The truth, the path to God

[ElishaElijah]

Of course. It is evidence only for who already believes in it. My point from the beginning.

ciao

- viole

God delivered me, this isn’t a belief, it’s a fact. God showed up for me when I had no other options, it was death or God’s deliverance. A year of seeking the God who delivered me, I was led to a Pastor who shared the Gospel with me and I received Jesus Christ and made a covenant with Him and was changed, filled with the Holy Spirit and started to desire the Word of God and understood it for the first time ever. I didn’t need a teacher to teach
me the Truth of Scripture. God leads me now by His Spirit and I trust Him, this is a fact.
He said when I do die I will be in Heaven with Him forever, this is what takes faith/trust because I haven’t received this yet because I am alive on Earth and only received a part of my inheritance not all.

 

[viole]

No, it is evidence for anyone who is interested in believing it.

If it needs to be believed in, it is not evidence.

ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

If it needs to be believed in, it is not evidence.

Wrong. If it needs to be believed in, it is not proof.

 

[paarsurrey]

Kindly quote from Jesus, please. I get that Jesus left nothing in writing nor he dictate anything to any authorized person on his behalf. Right?

If Jesus could read and write, then why didn't' He leave behind anything for humanity? Right?

Regards

 

[ElishaElijah]

If Jesus could read and write, then why didn't' He leave behind anything for humanity? Right?

Regards

He did, the Scriptures and Believers, His Body, Living Stones a habitation of God in the Spirit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except your argument is flawed: it’s impossible for anything to exist from nothing, it’s never happened. You cannot get the components of creation from nothing.

1. so much for the theistic claim of creation ex nihilo

2. false dichotomy

3. where did god come from? "he's eternal!" => special pleading; this literally violates the premise that the argument holds everything else against

The amount of fallacies in this kalaam nonsense is ridiculous.

For example you don’t look at a car and think wow all that engineering just poof happened.

Indeed, nobody thinks that.

Life is much more complex than an automobile.

Complexity isn't an indicator of design.
Cars being "complex" is not how we know they are artificially designed / manufactured

Illogical is the man who says look at all this complex life on Earth, the Universe and laws and says, it was a fluke and accident, just happened.

Good thing then that nobody says that. Except creationists, who argue this strawman.

God did come down to Earth, became a man, demonstrated He is God. Jesus Christ who performed miracles outside of the natural laws. He proved that.

None of this was proven or even only supported.
All of this is nothing but words in a book. Claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you were going to test this hypothesis you would have to have the absence of everything, every molecule and life would have to arise out of that to what we see today.

No.

Life didn't originate in a void.
It originated on a young planet earth, which held all the required ingredients (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc).

We know for a fact that the building blocks of life (complex organic compounds like amino acids etc) form quite happily through ordinary chemical reactions. We even find them in space rocks.

So to say that it came out of a void from nothing, is the epitome of willful ignorance / intellectual dishonesty.

What happens now is “the creator” scientists borrows the materials God made, sets up his scenarios with his experiments

Another ludicrous comment. Experiments in controlled conditions simulate real-life conditions.
When an engineer creates a freezer, he has created an environment with controlled conditions. He can control the temperature inside. When you then put water in there and it turns to ice, then that doesn't "prove" or "demonstrate" or "support" that the ice at the north pole is the result of "intelligent freezing".

When the Miller-Urey experiment resulted in organic compounds happily forming due to chemical reactions, it demonstrated the same thing: that under certain conditions, such organic compounds (life's building blocks) can and WILL happily form through ordinary chemistry.

They didn't "create" the molecules. The controlled environment triggered their spontaneous formation. Much like a freezer triggers the spontaneous formation of ice.

No matter what the outcome, there is still a creator and his creation and they call it abiogenesis for the Miller experiment for example.

Hopefully you can now see how that is a ridiculous assessment of experiments conducted under controlled conditions.

But more then likely, you didn't (or you'll purposefully ignore it) and will be repeating the same already refuted nonsense again in the future.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s you who don’t understand the lengths God went to redeem mankind, even thinking His sacrifice was cheap.

What sacrifice?

In a similar fashion, I will take that to mean that you are saying that every human being who sacrifices their lives to save another person is cheap and costs nothing.

When humans sacrifice their life, they stay dead.
That makes their sacrifice a sacrifice.

But if you are an immortal, eternal, omnipotent being.... "sacrificing" your earthly body isn't a sacrifice at all.
Through his omnipotence and immortality, he could make a trillion more bodies with a snap of his fingers.

This is like saying that Elon Musk makes a "big sacrifice" by donating 100k dollars to some charity.
For me to donate 100k, I'ld have to go to a bank to take a loan and pay it off for years. I would feel that and it would cripple me financially tremendously.

