Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Cephus]

You should take your own advice and cease debating with theists. The picture that you paint of yourself is covered in smudges. If you do not like the bible then stop reading it and mind your own business. It is not your business to critique what we believe. I am not interfering in your right not to believe, knock yourself out, so do us the same honour and mind your own business and find something more constructive to do with your time. You will not move me an inch on my belief, or any other converted Christian, so go do some charity work that may help others instead of trying to exalt yourself on the backs of theists.

 

[jonathan180iq]

They are wrong. I know they do it. Some denominations believe in the Rapsody and have predicted exact dates for it. Then we have Nostradamus and his failed predictions. If you really think logically, then I am dubious as to whether God himself even knows the exact day. If we all have agency to act for ourselves it needs to be completely played out on the worlds stage before the second coming. Every action must be allowed to go through every interconnective reaction. If I decide to leave the house at 9.00am instead of 8.00am it shifts every interconnecting action which could result in different outcomes which could take 6 months, a year, 10 years to come back on track. The complexity of cause and effect are mesmerising. What really is becoming quite disconcerting is that most of the events, necessary to be completed, have come and gone. Everything is going wrong at the right time. The moral decline of our societies is breaking all sorts of records as the only reservoir of morality left is being pushed undercover, religion. It is beginning to feel like things are coming to an end. These are, of course, my own feeling. There are scriptures that corroborate the signs which need to be fulfilled, however, the feeling of an imminent Armageddon is all to real. Maybe, Armageddon has already begun and we are in the initial stages.

From a Philosophical standpoint, wouldn't the Alpha and Omega, by definition, have to know those things?

You've used the example of leaving the house an hour later and suggesting that it would have this great cosmic effect on the outcome of the day for everyone else. While I think this concept is interesting to think about, I'm a bit less dramatic in my personal delusions of grandeur. If remove you and I completely from the face of the Earth, removing ever aspect of our lives from existence, then what about the Human narrative changes? Surely our kids and loved ones would not exist... So let's scratch, say, 8 people from existence. At our jobs, someone else got that position. How have our lives altered the course of the cosmic timeframe?

Before our conversation, did you know that I existed? Did it alter your life one way or the other? If I never respond to you again, will anything have changed?

I believe the conceptual idea of cause and effect can be mesmerizing - but I don't necessarily believe that it's how the world works.
At some point in this chapter of debate, we'll have to address the concept of fatalism. God either knows everything ever, or he doesn't, right? Both of those have incredible implications.

On the topic of the "END TIMES" or the "signs of the times" or whatever... We'll just have to agree to disagree.
History is what I do. The historic actions of humans, their politics, their religions, their motives for their everyday life... that's what I study. And given the sensational nature of people in general, and considering that the things that we consider "signs" are, in fact, little more than repeated social experiments that we humans continue to shove on each other because, quite honestly, not enough people study History, doesn't worry me in the least bit. I think it's fair to say that we haven't historically had the fire-power to literally obliterate everyone on the planet like we do now, but that reached it peak during the 1970's and it's only lessening - so, again, it's not something that I'm concerned with.

I am aware that what you are most likely talking about is a spiritual death - but that's not something that I give any merit to so I'm addressing it as best I can.

Scripture warns us of these people and how to detect them

Matthew 7:15

15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

16"You will know them by their fruits.

Yet time and time again, over the last 20 centuries, people have all too easily fallen for the lies peddled by the "holy". We're not talking about a few hundred people. We're talking about hundreds of thousands, or possibly more. Does no one have the ability to see these things for what they are? Or have the religious made it a habit of just accepting things said by people who portray themselves as leaders and never think objectively or discerningly?

No, not at all, I understand the point you are making, however, you to must walk in my moccasins for a week. I have received, what I believe to be, a communication via the Holy Ghost that has irreversibly converted me to Christianity. That same Spirit has communicated with my soul on many occasions since then. Now I would sooner lay down my life then deny any of it. Like other converted Christians, on this very forum, I do not tell anyone of that initial communication because I believe it is too sacred, however, I am not a liar either, I am not delusional, I am a realist so I just do not except things without question, I know that what I have received, and the source that I received it from, is external to myself and is true. I did not go searching for it, it came to me. I never aspired to become a Christian, my life was fine without it. There is no reason for me to come on here and lie, i have better things to do with my time, what could I possibly achieved with a lie. What benefit to my meager existence is a lie about an epiphany. Firstly, and foremostly. I have to live with myself before I can communicate with others. I could not live with a lie. Now you can either believe what I am saying, you can rationalise it, or you can accuse me of being a blatant liar, so, bearing all this in mind, you can see how easy it is for me to believe in God but how impossible it is for me to believe in a purple dragon, unless, of course, I receive an epiphany with a purple dragon, at which time, you will be the first to know.

Again, your convictions are yours and that's great. One of the things about convictions is that once you have them, you hold onto them with a tenacious grip, liken to personal sacrifice or even martyrdom. I think that speaks more highly of the human spirit than of the supernatural thing which that conviction is being attributed to.

Your reasons for finding your convictions and your veracity for it are identical to scores of people throughout History who have found exactly the same thing as you, only it wasn't called Jesus, or Yeshua, Joshua, or Yahweh... Do the very same arguments that validate your faith work for those other people and their "other" gods?

Realistically, what possible reason would an atheist have for not telling a lie. If he/she can get away with it, and benefit from its commitment, then what reason exists for him/her not to lie. It is simply deductive reasoning. If there is no accountability for an act and the act benefits you then why wouldn't the lie be told. Now there are always exceptions to the rule, however, why would I believe that a stranger, with no reason to be morally accountable, would not lie if doing so benefits him?

Here is just one hypothetical...

For atheists, who reject the supernatural, there is no after-life. There is no second chance. There is no "better" version of life that happens mysteriously after we die. There is only this existence - Because of that, doesn't it make the most sense to live as morally as possible? To create a world that is as just as possible? To perform deeds for the benefit of others simply because this is all we've (they've) got?

I could lie everyday of my life, to everyone I see, every single sentence, and then just brutally enjoy the fruits of my lies by watching people suffer in the anguish that it causes them.

"No, Jimmy. It's OK. Those poison dart frogs can't hurt you. That's an old wives tale... Just play with them.... BWAHAHAHA Death To Jimmy!! LONG LIVE ATHEISM!!!!"

I could do that... but why? Eventually, at some point, someone with an ounce of sense would realize that I was untrustworthy and word would quickly spread among my peers that no one should listen to me. If no one would listen to me, and this is the only life that I get, then what am I going to do?... Tell the truth I guess. Be as honest as possible and strive for things like justice and peace, and honesty, and equality, and so on and so forth...

