Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Subduction Zone]

I take your point, but redefining "nothing" as this video attempts to do makes that "nothing" "something." And I still don't buy the concept of particles blinking in and out of existence, which is used to claim that something is coming from nothing.

In the end, it's all a giant waste of time and a deliberate obfuscation of the unavoidable truth that people somehow believe the insane theory that nothing compacted into something huge, exploded, and from all of that chaos we have perfect laws, mathematics, and symmetry.

And even if I were to concede (and I'm not) that there is anything at all to this theory, it is still so theoretical that for anyone to cite it as anything even resembling a rational explanation would be foolish. And that's what many of you do here.

You asked where the matter came from. When that was explained to you you were the one that tried to redefine your old meaning of "nothing". And just because you cannot understand something does not make it insane.


Also remember, you believe in magic. We don't. Perhaps if you told us how deep down the rabbit hole your beliefs have gone we could help you. Tell us do you believe all of the myths of the Bible?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think that what you mean is that arguments have been offered for the existence of God. They are only proof for those that are convinced by them. If you didn't convince any of your audience, you've proved nothing to anybody including yourself, since you already believed.



It happens all of the time. How many American soldiers died in Vietnam and Iraq over a lie?

How many wars began with a false flag operation?

Consider the Branch Davidians under David Koresh at Waco in 1993. Those people believed him that he was God, or a messiah, or anointed of God, or whatever he taught them, and they died beside their children for that belief.

How about the Heaven's Gate people who committed suicide based on a lie from a Marshall Applewhite that they would hitch a ride onto a comet to some promised afterlife.

Dying for a belief isn't evidence that your belief is correct, only that people hold beliefs that they are willing to die for.



That was not convincing evidence for a god, therefore, it was not a proof.

I don't where or how you came by ( belief )
When I didn't say a thing about ( belief )

Look, belief has nothing to do with it, not when those people were actually there to see Jesus and hear Jesus, for themselves.

Therefore those people back at the time of Jesus, were put to death, in the Roman Colosseum all because they would not confess, what they saw with their own eyes and own ears was a lie.

Let's say that you were standing on a corner and saw and hearing two cars crashing into each other, now you are telling the Police officers what you actually saw and hearing. But then two other people who were not there, comes up out of no where and starts telling you to confess what you saw and hearing is a lie. But you were there to see and hear the two cars crashing into each other.

So do you confess what you had saw and hearing is a lie or do you tell the Police officers exactly what you saw and hearing as being the truth ?

Therefore those people back at the time of Jesus told exactly what they had saw and hearing Jesus speaking to them.

So they were put to death because they would not confess it all was a lie,
what they were exactly seeing and hearing Jesus speaking to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't where or how you came by ( belief )
When I didn't say a thing about ( belief )

Look, belief has nothing to do with it, not when those people were actually there to see Jesus and hear Jesus, for themselves.

Therefore those people back at the time of Jesus, were put to death, in the Roman Colosseum all because they would not confess, what they saw with their own eyes and own ears was a lie.

Let's say that you were standing on a corner and saw and hearing two cars crashing into each other, now you are telling the Police officers what you actually saw and hearing. But then two other people who were not there, comes up out of no where and starts telling you to confess what you saw and hearing is a lie. But you were there to see and hear the two cars crashing into each other.

So do you confess what you had saw and hearing is a lie or do you tell the Police officers exactly what you saw and hearing as being the truth ?

Therefore those people back at the time of Jesus told exactly what they had saw and hearing Jesus speaking to them.

So they were put to death because they would not confess it all was a lie,
what they were exactly seeing and hearing Jesus speaking to them.

Who do you think was put to death and why? What evidence do you have? Now there were some Christians that were killed, but that appears to be more due to their actions against the government more than for their religion.

 

[Baroodi]

How is this supposed to be evidence of the Exodus myth? Why did you not include a valid link to support this claim?

pharaoh body found in red sea - Bing video

 

[Baroodi]

enjoy watching. Please go to Cairo to see the tyrant in the museum there. It will be the Journey of your life

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And yes, I do have knowledge over you. Sure, I could recount any number of supernatural events that have happened to me as "proof," but you would still have to believe them.

This is hilarious.

Ultimately, you're asking for a sign. Jesus Christ called such a thing wickedness.

"Asking for a sign?" Are you kidding? Just who would I be asking? There is no one there to ask as far as I am concerned.

