Prove there's a god.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#723152 May 1, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
<quoted text> I did not, but I have stopped drinking. I haven't drunk anything since June 26th 2000.
Good for you!
Alcohol is a dangerous drug. There are much safer ones.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#723154 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of shit, IANS. He answered your "quiz" in full detail and some were answers yes or no. Did you not read?
----------
Ghost Writer 2 You | 20 hrs ago
[3] Is it possible for men be righteous?-
Answer: Yes and no.
Correct. According to Genesis 7:1, Job 2:3, and James 5:16, man can be righteous, whereas according to Romans 3:10, man cannot be righteous
Context is again the key. In Romans, Paul is saying man cannot be righteous of his own nature for his own sake. In other words, man cannot save himself. The examples given in Genesis 7:1, Job 2:3, and James 5:16 refer to those who's desire from the heart is to please God through fellowship of the covenant.
[4] Has man seen God?-
Answer: No
In Genesis 32:30 Jacob is speaking of a vision or representation of God which he interpreted as seeing God. John 1:18 has a different focus than does Genesis. Again, skipping from book to book is incorrect methodology.
[5] Are all words from God true?- Yes.
Proverbs 30:5 is a proverb from Solomon and is an indicator of Solomon's trust in God. 1 Kings 22:23 is not to be taken literally because it's about a vision. Also, the type of language used by OT writers had a tendency to be forceful to illustrate a point. 1 Kings 22:23 is just such a passage and has a much deeper theological concern.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 refers to the theological concept that God will allow non-believers to continue to believe whatever they want. If they want to be in delusion which means 'wandering', then God will let them wander.
[6] Does God grow weary or tired?
Your answer is silly IANS. Tired in Exodus 31:17 doesn't refer here to physical fatigue. God getting tired isn't the same as human fatigue. Ceasing physical work for the sake of spiritual growt is the correct meaning within the larger passage. It is meant to be about being spiritually refreshed. Not physically.
Isaiah 40:28 is about how God will keep His covenant with Israel. He will not become tired of this covenant.
[7] Jesus before the Sanhedrin
Luke 22:67 skipped over the earlier known portions of the trial that we find in Markan and Matthean writings. Luke was writing to Theophilus (a likely Roman judge) about the legalities of Messianic claims and used this portion of Jesus' trial to emphasize what happened. Luke was a Syrian, not a Jew. His emphasis was not from a Jewish perspective.
Mark 14:62 was intended to show Jesus recognizing His time had come to proclaim Himself as the Son of God.
Matthew 26:64 is another account with the same focus as that of Mark.
Shall I continue?
----------
@GW, see? I told you that IANS didn't want answers that conflicted with his preconceived notions.
Waste of time....
He refused to answer 6 out of 4 questions. He failed miserably.
Just like you in school.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#723155 May 1, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. You're both wrong. As usual.
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
>>>2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. <<<
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
^^^the first of many contradictions^^^
3 And God said, "Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Correct. Genesis states that God created everything out of "nothing".

As usual, Christianity is hoisted by its own petard.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#723156 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think God needed to be created?......
You are the one's claiming that everything must have a creator.

So by YOUR rules, God must have a creator.

It's YOUR asinine theory NOT mine.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#723157 May 1, 2014
VIKING wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither nothing nor anyone created God, that's what makes him God. He created himself, that's what makes him God. He always there, that's what makes him God. From everlasting to everlasting, that's what makes him God. He exists in Time and outside of Time, that's what makes him God. He exists in Space and outside of Space, that's what makes him God. If someone or something had created HIM, well then he wouldn't be God, he would be something lower than that; but the fact that NOTHING OR NO ONE created him, well then that is just simply self-defining..........that's why he's God. Something like God, who created everything within everything can't possibly have any limits or a beginning as we humans understand a "beginning" to be HE created all the laws of Nature, Gravity, Physics, Chemistry, Astrophysics, Science, the Oceans, the Planets, the Milky Way Galaxy, all other Galaxies, the Sun, the Moon, the reproductive system of the Blue Whale, the 9 month pregnancy stage and the miraculously inexplicable things that happen to the fetus/baby during those nine months, deserts, jungles, rivers, the infinitely remarkable human brain, all other brains, the 10 to the 28th power amount of atoms in the human body, the immune system, volcanoes, mountains, geysers, polymers, monomers, the genetic code, electricity, etc, etc, etc..........something who created ALL THAT AND ETERNALLY MORE can't possibly have a creator himself, HE IS THE CREATOR and there is nothing above him........nothing.
Man can't figure out a cure for the common cold, so I don't he's gonna be able to figure out God. Nothing created God, because if something had created him, well then he wouldn't be God. But the fact that HE WAS ALWAYS THERE, well then that in and of itself makes him God by definition alone.
jesus, take you damn meds, you wacko.