Let me give you one more example - would agree that all the other religions, outside of the Christianity, were man-made? That they were just invented? If you believe that even a little bit, then you have to admit that those man-made religions came up with some pretty decent ideas on morality, didn't they? Doesn't that mean that non-Christian man was completely capable of inventing his own set of morals and guidelines, independent of the God of the Bible?

It's a very big mistake to assume that religion holds the reigns on morality.

Well, yes I do, however, I am not claiming anything in this thread. I am asking posters to challenge me on the rationality of the Plan of Salvation.

I don't agree that it even exists - so before I can challenge it, I need to see why doing so is worth my time.

Well, yes, I would have to agree, however, I am making no claim here as to the existence of divinity. If that were what i was looking for then i am very capable of debating, point for point, about circumstantial evidences that exists for the existence of divinity. That was not my objective here. I want to establish that as a strategic plan of action, can the Plan of Salvation be falsified, or, like many military plans of action, is the detailed strategy likely to give the desired effect.

To directly answer this question, No. It cannot be falsified because it cannot be verified - just like the Purple Dragons.

In the ethereal - the concept of the Plan of Salvation can "work" for the adherent's of it's religion about as well as any religious concept can work for a person of any religion, mentally.

I have made an extensive study of the Plan of Salvation, mainly in trying to falsify it. I cannot find a single point that can be falsified. Every attempt that has been made to discredit it has already been made by me, so, I have always been able to refute any attack on it. I know that Plan of Salvation very well. I believe in it. I have invited anybody to discredit it and stump me, that is, leave me unable to respond with logic.

Can you give me some reference of the particular points that you personally attempted to falsify?

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Right - it's nothing. Nothing at all.

"Hey guys, here's a bunch of nothing. This means everything!"

Well, that is not my interpretation of what was being said. The insinuation was that we do not even know that Jesus existed as there is no Eyewitness account, and the Gospels were compiled 300 years after the event. My rebuttal to that was to provide evidence that the man, Jesus, did actually exist. I made no claim of his so called miracles. Compared to the science of today, much of it is common practice in our hospitals anyway. I believe him to have been a physician, as claimed in Luke 4:23 - "Physician, heal yourself!" But again, another debate. As soon as we can establish that a man called Jesus lived at that time then we can start looking to see if he performed miracles through other writings, or if he was known by those miracles. That is a task for historians. His miracles play no part in my belief as I believe I see them for what they are, an introduction to the Son of God.

Historically, the fact that there exists a reference only 100 years after the fact is still pretty substantial. It attests, at least, to faith of some kind in the character of Jesus. To say that it lends evidence to the claims of modern day believers about the person would be inaccurate - but it is something.

Surely you understand that your claim, as personal and convicted as it might be, is just a guess at best, right? There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise, to attest to such a thing. The only thing that is actually written there is that he rubbed some mud in a dude's face and POOF! - Holy-Vision goggles.

What supernatural events take place in the Bible? I am not insinuating that there are none, however, you need to recognise the difference between parables, allegories, principles and precepts compared to actual supernatural events. For example, when Jesus healed the eye sight of the blind man by putting clay on his eyes. In my opinion, that clay contained properties that used naturalistic laws to rectify his eyes, possibly via genetics. That is not a supernatural event. Hospitals are doing similar things everyday. Secondly, consider the flood. Was that an actual event or were we being taught that the principle of disobedience will bring about our entire destruction. That is also not a supernatural event, even if it took place, the flood is a naturalistic phenomenon. I cannot think of any events that can be considered as supernatural in scripture. Unless you can point any out for me.

That's the thing about scriptural context... You have to apply it evenly, not just when it's convenient. I've made the argument before to Biblical literalists, that if Jesus was God, and Jesus pretty much only taught in parables, then can't it be argued that the entire Bible is just one giant parable?

That usually is met with some harsh reaction.

If you want t make the argument that the Book of Numbers is literal, for example, while Deuteronomy is parable... then you run into all kinds of theological problems...

Even taking into account this Plan of Salvation - Is Genesis literal or is it an allegory?

Your response changes everything, doesn't it?

The only way that the concept of Jesus in the modern sense has any credibility whatsoever is if Genesis is literal, right?
(I recognize the ability to try and make the whole thing a moral lesson about obedience and faithfulness, but that doesn't fly if we are to also accept the genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament... Or the explanations of Paul about original sin) Without Genesis, the whole things starts to fall apart - and even children realize that Genesis should be filed in the same place in the their library as Winnie the Pooh.

Nothing here can be counted as evidence as it can all be easily falsified. Showing love does not mean that the person loves you. There could be a plethora of reasons to put the act on. The past does not necessarily determine the future.

You're right - but you feel her love through he actions or your would never claim that she loved you.

I have an adequate degree of knowledge in cosmology. The reason being is that most recognisable supernatural events take place there. I know there are theories to explain how rapid expansion took place but not one of them can be tested with repeatability. The only thing coming close is the collisions monitored in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The universe expanded from a singularity into a universe in a fraction of a second. What naturalistic law can explain that.

We are just in the beginning stages of truly understanding cosmology - you've just admitted that the knowledge gleaned from the LHC is beginning to show us that what previously only existed as theoretical physics is being proven true - the rest will eventually be discovered.

The fact is - we don't know. We can make incredibly well educated guesses - but we don't know. I'll even posit that we'll never know. We can probably make a very safe, valid, assumption. But we'll never know.

Yes, it really is. Take a look at the context in which it was said and give me a logical alternative meaning.

We're still talking about the Paradise thing, right?

• luke - What was meant by "paradise" when Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange
• Sayings of Jesus on the cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• What did Jesus really say to the criminal at the cross?

There's 3

i used to have problems with this one until the Holy Ghost put me straight on it. He was talking about the generation that will exist when all of these events take place.

Scriptures can mean different things to different people at differ ring times.

Exactly - but what someone interprets them to mean at different times is not necessarily what they meant when they were written.
Like poetry, all works need to be read in the context in which they were written. Otherwise, analysis and interpretation are just completely up to the whim of the reader.

I cannot. If I could I would be sunning myself on a beach in Jamaica instead of writing this on a cold, wet and windy winters night.

Then, respectfully, should you make the claim that they exist?

Hypothesis is based on known laws, previous experience and knowledge. If an event cannot be explain by any of these tools then how can you fill a gap with a hypothesis.

Maybe we are thinking about this differently. If I have evidence for 1, 2, 3, 4,...,..., 7, 8, and 9, then I know that there are gaps in my knowledge. Based on what I know about sequencing, I can hypothesize that 2 numbers are missing. I can also take a guess at what those numbers are. I can test my hypothesis through experimentation.

