Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567879 Dec 1, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
But Genesis, if it happened, regardless, of what timeline it followed, could not have occurred, because it doesn't match with what we today do know happened, and secondly, even if it had happened the way the stories tell, man would not have had that information at the time of the writing of those stories to have actually written them down.
If there was actually one physical first man (and woman), there would have been no form of any kind of recording the events, including word of mouth, because man would have developed language, and means of passing on what he later did with that language, many thousands or millions of years after the events. It is also believed by some that the mythical writings were written by the mythical Moses, who mythically, according to what believers state, lived only a few thousand years ago.
I agree.

Which is why I've said countless times that Genesis isn't a literal account. It merely details what God did, not HOW He did it. Not WHEN He did it.

I don't think Adam was literally the first human man. I think he was more likely one if the first Homo sapiens on earth. I think that God watched evolution happen, according to His plan and when man was ready (evolved enough) God made Himself known.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#567881 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"Remaining religious and superstitious is a sign of primitive thinking"
You think that because you're ignorant if religion. You're ignorant of God.
You can be taught, you can learn. You choose not to. You choose to remain ignorant.
Absolutely not , your method of thinking was in effect for thousands of years. Effectively progressing nowhere, you clearly are he one simply being the stubborn , and have not even considered any other way of thinking.

It seems to escape your ability to even show tangible evidence or invoke the alleged limitless power of your imaginary god.
However even you admit science proved the composition of water.
Where's the bible thumping realization in that?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567882 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
How wrong you are.... I hide a lot from my kids, most parents do. Not to be mean to them, but for their own safety & protection.
If you had kids, would you let them see your "adult stuff"? No. You want them to be kids, because we all know & understand the phrase "you're only a kid once".
Taking out the batteries of the noisy plastic ray gun is not hurting them in any way, in fact it's helping them. A happy mom & dad equals happy kids, and vice versa.
You do not understand, I know. I'm trying to teach you something. Let's see if you can learn...
your morality is completely self-centered, you would damage your child's toy and find a way to make that a moral good.

I must say, you are indeed a christian

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567883 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you seem to be starting your own religion now. Here's what the Christians teach [from http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysu... ]:
Day 1 - God created light and separated the light from the darkness, calling light "day" and darkness "night."
Day 2 - God created an expanse to separate the waters and called it "sky."
Day 3 - God created the dry ground and gathered the waters, calling the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters "seas." On day three, God also created vegetation (plants and trees).
Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and the stars to give light to the earth and to govern and separate the day and the night. These would also serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years.
Day 5 - God created every living creature of the seas and every winged bird, blessing them to multiply and fill the waters and the sky with life.
Day 6 - God created the animals to fill the earth. On day six, God also created man and woman (Adam and Eve) in his own image to commune with him. He blessed them and gave them every creature and the whole earth to rule over, care for, and cultivate.
Day 7 - God had finished his work of creation and so he rested on the seventh day, blessing it and making it holy.
I'm not going round and round with this, ad infinitum.

The "days" in Genesis weren't 24 hour periods.

I will present you with these facts one last time. If you can't understand, I'm sorry. If you choose not to understand, that's your fault.

The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing.

It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis, 24 hours.

It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk.

It can refer to an unspecified period of time, like "back in the day..."

It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11.

It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16.

And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4.

God used six "days" to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one.

God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to.

And note that God didn't literally "rest" on the 7th day, it simply means that God wanted us to rest, to "follow His footsteps", as it were. It's an example.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567884 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
ok, I'll play.
plain, simple, direct...
Will any of you ever admit that it's your opinion that God had nothing to do with evolution?
which god?