Until you can prove any of the BS you posted above, you're entirely full of feces.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#723158 May 1, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's no reason to misspell turnip.
Did you borrow the Redneck's Siri?
Only a rutabaga would turnip its nose at parsnips.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#723159 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
DF?! I'm surprised that this didn't come from you first:
Face down, ass up...
STFU

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#723160 May 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you!
Alcohol is a dangerous drug. There are much safer ones.
Yeah and as bad as RR would hate to hear it, Marijuana is my choice. I quit drinking when I got married, I am divorced now and that and quitting drinking was the best thing to come out of my marriage..

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723161 May 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:

He refused to answer 6 out of 4 questions. He failed miserably.
Just like you in school.
No he didn't. The other four were in the preceding post.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#723162 May 1, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
<quoted text> I think most of the meaning is not In the Bible, but an open ended Interpretation of It.( within) Take Cain for example. nothing is said about his character or personality, so one has to Interpret why God rejected Him and his offering, it seems to me that it wasn't necessarily his offering that God rejected, but Cain himself..
Genesis chapter 4 verse 5
But unto CAIN AND his offering he had not RESPECT.
Why didn't God except Cain as He did Abel? The Bible doesn't say..
Correct. However Christianity accepts the RCC's inventions about that as "The perfect Word of God".

90% of what Christians believe is from the RCC NOT the Bible.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#723163 May 1, 2014
Belief doesn't make one
a better person
Behavior Does...

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#723164 May 1, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the hold up?
Never mind, it'll clear up.
Okay.

To keep up...

I will have to read up.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#723165 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
DF?! I'm surprised that this didn't come from you first:
Face down, ass up...
Nah... I am too grown up now

“Aaaaaaaaaaaaah”

Since: Aug 07

Piscataway

#723166 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think God needed to be created? You didn't answer that. All you said was "something cannot come from nothing", which is correct. God didn't "come from "anything, He has always existed.
Right hand, red. Left foot, green!

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#723167 May 1, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I think it does matter. It's meaningless to assert that something does or doesn't exist without a clear concept of what it is we are discussing.
Alright, you want a clear concept of nothingness, here you go. Mind you, it's pretty lame that you have to ask, when anyone can pretty much define nothingness, even though we've no evidence that it really exists.

Nothingness is the absence of everything, from a domain or dimension, and that might even be going too far; who's to say that dimension could even support itself in nothingness? Nothing means nothing. Take your pick, a dimension of nothingness or just plain ol nothingness (the absence of everything including dimension).