1+1=2. CHECK
2+1=3. CHECK
3+1=4. CHECK
4+1=7?? NOPE
4+1=5 CHECK

The data supports my hypothesis.

I used what I knew about the area around my knowledge gap to formulate a hypothesis and study, thus eliminating the gap.
I did not attribute that gap to a supernatural entity or suggest that "we will never know"

If you are still a good and righteous man, 30 years after the event, then yes, do not worry about a blip.

But in telling my story, to pretend that it never happened would be a lie.

They are an irrelevant part as the conclusion is the same as the beginning. Likewise with the mailman. He did not deliver that day, however, the post office employ people to cover for those who go sick, so my mail will still get delivered and I will never pick up on the anomaly.

Possibly - or possibly my assertion.. Either one of us could be right. That's the point. To say with certainty that the Holy Mailman is never late is inaccurate.

No, God simply could not make it with imperfect elements as God cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection. Adam was created perfect from the elements of a perfect dust.

I'm not saying he made it imperfectly. I'm saying that, since God can only make perfect things by Christian logic, then wouldn't the advent of Adam with 3 legs, 1 eye, and two mouths still be perfect?

It's circular logic. If God made two creations, both of them opposing each other, then how can one be perfect and the other be imperfect, since it was made by god?

Things are not perfect because God made them. It is the elements, or intellegences, or quantum subatomic particles, that are the source of perfection.

But since god cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, he thus cannot make something that's not perfect, right?

It doesn't matter if we are talking about the convergence of elements or intelligence or whatever. If God cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, then he can't make something imperfect. So what god makes is perfect, because god made it.

Isn't the inability to do something beneath an omnipotent being?

No, we all fall short of the glory of God. We are sinners, every single on of us, thus, we are an enemy to God. Those sins needed to be washed away through repentance, that is, recognition of the sin, restitution of the sin and forsaking the sin. After this has been completed you will feel a lifting of the burden of sin brought on by the atoning sacrifice of the Saviour, who has paid the price for sin. It is through Jesus Christ that salvation and exaltation is achieved. It is a part of the Plan.

This concept is only true in Christian thought...

 

[Serenity7855]

From a Philosophical standpoint, wouldn't the Alpha and Omega, by definition, have to know those things?

Only if they are constrained by time. That is, that there is a set point for when Omega occurs. That is not the case so the end and the beginning are not determined by a predefined set of events. The are points of fluidity. Neither change in their outcomes or beginnings, but what goes on in between cannot be predetermined. Agency does not allow for that. During the Mosiac Law there may have been a degree of predetermination, however, when the Abrahamic Covenant was introduced, during the beatitudes, the doors where swung open on Agency and predetermination bowed out graciously. It was at this point that the law of the land began to separate from religion, which was a kick in the groin for the Sanhedrin.

You've used the example of leaving the house an hour later and suggesting that it would have this great cosmic effect on the outcome of the day for everyone else. While I think this concept is interesting to think about, I'm a bit less dramatic in my personal delusions of grandeur. If remove you and I completely from the face of the Earth, removing ever aspect of our lives from existence, then what about the Human narrative changes? Surely our kids and loved ones would not exist... So let's scratch, say, 8 people from existence. At our jobs, someone else got that position. How have our lives altered the course of the cosmic timeframe?

They will be assimilated into the collective consciousness, kidding, but the process is not dissimilar. The spectator bench will still seem full though someone has left the stadium.it simple evens out and re adjusts itself. It is so very similar to quantum physics, or what we know about it.

Before our conversation, did you know that I existed? Did it alter your life one way or the other? If I never respond to you again, will anything have changed?

Well yes, of course my life has change. Not to any notable degree, true, however, my knowledge base has increased to incorporate your views and opinions, even if I do not agree with them. The chemistry involved to accomplish that is now different.

I did not know that you, in particular, existed, however, I knew that people like you exist.

If you never respond to me again, which is more likely then not, I will be disappointed in not having a worthy opponent to bounce my opinions off and listen to your cordial opinions. But every debate has an ending.this one is getting there.

Will anything have changed? Yes, we are all effected by each others opinions. My thoughts and beliefs will have been effected by the knew knowledge that I have obtained. Will it change my current beliefs, unlikely, because the veracity of my personal epiphany is greater then the reality of your opinions and knowledge. It is rational and logical.

I believe the conceptual idea of cause and effect can be mesmerizing - but I don't necessarily believe that it's how the world works.
At some point in this chapter of debate, we'll have to address the concept of fatalism. God either knows everything ever, or he doesn't, right? Both of those have incredible implications.

It is my opinion that God in omniscient, that means, to know everything that can be known. If it cannot be known then he does not know it. I know that sounds like I am putting limits on God's ability, however, it does not restrict his omniscience in anyway.

Fate is essentially predetermination. I do not believe in predetermination or coincidences. Do you? Is are meeting here chance or do I or you need to hear something?

On the topic of the "END TIMES" or the "signs of the times" or whatever... We'll just have to agree to disagree.

That is fine, however, there is also a proclaimed hidden code within the original text of the Bible that is pretty accurate in its predictions.

History is what I do. The historic actions of humans, their politics, their religions, their motives for their everyday life... that's what I study. And given the sensational nature of people in general, and considering that the things that we consider "signs" are, in fact, little more than repeated social experiments that we humans continue to shove on each other because, quite honestly, not enough people study History, doesn't worry me in the least bit. I think it's fair to say that we haven't historically had the fire-power to literally obliterate everyone on the planet like we do now, but that reached it peak during the 1970's and it's only lessening - so, again, it's not something that I'm concerned with.

Even a repeated social experiment can be considered a sign of the time, however, when that culminates into a fully blown ascension of Christ, on clouds of glory, followed by a host of angels, we will know that those particular predictions immediately precedes the second coming. Everything else is just cyclical events in time and history. You could be forgiven in disbelieving the scenario of Jesus Christ coming in clouds of Glory where everyone in the world would see him at the same time. It seems far fetched until you consider the media and what it is capable of.

I am aware that what you are most likely talking about is a spiritual death - but that's not something that I give any merit to so I'm addressing it as best I can.

No, I am aware that if you have no perception of spiritual phenomenon and then to try and conceive it as a possible reality is difficult.

Yet time and time again, over the last 20 centuries, people have all too easily fallen for the lies peddled by the "holy". We're not talking about a few hundred people. We're talking about hundreds of thousands, or possibly more. Does no one have the ability to see these things for what they are? Or have the religious made it a habit of just accepting things said by people who portray themselves as leaders and never think objectively or discerningly?