My knowledge comes from faith:

And hopefully it works for you. That's the most you should hope for. Don't hope that it "works" for me. That's unfair.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

(Hebrews 11:1)

So easy to see why someone trying to convince someone else of something entirely invisible and undetectable would write something exactly like that. You think this is what? A surprise? A revelation? This it terrible. Nostrum, snake oil, a nepenthe for the woes of "reality".

And who are you to say that my definition of knowledge isn't equally as valid as yours? Just because your standards of proof are different than mine doesn't mean my proof is worthless. It may be to you, but I can claim with total assurance that I am 100% correct. I know. You do not.

I am so glad you said this... because it is EXACTLY where I feel your stance falls flat on its face... your absolute certainty. You may deny it, but I feel it blinds you and people like you to other possibilities... other opportunities for understanding. I don't discount the possibility of God... I certainly don't believe, but I understand I could be proven wrong. If it ever happens, I will only be a bit shocked, and then move on. However, if it ever happens that the things of which you are "100% certain" are disproved... you will be crushed.

Not that I know what I know through any virtue of my own:

This is absolutely correct... you DO NOT KNOW THROUGH ANY VIRTUE OF YOUR OWN. You "know" because other human beings shared their thoughts on the matter with you. That's the ONLY kind of evidence you have for God. Writings of men... words of men... "witness" testimony of men... and that by people who weren't even eye-witnesses most of the time. And then you have your own "feelings" - again, nothing but human-derived evidence. All of it. You have nothing else. Nothing you can hold in your hands, nothing you can look at and actually see with your own two eyes. Nothing you can objectively share with another human being. What you have may as well be nothing.

You're being deliberately obnoxious. I can also say that there might be an actual pig that can fly, just as you can say something might be able to come from nothing or just exist somehow. Prove to me that there is no such pig!

I can't, and I admit it. The only thing I can do is think you a little bit loony until you prove to me that there is such a pig. Otherwise, I can't entirely rule it out if you make the claim and seem sincere. But I don't have to believe you either. Once you provide the evidence, I will have no choice, but until then it is hearsay and no more.

Just because we find uses for things doesn't mean God created them ignorant of what those uses would be. Why is He unable to impute value before a use is discovered? You place unreasonable limits on The Almighty.

Here's a nice easy one: Why did God create the foundations for gunpowder? For fireworks? Mining operations? What about all of the rest of the pain and suffering caused by its more dastardly uses? God is responsible... you've said as much yourself. Oh... but He's not responsible for what humans decide to do with the possibilities He provides, right? Except wait... you did say He foresees the usage/utility of all substances He provided, right? Hmm... that's a tough one. Provided man gunpowder even though He KNEW the carnage that would be wrought. Interesting...

I merely know that examination of geological strata is junk science because of the assumptions made in the radiometric dating process. It is severely, severely and provably flawed.

Forget that then... concentrate on the contents of top-soil instead. Where did the millions of years worth of nutrients come from that makes up contemporary top soil in fertile places?

...certain things are explainable by the Lord's omnipotence. Many point to the fact that light from distant stars would have to travel for much greater lengths of time than is possible from a creationist standpoint; why can't God have created that light already here? That's not a lie any more than creating something from nothing violates the laws of physics...

It would, indeed, be a deception on God's part to have done that. It would have to be deliberately done in order to mask the actual age of the universe... to MAKE SURE it appeared older than it actually was. This is dishonesty of a very fundamental form. It's like setting up a fake alibi... saying one thing, when you were doing something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in reality. A lie. A cover-up. Besides, you can't literally believe that it is impossible for something to come from nothing... can you? Isn't that supposedly how God did it? There was darkness, and then He created everything... from what? Or wait... is He omnipotent then? If creating something from nothing isn't something He CAN do, then He isn't omnipotent, is He? You people need to get your stories straight.

You've probably never observed an atom, yet you believe men who tell you it's there. The bacteria in your gut, likely also unobserved.

Ah, but I do have experience in dealing with atoms because their interactions can be and have been predicted through science and their presence fits all observable criteria. Besides this, those "men" you speak of who have made all these strides provide ACTUAL RESULTS, that even you and I can reproduce. Think about that for a minute. They can tell us why vinegar and baking soda react together, or why pure sodium skips across the surface of water like a firecracker. They're so good at it that they can even predict when two elements or molecules will have such reactions. When has religion EVER produced objectively verifiable results OF ANY KIND? Never. And what? This is "knowledge" I am supposed to accept? What the hell?