I have not see any evidence of a god

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567885 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. Please elaborate.
<quoted text>
Typical. Can't understand it, call it hysterical. Laugh it off... You're a sad lil man.
OK. Metaphors. You say that bible has none & is meant to be read as a literal book.
Genesis 1:2, it's right in the beginning of the book so I'm sure you've read it.
"... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Water has no face. It's not literal.
Next.
the crucifixion, is not the report of an event, it is a metaphor.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567886 Dec 1, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All these little tidbits , contain some facts but contain variables.
As far as that goes evolution has also been proven experimentally by the demonstration of the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
But when we talk theory it encompasses more than just mere singular facts and provides an explanation over a broad range of variables. In that respect nothing is ever absolutely proven
beyond 99.9% plausibility.
You speak of ignorance , but it is your own.
Such as for example oil and water can be made to mix.
But this is just a trivial fact also not a wide ranging theory
which explains the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Evolution does just that, but your ignorance does not.
It's the "inherited characteristics" of evolution that I have a problem with. It's the assumptions & guesses that some scientists make to "finish the story".

There is no concrete evidence that all life on this planet came from ONE single cell organism. That is an assumption. A guess.

So if the basis of the theory is started off with a guess, why would the rest of it be "fact"?

You can't deny that a lot of assumption goes into the making of ToE.

I don't know how to put it. But IMO, what we know if evolution is clearly accurate. I can't deny that nor do I want to. Fact is fact. But the WAY it happens is not known. WHY is happens is not known. The timeline of how it happened is unknown. HOW it happens is unknown.

I understand what evolution does, I don't think any of us fully understand how, though.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567887 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I will and DO praise the words of men because they were inspired by God.
Inspired isn't nearly good enough. And ancient words aren't nearly good enough:

"Your position is that there is a god that has an important message for mankind, and somehow, he only reveals it to certain individuals who then write this down. And thousands of years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals.

"[Regarding] a textual testimony to a miracle such as the loaves and fishes. there's no amount of reports - anecdotal testimonial reports - that could be sufficient to justify believing that this even actually happened as reported. No amount.

"Anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this. And if it wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable would not be relying on text to do so.

"This for me is the nail in the coffin for Christianity. The god that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading this information to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony.

"That's not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify as a god should know this, which means either that god doesn't exist, or doesn't care enough about those people who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it." - Matt Dillahunty

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567888 Dec 1, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not , your method of thinking was in effect for thousands of years. Effectively progressing nowhere, you clearly are he one simply being the stubborn , and have not even considered any other way of thinking.
It seems to escape your ability to even show tangible evidence or invoke the alleged limitless power of your imaginary god.
However even you admit science proved the composition of water.
Where's the bible thumping realization in that?
Understanding the bible, understanding Christianity has nothing to do with science figuring out the composition of water. The bible isn't a science book, it's not detailed in the HOW, just the WHY. Make sense?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567889 Dec 1, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
the crucifixion, is not the report of an event, it is a metaphor.
I usually white sheet your idiotic responses, but I'll ask you to explain this one.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567890 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. It's proven that water is made up of 2 hydrogen & 1 oxygen.
It's proven what the speed of sound and light is.
It's proven that oil & water don't mix.
It's proven that water is an excellent conductor of electricity.
It's proven that dolphins and whales aren't fish.
It's proven that heat expands & cold contracts.
It's proven that space isn't a complete vacuum.
Evolution, as we have guessed it, is NOT a proven fact.
Don't give me your "nothing is really proven" lie. You people tend to use it to defend your ignorant stance on evolution.
water is an insulator, it conducts electricity very poorly.

nothing is "proven" "facts" have a probability of being correct, explanations are models within parameters (or tolerances). we are still looking for an explanation for gravity, you could say it is the truth that objects fall, but if you do not define the environment and frame of reference than it is not always true.