Yes, I am fully aware of what has been done in the name of Jesus Christ, however, that only makes those people self proclaimed Christians who act outside of God's authority. Remember that when the last disciple left this earth he took with him the Holy Priesthood after the order of the son of God. There is no authority on earth, at this moment in time, to act in the name of God. The times you refer to are the dark ages, the great apostasy, where evil men performed hideous atrocities in the name of Christianity giving it a name that it has never quite recovered from. So, when you say "religion made it a habit of just accepting things said by people who portray themselves as leaders and never think objectively or discerningly" the answer is yes, they do take what ever they are given, as demonstrated by recent changes in church policy that are contrary to the doctrine.

Again, your convictions are yours and that's great. One of the things about convictions is that once you have them, you hold onto them with a tenacious grip, liken to personal sacrifice or even martyrdom. I think that speaks more highly of the human spirit than of the supernatural thing which that conviction is being attributed to.

My conviction is based on a personal witness that was so strong that I cannot deny it, even at the point of death. That is the absolute truth to me.

Your reasons for finding your convictions and your veracity for it are identical to scores of people throughout History who have found exactly the same thing as you, only it wasn't called Jesus, or Yeshua, Joshua, or Yahweh... Do the very same arguments that validate your faith work for those other people and their "other" gods?

As arrogant as it may sound, no, the same arguments that validate my faith does not work for those other people and their "other" gods? There is only one true God and that is the God of Christianity. All those who have not heard His word will be given that opportunity, whether in this world or the world to come, regardless of the conviction on earth.

Satan has been here since time began and has been deceiving the children of God ever since. He has set up institutions and organisation to distract us from gaining entry onto that straight and narrow pathway that leads to life eternal, exaltation. Now I realise that Satan is a non - entity to you, however, to me, he is as real as God himself. He is currently the God of this world.

Here is just one hypothetical...

For atheists, who reject the supernatural, there is no after-life. There is no second chance. There is no "better" version of life that happens mysteriously after we die. There is only this existence - Because of that, doesn't it make the most sense to live as morally as possible? To create a world that is as just as possible? To perform deeds for the benefit of others simply because this is all we've (they've) got?

Quite the opposite really. Men are carnal by their very nature. What does that mean? : sexual, sensual, erotic, lustful, lascivious, libidinous, lecherous, licentious, lewd, prurient, salacious, coarse, gross, lubricious, venereal, physical, bodily, corporeal, fleshly, animal; Does any of that sound indicative of someone who wants to create a fair and just world where we all roast chestnuts by an open fire?

I could lie everyday of my life, to everyone I see, every single sentence, and then just brutally enjoy the fruits of my lies by watching people suffer in the anguish that it causes them.

"No, Jimmy. It's OK. Those poison dart frogs can't hurt you. That's an old wives tale... Just play with them.... BWAHAHAHA Death To Jimmy!! LONG LIVE ATHEISM!!!!"

I could do that... but why? Eventually, at some point, someone with an ounce of sense would realize that I was untrustworthy and word would quickly spread among my peers that no one should listen to me. If no one would listen to me, and this is the only life that I get, then what am I going to do?... Tell the truth I guess. Be as honest as possible and strive for things like justice and peace, and honesty, and equality, and so on and so forth...

Well, in the UK we have an institution that does that every day to our entire nation. It is called the Conservative Government. We also have the media that are professionals at that and most of our capitalistic industries do it to. We live in a society that has seen a tremendous decline in moral values where even the Police manipulate figure to create and illusion that crime rates are reducing when they are escalating. I hope I have answered your point adequately. It is a subject that I have a great deal of righteous indignation for. Taking religion out of our schools has incurred a dreadful consequence to our society. Moral Decline. Our government want to now reintroduce it just to stop the rot in our communities. To late, I think.

Let me give you one more example - would agree that all the other religions, outside of the Christianity, were man-made? That they were just invented? If you believe that even a little bit, then you have to admit that those man-made religions came up with some pretty decent ideas on morality, didn't they? Doesn't that mean that non-Christian man was completely capable of inventing his own set of morals and guidelines, independent of the God of the Bible?

Yes, i believe that every single religious denomination that exists in this world is man-made, in as much as they have interpreted the Scriptures and then used that interpretation to organise a regime of worship, however, man did not come up with those morals. That was God, like when he gave Moses the ten commandments and gave Revelations to all the Prophets up until Jesus. When he then selected allegories and parables for the scriptures to teach and expound correct moral ethics to mankind.

It's a very big mistake to assume that religion holds the reigns on morality.

Yes, it is. I believe that morals are objective. A supernatural law, maybe. All the scriptures do is to reassert them and remind us as to how we should live our lives. That if we incorporate them in our lives we can overcome the precepts that leads to exaltation.

I don't agree that it even exists - so before I can challenge it, I need to see why doing so is worth my time.

Well, to be perfectly honest, if you are happy being an atheist, having no intentions of changing, then it really is not worth your while. You will only gain the knowledge that the plan of salvation, if true, could succeed in its objectives, but, if you do not believe in the objectives then knowing the narrative of the Plan of Salvation is going to remain a complete nonsense to you, unless it is something that interests you, that satisfies your inquisitiveness and curiosity.

That is what I initially thought that debating on forums like this was all about. That atheists were here to find out what makes christians tick. I had no idea that there were atheists who had an agenda to use so much hostility towards christians just because of their personal beliefs. It is essentially none of their business what I believe in, as much as it is none of my business what they believe in, however, I see no problem in telling people why I am a Christian, if asked. Cephus has made it his mission to besmirch and denegrate christians, and even has his own blog where he incessantly lies about us and selectively stigmatize us. I have never quite witnessed so much hatred and emnity from people who should be unconcerned about our lifestyle. You could call it christianaphobia not unlike homophobia. Why? Disagree with us, by all means, but to actively sully and negate Christianity is reprehensible, to say the least, but he is a bitter failed Christian who left the faith kicking and screaming at God.

To directly answer this question, No. It cannot be falsified because it cannot be verified - just like the Purple Dragons.

Then you have fulfilled my expectations of this thread. We could cease the debate right here.

In the ethereal - the concept of the Plan of Salvation can "work" for the adherent's of it's religion about as well as any religious concept can work for a person of any religion, mentally.

Yes, that is EXACTLY right. It is only a relevance to Christianity.

Can you give me some reference of the particular points that you personally attempted to falsify?

Pretty much all of it. As I said, christianity came knocking on my door, literally, I did not go looking for it. I was not even in a frame of mind to consider religion. I may have been an atheist, if I had of thought about it, but I never did. I was pretty much an intellectual convert way before I was converted spiritually. I will give you just 10 stumbling blocks.

