Prove there's a god.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627783 Jun 2, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>We don't know what color Jesus was. In fact his whole life is conjecture. The Messiah was supposed to be white and ruddy which means "red" or "to shed blood". The coming Messiah will be of northwestern European descent, the lost house of Israel.
I know what color the Christ was. Invisible.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627784 Jun 2, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you insist on telling me i am "not honest" in my evaluation??
What did i just tell you in my last post?
Because you are inherently dishonest. Especially to yourself and that is pathetic.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627785 Jun 2, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus Christ is Italian.
No way, Chalooz.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627786 Jun 2, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been my little nutty scientist????
Curious as to what your thoughts are, about the "clock makers" post i posted??
Ive noticed, ""no one"" has anything to say or has even attempted to refute about that well made reasonable point!!!?
I never saw the post, but I'd gladly refute it. Was it Paley's Watchmaker? If that was it, seriously? That PRATT was wholly eviscerated many times over.

To say that the existence of manipulators manipulating pre-existing matter proves the existence of an intelligent being creating ex nihilo, is a non-sequitur. It is an equivocation of two different uses of the word "create".

Making consists of manipulation of pre-existing matter and energy. It is true that the existence of a building or car presupposes a maker. But it also presupposes something else: pre-existing matter and energy that the maker manipulates. The maker of a building does not “make” it by saying:“Let there be a house. And let it be of brick and have shingles of asphalt. And let the brick be yellow in color and the window trim be of almond coloring.” A “maker” makes something by starting with something that already exists. She then manipulates it by changing its shape or size or even applying energy to change its attributes and then assembles the modified pre-existing matter into the building.

A log cabin maker first finds existing trees, chops them down, removes the branches, shapes them and then piles them in a particular way to “make” the cabin walls. The raw materials of glass are subjected to heat until the heat manipulates it into a transparent substance that is then molded or cut to fit holes in the walls to make windows. A sand castle maker does not make the sand, he merely shapes existing sand into a shape we call a castle. Making is not “creating.” It is merely manipulating. And, of course, existing matter and energy can only be manipulated by a manipulator.

Creation ex nihilo or speaking something into existence is a completely different category of event. Where making presupposes the previous existence of matter and energy, creating presupposes the opposite – that nothing exists previously.

Noticing that existing matter and energy can be manipulated tells us absolutely nothing about how the matter and energy came to exist in the first place. Finding a piece of clay and noticing that it can be manipulated it the shape of a horse tells me nothing about how the clay got there to begin with.

Your first flash premise is complexity. The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even willful ignorance. Remember, Behe's Irreducible Complexity has already been laughed out of the courts.

Your second false premise is the definition of design. We know that man-made objects are designed a posteriori. We have heard of designers. We know of companies that make such things. They are made out of plastic which doesn't occur in nature or finely polished purified silver which doesn't appear in nature. We know such things are designed because of our knowledge of the world we can logically conclude that they are designed

Seeing design in nature involves confusing the direction of causality. Humans are the product of a long evolutionary process that has adapted us to the environments where we live. That our surroundings seem well suited to us (to the extent that they are) is not surprising, but is not evidence that it was designed for our benefit; rather it is a testament to the power of evolution to produce well-adapted organisms.

Your third false premise is nothing more than special pleading. It has to be so! Why? You can replace your personal version of your god with anything else without changing the definition. Pretending to equivocate our existence with design does not point to your personal version of whatever god you pretend.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627787 Jun 2, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been my little nutty scientist????
Curious as to what your thoughts are, about the "clock makers" post i posted??
Ive noticed, ""no one"" has anything to say or has even attempted to refute about that well made reasonable point!!!?
Oh, and I can easily disprove your personal god. First, you need to describe the exact nature of your god. The EXACT nature. As soon as you are willing and able to do that, I can disprove it, just like your silly "design" exercises.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627788 Jun 2, 2013
Sa_August wrote:
<quoted text>
its common knowledge
you know there is a GOD,
please don't pretend ya don't
this thing wasn't done in secret
First you claim your god is unknowable then you claim it is common knowledge. Weird.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#627789 Jun 2, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Elohim is a plural and God is a husband and wife and they are one flesh. Genesis 2:24. The male part is Energy and the forces in nature. The female part is the Messiah, the Lord. In Isaiah 54:5-6 God is spoken of in this way. Jesus is supposed to have a new name and being reincarnated is the only thing that would explain this. The resurrection is supposed to take place on the mount of Olives. Zechariah 14:4. The OT is complete and needs no addition or elaboration.
When the Hebrews invented God, he had a wife named Asherah. The Hebrew people had 'Asherah' poles outside their houses and they baked Asherah cakes for them.

Later on the Hebrew rabbi's decided God shouldn't have a wife, so they wrote her out of the Torah.

