Prove there's a god.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#538023 Sep 12, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not appealing to authority.
Abiogenesis is a well supported hypothesis and there is agreement within the scientific community that it had happened.
Oh Harold Moskowitz? The Harold Moskowitz?
The one which we enter into Google and we cannot find one reference?
Or, when we Highlight your entire paragraph, enter it into Google's searchbar, FIND THAT THAT PARAGRAPH ONLY APPEARS ON TOPIX.
In other words, you have used an imaginary source to shamelessly try and strengthen your point.
You are commiting much more than appeal to authority fallacy. You are blatantly lying.
You are a long way past pathetic
Perhaps he meant this person from Yale.

Beginnings of Cellular Life
Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis
Harold J. Morowitz
REVIEWS PREVIEW CONTENTS EXCERPTS

In this book an internationally renowned scientist presents a radically new theory of the origin of life on Earth 4 billion years ago.

Harold J. Morowitz postulates that the first step toward the origin of life was the spontaneous condensation of amphiphilic molecules to form vesicles (or protocells). This hypothesis provides a framework for reexamining the emergence of cellularity. Morowitz further proposes that core metabolic processes have not changed for some 3.8 billion years, so we can use a study of modern biochemistry to advance our knowledge about the chemical processes of the earliest protocells. Morowitz views origin of life issues from the perspective of certain constructs in the philosophy of science that provide guideposts to formulating and assessing hypotheses. This book presents a unique discussion among origin-of-life books on the relation between science and epistemology on the difficult problem of learning about the very distant past.

The Yale Press.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#538024 Sep 12, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It was originally Yahweh, Jehovah, which is translated to God.
Arguing over the English dictionary definition of God and god is rather silly, is it not? We know that the original language had words and phrases that can't be translated literally, and we also know that the original language has several meanings for certain words, which would give the context of some statements different meaning depending on which meaning a person used to translate.

We also know that all of the original texts we 100% written by men, have been since edited by men, and there is no proved involvement of any super being in that process, so everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.

All conversations would be manufactured, as memory of specific dialogue is impossible. Al events would be greatly altered, because even if an event is immediately reported on today by several people, or by the same person several times, the details change with each telling. That is human nature.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#538025 Sep 12, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
We do know what He looks like, or at least closely. We sure know He don't look like a weenie....
He created us in His image, you'd assume that "His image" means he looks somewhat like a man.
If that doesn't make sense, I can dumb it down for ya.
But which man, astrolapithicus, cro-magnon, neaderthal, modern man? Which one? They all look different.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#538026 Sep 12, 2012
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
But which man, astrolapithicus, cro-magnon, neaderthal, modern man? Which one? They all look different.
RR can't even tell us if his god is black, white or Asian! Or what his hair color or eye color is. Or if he's short or tall. Or....anything at all about what his god looks like- maybe to RR, all men look exactly the same?

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538036 Sep 12, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're a bit off there, uh... Bit...
1. RR believes that for everyone, love is conditional.
Then my first point stands: since you believe that there is no unconditional love, you cannot unconditionally love God.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
2. RR said that if his kids killed him, he wouldn't love them anymore.
Sure, he'd be sad in heaven, knowing that his child will be in hell. I don't even want to
OK, in which case your example does not argue against the possibility of unconditional love. You were just saying that it was beyond *your* capabilities.

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538038 Sep 12, 2012
Bit Twiddler wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a beautiful passage. My father-in-law read it at our wedding.
Henry wrote:
A lie is a lie and no truth.
Are you saying that it is a lie that the passage is beautiful? Or that my father-in-law did not read it at our wedding?

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538043 Sep 12, 2012
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
<quoted text>Then your first point fails: since you believe there is unconditional love, you must love a rapist unconditionally.
No, I do not have to love everyone unconditionally just because unconditional love is possible.
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
Actually, the capacity to love God unconditionally is not a capacity that can be given towards humans, it is called "agape" love. Look it up, every real Christian knows what the word means.
"Agape" is the love which Paul the Apostle urges Christians to have towards each other. Since Christians are humans I think he would have disagreed with you. I certainly do.

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538044 Sep 12, 2012
A quick search shows that Jesus also used the "agape" sense of love in Matthew 22:39 when he said "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

So Jesus would have disagreed with you too, OW, assuming we take Matthew as a reliable account.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#538045 Sep 12, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
..........
Came in handy knowing those Scriptures a few years ago!
You realize Jesus is speaking about personal belief, right?

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538053 Sep 12, 2012
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
<quoted text>A quick search shows that you do not know the meaning of the word "AGAPE", what Jesus refers to is "brotherly love". Do you know the different? I did not think so.
Matthew has Jesus using the word "&#7936;&#947; &#945;&#960;&#942; &#963;&#949;&#953; &#962;" - agapeseis - when he says you shall love your neighbours.
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
...snip...