1. The entire creation and the fall seemed more allegorical and symbolic to me rather then an actuality.
2. The Flood, because there were no naturalistic evidences for its existence.
3. The Atonement because of the requirements that had to be fulfilled for Jesus to bleed at every pore.
4. The randomness of selecting disciples
5. The crucifixion and the stabbing of the Saviour
6. The process of the feeding of the 5000
7. The resurrection.
8. The miracles
9. The Levītical Laws and their needs
10. The entire Old Testament originally seemed pointless to me.

Historically, the fact that there exists a reference only 100 years after the fact is still pretty substantial. It attests, at least, to faith of some kind in the character of Jesus. To say that it lends evidence to the claims of modern day believers about the person would be inaccurate - but it is something.

Surely you understand that your claim, as personal and convicted as it might be, is just a guess at best, right? There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise, to attest to such a thing. The only thing that is actually written there is that he rubbed some mud in a dude's face and POOF! - Holy-Vision goggles.

Yes, of course, everything that I say regarding events 2000 years in the past and extrapolated from scripture is my personal interpretation and evaluation. It is, of course, anecdotal as to how the eye sight was restored, however, I do not, for one second, believe that Jesus was a magician. I believe he used laws that we are not entirely proficient on yet, like genetic engineering, speaking to the intellegences within the eyes, to rectify the eyes sight. That is my belief, that has been somewhat confirmed by the Holy Ghost. Now you will say that if the Holy Ghost has told me, then why don't I cure the blind. The answer is simple. I do not have that knowledge. I do not know if I have sufficient faith, however, I know that I do not have the academical ability. Secondly, the Holy Ghost has confirmed it to me, he has not told me how it was done because I do not have the knowledge to comprehend it.

That's the thing about scriptural context... You have to apply it evenly, not just when it's convenient. I've made the argument before to Biblical literalists, that if Jesus was God, and Jesus pretty much only taught in parables, then can't it be argued that the entire Bible is just one giant parable?

That usually is met with some harsh reaction.

Yes, the giant parable is called "The Plan of Redemption"

If you want t make the argument that the Book of Numbers is literal, for example, while Deuteronomy is parable... then you run into all kinds of theological problems...

Even taking into account this Plan of Salvation - Is Genesis literal or is it an allegory?

I do not know for a surety simply because I was not there, however, the explanation of what happen necessitates for it to be literal. If not, then it makes many premises irrelevant.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

[Boris56]

QUOTE="Serenity7855, post: 4027612, member: 33244"]I spent many, many years trying to disprove religion and faith. Frankly, most religions are build upon the interpretations and logic of men, who do, by nature, fall short of the glory of God, thus their doctrines are susceptible to being flawed as well. So religions are easy to disprove, and that is not just a handful, that is all of them. So when we see our coequals, on the other side of the fence, rubbing their hands together in glee, taunting us with the words that religions are slowly fading from our world, we can take solice in the fact that we are best rid of them anyway, none of have authority to act in the name of God. To disprove them is a little like using the scientific method. You have to simply be familiar with the scriptures, which give us and insight to the character and will of God, and have god knowledge of the Plan of Redemption. Like science there are set constants and laws that cannot be change. By those laws we can know what is true and what is false. If the contravene a principle or commandment then they are false.

For example, I listen to a testimony of a man who died and was revived. He gave a detailed account of what happened to him whilst he was dead. A very convincing account as well, but for one detail that exposed it as a fraud, or the source was dubious. He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. The Plan of Salvation is like a jig saw puzzle with every piece being unique. Many of our religions have some of the pieces, however, none of them have all the pieces. To disprove them is just a matter of looking at the pieces to see if they are all there. I have yet to find a religion that has all the pieces.

To clarify when I say religion I am referring to denominations in the Christian faith.

Now faith and our personal relationship with God is another story. It cannot be faulted in anyway or form. To be converted by the Holy Ghost, who opens the gates to the pure knowledge of the Plan of Redemption, and to receive that knowledge in all humility and faith in Christ, is to make yourself impervious to the fiery darts of Satan. So, in essence, I am throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks they can disprove the logic of the Plan that was devised by God and accepted by Christ. I am looking for miss-shaped jig saw puzzle pieces that do to fit making the finished picture ugly instead of magnificent to behold. I am looking for someone to stump me on any aspect of Gods marvelous work and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind. If it cannot be done then even the disbelieved must concede that it is a rational and logical plan.[/QUOTE]

 

[Boris56]

YOu don't n

I spent many, many years trying to disprove religion and faith. Frankly, most religions are build upon the interpretations and logic of men, who do, by nature, fall short of the glory of God, thus their doctrines are susceptible to being flawed as well. So religions are easy to disprove, and that is not just a handful, that is all of them. So when we see our coequals, on the other side of the fence, rubbing their hands together in glee, taunting us with the words that religions are slowly fading from our world, we can take solice in the fact that we are best rid of them anyway, none of have authority to act in the name of God. To disprove them is a little like using the scientific method. You have to simply be familiar with the scriptures, which give us and insight to the character and will of God, and have god knowledge of the Plan of Redemption. Like science there are set constants and laws that cannot be change. By those laws we can know what is true and what is false. If the contravene a principle or commandment then they are false.

For example, I listen to a testimony of a man who died and was revived. He gave a detailed account of what happened to him whilst he was dead. A very convincing account as well, but for one detail that exposed it as a fraud, or the source was dubious. He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. The Plan of Salvation is like a jig saw puzzle with every piece being unique. Many of our religions have some of the pieces, however, none of them have all the pieces. To disprove them is just a matter of looking at the pieces to see if they are all there. I have yet to find a religion that has all the pieces.

To clarify when I say religion I am referring to denominations in the Christian faith.

Now faith and our personal relationship with God is another story. It cannot be faulted in anyway or form. To be converted by the Holy Ghost, who opens the gates to the pure knowledge of the Plan of Redemption, and to receive that knowledge in all humility and faith in Christ, is to make yourself impervious to the fiery darts of Satan. So, in essence, I am throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks they can disprove the logic of the Plan that was devised by God and accepted by Christ. I am looking for miss-shaped jig saw puzzle pieces that do to fit making the finished picture ugly instead of magnificent to behold. I am looking for someone to stump me on any aspect of Gods marvelous work and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind. If it cannot be done then even the disbelieved must concede that it is a rational and logi

 

[Boris56]

To the person who made the original post on this thread:
You don't need anyone else to stump you. The person or people who convinced you that God/Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell and this goofy plan of salvation are real have already stunped you. You believe in a bunch of nonsense for which there exists not a shred of evidence and you have no hope at all that these things are real no matter how much you hope they are. I'm afraid you will spend the rest of your miserable life in intellectual servitude to these false and ridiculous beliefs. Or you could pick up a science book or two and learn about the real world. Science is your best defense against believing what you want to. Make use of it.