It's truly amazing how without God, we are just totally lost.

Please speak for yourself when you say things like this.

It's very foolish indeed of you to speak as you do, making demands of God. Consider that He is perfectly wise, perfectly good and righteous, and that He loves you very much.

Once again... who am I demanding anything of? I can call all I want out to the void of space... what am I expecting? AN ANSWER?! And He "loves me very much?" Yet you would claim He is completely unwilling to come and talk to me except through you and others like you. People... who sound like they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. If I were to attempt to raise my children the same way - by only ever interacting with them through others - I'd have child services called on me so quickly I wouldn't even have time to pray for forgiveness. Again, this IS NOT me expecting anything from God. Not hardly. This is me trying to show you the glaring holes in your assertions about this supposed figure "God". You keep on with that "He loves you very much" stuff. It's one of my personal favorites because it is ridiculously easy to dispute and tear down.

What's important is that you see yourself for the sinner that you are... Your priorities are reversed, you see. Well, until you see that, you'll continue to shake your fists at the sky in futility.

This is just so rich. I mean really... you are THE archetypal Christian. Awesome. You know NOTHING about me... and yet I am a "sinner." Do you know how stereotypical a statement that is? And I never, ever, ever shake my fists at the sky. I shake my fists at MEN... who I believe are the creators of God and the purveyors of all of this type of nonsense that a god worth his salt would want nothing to do with. I couldn't believe there was something in the sky to shake my fists at if I tried.

It's true, the rest of the world is in wickedness. Evil times are indeed upon us; they're already here, in fact. And yes, this is that age where God will reconcile all things back to Himself. Yes, it's going to be very, very ugly.

You do realize just how long people like you have been expressing this exact same type of sentiment, don't you?

God is "here." He is totally involved in every aspect of your life. He is completely aware of your every thought, desire, of your plans and motivations, and of all of your sins. He has predestined you to do what He has determined, to be as He determines, and that you will become who He determines.

So you're saying He's a stalker, right? A totalitarian stalker at that. His propaganda says "free will" and yet He has already decided what I will become? Once again here, I would ask that you get your story STRAIGHT.

 

[Subduction Zone]

pharaoh body found in red sea - Bing video

So you don't have anything that is reliable. I can find videos that tell you the Earth is Flat. Archaeology has peer review just as other sciences have. If you can't find a peer reviewed article then you are more than likely just selling "woo".

And if you are unfamiliar with woo, think of "Woo, woooooo!, A ghost!"

 

[Michael1981]

This is hilarious.

Okay.

"Asking for a sign?" Are you kidding? Just who would I be asking? There is no one there to ask as far as I am concerned.

It doesn't matter whether or not you believe there is anyone there. God is there, and your demands for proof are the same as asking for a sign. We're called to walk by faith, not by signs.[/QUOTE]

And hopefully it works for you. That's the most you should hope for. Don't hope that it "works" for me. That's unfair.

I never suggested that you should rely on something you don't have. The reason I mentioned it is because that fits my criterion for knowledge. It's something that can't be adequately expressed to one who doesn't believe. You'll know someday, though.

So easy to see why someone trying to convince someone else of something entirely invisible and undetectable would write something exactly like that. You think this is what? A surprise? A revelation? This it terrible. Nostrum, snake oil, a nepenthe for the woes of "reality".

Going in circles now. Time to move on.

I am so glad you said this... because it is EXACTLY where I feel your stance falls flat on its face... your absolute certainty. You may deny it, but I feel it blinds you and people like you to other possibilities... other opportunities for understanding. I don't discount the possibility of God... I certainly don't believe, but I understand I could be proven wrong. If it ever happens, I will only be a bit shocked, and then move on. However, if it ever happens that the things of which you are "100% certain" are disproved... you will be crushed.

Not that I needed the proof, but once I believed many miraculous things that I could observe occurred. The purpose of these things happening had nothing to do with convincing me, but if nothing else I can point to those and say that I know that there are no other possibilities. I do know, and your suggestion that it's a weakness is simply totally wrong.

