Prove there's a god.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#723111 May 1, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Go take some more drugs and shut up.
Good response.

Well thought out and a valid counter argument.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#723112 May 1, 2014
VIKING wrote:
<quoted text>What caused the "quantum fluctuation" ????

Who made the "quantum vacuum" ????

Who made it "unconstrained"????

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and neither does ANYTHING you have ever said. And by the way fuc*stick, 94% of this Planet believes in a Creator..........just thought you should know.
94% of this planet (by which I assume you mean the people on the planet) doesn't have the courage to say "I don't know" when faced with a possibly incomprehensible mystery.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#723113 May 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you fulfilled the ludicrous promises you made to "God" at the time. LOL
BTDT
I did not, but I have stopped drinking. I haven't drunk anything since June 26th 2000.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#723114 May 1, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Noice.
Line up
Wait up
All my ideas are used up.

I give up

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723115 May 1, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:

@ Riverside Redneck
By being here and expressing your opinions, you have offered yourself as an example of Christianity, just as each of us is an example of the consequences of a life of unbelief guided by secular philosophy. It is by looking at hundreds of examples of each, assessing them, and developing and comparing composite portraits of the fruits of each that we can make judgments about what works and what fails. This is how evidence based thinkers think.
Not surprisingly, we unbelievers find affirmation in our choice by this process, while you faith based thinkers seem to be unaffected by the evidence. That is the huge price you pay for being a faith based thinker. If you are divorced from evidence, you are divorced from reality.
And if you don't use the evidence of experience as feedback to tweak your philosophy, but instead continue to embrace it on faith independent of outcomes, you can't grow. Our personal philosophies evolve through a series of successive approximations and adaptations. You stagnate.
Just so you know, if you controlled your mouth, it would be much more difficult to discuss you as an example of failure with relative indifference to your feelings. But you make it easy by refusing to even try, preferring instead to hunker down with your failed strategy - a perfect example of what I am referring regarding stagnation versus adaptive growth.
Oh.

You want to discuss me as an example of failure?

G'head.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#723116 May 1, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
In a way, there is not such thing as "near the speed of light" when you are looking at yourself. You can measure what fraction of the speed of light something else is traveling relative to you. But keep in mind there is no absolute frame of reference. From your personal frame of reference, you always appear to be standing still.
Standing here on Earth, there is a galaxy many billions of lightyears away that is traveling .95 c from your perspective, and you are standing still. But from an observer on a planet in that galaxy, he sees himself as standing still and YOU traveling at .95 c.
Inertia is present in all mass, and is increasing at any velocity. It is just that the increase is very very tiny until a substantial fraction of the speed of light is obtained. But this increase in inertia is seen by an outside observer, not by an inside observer. To the inside observer, it looks the same as it always did.
Relativity is screwy. And if relativity is screwy, quantum mechanics is downright batsh*t crazy.
I have gathered that, LOLZ.

Reason I asked: Been watching a doccie about new spacecraft we are trying to build. One involves a giant aliminium "sail" that can harvest the energy from laser beams directed in its direction.

As you know, combustion engines in current form is not really a means of traversing space in any reasonable amount of time. However, an engine capable of acceleration in space would be able to travel much faster, because there is no limit to how fast such a machine would be able to travel, except light speed. If we are able to put something in space that can accelerate to say, 0.5C, suddenly interstellar travel becomes possible.

Reason I ask you, I am curious at what point would you start encountering resistance. In particle accelerators, we are able to get these particles travelling very high speeds, but they always show great resistance when approaching v=c. If we were ever to build something capable of travelling to the nearest stars, based on current information, how fast would you think such machines could travel, based on what happens in colliders?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723117 May 1, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
The bible does not say that something was created from "nothing".
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The bible says whatever you want it to say
Nope. She's right, the Bible does not say that something was created from "nothing".

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723118 May 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't log in to Topix from home ?
Does that me all the "User" posts were from work ?
I am not even sure you have a job. What was it again ? "I'm a private contractor", "I hang sheet rock for a Hispanic company.", "I work for a big company and my immediate boss is Hispanic." or do you have a new story for us ?
Don't think too hard.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723119 May 1, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:

He's a walking contradiction. He believes in Jesus but not that the universe was created.
ex nihilo nihil fit
I think Ben just wants to make "friends" here. He's a sad, lonely little man with little to offer the world so he offers his Trollery that Christian won't accept but atheists will.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723120 May 1, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:

Apparently he's now an expert on parenting also.
Alert the media.
Dr. Spock must be rolling in his grave.
Ben abandoned his daughter, he's no expert in parenting.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723121 May 1, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I still haven't seen a direct answer such as yes, no, or both.
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....

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#723122 May 1, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>All my ideas are used up.

I give up
What's the hold up?

Never mind, it'll clear up.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#723123 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>nanoanomaly wrote:
The bible does not say that something was created from "nothing".

Nope. She's right, the Bible does not say that something was created from "nothing".
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.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#723124 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....
Got a link to that post?

“Faith = Trust”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#723125 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....
I know RR. He wanted to pigeon-hole my answers to fit his limited understanding so he could appear victorious. I answered according to context and not to his foolishness. What's that proverb?

Do not answer a fool according to his folly.-Proverbs 26:4
Answer a fool according to his folly lest he become wise in his own eyes.-Proverbs 26:5

Translation in modern terms:

Do not answer using the same presuppositions the fool uses.
Answer the fool according to correct context so he doesn't think he's right.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723126 May 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:

Because according to your arguments, something (God) can not come from nothing. Everything (God) must be created.
By your own arguments to defend the Hebrew creation myth, God could not have existed for ever and God needed a creator.
So.... what created God ?
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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723127 May 1, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
<quoted text>
I know RR. He wanted to pigeon-hole my answers to fit his limited understanding so he could appear victorious. I answered according to context and not to his foolishness. What's that proverb?
Do not answer a fool according to his folly.-Proverbs 26:4
Answer a fool according to his folly lest he become wise in his own eyes.-Proverbs 26:5
Translation in modern terms:
Do not answer using the same presuppositions the fool uses.
Answer the fool according to correct context so he doesn't think he's right.
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.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#723128 May 1, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
@ Catcher - this exercise has now taken up residence in my head
Fog up, fix up, turn up
That's no reason to misspell turnip.

Did you borrow the Redneck's Siri?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723129 May 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Nope. She's right, the Bible does not say that something was created from "nothing".
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
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.
Lmao! It's always hilarious when the atheist tries to preach the Bible.

I said the Bible does not say that something was created from "nothing". You are claiming that having no form and void, and darkness equals nothing.

Are you really that stupid?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#723130 May 1, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Got a link to that post?
No.

Do you?

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
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 min Holy Jehowa Witness 445,832
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min inbred Genius 2,112
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 3 min Holy Jehowa Witness 33,209
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 184,816
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min Holy Jehowa Witness 678,575
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 39 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 118,535
preparing to make slaves of all "human" americans 42 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 8
More from around the web