 

[Serenity7855]

To the person who made the original post on this thread:
You don't need anyone else to stump you. The person or people who convinced you that God/Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell and this goofy plan of salvation are real have already stunped you. You believe in a bunch of nonsense for which there exists not a shred of evidence and you have no hope at all that these things are real no matter how much you hope they are. I'm afraid you will spend the rest of your miserable life in intellectual servitude to these false and ridiculous beliefs. Or you could pick up a science book or two and learn about the real world. Science is your best defense against believing what you want to. Make use of it.

Do we just have your word on this. Is it a baseless assertion born out of ignorance, or do you have adequate evidence to substantiate you claims that there is no hope at all that these things are real no matter how much you hope they are. I await in eager anticipation for your reply.

Do you think that people can be convinced into believing something they cannot see, hear, touch, smell or feel. This is not a show put on by a magician, this is reality. Nobody can be convinced that God exists. They have to receive a personal witness. We're you convinced by people that God does not exist?. Have you been stumped into believing garbage?

I am educated in the disciplines of science. I own, and have read, many scientific reference literatures. It is my education in the sciences that has given me an intellectual testimony that a diety is necessary. If you would like to go head to head with me on science, from evolution to cosmology, I would be more then happy to indulge.

Oh, I am not miserable, indeed, the opposite it true.

 

[Sapiens]

Do we just have your word on this. Is it a baseless assertion born out of ignorance, or do you have adequate evidence to substantiate you claims that there is no hope at all that these things are real no matter how much you hope they are. I await in eager anticipation for your reply.

He has presented in a single post at least as much evidence as you have in weeks of haranguing and increasingly bored audience.

Do you think that people can be convinced into believing something they cannot see, hear, touch, smell or feel.

Seems that you have fallen hook, line and sinker for something that no one can see, hear, touch, smell, taste or feel.

This is not a show put on by a magician, this is reality. Nobody can be convinced that God exists. They have to receive a personal witness. We're you convinced by people that God does not exist?. Have you been stumped into believing garbage?

You been stumped into believing garbage, believing in things that you can not hear, touch, smell, taste or feel. Why would you deny someone else the same possible opportunity that you enjoy?

I am educated in the disciplines of science. I own, and have read, many scientific reference literatures. It is my education in the sciences that has given me an intellectual testimony that a diety is necessary. If you would like to go head to head with me on science, from evolution to cosmology, I would be more then happy to indulge.

Oh, I am not miserable, indeed, the opposite it true.

Educated in the disciplines of science are you now? Doubt this I do.

You're clearly not a scientist, clearly not a researcher, I'd guess a technician, maybe an engineer, nothing creative.

 

[Serenity7855]

CONTINUED

You're right - but you feel her love through he actions or your would never claim that she loved you.

I don't claim that she loves me. It is not something that ever comes up in conversation. Just like my religion rarely surfaces in everyday rhetoric. It is true, I do feel her love, just like i feel the love of my Saviour, however, you will say that the feeling I have about the Saviour is attributable to some kind of delusion, so, am I also deluded when I feel the love of my wife. Her love for me is just as personal as my belief in Christ. It is nobodies business and nobody needs to know. I know that the Saviour loves me as well because of his actions, by suffering an ignominious death nailed to the cross of his execution. My wife has also sacrificed herself for me and our children. Can you at least see the similitudes.

We are just in the beginning stages of truly understanding cosmology - you've just admitted that the knowledge gleaned from the LHC is beginning to show us that what previously only existed as theoretical physics is being proven true - the rest will eventually be discovered.

Very, very true. Precept upon precept, step upon step, milk before the meat. We are being spoon fed.

The fact is - we don't know. We can make incredibly well educated guesses - but we don't know. I'll even posit that we'll never know. We can probably make a very safe, valid, assumption. But we'll never know.

Well, on that we will have to differ. It is my belief that in time we will come to know everything, as God said, by the power of the Holy Ghost we will come to know all things, even hidden knowledge.

We're still talking about the Paradise thing, right?

• luke - What was meant by "paradise" when Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange
• Sayings of Jesus on the cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• What did Jesus really say to the criminal at the cross?

There's 3

The first one reads

• Mormons who believe that salvation is impossible without some accompanying works argue that this verse isn't talking about heaven at all but some other realm where that person would again have a chance to do good works. Paradise is not heaven and the gift given was a second chance to earn admittance into heaven.

The second one bears no reference to what he said.

The third one seems to be arguing about being resurrected immediately on death. That is incorrect when you consider the key function of the Judgement, which takes place after the coming of Christ. It is a misinterpretation, false doctrine. It is clear, in the following verses, that there is a separate state of existence between life and the resurrection. The spirit prison and paradise combined.

1 Peter 3:18-20King James Version (KJV)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

However, I asked you to "Take a look at the context in which it was said and give me a logical alternative meaning." You have given me somebody else's meaning. If you are aware of the whole story you will realise that there are other extenuating circumstances that making it impossible to see it any other way

Exactly - but what someone interprets them to mean at different times is not necessarily what they meant when they were written.

If ever. Scripture means different things to different people at different times in there lives. I have personally found an answer in a scripture for a particular dilemma and several months afterwards the same scripture answered a totally different dilemma.

Like poetry, all works need to be read in the context in which they were written. Otherwise, analysis and interpretation are just completely up to the whim of the reader.

I simply could not agree more

Then, respectfully, should you make the claim that they exist?

Well yes, because the word "supernatural" is defined as being "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." And that is exactly what I am describing.

Maybe we are thinking about this differently. If I have evidence for 1, 2, 3, 4,...,..., 7, 8, and 9, then I know that there are gaps in my knowledge. Based on what I know about sequencing, I can hypothesize that 2 numbers are missing. I can also take a guess at what those numbers are. I can test my hypothesis through experimentation.

1+1=2. CHECK
2+1=3. CHECK
3+1=4. CHECK
4+1=7?? NOPE
4+1=5 CHECK

The data supports my hypothesis.

I used what I knew about the area around my knowledge gap to formulate a hypothesis and study, thus eliminating the gap.
I did not attribute that gap to a supernatural entity or suggest that "we will never know"

But you have just said it. "I used what I knew" You used previously known knowledge. Now tell me how dark matter passes through solid objects using known knowledge.

But in telling my story, to pretend that it never happened would be a lie.

Well that is not strictly true is it?. You cannot tell a lie when offering no information by which to lie about. Only if you said that you were a "goodie two shoes" during that period would you be lying. How can you lie by saying nothing.