This is absolutely correct... you DO NOT KNOW THROUGH ANY VIRTUE OF YOUR OWN. You "know" because other human beings shared their thoughts on the matter with you. That's the ONLY kind of evidence you have for God. Writings of men... words of men... "witness" testimony of men... and that by people who weren't even eye-witnesses most of the time. And then you have your own "feelings" - again, nothing but human-derived evidence. All of it. You have nothing else. Nothing you can hold in your hands, nothing you can look at and actually see with your own two eyes. Nothing you can objectively share with another human being. What you have may as well be nothing.

As stated above, that's not the only kind of evidence I have. And you're wrong as well that it's been a matter of having things explained to me by other men. I read the Bible, the New Testament anyway, before I was converted. It meant absolutely nothing to me...in one ear and out the other, so to speak. Only once God removed my blindness could I believe that which other men told me and that which was written in the Bible. Granted, I've always known that God existed because something can't come from nothing; that has always been my "proof" and it came from no one. I'm speaking more of the doctrine I have now and know to be indisputably correct.

I can't, and I admit it. The only thing I can do is think you a little bit loony until you prove to me that there is such a pig. Otherwise, I can't entirely rule it out if you make the claim and seem sincere. But I don't have to believe you either. Once you provide the evidence, I will have no choice, but until then it is hearsay and no more.

And your suggestion that something can come from nothing or that things without brains have always existed is ludicrous to me. Not that I think you're insane; it seems to me that God has simply blinded you, for whatever reason. Being smart doesn't mean anything; you can be smart and be a fool at the same time.

Here's a nice easy one: Why did God create the foundations for gunpowder? For fireworks? Mining operations? What about all of the rest of the pain and suffering caused by its more dastardly uses? God is responsible... you've said as much yourself. Oh... but He's not responsible for what humans decide to do with the possibilities He provides, right? Except wait... you did say He foresees the usage/utility of all substances He provided, right? Hmm... that's a tough one. Provided man gunpowder even though He KNEW the carnage that would be wrought. Interesting...

Sure God is responsible. The buck stops with Him in all matters. The Bible clearly says that God sends the sword, the pestilence, the famine and the wild beast. Those are the wages of sin...death. But even evil God uses for good. Did you not read the link I provided on the purpose of evil? There is more to it than you might think at a glance.

Forget that then... concentrate on the contents of top-soil instead. Where did the millions of years worth of nutrients come from that makes up contemporary top soil in fertile places?

Again, we have to take dating processes into account here, and they are flawed processes based on assumptions. You're the one demanding solid proof; perhaps you should demand the same from scientists who corrupt their data with their own stupid assumptions.

It would, indeed, be a deception on God's part to have done that. It would have to be deliberately done in order to mask the actual age of the universe... to MAKE SURE it appeared older than it actually was. This is dishonesty of a very fundamental form. It's like setting up a fake alibi... saying one thing, when you were doing something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in reality. A lie. A cover-up. Besides, you can't literally believe that it is impossible for something to come from nothing... can you? Isn't that supposedly how God did it? There was darkness, and then He created everything... from what? Or wait... is He omnipotent then? If creating something from nothing isn't something He CAN do, then He isn't omnipotent, is He? You people need to get your stories straight.

It only appears as a lie to those who desire to see it as a lie. And you're right, God CAN and DID create something from nothing, so is the fact that He violated the first law of thermodynamics also a lie? Why can't you accept that God performs the miraculous?

Ah, but I do have experience in dealing with atoms because their interactions can be and have been predicted through science and their presence fits all observable criteria. Besides this, those "men" you speak of who have made all these strides provide ACTUAL RESULTS, that even you and I can reproduce. Think about that for a minute. They can tell us why vinegar and baking soda react together, or why pure sodium skips across the surface of water like a firecracker. They're so good at it that they can even predict when two elements or molecules will have such reactions. When has religion EVER produced objectively verifiable results OF ANY KIND? Never. And what? This is "knowledge" I am supposed to accept? What the hell?

You're missing the point here, but I see no profit in kicking a dead horse. You're demanding something that God has specifically said you're not to ask for. You'll be given proof once you believe. It may not be the kind of proof you now desire, but you'll accept it as proof. One day it'll be given to you, but for now you are given over to darkness. Could change at any point in time, but that's how things currently stand.