you have an uneducated mind, and unfortunately for you (and most of your religious friends) a rather poor intellect. You have a propensity to superstition and a high rate of paranoia. Fortunately evolution is taking care of that problem, too bad it takes so long.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567891 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Inspired isn't nearly good enough. And ancient words aren't nearly good enough:
"Your position is that there is a god that has an important message for mankind, and somehow, he only reveals it to certain individuals who then write this down. And thousands of years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals.
"[Regarding] a textual testimony to a miracle such as the loaves and fishes. there's no amount of reports - anecdotal testimonial reports - that could be sufficient to justify believing that this even actually happened as reported. No amount.
"Anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this. And if it wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable would not be relying on text to do so.
"This for me is the nail in the coffin for Christianity. The god that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading this information to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony.
"That's not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify as a god should know this, which means either that god doesn't exist, or doesn't care enough about those people who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it." - Matt Dillahunty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rJ6ruM7Muo8XX
Whoever wrote that goes off the premise that there are no original texts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a testimony to the accuracy and preservation of the Old Testament and provide confidence that the Old Testament existing today is the same Old Testament as that which used by Jesus.

The bible was written over a 1,500 year span by 40 authors and it still holds up to scrutiny.

Name one other book that can say the same....

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567892 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you're saying, I do.
I don't understand why none of you admit that it's your opinion.
And the "Evolutionary science is perfectly fine without your desires interfering" line I completely disagree with.
How did life first happen in order for evolution to start happening?
How did such incredible complex life simply come to be? Especially in the millions if varieties that it has?
IMO, divine, powerful, intelligent design answers that.
the deity you imagine is a projection of your psyche, that is why it is so evil

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#567893 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the "inherited characteristics" of evolution that I have a problem with. It's the assumptions & guesses that some scientists make to "finish the story".
There is no concrete evidence that all life on this planet came from ONE single cell organism. That is an assumption. A guess.
So if the basis of the theory is started off with a guess, why would the rest of it be "fact"?
You can't deny that a lot of assumption goes into the making of ToE.
I don't know how to put it. But IMO, what we know if evolution is clearly accurate. I can't deny that nor do I want to. Fact is fact. But the WAY it happens is not known. WHY is happens is not known. The timeline of how it happened is unknown. HOW it happens is unknown.
I understand what evolution does, I don't think any of us fully understand how, though.
ToE does not entirely rest on the premise of a LUCA anymore.
In fact it could be wrong , this is why no theory is any more than 99.9% proven. It leaves room for dynamic discovery , such as the realization it may have been 3 things that shared genes that started all life as we know it. It's possible that there is no living thing today does not have these three things in common , therefore impossible to break down life to a singular ancestor.

But this is not in itself a deal buster , it is only a cause for modification.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567894 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Do all y'all see good reading skills as "mental gymnastics"?
In some cases, yes - serious gymnastics in a few, like a back tuck, except that as you are setting, you twist and end like a front tuck, and then immediately turn into an Onodi - a back handspring with a half twist so you end like a front walkover.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567895 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the "inherited characteristics" of evolution that I have a problem with. It's the assumptions & guesses that some scientists make to "finish the story".
There is no concrete evidence that all life on this planet came from ONE single cell organism. That is an assumption. A guess.
So if the basis of the theory is started off with a guess, why would the rest of it be "fact"?
You can't deny that a lot of assumption goes into the making of ToE.
I don't know how to put it. But IMO, what we know if evolution is clearly accurate. I can't deny that nor do I want to. Fact is fact. But the WAY it happens is not known. WHY is happens is not known. The timeline of how it happened is unknown. HOW it happens is unknown.
I understand what evolution does, I don't think any of us fully understand how, though.
you are missing

----wait---for---it

education

I understand it just fine

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567896 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoever wrote that goes off the premise that there are no original texts.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a testimony to the accuracy and preservation of the Old Testament and provide confidence that the Old Testament existing today is the same Old Testament as that which used by Jesus.
The bible was written over a 1,500 year span by 40 authors and it still holds up to scrutiny.
Name one other book that can say the same....
you cant even get a decent correlation of agreement amongst current OT texts. Which one do you elect to compare with the dead sea scrolls.

