim.
Well do not both people have to explain why they came to the conclusion they came to? Why would one have to do it over the other? BOTH would have to use the evidence they have as to why they're claim (which are both POSITIVE claims, not "maybe" claims) is the right one. I mean that is what a discussion is about. People are free to believe and say as they wish. But if you ask someone to prove their positive claim. Then you have to as well.

“Spotting sheep killers~”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#169 Dec 19, 2012
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Boo Hoo... Tissue?
Have astro will travel?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#170 Dec 20, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Well what happens when this person commits a murder with no evidence shown? Does that mean the murderer didnt do it? Since theres no evidence of course to show that he did do it.
It means that according to the rules of logic the one making the accusation of murder has the burden of proving his accusation and cannot shift that burden to the person accused.
<quoted text>
Flygerian wrote:
Well do not both people have to explain why they came to the conclusion they came to? Why would one have to do it over the other? BOTH would have to use the evidence they have as to why they're claim (which are both POSITIVE claims, not "maybe" claims) is the right one. I mean that is what a discussion is about. People are free to believe and say as they wish. But if you ask someone to prove their positive claim. Then you have to as well.
Until person #1 can “prove” his assertion the assertion of person #2 is correct based on the present state of knowledge. In order to change the present state of knowledge person #1 is required to provide “proof”. Person #2 has no requirement to provide “proof” because the present state of knowledge agrees with his assertion.

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”- Bertrand Russell (1952), widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians, coauthor of Principia Mathematica

The assertion that there is no china teapot orbiting the sun is correct until someone can provide "proof" that there is. The burden of proof that "there is a god" is on you.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#171 Dec 20, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that according to the rules of logic the one making the accusation of murder has the burden of proving his accusation and cannot shift that burden to the person accused.
[/quote]

Can you answer my question? Does that mean the person did not commit the crime (when in all actuality he did)because there is no evidence to support that he committed the murder?
[QUOTE who="Big Al"]
<quoted text>
Until person #1 can “prove” his assertion the assertion of person #2 is correct based on the present state of knowledge. In order to change the present state of knowledge person #1 is required to provide “proof”. Person #2 has no requirement to provide “proof” because the present state of knowledge agrees with his assertion.
“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”- Bertrand Russell (1952), widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians, coauthor of Principia Mathematica
The assertion that there is no china teapot orbiting the sun is correct until someone can provide "proof" that there is. The burden of proof that "there is a god" is on you.
The thing with your "examples" is that they point to a specific place. Even in the mars assertion. So all you would have to do is go to that place or send something there to view if said object is there. If he said it was too small too see with the strongest of telescopes then how did he see it? That is a loophole if I ever saw one lol But in the situation of God Almighty, no one claims He is "on Mars" or "by the sun".
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#172 Dec 20, 2012
Messed up the quote lol but the reply to the first part of your quote was:

Can you answer my question? Does that mean the person did not commit the crime (when in all actuality he did)because there is no evidence to support that he committed the murder?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#173 Dec 20, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing with your "examples" is that they point to a specific place. Even in the mars assertion. So all you would have to do is go to that place or send something there to view if said object is there. If he said it was too small too see with the strongest of telescopes then how did he see it? That is a loophole if I ever saw one lol But in the situation of God Almighty, no one claims He is "on Mars" or "by the sun".
He didn’t see it; he made it up!

Logical thinking is obviously not one of your strengths. I’d work on it if I were you. Logical thinking can very helpful in life.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do you really believe in a god? 1 hr janeebee 295
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 2 hr 10uhsee 929
Science and Religion 2 hr KAB 332
Is Obesity a Sin or Curse from God? 3 hr KAB 39
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 3 hr truth 7,734
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 4 hr Demon Finder 5,025
Question about Faith 4 hr Catholic24 16
Proof that the Bible God is evil 4 hr Demon Finder 24
More from around the web