Once again... who am I demanding anything of? I can call all I want out to the void of space... what am I expecting? AN ANSWER?! And He "loves me very much?" Yet you would claim He is completely unwilling to come and talk to me except through you and others like you. People... who sound like they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. If I were to attempt to raise my children the same way - by only ever interacting with them through others - I'd have child services called on me so quickly I wouldn't even have time to pray for forgiveness. Again, this IS NOT me expecting anything from God. Not hardly. This is me trying to show you the glaring holes in your assertions about this supposed figure "God". You keep on with that "He loves you very much" stuff. It's one of my personal favorites because it is ridiculously easy to dispute and tear down.

You may not be expecting anything from God, but you're surely asking for it. And I can't argue that it's difficult to believe that God loves us given what He puts us through. It's impossible, really, unless you believe that God came to us as Jesus Christ and proved His love to us by allowing Himself to be crucified. This is the ultimate proof of love, and can only be accepted by the faith provided through His grace.

This is just so rich. I mean really... you are THE archetypal Christian. Awesome. You know NOTHING about me... and yet I am a "sinner." Do you know how stereotypical a statement that is? And I never, ever, ever shake my fists at the sky. I shake my fists at MEN... who I believe are the creators of God and the purveyors of all of this type of nonsense that a god worth his salt would want nothing to do with. I couldn't believe there was something in the sky to shake my fists at if I tried.

I'm not at all the archetypal Christian. Most in nominal Christendom would call me a heretic, and in former days I'm sure I'd have been burned at the stake as one.

Your problem is you have absolutely no concept of Who God is or what He is doing. You see things that confound you because you have no understanding.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)

I'm not boasting here. Chances are you've lived a much, much better life than I have. But there is none righteous, not even one. I know this to be true, therefore I know you are a sinner, and one who thinks to know something but actually knows nothing at all; therefore you and those on here like you remain in darkness.

You do realize just how long people like you have been expressing this exact same type of sentiment, don't you?


So you're saying He's a stalker, right? A totalitarian stalker at that. His propaganda says "free will" and yet He has already decided what I will become? Once again here, I would ask that you get your story STRAIGHT.

There is no free will. All is predetermined. You have no more control of your life than a fallen leaf has control over the wind.

 

[Michael1981]

You asked where the matter came from. When that was explained to you you were the one that tried to redefine your old meaning of "nothing". And just because you cannot understand something does not make it insane.

You didn't explain where the matter came from at all. You simply posted a video of some guy saying that "all of this stuff is actually nothing because it all adds up to zero." That's called redefining the definition of nothing. Perhaps I should start telling people that I'm not actually here, because the negative value of energy in the universe cancels me out. Astounding.

Also remember, you believe in magic. We don't. Perhaps if you told us how deep down the rabbit hole your beliefs have gone we could help you. Tell us do you believe all of the myths of the Bible?

I believe most things in the Bible. There are certain errors, but these are mostly minor. I likely believe everything you and others here consider to be myths.

 

[Michael1981]

Even a god would have to be subjected to laws that transcend and preceded it. For example, what forces needed to exist to keep a god and all of its knowledge intact rather than dissipating or evaporating away as it were?

A god would need to be subject to whatever forces account for its consciousness. You can't very well claim that God created his own consciousness before He was conscious to do so, can you?

And a god would have to be subject to time if it is to be able to act or think, both of which require before and after states.

I sort of get what you're saying, but at the same time you're still saying that God must be subject to something, when all is in subjection to Him. How can you possibly comprehend a being Who had no beginning? Assuming God is actually omnipotent, then your attempt to comprehend His existence from your finite standpoint is rather arrogant, don't you think? I mean, what do you know, really?

Even the concept of existing requires time. To exist means to be a real thing through a series of consecutive moments. For things that used to exist, that final moment has passed. For things yet to exist, that first moment hasn't come yet. For things that currently exist, this moment is one of those moments. And that must be true in any reality that you might say exists. To say that God has always existed is to say that there was never a moment when He didn't, but doesn't remove God from time.

Again, you're trying to comprehend something beyond your comprehension. Maybe time has only existed after God's first thought or action. Maybe there simply was no before. Who can understand these things?

There is another, more likely explanation for why we cannot find evidence for gods. Vestigial Mote gave you a nice presentation wherein he changed the argument of the faith based thinker from gods to invisible gnomes. Didn't he invite you to join him in his journey with the gnomes. Sure, there's no proof (or evidence) for the existence of these gnomes, even if somebody is willing to die for them. If the gnomes intended you to have proof, you'd have it.

If you cannot disprove their existence, you should believe that they exist, right?

Did you find that compelling? Did you accept? If not, why not.