Possibly - or possibly my assertion.. Either one of us could be right. That's the point. To say with certainty that the Holy Mailman is never late is inaccurate.

Well, again, not absolutely true. I said that the mail man came every day between 10 am and 12 pm. That is true. A mailman delivers our mail everyday during those times.

I'm not saying he made it imperfectly. I'm saying that, since God can only make perfect things by Christian logic, then wouldn't the advent of Adam with 3 legs, 1 eye, and two mouths still be perfect?

No. Let me tell you why I can say that.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If God had 3 legs, 1 eye, and two mouths then Adam would be perfect as he would be in the image of God. As Adam is not like that we know that God to is not like that but does in fact look like Adam, me and you.

It's circular logic. If God made two creations, both of them opposing each other, then how can one be perfect and the other be imperfect, since it was made by god?

I think I just answered that.

But since god cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, he thus cannot make something that's not perfect, right?

That is correct

It doesn't matter if we are talking about the convergence of elements or intelligence or whatever. If God cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, then he can't make something imperfect. So what god makes is perfect, because god made it.

God can only use perfect elements to create anything. He cannot be tainted with imperfection, and nowhere in scripture, or the plan of salvation, is he ever in the presence of imperfection. Be careful when using the word "creation" as it suggests making something from nothing, ex nihilo. That is not possible. It is my belief that God organised the intellegences that were.

Isn't the inability to do something beneath an omnipotent being?

Omnipotent is defined as the ability to do anything that can be done. The interaction of perfection with imperfection cannot be done.

This concept is only true in Christian thought...

Hmm, half true, however, it is not thought to any converted Christian. It is faith to a point reaching fact

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do we just have your word on this. Is it a baseless assertion born out of ignorance, or do you have adequate evidence to substantiate you claims that there is no hope at all that these things are real no matter how much you hope they are. I await in eager anticipation for your reply.

Do you think that people can be convinced into believing something they cannot see, hear, touch, smell or feel. This is not a show put on by a magician, this is reality. Nobody can be convinced that God exists. They have to receive a personal witness. We're you convinced by people that God does not exist?. Have you been stumped into believing garbage?

I am educated in the disciplines of science. I own, and have read, many scientific reference literatures. It is my education in the sciences that has given me an intellectual testimony that a diety is necessary. If you would like to go head to head with me on science, from evolution to cosmology, I would be more then happy to indulge.

Oh, I am not miserable, indeed, the opposite it true.

Boris is right. There is nothing really going on anywhere except the reality of
your rebuttals to people.
All you are ever going to be able to do is put forth mental ideologies of what you say is a reality. I agree though, its a mental reality inside the psyche, but it's certainly not going to ever manifest past that.

 

[moriningstar]

You call the immaculate conception rape? Really? Mary was not physically touch, God was not even present and Mary made no complaint either to God or anyone else and you say that is rape. I know why you have said is. To specifically provoke hostile altercations between atheists and theists. To deliberately offend and agitate. It is the likes of posters like you who give atheists a bad name and this forum could well do without posters, like you, who stir trouble between two groups of people. Oh, please indulge us, tell the christians who do not believe in God incarnate how God was her father and her son. The bible is not being ignored it is being read by spiritually illiterate fools.

While you and your watered down doctrine may find this rendition inflammatory, your response is little more than a personal attack.....how very Christian of you.

Now as to the narrative you and to your very own bible text! If you cannot even muster a supported response, I must assume you've never read the bible. In this you join with the rest of Christianity I guess. You see no_one ever remains a Christian after reading it with their own eyes.

So if we eliminate your conjectures we are left with Mary having been told of a sexual encounter "AFTER" the fact. This is definitely rape, but if you wish to explain how I am incorrect here......well have at it.


Now as to the latter of your nonsense. If you don't believethat the world is flat, fixed in space with a sun that revolves around it, you are ignoring a god and bible that tells you differently. But lest we digress, please just explain how Mary's encounter wasn't rape and how you bible claims it wasn't rape and then we can move on to you having ignored your own bible to get where you want to be......good luck.

 

[Boris56]

Do we just have your word on this. Is it a baseless assertion born out of ignorance, or do you have adequate evidence to substantiate you claims that there is no hope at all that these things are real no matter how much you hope they are. I await in eager anticipation for your reply.

Do you think that people can be convinced into believing something they cannot see, hear, touch, smell or feel. This is not a show put on by a magician, this is reality. Nobody can be convinced that God exists. They have to receive a personal witness. We're you convinced by people that God does not exist?. Have you been stumped into believing garbage?

I am educated in the disciplines of science. I own, and have read, many scientific reference literatures. It is my education in the sciences that has given me an intellectual testimony that a diety is necessary. If you would like to go head to head with me on science, from evolution to cosmology, I would be more then happy to indulge.

Oh, I am not miserable, indeed, the opposite it true.

 

[Serenity7855]

While you and your watered down doctrine may find this rendition inflammatory, your response is little more than a personal attack.....how very Christian of you.

You are a new poster here yet you immediately post vitriolic post to me because of my religious beliefs. I guess that must make you an aggressive atheist who is here to bismerch, stigmatise and slander the good name of Christianity without first investigating that which you denegrate. Yet another demonic spirit of rebellion to ignore

Now as to the narrative you and to your very own bible text! If you cannot even muster a supported response, I must assume you've never read the bible. In this you join with the rest of Christianity I guess. You see no_one ever remains a Christian after reading it with their own eyes.

Your assumption is incorrect, however, not unsurprising for someone who seeks confrontation rather than constructive debate. I know who you are. I meet with your comrades in arms almost every day and I have yet to buckle my armour on the likes of hostile posters.

The only Christians are those who do read it with their eyes open as opposed to those who are blinker visioned making them incapable of seeing the wood for the trees. The failed Christians.

So if we eliminate your conjectures we are left with Mary having been told of a sexual encounter "AFTER" the fact. This is definitely rape, but if you wish to explain how I am incorrect here......well have at it.

As I thought I had already made crystal clear, Mary consented to the impregnation, BEFORE THE FACT,

Before she conceived the following conversation took place about what was to come.

Luke 1

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

This is all before she had conceived, then comes her consent to being impregnated, which I have already posted.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

It is a little lame accusing me of not reading scriptures when your own post is a clear indication that scriptures are not your forte.

Now as to the latter of your nonsense.

You call my nonsense, yet it is I who have corrected you lack of knowledge of basic scriptures. I do realise though that it is done specifically to agitate me.

If you don't believe that the world is flat, fixed in space with a sun that revolves around it, you are ignoring a god and bible that tells you differently. But lest we digress, please just explain how Mary's encounter wasn't rape and how you bible claims it wasn't rape and then we can move on to you having ignored your own bible to get where you want to be......good luck.