Funny that.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#627790 Jun 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Paul never existed.
Adam and Eve never existed, so.....

....Jesus probably never existed.

Since: Jun 13

Houston, TX

#627791 Jun 2, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Sounds a little like Hitler.
''National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.(p 6 & 7)''
<quoted text> Yeah so who is smarter? What do you mean by inferior humans?
<quoted text> Atheists copulate with sheep?
<quoted text> Not really.
1) Hitler had a jewish grandmother and he was in the so-called "agenda" himself, he was a fake. The "jews" aren't even Jewish, but I honestly don't feel like going into it.
2) Inferior humans.. thats just it.. Weak and lowly humans.. all races and all creeds.
3) That was not literal. Why do people take things in literal context? Grow a brain and figure it out hun.
4) What do you mean not really? Are you a Christian?*yikes*
Huh

Garland, TX

#627792 Jun 2, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been my little nutty scientist????
Curious as to what your thoughts are, about the "clock makers" post i posted??
Ive noticed, ""no one"" has anything to say or has even attempted to refute about that well made reasonable point!!!?
No "argument from design" is ever a "well-made, reasonable point". Have you considered going back to school to learn the grammar and punctuation you should have learned the first time. Perhaps if you start with the basics, we can work on critical thinking skills later.

The entire premise for the argument is based on notion that there are aspects of nature too complex to have simply sprung into existence by chance (a claim which has only ever been made by Christians, by the way. Please quote one scientist that claims the universe sprung into existence by chance. I'll wait.). Trying to solve a complex mystery by invoking an even more complex mystery is ridiculous.

Say, for sake of point, that we agreed there was a malevolent force behind all of this. Which god, then? Why a god? Why not a spaghetti monster? Do we point to your personal god just because you were born in America and were culturally-conditioned to believe in whichever version of the Chrostian god your forebears saw fit to confuse you with?

We can actually look at the argument from poor design to easily eviscerate our claims. Here, wrap your noggin around the Dysteleological Argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent designer would create organisms with an optimal design.

Organisms, especially humans, have features that are suboptimal.

Therefore, the designer either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Here are some of the suboptimal characteristics to support this claim.

In the human eye, not only is the retina backwards but it creates a scotoma where the optic nerve attaches.

The human pelvis is too small in many cases to support the passage of the fetal head. Until modern medicine circumvented the problem, infant mortality was rampant when such cases presented.

In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. This is due to the existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.

The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.

The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.

The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease.

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.

The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals; in the case of the giraffe, this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.

The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate.

The list goes on. And on. There is no design only adaptation.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627793 Jun 2, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
When the Hebrews invented God, he had a wife named Asherah. The Hebrew people had 'Asherah' poles outside their houses and they baked Asherah cakes for them.
Later on the Hebrew rabbi's decided God shouldn't have a wife, so they wrote her out of the Torah.
Funny that.
Pssst, don't hit them with facts. They get agitated.
Huh

Garland, TX

#627794 Jun 2, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve never existed, so.....
....Jesus probably never existed.
Jesus was a fairly common name back in those days, so their was certainly a surfeit of Jesuses, and probably many were preachers for whatever gods they were promoting as that was quite common, too. But, Christs? Nope. Not a one. Never. No gods yet. And Paul is a proven fabrication. Paul of Acts is an amalgamation of characters from the day, from Saul to Josephus and several others.

And, the character was written very poorly. Paul knew nothing about the annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel, the virgin birth, the star of Bethlehem, the wise men, Herod, the slaughter of the innocents or the flight into Egypt. In fact Paul knew nothing at all of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth. He knew of no disciples, friends, or earthly enemies, nor of any baptism by John in the Jordan. He didn’t mention or quote any teachings, parables or sermons or morals. In fact he attributed no ethical instruction to the earthly Jesus at all.

Nor did he seem to know of any healings of the blind or lame or lepers, or of any of Jesus’ especially spectacular miracles like bringing the dead to life, changing water to wine, feeding five thousand, stilling the storm or walking on water.

He knew of no temptation in the wilderness or dialogue with the Devil, no exorcisms, and no evil spirits falling down in fear before Jesus.

He knew nothing of the times, places or circumstances of the crucifixion. He never mentioned Gethsemane, or the betrayal by Judas (he merely said Jesus ‘was delivered up’ for crucifixion), or the denial by Peter or the disciples, or trials, or scourging, or judgment by Pilate, or Roman soldiers, or Golgotha or vigil at the cross. No last words – nothing!

Paul appears to have believed that after three days Jesus ascended directly to heaven without any intervening time on earth, and he certainly didn’t cite any empty tomb.