Whatever your answer, that's the answer to you. Substituting gods for gnomes doesn't make the argument any better.

Why a group of gnomes if everything must have a source? Eventually we should end up at a single father gnome, the source of the other gnomes. There is no logical reason to assume that the source would be a group. Now, if you wanted to say that there was a single father gnome from whence all else came, well, then I’d be on board.

It’s as Aristotle said with the Original Mover. We can accept that one ball makes contact with two balls and sends them into motion, but what about the first ball? Something had to make that one move. Similarly, five individual gnomes wouldn’t suddenly and simultaneously move of their own volition as a cohesive unit, working towards a singular goal (otherwise, they wouldn't really be five, but one). You could argue otherwise, but there would be no logic to the argument. It had to start with one of the gnomes.

That's more than theorizing (speculating). That's evidence that the method is dependable and that that scientific knowledge is useful if not accurate or true (I'm learning to avoid that word more and more - was Newton's theory of gravitation "true"? It works in most applications.).

And that method tells us that the earth formed by accretion from a nebula forming into a solar system, and that the original surface of the earth was rock, at times molten, at times hardened into crust, not soil.

You seem to believe that if something wasn't witnessed, nothing can be known about its history, and that all claims about that history are guesses no better than any other guess. If so, you are incorrect. I'll bet that you believe that you were conceived, gestated in your mother's womb, were born one fine day, and took your first breath, and you have no direct knowledge of any of it

What if I told you that you were just "theorizing" about that? You might tell me that your mother was a witness to all of that and told you about it, but is that really why you believe that all those things happened, or do you know how to use present evidence to come to sound conclusions about the past?

Most of what you said makes sense, but there's an enormous difference between good science that uses hard data and junk science that is either totally theoretical or inserts data that isn't actually data, but guesswork and assumptions.

Forgive me if I'm unable to quickly or adequately respond to everyone who has engaged in arguments with me. I'll try to get to the rest of what you've written but I only have so much time. I didn't expect such huge responses from multiple people.

And actually, if others could consider that in the future and allow me more time to respond to others before writing something I'd appreciate it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't explain where the matter came from at all. You simply posted a video of some guy saying that "all of this stuff is actually nothing because it all adds up to zero." That's called redefining the definition of nothing. Perhaps I should start telling people that I'm not actually here, because the negative value of energy in the universe cancels me out. Astounding.

I told you how to find out. Do I need to hold your hand through every step? And no, I did not post a video, I told you how to Google search for that video. You are merely angry because you could not properly define "nothing". The sort of "nothing" that you want to exist might be impossible to exist at any rate. You will probably make an unjustified assumption.

I believe most things in the Bible. There are certain errors, but these are mostly minor. I likely believe everything you and others here consider to be myths.

So you believe the Noah's Ark myth? That was shown to be wrong about 200 years ago. You believe the Adam and Eve myth? That was refuted 150 years ago. You are in over your head with the Big Bang theory. You need to start with easier to understand science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sort of get what you're saying, but at the same time you're still saying that God must be subject to something, when all is in subjection to Him. How can you possibly comprehend a being Who had no beginning? Assuming God is actually omnipotent, then your attempt to comprehend His existence from your finite standpoint is rather arrogant, don't you think? I mean, what do you know, really?

For fun let's say that there is an omnipotent god. Can that God lie? If that is the case we know that the stories of Genesis and Exodus are not true.

Again, you're trying to comprehend something beyond your comprehension. Maybe time has only existed after God's first thought or action. Maybe there simply was no before. Who can understand these things?

Fine, a god began the universe with the Big Bang, how does that help your personal beliefs?

That is enough for now, but it looks like you are trying to use the failed Kalam Cosmological argument to support the existence of a god.

 

[Cary Cook]

You mean to say the bible contains inaccuracies?

Yes... Assuming your post is not intended as sarcasm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes... Assuming your post is not intended as sarcasm.

Are you familiar with the Exodus myth? You do realize that my 2 million estimate came from numbers give by Exodus:

Exodus 12: 37 says:

37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.

You can see that with 600,000 men a number of 2 million is not unreasonable when one includes women, children, and the elderly.

 

[Cary Cook]

Are you familiar with the Exodus myth? You do realize that my 2 million estimate came from numbers give by Exodus:

Exodus 12: 37 says:

37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.

