Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Robert.Evans]

Your in actuality, a person who says, "Yes there is."

No God is going to come out to ever back your statement to validate what your saying to others.

There is absolutly nothing you or anyone else can ever do about it. Just keep saying what you believe and attest because that's the only thing you will ever be able do in this lifetime in this regard. It's ok though as far as Im concerned, everything will go as it goes. Just providing some facts on the matter.

God will not do it again, he already has, physically. Now it is within. So you wrong, but, it is not something that you see, which is probably what you mean. And as for testfying, what are atheists and the like do, except testfying that luck and magic are the answer

 

[Aupmanyav]

Faith in Christ is Completely Logical:

And that in Mohammad is not so.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Faith in Christ is Completely Logical:

And that in Mohammad is not so.

Is that a question or a statement?

 

[Twilight Hue]

God will not do it again, he already has, physically. Now it is within. So you wrong, but, it is not something that you see, which is probably what you mean. And as for testfying, what are atheists and the like do, except testfying that luck and magic are the answer

There's simply no choice but to say God is within. Your just conforming to the direct reality by which there is no interactive deity to speak of at all in any physical sense of the word.

Atheism is just neutrality by which there is no need to address the question concerning God simply due to the fact there is no God there to address. You seem to placing personal embellishments by which Atheism is a testimonial stance when it's reflective of the absence of any type of communicating deity.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There's simply no choice but to say God is within.

I speak within this realm

Your just conforming to the direct reality by which there is no interactive deity to speak of at all in any physical sense of the word.

No.... everything belongs in the mind... I thought you said that?

Atheism is just neutrality by which there is no need to address the question concerning God

No it is not. It depends of course on how one defines it, but one can see how atheists argue here to see it has nothing to do with neutrality.

simply due to the fact there is no God there to address.

You are speaking of things your five senses pick up. Now you are speaking of things outside of the mind.

You seem to placing personal embellishments by which Atheism is a testimonial stance when it's reflective of the absence of any type of communicating deity.

Atheism is a stance. They are happy to say there is no G-d. They are wrong. It is reflective of a delusion.

 

[viole]

Evidence comes from God and is within... you know that. You are trying to bring a metaphysical argument into a physical realm so you can disprove it... haha

So, evidence of God comes from God? That sounds a tiny bit like circular reasoning.

No. But you just don't understand the fullness of what you see. You look at the cover of the book and think it is wonderful. Some of us are allowed to look inside.

no. but even science says your atoms will have probably been part of rocks etc. as your atoms will be released into the atmosphere to be reused. It is the same idea that Hindus have (i think) about reincarnation. We all chase the same things, and call them different names

And how is that important if you do not recall anything from your past levels of consciousness?

How is that any different from a brand new consciousness?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

So, evidence of God comes from God? That sounds a tiny bit like circular reasoning.

So what. Ultimately it has to, where else can it come from? You have the same problem with your ''natural'' argument: All natural things come from something natural. Is that not circular?

And how is that important if you do not recall anything from your past levels of consciousness?

How is that any different from a brand new consciousness?

Ciao

- viole

It is not the carnal body and mind that is important, it is the spiritual. That is the real you.

 

[viole]

So what. Ultimately it has to, where else can it come from? You have the same problem with your ''natural'' argument: All natural things come from something natural. Is that not circular?

The problem is that we have indepndent evidence of natural things.

Where is your independend, not circular if poasible,evidence of God?

It is not the carnal body and mind that is important, it is the spiritual. That is the real you.

The problem is that my spirit, whatever that is, does not remember a thing either. Haha.

Cio

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

The problem is that we have indepndent evidence of natural things.

So? They have to come from somewhere, and you have no independent evidence of natural things showing that, just theories.

Where is your independend, not circular if poasible,evidence of God?

There you go again trying to make a metaphysical argument a physical one. It is a good trick and allows you to think you are right. But not so. Your ''natural'' must be curcular, I have already told you that.

The problem is that my spirit, whatever that is, does not remember a thing either. Haha.

Cio

- viole

It will, but your mind won't.

 

[viole]

So? They have to come from somewhere, and you have no independent evidence of natural things showing that, just theories.

I hve no independent evidence of natural things coming from other natural things?

Well, that dog's leftover must really have a supernatural origin.

There you go again trying to make a metaphysical argument a physical one. It is a good trick and allows you to think you are right. But not so. Your ''natural'' must be curcular, I have already told you that.

It is not circular because it is rational to induce that natural things come from natural things, We see that happening all the time.

Whereas we do not have a lot of evidence of natural things, or anything else, coming from the supernatural.

But, hey, with metaphysics, everything goes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

I hve no independent evidence of natural things coming from other natural things?

Well, that dog's leftover must really have a supernatural origin.

We are talking about the beginning of everything

It is not circular because it is rational to induce that natural things come from natural things, We see that happening all the time.

It is still circular. You have just explained it as such

Whereas we do not have a lot of evidence of natural things, or anything else, coming from the supernatural.

You speak of things in this universe. I speak of where it all comes from. I don't use the word supernatural... it is misused. It merely means something above and beyond. That could be an atom

But, hey, with metaphysics, everything goes.

Ciao

- viole

True.
We have the added avantage that intelligence is involved, which always trumps luck and magic

 

[savagewind]

If 'natural things comes from natural things' is a fact, what produced the first natural thing? It could not have been a natural thing if it was the first natural thing.

 

[viole]

We are talking about the beginning of everything

And what makes you think that everything had a beginning?

It is still circular. You have just explained it as such

Nope. It is inductive reasoning based on empirical evidence. Might be wrong, but it is more rational than postulating beings we have never seen nor heard.

You speak of things in this universe. I speak of where it all comes from. I don't use the word supernatural... it is misused. It merely means something above and beyond. That could be an atom

Why do stop there? Where would that atom come from?

True.
We have the added avantage that intelligence is involved, which always trumps luck and magic

Whose intelligence?

And is it "luck and magic" or "luck or magic". If you have magic you do not necessarily require luck. And the other way round.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

If 'natural things comes from natural things' is a fact, what produced the first natural thing? It could not have been a natural thing if it was the first natural thing.

What makes you hink that there is a first natural thing?

And even if there were, what makes you think that it must originate from osmething else?

Ciao

- viole

 

[savagewind]

What makes you hink that there is a first natural thing?

Experience

And even if there were, what makes you think that it must originate from osmething else?

Ciao

- viole

I don't think it must do anything. It was your rule "natural comes from natural". So according to the rule there was no first natual thing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is that a question or a statement?

Ends with a full stop. A statement. Agree? Disagree?

 

[FollowTheWay]

As Sapiens pointed out you disagree with the other Christian who started this thread. One who claims to be the "true Christian". So which of you is the real deal?

Yes, false Christians love their claims, I claim nothing, I speak The Truth and The Truth is never claimed - The Truth IS.

 

[McBell]

If 'natural things comes from natural things' is a fact, what produced the first natural thing? It could not have been a natural thing if it was the first natural thing.

I do not know.
Nor do I claim that something supernatural started the natural.

 

[McBell]

Yes, false Christians love their claims, I claim nothing, I speak The Truth and The Truth is never claimed - The Truth IS.

You just made four claims whilst claiming to make no claims...

Rather difficult to take you seriously.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So? They have to come from somewhere, and you have no independent evidence of natural things showing that, just theories.

They would have come from somewhere if you were able to show any evidence of the existence of soul.

There you go again trying to make a metaphysical argument a physical one. It is a good trick ..

It is a good trick to make God and soul metaphysical and then escape the responsibility of providing any evidence. Allah of Mohammad is the only truth.