That clear things up for ya? Now what?
Can you define "first order" in this context?
By 'first order' I mean that what we see is what we get and not some grand illusion of time and dimension and even of substance. There is no evidence that there is any substance to the "physical world", no one knows what a fundamental particle is made of, if anything at all. Things feel real in a dream yet they are not quite the same as in wake time. Rarely we can realize we are dreaming but the fact that we can be fooled in the first place makes it possible we can be fooled during waketime too even though if "real time" was an illusion it sure is a consistent one, but nontheless, it is possible.
You might enjoy this at http://newempiricism.blogspot.mx/2009/10/pres... :
"Presentism and the denial of mind - Presentism is the idea that the universe is three dimensional with "time" being an artifact of record keeping. It is the model of the universe that is taught in school science lessons. The immediate consequence of presentism is that everything that happens is the result of motions so nothing can happen now because there is no motion at an instant*. If nothing happens now, if "now" is frozen, then nothing can be known "now".
"Presentism originates in the fact that I cannot measure events that are a microsecond in the future or easily measure events that are a microsecond in the past, here, at the point of the measuring instrument (But electrons can interfere with their past "selves" - see Lindner et al.(2005). Attosecond double slit experiment. and Horwitz's analysis of these experiments).
"The alternative to presentism is four dimensionalism in which there is an aspect of time that occurs as a dimension like the three dimensions of space. This aspect of time is sometimes called "dimensional time" and is another axis, or direction, for arranging things. Four dimensionalism is the modern interpretation of relativity theory, it not only holds that objects are arranged in space and dimensional time, it also says that space and time are interdependent."
When I was in my thirties, my speculations were a lot like yours. I thought about issues like this a lot, and even wrote journals on them to myself. I thought that they were insightful then, although when I reread them now, not as much.
I like suppleness of thought. and like the free form that your speculations take at times. Where we part ways is your dogmatic presentation of them and your emotional reaction to being misunderstood or disagreed with.
I'm emotional? Not compared with most people on your side. Keep elevating yourself, that's your style.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#723168 May 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. However Christianity accepts the RCC's inventions about that as "The perfect Word of God".
90% of what Christians believe is from the RCC NOT the Bible.
I agree with you..Christians believe what the Church's Conception of God is, Instead of their own..

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#723169 May 1, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand that the term "vacuum" is equivalent to "nothing" and is referred to when talking about virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
Just because it's hard to comprehend doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The square root of negative one (i) is hard to comprehend, but it is a necessary component of certain calculations.
Read the article nano posted. Not the wiki article on the big bang but the one on virtual particles. Maybe then you'll understand. There is nothing popping in and out of existence from nothingness, it is a disturbance created from things that already exist. Go, on, chop chop.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#723170 May 1, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
You cannot use that to support a universe created from nothing.

Your "virtual particles" are not real particles....

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-pos ...

...and are not creating "new" matter.

According to Big Bang theory there were no particles "at" that highly ordered initial state of being to cause fluctuations. What you are seeing in "virtual particle" motion is the universe's ability to maintain a balance between entropy and neg-entropy. Nice, considering it allows us to continue living.

Get a grip.
Nice find. They don't seem to care to get educated though, they're still trying to claim that something can come from nothing.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#723171 May 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
The particles are no more "virtual" than the electrons powering you computer.
The common use of "virtual" is not the same as that used by physicists.
In quantum mechanics, the entire Universe is "virtual" as well as a "possibility".
Because I know you will never read the article nano posted (heck you probably already stopped reading this post I am writing), here is a quote from it,:

"A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

The electron can turn into a virtual photon and a virtual electron, which then turn back into a real electron."

Did you see that big man? Caused by the presence of other partocles. Since when are "other particles" the same as 'nothingness'?

“Faith = Trust”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#723172 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice.
But I doubt there is anything that can be said that would make IANS think that he's not right. He has wholly convinced himself.
That's exactly it. Atheists and anti-theists are skeptical of everything except their own worldview. They cannot and will not even consider whether or not they could possibly be wrong. And the more it is pointed out, the more they will dig their heels in to their own worldview. That's exactly why they claim we do that. It's an ego-centric claim. They do it both consciously and sub-consciously and then assume everyone else does also.

That's why I asked IANS a few weeks ago if he was skeptical of his own skepticism. You'll notice that Scrooge isn't even remotely doubtful as to whether or not he's mistaken. You and I could be wrong about Jesus, but the probability in favor of the historicity and deity of Jesus is higher than that of the opposition. I've said all along that we don't need to operate at 100% certainty. If that were the case, nobody would ever take risks.

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 10 min skyedove 31,210
My "thorn in the flesh" God won't fix....this s... 23 min Poo Bears 7
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 57 min Rosesz 687,333
Are Quadroons and Griffes Considered Mulatto? (Aug '10) 2 hr Johnny 47
dried poppy pods (Mar '13) 3 hr gurmail singh gosal 38
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 4 hr Johnny 186
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr David S Pumpkins 286,590
More from around the web