You can see that with 600,000 men a number of 2 million is not unreasonable when one includes women, children, and the elderly.

Ancient literature is full of exaggerated numbers.

All either of us has is subjective f***ing probability judgments.
Get uptight on somebody else's time.
Have the last word if you want it. I lost interest 2 posts ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ancient literature is full of exaggerated numbers.

All either of us has is subjective f***ing probability judgments.
Get uptight on somebody else's time.

No, that is all that you have. Regardless of the numbers I still have the work of anthropologists on my side. You merely have a book of myths. One that you have already admitted is wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't where or how you came by ( belief )
When I didn't say a thing about ( belief )

Look, belief has nothing to do with it, not when those people were actually there to see Jesus and hear Jesus, for themselves.

Therefore those people back at the time of Jesus, were put to death, in the Roman Colosseum all because they would not confess, what they saw with their own eyes and own ears was a lie.

The problem is that the people who were put to death in the Roman coliseum were NOT eye witnesses to Jesus. In fact, they almost all lived over a century after Jesus died. The 'persecutions' of Christians didn't really start until after the Antonines, and the church at the time was *discouraging* them because there was a 'martyr fever' where people wanted to prove their faith through martyrdom. Hmmm....sort of what we see in Islam today.

Let's say that you were standing on a corner and saw and hearing two cars crashing into each other, now you are telling the Police officers what you actually saw and hearing. But then two other people who were not there, comes up out of no where and starts telling you to confess what you saw and hearing is a lie. But you were there to see and hear the two cars crashing into each other.

So do you confess what you had saw and hearing is a lie or do you tell the Police officers exactly what you saw and hearing as being the truth ?

Therefore those people back at the time of Jesus told exactly what they had saw and hearing Jesus speaking to them.

Except that they didn't. In fact, we have a complete absence of such testimony outside of the Gospels.

So they were put to death because they would not confess it all was a lie,
what they were exactly seeing and hearing Jesus speaking to them.

Which martyrs, specifically, heard Jesus speak and were put to death because they wouldn't renounce their faith? Remember that even Paul never saw Jesus in person.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I never suggested that you should rely on something you don't have. The reason I mentioned it is because that fits my criterion for knowledge. It's something that can't be adequately expressed to one who doesn't believe. You'll know someday, though.

There is something you simply do not understand, and I believe it is hindering you from seeing the reality of how far removed I am from the possibility of becoming Christian, or believing in God, or gods, or anything of the sort. Not only is there far too much else in reality-based knowledge that fits with the observable, experienced universe - and therefore the accounts of God creating it as is classically described can be cast aside easily, but EVEN IF GOD EXISTS I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS TACTICS, HIS BASIC SENSE OF MORALITY OR HIS COMPLETE ABSENCE. Meaning that even if He is someday proven to exist, I would never, ever follow Him... let alone worship Him. How could I? When I truly believe (you have no idea how truly) that His leadership as it is described is so debased that it requires huge heaps of self-delusion to push past into even apathy... let alone adoration.

You see, I too have read The Bible, and in it I found an account of neglect, poor decision making, violence that I can only describe as being based in some grand stupidity, extremely sparse quality-time spent with a creation supposedly cherished, and, as you accused me of using... circular reasoning abound. In my honest, heartfelt opinion, the only good bits in The Bible are the parables whose messages/lessons are relevant regardless whether or not God exists. Everything else about God or that includes God is unworthy of anyone's time. It is a waste because it claims one thing, and yet says another. All of it. God is loving, yet He murders babies while they and their parents are sleeping. God is infallible and yet recognizes mistakes enough to drown them in a deluge of rain. God is all-knowing and yet seems disappointed when His creations eat from the tree He forbade them eat from. God is "just"... and yet one of His first "commandments" - laws, which even we humans understand should ALWAYS be impartial in order to be fair - is that you MUST worship Him, and Him alone. God, as described in The Bible, is completely reprehensible.

And don't you get it... this is one of the very reasons I can nearly assert that He doesn't exist. The accounts are completely idiotic and contradictory - a mess that is so obviously written by humans, and humans alone. If God is real, I will eat my hat. I actually don't even own a hat... so I will buy one and then eat one. But honestly... I swear to you that I am not being disingenuous when I state this... I know deep, deep down that I will never, ever, EVER find the need to buy a hat.

 

[sayak83]

Okay.