If Paul and the first Christians knew so little about Jesus, what possible grounds do we have for believing Jesus existed as an historical figure rather than as a Jewish version of the pagan solar godman?
Huh

Garland, TX

#627795 Jun 2, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve never existed, so.....
....Jesus probably never existed.
I find it so odd and curious that we have modern, First World people that stammer and stamp their feet for these fairy tales of diet, ribs, snakes, and floods. It's just so weird. The efficacy of brainwashing a child is amazing. Disgusting, but amazing.
Expert

Redding, CA

#627796 Jun 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent designer would create organisms with an optimal design.
What evidence do you base this presumption on?
Expert

Redding, CA

#627797 Jun 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus was a fairly common name back in those days, so their was certainly a surfeit of Jesuses, and probably many were preachers for whatever gods they were promoting as that was quite common, too. But, Christs? Nope. Not a one. Never. No gods yet. And Paul is a proven fabrication. Paul of Acts is an amalgamation of characters from the day, from Saul to Josephus and several others.
And, the character was written very poorly. Paul knew nothing about the annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel, the virgin birth, the star of Bethlehem, the wise men, Herod, the slaughter of the innocents or the flight into Egypt. In fact Paul knew nothing at all of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth. He knew of no disciples, friends, or earthly enemies, nor of any baptism by John in the Jordan. He didn’t mention or quote any teachings, parables or sermons or morals. In fact he attributed no ethical instruction to the earthly Jesus at all.
Nor did he seem to know of any healings of the blind or lame or lepers, or of any of Jesus’ especially spectacular miracles like bringing the dead to life, changing water to wine, feeding five thousand, stilling the storm or walking on water.
He knew of no temptation in the wilderness or dialogue with the Devil, no exorcisms, and no evil spirits falling down in fear before Jesus.
He knew nothing of the times, places or circumstances of the crucifixion. He never mentioned Gethsemane, or the betrayal by Judas (he merely said Jesus ‘was delivered up’ for crucifixion), or the denial by Peter or the disciples, or trials, or scourging, or judgment by Pilate, or Roman soldiers, or Golgotha or vigil at the cross. No last words – nothing!
Paul appears to have believed that after three days Jesus ascended directly to heaven without any intervening time on earth, and he certainly didn’t cite any empty tomb.
If Paul and the first Christians knew so little about Jesus, what possible grounds do we have for believing Jesus existed as an historical figure rather than as a Jewish version of the pagan solar godman?
Bunch of empty claims with no facts to support any of your presumptions, typical.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#627798 Jun 3, 2013
Expert wrote:
<quoted text>
Bunch of empty claims with no facts to support any of your presumptions, typical.
SO, you have facts....lets hear them.
Greens - tufe

Annandale, Australia

#627799 Jun 3, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>I know what color the Christ was. Invisible.
Maybe opaque, or transparent?

“To contract new debts...”

Since: Apr 08

is not the way to pay old ones

#627800 Jun 3, 2013

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#627801 Jun 3, 2013
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>In my opinion there is no sense in arguing with anyone. We should be beacons of hope and love so that non believers WANT to become believers. Just my 2 cents.
Which is one of the reasons we never will.

We see what belief has done to so many.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#627802 Jun 3, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does not say omnipotence is infinite energy. You are defining omnipotence as infinite energy, and you are defining it specifically in terms of quantum mechanics.
And if God exists, then it means that the universe and all the associated laws that govern it, is just a creation of God, not God itself. Why would you think that God is bound by the first law of thermodynamics?
Are you assuming that if God has infinite energy, then the creation of God must have infinite energy? Any segment of infinity is itself infinite, and so since we are in a finite state, therefore God is not omnipotent? You are I cannot compartmentalize infinity, and so you assume that God cannot?
It does not matter what the babble says, the meaning of the word omnipotence is infinite energy. Had they meant finite energy when writing the babble they would not (should not) have used the word omnipotent.

I am not defining anything, I am taking the words of the babble, the mathematics of Einstein and the word of several dictionaries. The babble states god is omnipotent, there is not doubt of the wording, you have even quoted it yourself. Those dictionaries state that omnipotence means infinite power or infinite energy (power equates to energy). Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence formula states this is impossible.

If a god exists in this universe then he/she/it must by the very nature of the laws this
universe adhere to the laws of that universe. If a god exists outside this universe then the point is mute. He/she/it will be at least 13.7 billion light years away in any given direction and therefor effectively unreachable.

I am not compartmentalising anything, I am quoting from the babble, not from my mind and not from any faith. I did not write the babble

You have just said it yourself,“we are in a finite state”, the energy available in this universe must therefore be finite. So how can infinite energy exist in a finite universe of energy?

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) 3 min Darwins Stepchild 28,829
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 9 min LAWEST100 44,174
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 10 min Card Carrying Zio... 181,908
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min 2all 637,673
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min LAWEST100 618,188
Wtf 21 min Mad as hell 1
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 32 min Paul is dead 3,669
More from around the web