I see no scope for continued debate as it is all to obvious that you are intellectually redundant when it comes to the word of God. What could we possibly debate? How many times could you take having your attacks quailed by someone who has spent a life time studying the word of God. Look how easy you made it for me to dismiss your arrogant and condescending post thus making you look like a novice. Be sensible and either debate cordially with an element if decorum, or just say nothing until you know what you are talking about.

 

[Boris56]

If you really knew anything at all about science you would not be on this blog promoting your ignorance of it. Okay let's go for cosmology. Where is your proof that the universe had a beginning and that matter and energy have not always existed in one form or another? And how about evolution. Name the ,mechanism that could keep micro evolution from becoming macro evolution and explain exactly how this mechanism works. I eagerly anticipate your ridiculous and hilarious response.

 

[Serenity7855]

Why do you keep reposting my post?

 

[Serenity7855]

If you really knew anything at all about science you would not be on this blog promoting your ignorance of it. Okay let's go for cosmology. Where is your proof that the universe had a beginning and that matter and energy have not always existed in one form or another? And how about evolution. Name the ,mechanism that could keep micro evolution from becoming macro evolution and explain exactly how this mechanism works. I eagerly anticipate your ridiculous and hilarious response.

The standard cosmological model

Time. Micro evolution happen over observable periods of time and macro evolution happens over unobservable time.

But I aam not here to answer questions you take from science Web sites because you have no clue about science. I have set the terms of this debate and have falsified your baseless claims about me

If you make any further anticipations on the calibre of my response I will not respond to your nasty vitriolic abuse. At least I can make a response and include the previous posters remarks. A simple fete that you seem to lack the ability in achieving.

 

[Boris56]

"The standard cosmological model"

> Obvioulsy you don't know what that is. Modern cosmology tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed so they must have always existed in some form. So right away you expose your ignorance of modern science.

Time. Micro evolution happen over observable periods of time and macro evolution happens over unobservable time.

> I asked for the mechanism that could keep micro evolution from becoming macro evolution. You failed to answer the question. You have no answer so you have no business claiming that they are different things - because there is no difference. Also the fossil record can be observed and the proof of macro evolution and common descent are in the fossil record. Another gigantic FAIL by you.

But I aam not here to answer questions you take from science Web sites because you have no clue about science. I have set the terms of this debate and have falsified your baseless claims about me

> ROFL! First you challenge me to debate science, realize you're in way over your head and then say you don't want to debate science. Hilarious and ridiculous! Make up your mind. Oh that's right you need other people to do that for you.

If you make any further anticipations on the calibre of my response I will not respond to your nasty vitriolic abuse. At least I can make a response and include the previous posters remarks. A simple fete that you seem to lack the ability in achieving.

> Like I said, you have realized you are in over your head. Hilarious. By the way I'll match my knowledge of the text of the Bible or Koine Greeek with anyone. Oh and that's feat not fete. Get your foot out of your mouth now. Hahahaha

 

[Serenity7855]

"The standard cosmological model"

> Obvioulsy you don't know what that is. Modern cosmology tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed so they must have always existed in some form. So right away you expose your ignorance of modern science.

Naturalistic laws break down pre singularity. There is no time, no space, no matter or energy pre - big bang. The ignorance is all yours. You attempted to entrap me but all you did was to show your own ignorance.

Time. Micro evolution happen over observable periods of time and macro evolution happens over unobservable time.

I asked for the mechanism that could keep micro evolution from becoming macro evolution. You failed to answer the question. You have no answer so you have no business claiming that they are different things - because there is no difference. Also the fossil record can be observed and the proof of macro evolution and common descent are in the fossil record. Another gigantic FAIL by you.

Oh, I answered it, you just did not comprehend the answer. The difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is, as I said it was, "time" Another weak attempt to entrap me with questions you found on the Internet.

But I aam not here to answer questions you take from science Web sites because you have no clue about science. I have set the terms of this debate and have falsified your baseless claims about me

> ROFL! First you challenge me to debate science, realize you're in way over your head and then say you don't want to debate science. Hilarious and ridiculous! Make up your mind. Oh that's right you need other people to do that for you.

I asked you to debate using your own knowledge, however, your lack in knowledge renders you incapable of such a feat, so, you use question that other people pose. Because of your dishonesty you cannot be trusted to conduct a constructive debate as every question I ask of you will be answered by the same source that you used to ask me. You have joined this thread solely to offend and ridicule me, and any other Christian.

If you make any further anticipations on the calibre of my response I will not respond to your nasty vitriolic abuse. At least I can make a response and include the previous posters remarks. A simple fete that you seem to lack the ability in achieving.

> Like I said, you have realized you are in over your head. Hilarious. By the way I'll match my knowledge of the text of the Bible or Koine Greeek with anyone. Oh and that's feat not fete. Get your foot out of your mouth now. Hahahaha

You are an unsavoury little poster whose agenda it is to be unpleasant and disagreeable. Posters would be well adviced to avoid you. You arrogantly claim knowledge on the bible but had no idea that Mary gave her consent to be impregnated, prior to being impregnated. When I then exposed your lack of knowledge on scriptures you ignored the content of the rebuttal by picking me up on a spelling error, which we all do, and for which I look forward to doing the same with you, so watch your spelling. Oh, let's just get it out of the way right now. It is "Koine Greek" and not "Koine Greeek" as you have written. Does that make you look as uneducated as you tried to make me look.

What is so difficult in clicking on the "reply" button and using the "quote" function? Why are you making such a hash of it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Naturalistic laws break down pre singularity. There is no time, no space, no matter or energy pre - big bang.

You will have to explain this further. Or is this an assumption? To me this sounds like something you got from a creationist website.

I would surmise that during the singularity laws broke down but what is ("pre singularity)?

What if, for instance, our universe contracted then expanded again? What if our universe was part of another universe? My point is prior to the singularity we don't know so how could you?

 

[Serenity7855]

You will have to explain this further. Or is this an assumption? To me this sounds like something you got from a creationist website.

I would surmise that during the singularity laws broke down but what is ("pre singularity)?

What if, for instance, our universe contracted then expanded again? What if our universe was part of another universe? My point is prior to the singularity we don't don't know so how could you?

When I said pre - singularity I should have said pre - big bang, which is the state known as the singularity. I hope that clarifies it for you.

Having said that, It should be common knowledge that we cannot possibly know what existed prior to the singularity when we do not even know what the singularity actually is. l am being complacent because l have already done all of this on another thread.

No i actually learned that all known laws break down pre-bigbang on this very forum from a atheist poster called Bunyp