It doesn't matter whether or not you believe there is anyone there. God is there, and your demands for proof are the same as asking for a sign. We're called to walk by faith, not by signs



I never suggested that you should rely on something you don't have. The reason I mentioned it is because that fits my criterion for knowledge. It's something that can't be adequately expressed to one who doesn't believe. You'll know someday, though.



Going in circles now. Time to move on.



Not that I needed the proof, but once I believed many miraculous things that I could observe occurred. The purpose of these things happening had nothing to do with convincing me, but if nothing else I can point to those and say that I know that there are no other possibilities. I do know, and your suggestion that it's a weakness is simply totally wrong.



As stated above, that's not the only kind of evidence I have. And you're wrong as well that it's been a matter of having things explained to me by other men. I read the Bible, the New Testament anyway, before I was converted. It meant absolutely nothing to me...in one ear and out the other, so to speak. Only once God removed my blindness could I believe that which other men told me and that which was written in the Bible. Granted, I've always known that God existed because something can't come from nothing; that has always been my "proof" and it came from no one. I'm speaking more of the doctrine I have now and know to be indisputably correct.



And your suggestion that something can come from nothing or that things without brains have always existed is ludicrous to me. Not that I think you're insane; it seems to me that God has simply blinded you, for whatever reason. Being smart doesn't mean anything; you can be smart and be a fool at the same time.



Sure God is responsible. The buck stops with Him in all matters. The Bible clearly says that God sends the sword, the pestilence, the famine and the wild beast. Those are the wages of sin...death. But even evil God uses for good. Did you not read the link I provided on the purpose of evil? There is more to it than you might think at a glance.



Again, we have to take dating processes into account here, and they are flawed processes based on assumptions. You're the one demanding solid proof; perhaps you should demand the same from scientists who corrupt their data with their own stupid assumptions.



It only appears as a lie to those who desire to see it as a lie. And you're right, God CAN and DID create something from nothing, so is the fact that He violated the first law of thermodynamics also a lie? Why can't you accept that God performs the miraculous?



You're missing the point here, but I see no profit in kicking a dead horse. You're demanding something that God has specifically said you're not to ask for. You'll be given proof once you believe. It may not be the kind of proof you now desire, but you'll accept it as proof. One day it'll be given to you, but for now you are given over to darkness. Could change at any point in time, but that's how things currently stand.



You may not be expecting anything from God, but you're surely asking for it. And I can't argue that it's difficult to believe that God loves us given what He puts us through. It's impossible, really, unless you believe that God came to us as Jesus Christ and proved His love to us by allowing Himself to be crucified. This is the ultimate proof of love, and can only be accepted by the faith provided through His grace.



I'm not at all the archetypal Christian. Most in nominal Christendom would call me a heretic, and in former days I'm sure I'd have been burned at the stake as one.

Your problem is you have absolutely no concept of Who God is or what He is doing. You see things that confound you because you have no understanding.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)

I'm not boasting here. Chances are you've lived a much, much better life than I have. But there is none righteous, not even one. I know this to be true, therefore I know you are a sinner, and one who thinks to know something but actually knows nothing at all; therefore you and those on here like you remain in darkness.



There is no free will. All is predetermined. You have no more control of your life than a fallen leaf has control over the wind.

You know nothing whatsoever about God Michael1981. That much, at least, is obvious as the sun at high noon.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The problem is that the people who were put to death in the Roman coliseum were NOT eye witnesses to Jesus. In fact, they almost all lived over a century after Jesus died. The 'persecutions' of Christians didn't really start until after the Antonines, and the church at the time was *discouraging* them because there was a 'martyr fever' where people wanted to prove their faith through martyrdom. Hmmm....sort of what we see in Islam today.



Except that they didn't. In fact, we have a complete absence of such testimony outside of the Gospels.



Which martyrs, specifically, heard Jesus speak and were put to death because they wouldn't renounce their faith? Remember that even Paul never saw Jesus in person.

There were people who were alive at the time of Jesus and were put to death in the Roman Colosseum. Killed by wild Lions and Tigers, and burned at the stake.

Why do you suppose Jesus said in Matthew 24:9, Mark 13:9, Luke 21:12.

That you shall be delivered up before kings and into prisons and shall kill you for my name sake.

Therefore they were killed because they would not confess what they seen and hearing was a lie. Thereby fulfilling what Jesus told them while he was alive with them.
That they would be killed for his name, which they would not confess his name, as being a lie.