Also, this is in regards to Jews and Christians, who are to live as neighbors, not heathens and infidels, whom we are not live like and with.
I disagree once more. The same word is used in Luke 10:27 - &#7936;&#947;&#945 ;&#960;&#942;&#963 ;&#949;&#953;&#962 ;. When asked by the crowd for clarification - "and who is my neighbour?" - Jesus follows with the parable of the Good Samaritan, with which I am sure you are familar.

As for this:
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
Definition: Agape is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love in the Bible.
This Greek word and variations of it are found throughout the New Testament. Agape perfectly describes the kind of love Jesus Christ has for his Father and for his followers:
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.(John 14:21, NIV)
http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/A...
The fact that Jesus felt "agape" love for his followers does not preclude his followers feeling it toward each other. This was surely a central teaching of Christ's.

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538054 Sep 12, 2012
Topix obviously doesn't like Greek characters. Bah.

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538055 Sep 12, 2012
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
<quoted text>I was pointed out your mistake in not knowing what agape and brotherly love. Paul was speaking of brotherly love towards other Christians. Since, Paul was not talking about agape but brotherly, then both Paul and Jesus do disagree with you.
Simply, read the definition of "agape love" and learn something this day.
Paul clearly uses the word "agape" in 1 Corinthians 13.

http://whdc.biblos.com/1_corinthians/13.htm

“There is much pleasure to be”

Since: Jul 10

gained from useless knowledge

#538059 Sep 12, 2012
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
<quoted text>You are just making things up as you go. The Good Samaritan is about brotherly love, not agape love.
Sorry, but when it comes to the question of what the text says, I'll trust the text rather than your assertions. The word "agape" is right there, plain to see.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#538060 Sep 12, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Arguing over the English dictionary definition of God and god is rather silly, is it not? We know that the original language had words and phrases that can't be translated literally
We weren't talking about translation, we were talking about the difference between god & God. There IS a difference.

"god" is polytheism

"God" is monotheism

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#538061 Sep 12, 2012
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
But which man, astrolapithicus, cro-magnon, neaderthal, modern man? Which one? They all look different.
I don't know, so I'll be all scientific about it & make a guess... Then you'll believe me.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#538062 Sep 12, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>RR can't even tell us if his god is black, white or Asian! Or what his hair color or eye color is. Or if he's short or tall. Or....anything at all about what his god looks like- maybe to RR, all men look exactly the same?
You really are an idiot. Even if you don't believe in God, you should know that he isn't human male...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#538065 Sep 12, 2012
Botz r us wrote:
<quoted text>
supermorbid obesity is genetic...unlike homosexuality which is a lifestyle choice, ask any Lardy Fat-Body in Chick fil A.
Fatness is NOT genetic, it's a defective organ called the mouth. Fat people use it too much & cram it full of shitty food. Then they get fat, call it obese & label it a "disease". Gimme a break, they're just fat.

gayness is most defintately a lifestyle choice.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#538067 Sep 12, 2012
OCB wrote:
Of course, in YOUR case, you know NOTHING because you CHOOSE to know NOTHING.
I knew that Darwin copied his garndpa's works before you.

It might help you to research your beliefs of evolution BEFORE worshipping them.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#538069 Sep 12, 2012
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
<quoted text>booty is like a drum, he just beats and does not discern the rhythm of the beat, so he never makes any sense.
LOL, I see ole boootsy sittin on his plastic covered couch, aimlessly typing on his "typewriter", then forgetting his own name so he starts typing about some guy named Lloyd....

Give the man his meds!

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#538072 Sep 12, 2012
Oscar_Wilde wrote:
<quoted text>So, are you an astrolaptithicus, cro-magnon, neanderthal or homo-erectus? Do you think that Adam was astrolaptithicus, Noah was cro-magnon, Abraham was neanderthal, and John the Baptist was a modern man?
Basically child, you have no proof of none of these so-called humans, you all have myth based suppositions from scientists who have designed science fiction based on some bones here, bones there, and missing bones that they imagined. They are simply creative artists, who draw pictures based on the images already in their mind.
I guess people just made up the bones and buried them exactly where the archeologists were digging. Woder what they made them out of? Or why they made them the shapes they were?

Basically child, just stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes and say to yourself, no, they did not find any bones of ancient man. Be as ignorant as you wish to be. No skin off my nose. But you do yourself a vast disservice not recognizing the finds of the past.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 14 min kent 692,071
LeBron James: Should he STAY or should he GO?? 19 min Exposing Devil Lies 5
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 48 min June VanDerMark 46,816
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr Exposing Devil Lies 619,843
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 5 hr Exposing Devil Lies 440
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 5 hr yidfellas hate USA 4,412
TWA Flight 800 (Jul '13) 5 hr USS LIBERTY 3
More from around the web