Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[tumbleweed41]

No, its one of the four forces. If i remember right its the weak force.

Source?

 

[AK4]

Fine that you believe that, but if you want others to accept it, you'll have to demonstrate that it's true. Just asking us to take your word for it isn't enough.

Although proving by the scriptures the days of creation is longer than six 24hr days and Noahs flood wasn’t global isn’t my strongest area. I could do it but I would have to go over my notes again.

Again, fine if you believe it yourself. If you want me to agree with you, demonstrate that it's true.

Okay, where did you get your knowledge from? Now trace as far back as you can to where you could have first started getting your knowledge. Now break it down further and further and further. Break it down to where the very first possible way of you obtaining knowledge could have originated from. What is the source you obtained any knowledge from? If this doesn’t demonstrate for you well…

If they've been refuted for centuries, then they should be easy for you to refute here. Go for it.

I like to be more original as how I did with humanistheart. Try a different topic that the masses haven’t already tried.

There's a big difference between the plain meaning of these sorts of statements and the inferences you try to draw from them.

Just to go back a bit, though, when you say "things are made from things unseen", exactly what do you think this means? What scientific facts do you think the Bible is telling us here?

Two points:
From the perspective of the writer and when it was written, the finest thing they could possibly see is really fine ground up powder or something, yet they could still see it. The incredible thing is they made a statement, a scientific statement that was later confirmed by science centuries later when the atom was discovered.

I forgot my other point [got interrupted]. But heres something---physicists are now saying with quantum mechanics things “just happen” or “appear out of nothing”. Is this not the same thing that was said in Hebrews “things are made out of things unseen”?

You're putting the cart before the horse. We're trying to decide whether to accept the Bible as reliable. Part of that figuring out whether it was written by people or by God. If you've come to that conclusion, fine, but don't expect us to accept it until you've demonstrated to us that it's correct.

Well I could, but if you are someone who doesn’t believe in a spiritual realm then it would be pointless.

Anyhow, I think you're avoiding an important issue. You imply that "scripture" is written by God. Okay (since I don't really feel like arguing the point right now)... but what's "scripture"?

Well , of course it was written by people but picture it as boss dictating to his underling what he/she should be writing down, with no exceptions or changing to what was being dictated to them. And lets say this boss did this with 60 or so people who all worked in the same company with only one purpose or goal in mind.
Scripture may differ from bible verses. Bible verses…well the argument could be made then which is the correct bible or translation. And bible verses could be horribly or purposely mistranslated. Scripture is what was written originally [yeah and I know where this argument leads to], so I will change it to what was “supposedly” written by the original authors. All the canonized books must be what was intended by God to be or represent His word. I do not discount that other books may contain some truth in it but maybe there is something in it that isn’t in compliance with what we have in canon now. The Book of Revelation…oh it is definitely inspired. Maybe because some of these leaders cant understand that the very first verse in it says this a book of symbols and they take it literally and confuse themselves is why they reject it.

Does it include the Book of Revelation (a book that has historically been rejected by some Christian leaders as not inspired)? Does it include books like 3 John or Maccabees (books that the Catholic Church counts as "scripture" but most Protestant churches do not)? Does it include the Gospel of Thomas? What about the Book of Mormon? What about the Quran? How do you tell the God-authored "scripture" from the fake stuff?

The best way to tell is if a book breaks a precept or contradicts anything or verse in the bible. I had some mormons come visit once and I know how they believe in pre-existence as spirits and immortal soul and how its all in their book of mormon, so I directed them to one verse in the bible that flat out destroys their pre-existing as spirits.

1Co 15:46 -
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.



This was just one of many. This is how you can tell what is fake and what isnt.

 

[AK4]

I think you are the one confused here. Have you studied any of the history of the canonization of the Protestant scripture? Catholic? Eastern, Greek, or Russian Orthodox? Ethiopian?

Yeah. We can categorise them as we like just as they did back in Jesus' time. They had the law, the psalms and the prophets.

Did you know Martin Luther probably didnt want the book of James calling it an epistle of straw? Do you know what the bible says to do with straw?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The scriptures are reliable as a whole.....

No the scriptures are ONE source, it came from one source and ultimately has one author or "director" of it. This is why most of yall are confused on it because you dont realise it, the scriptures, is one and not a collection of books.

Yeah. We can categorise them as we like just as they did back in Jesus' time. They had the law, the psalms and the prophets.