the people who have done that work say the correlation is very poor.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567897 Dec 1, 2012
United in faith wrote:
I am not teaching.
Is that a disclaimer because Christian women aren't allowed to teach men?
United in faith wrote:
nor am i preaching.
Mum's the word if anybody asks.
United in faith wrote:
I am simply telling you and others what i know to be true. putting the word out there.
I know, right? You're just informing others what you know to be true about your god, not teaching or preaching.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567898 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't disregard any parts of the bible. I'm just smart enough to understand allegory, metaphor and hidden meanings.
Take leviticus 6:6 for example.
Leviticus 6:6
And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest.
Do you think that pertains to me at all in a literal sense?
Do you think it has a hidden meaning behind it?
Please don't show that you're so stupid that you can't see past the literal words...
So how do you decide which words to ignore? How do you know to disregard the bible's ethical position on slavery? Simple. You use a little compassion and reason, and ignore your bible.

From Pat Condell: YOUR MORAL GUIDE
http://dotsub.com/view/e88246dd-b45e-4eca-8e8...

"Religious people often say that atheists have no morals because they have no moral guide. If you believe this, let me ask you something. If you're a Christian, chances are the Bible is your moral guide, but is that all the Bible, or just some of it?

"It's just the good bits, isn't it? The bits you've cherry-picked because obviously if you wanted to live in a Leviticus-style society where people are stoned or mutilated for insane and trivial reasons you could simply move to Iran.

"But how do you decide which are the good bits and which are the bad in the Bible? What do you use as a moral guide? The Bible? Well, surely not. If so, you would simply accept the bad along with the good, which is clearly what the Bible wants you to do otherwise the bad wouldn't be in there in the first place, would it?

"But no, you don't do that. You defy the Bible. You sift out the bad and discard it for the ignorant primitive barbarism it is. In short, you edit the Bible to suit your own sensibilities. So where do you get the moral guidance to impose your authority on the word of the Bible? It has to come from a higher source, doesn't it?(These things usually do.)

"And it does, of course. It comes from you. You are a higher source than the Bible, a much higher source. The criminals who run religion don't want you to know or to act upon this because then their influence over you would be zero.

"Yet the evidence is clear. You sifted the good from the bad in the Bible without the Bible's help. You did it against the Bible's will, and you did it all on your own because, whether you like it or not, you have a conscience, which means that you are capable of distinguishing good from evil without the help of scripture, and you have just proven it beyond any shadow of doubt.

"So, in fact, the Bible is not your moral guide. You are. It doesn't provide you with a moral compass. You do. And the only faith you need is faith in yourself. O happy day."

==========

That's what we do, too, but we go much further. The rational ethics of secular humanism seeks to apply reason and compassion to all issues, not just the glaringly wrong one such as slavery and stoning unruly children to death.
JESUSLIVES

Chicago, IL

#567899 Dec 1, 2012
Apocalypse666 wrote:
No the point was prove it to be fact.
I believe there is no god because common sense dictates there isn't one.
So if it is a fact then prove it.
Saying you have to believe is no different than Santa Clause.
So prove that god is real and is a factual being.
If he is real then you can prove it.
If he is not then you cannot prove it.
If you believe there isn't God (the real one) then what up with the pic of satan and the 666 that involves there is God. If there's no God why do you pronounce satan freely by like worshiping satan you have to hat God cause that's what the devil does. I ain't not devil worshiper btw.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 51 min Clearwater 87,840
Where can i buy ecstasy in dundee?? ASAP (Feb '13) 1 hr DundeeDank 2
Profitional massage for girl in Sohar (oman) (Jan '15) 2 hr Funny life 33
The Future of Politics in America 2 hr Scaritual 134
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 2 hr Scaritual 12
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr AussieBobby 284,458
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 3 hr gundee123 1,212
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 7 hr lightbeamrider 437
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 hr kent 665,093
More from around the web