Did you know Martin Luther probably didnt want the book of James calling it an epistle of straw? Do you know what the bible says to do with straw?

So even though you admit to controversy and historical squabbling about what books and letters were to be included in the scripture. You still assert that the Bible is as one. Not a collection, but a single book whose entirety is authored under the influance of God? A book that was assembled by men?

 

[AK4]

Are you really that thick? I said to lack belief in predestination, as in lacking belief in a deity, you are relying on evidence before belief. Therefore using reason instead of faith.

Thick and chocolately.

While, theologically speaking, to "believe" (faith without evidence) in freewill, you assume that there is some force or entity that grants this freewill.

And why do you assume that everyone that believes in freewill believe that it was granted by some force or entity?

Atheism is not a religion.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So what was that about atheism again.

 

[AK4]

So even though you admit to controversy and historical squabbling about what books and letters were to be included in the scripture. You still assert that the Bible is as one. Not a collection, but a single book whose entirety is authored under the influance of God? A book that was assembled by men?

Yes but the whats unique about it is that there can be no contradictions in it [for the sake of this argument i will say spiritual contradictions. unless you wanna take it there about the literal] and that is why some books werent included.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes but the whats unique about it is that there can be no contradictions in it [for the sake of this argument i will say spiritual contradictions. unless you wanna take it there about the literal] and that is why some books werent included.

Yes, no spiritual contradictions. That is why there is such unity in the Christian faith.
:sarcastic

 

[tumbleweed41]

the doctrine or belief that there is no God
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So what was that about atheism again.

Noun

• S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
• S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

WordNet Search - 3.0

Now, in the first definition, acquired from the same source you used,
a doctrine or belief that their is no God, indicates the atheistic beliefs of Buddhists. whose doctrine states that their is no God. Jains hold a similar belief. As do Confucians and Taoists. There are many Pagan atheistic beliefs. Not to mention a few Humanist based religions.

The second definition,
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, indicates no religious belief at all. And can not only include those religions mentioned above, but also any individual who lacks any belief in any sort of deity.
So,
If atheism is a religion then not playing baseball is a sport.

 

[godnotgod]

Well , of course it was written by people but picture it as boss dictating to his underling what he/she should be writing down, with no exceptions or changing to what was being dictated to them. And lets say this boss did this with 60 or so people who all worked in the same company with only one purpose or goal in mind.
Scripture may differ from bible verses. Bible verses…well the argument could be made then which is the correct bible or translation. And bible verses could be horribly or purposely mistranslated. Scripture is what was written originally [yeah and I know where this argument leads to], so I will change it to what was “supposedly” written by the original authors. All the canonized books must be what was intended by God to be or represent His word. I do not discount that other books may contain some truth in it but maybe there is something in it that isn’t in compliance with what we have in canon now. The Book of Revelation…oh it is definitely inspired. Maybe because some of these leaders cant understand that the very first verse in it says this a book of symbols and they take it literally and confuse themselves is why they reject it.

Even you, a believer, is aware of the problem of corruption, or at least misunderstanding, of written text. We have no confirmation whatsoever that scripture was dictated directly from God. It is a clumsy method of communicating with man, since God already knows that man's mind is not in the correct state to receive his message in the first place. And that is exactly why Jesus told his audience they were mistaken to think they would find eternal life within the scriptures. Jesus (or more accurately, Yeshua), was a mystic, and not an orthodox believer. His source was first the direct union with God, not the scriptures.

And so, if God wanted to communicate with man he would never do it via of the written word. He would know how stupid this method is from the get-go. No, He would, instead, make it a point to become part of his own creation from the beginning, so that the divine essence would dwell as a living entity within every man, woman, and child, as well as every atom of the entire universe. Even the space between His created entities would be filled with the divine essence. That way, not only would communication between man and God be absolutely 100% accurate 100% of the time, man would come to the realization that God can never be an object, that man and God are One, like dye is dissolved into water. When that is realized, communication would be completely wordless, and, if you take a look at the way Reality actually IS, you will see that that is already the case: complete and utter Silence, and it is the Silence, not the word, which is what all mystics focus upon. It is not the word which contains the essence of the divine, but the silent breath that precedes it, and that breath is intimately close to you, so close, that you fail to realize its exact nature, partly due to the fact that the divine essence manifests itself in ways that are completely Ordinary. In other words, you are looking for God as an object, one that is extra-ordinary, and that is the problem.

"Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor.
After Enlightenment, sweeping the floor."
Buddha

"I chop wood and carry water. How miraculous!"
Unknown Zen source

 

[AK4]

[/color]

The laws are natural to the material of the universe.

Lol. So which came first the laws or the material to make the laws? Chicken or the egg?

Indeed they will.
Creationists, flat earthers, moon landing deniers.....[/

quote]

....creation worshippers, God deniers, self idolizers....

 

[tumbleweed41]

Lol. So which came first the laws or the material to make the laws? Chicken or the egg?

According to many Physics Models.....

Singularity
Big-Bang (beginning of expansion)
Space/Time (Time emerging from Space)
Laws as we know them.

 

[AK4]

[/color]

The laws are natural to the material of the universe.

So which came first, the law or the material?

 

[AK4]

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.


Doesn't sound like the naturally expanding universe as we understand it today....

I will have to comment on this later because i cant find it in my notes on how throughout all these creation "days", the hebrew shows that the proper meaning to all this stuff is that it came to pass or came to be, not done instantly like the KJ bible and its sisters try to portray it. The concordant version i believe shows that it was all coming to be or coming to pass. This helps to further what i saying about the creation days not being 24 hr days and how it follows with what science is saying about the BB and the spreading out like a curtain the heavens

 

[tumbleweed41]

Lol. So which came first the laws or the material to make the laws? Chicken or the egg?

According to many Physics Models.....

Singularity
Big-Bang (beginning of expansion)
Space/Time (Time emerging from Space)
Laws as we know them.

So which came first, the law or the material?

Must I repeat myself?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I will have to comment on this later because i cant find it in my notes on how throughout all these creation "days", the hebrew shows that the proper meaning to all this stuff is that it came to pass or came to be, not done instantly like the KJ bible and its sisters try to portray it. The concordant version i believe shows that it was all coming to be or coming to pass. This helps to further what i saying about the creation days not being 24 hr days and how it follows with what science is saying about the BB and the spreading out like a curtain the heavens

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/90416-length-creation-day.html

 

[AK4]

Not to me. The universe is a big, 3-dimensional thing. Curtains are flat.

Oh you are killing me. Is the bible supposed to fill in every single detail? What would be the fun in that for us if it did and did it in plain language? Even so, Some scientists say the universe could be like a flat sheet with other universes or parallel universes.

That phrase is a much better fit with the old idea that the sky was a solid surface punctured with holes where starlight shines through than it is with the modern idea of an expanding universe.

Talk about an imagination.

 

[AK4]

Source?

One source was from one of those i gave you before. Superrelativity.org i think.

 

[AK4]

So even though you admit to controversy and historical squabbling about what books and letters were to be included in the scripture. You still assert that the Bible is as one. Not a collection, but a single book whose entirety is authored under the influance of God? A book that was assembled by men?

hard to explain but yes. Beleive me i know all about all the other "jesus' stories" that preceeded Him and all the myths "stolen" by the jews and to one who doesnt have alot of faith these things could easily destroy what little faith they did have. Ive contemplated on this before and came up with a reasonable explanation that maybe just works for me. [and its not one that is just based on faith but alot of thorough reasoning]. What gets me is that alot of people think that those who have faith dont reason. There are plenty of things out there and even in bible translations that make one question what they believe and if their faith is grounded on truth then they have to reason and prove the truth. This is for those who really have a love for only the truth and if a truth is discovered that destroys what you previously believed then one should just accept it and "start all over" again.

 

[MSizer]

I dare God to face me. If he has the guts, he's welcome to show up anytime, at which time I will tell him to kneel in front of me so I can wipe my feet on his face.

If that doesn't show my certitude in the absurdity of the notion of the existence of God, I don't know what else would (except for things I could say that would be censored).

 

[tumbleweed41]

Some scientists say the universe could be like a flat sheet with other universes or parallel universes.

Correct, the WMAP spacecrafts measurements indicate a relatively flat universe.
However, flat space does not mean that it is flat like a table top or piece of paper. We can look in all directions and see galaxies out to billions of light years. Flat space is simply a matter of geometry, where the corner angles of a triangle would add to 180 degrees.
There are at least two other possible shapes for the universe according to various measurements and theories. The "Saddle" and the "Sphere"

But as of right now, astrophysicists believe within a 2% margin of error that the universe is "flat".

As for the "multiverse" layers, that is a matter of String Theory, not astrophysics, and is not established.