For Elon Musk, he'ld earn that back in 5 minutes. It's the equivalent of me donating 0.01 euro.

Not much of a sacrifice.

A sacrifice is when you give something up without getting it back (or at least thinking you won't get it back) in such a way that it "hurts" you or otherwise affects you.
How is this the case for a being that is supposedly immortal, eternal and omnipotent?

It's not a sacrifice at all. Instead, at best, it is an arbitrary show-off.

This doesn’t make sense to me because our society holds these kind of people in the highest regard.

Society wouldn't if those humans would be immortal and omnipotent.

To make that statement it would seem like you’ve never sacrificed for anything.

I did.
But giving something up knowing you'll get it back 100-fold (infinite-fold, actually) is not a sacrifice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think it's obvious that a being capable of creating all existence can be described as neither 'good' nor 'evil', as it is the cause of both ends of that spectrum.

Here's something to chew on: If life consisted of no 'bad' to contrast the 'good' would that life have any 'good' at all? Is 'bad' actually bad, when it is at least partially responsible for how good the 'good' feels on the occasions when 'goodness' brings light to your day?

Or like Buthead from MTV's Beavis and Buthead once said:

"Uhuhu...you know like...huhu... if nothing sucked... and like everything was cool all the time...huhu...how would you know it was cool? U-huhuhuhuhuhuh..."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you ever looked at a person with lust?

The vast majority of children ever born, would have never been born if people didn't look at another with lust.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe it makes no sense that if you kill enough people in battle even though the battle is an injustice the person is rewarded in the afterlife.

But you do think it makes sense that all of humanity is doomed because a mythical "first human" was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree after which the god that is ultimately responsible for that situation turns himself into a human only to have himself tortured and killed as a sacrifice to himself, to then serve as a loophole for the faulty system he himself created so that humans can be saved from his own wrath? To prevent himself from sending all those humans to eternal torture chambers that he himself also created?

 

[ElishaElijah]

3. where did god come from? "he's eternal!" => special pleading; this literally violates the premise that the argument holds everything else against

If God can be created then He can be destroyed, He is just another idol. So He wasn’t created and has life in Himself, He created everything including us. How did this happen? I don’t know and cannot comprehend this with my current brain and understanding.

They didn't "create" the molecules. The controlled environment triggered their spontaneous formation. Much like a freezer triggers the spontaneous formation of ice.

If you’re going to argue that their is no creator then yes you will have to start with absolutely nothing. Where did chemicals come from, they created themselves? The scientists are still acting as the creator, putting whatever experiment together to create what they believe the atmosphere to be like. If you want to go back to the beginning with the no God scenario then do that? You can start with nothing and sit there and watch life just appear.
There is much more to life than the amino acids from the Miller-Ulrey experiment. When a healthy human being dies suddenly from an accident why can’t we just install a new organ, get the blood flowing like fixing a car or a new motor? Once the soul leaves the body that’s it unless a supernatural healing takes place like God raising the dead. Doctors cannot do this.

 

[ElishaElijah]

When humans sacrifice their life, they stay dead.
That makes their sacrifice a sacrifice.

But if you are an immortal, eternal, omnipotent being.... "sacrificing" your earthly body isn't a sacrifice at all.
Through his omnipotence and immortality, he could make a trillion more bodies with a snap of his fingers.

Thank-you for your input and admission that Jesus Christ is immortal and omnipotent. I agree with that. As for His sacrifice, I see it and it may take you till you see Him face to face to understand the magnitude of what He did for us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If God can be created then He can be destroyed, He is just another idol. So He wasn’t created

Energy can't be created or destroyed. The difference, off course, is that energy is demonstrably real.

and has life in Himself

Doesn't follow.

, He created everything including us

Bare assertion.

How did this happen? I don’t know and cannot comprehend this with my current brain and understanding.

So you argue from ignorance.

See how it is failure after failure once we dig a little beyond the surface of these "arguments"?

If you’re going to argue that their is no creator

I'm not arguing that. Instead, YOU are the one who keeps asserting that there IS a creator, or that one is needed.

I see no reason to conclude that.

then yes you will have to start with absolutely nothing.

Why?

Where did chemicals come from, they created themselves?

They were forged in the cores of stars and during super novae for elements heavier then iron.
None of this matters to the process of abiogenesis though.

Abiogenesis didn't occur in a void.
It occurred on planet earth, which already existed with all the required ingredients in place.

The least you could do is stay within the scope of the subject matter that you yourself were talking about.
Otherwise, we can add another fallacy to already long list: moving the goalposts.

The scientists are still acting as the creator,

The scientist who sets up an abiogenesis experiment is no more the "creator" of life as the engineer who designs the freezer is the "creator" of ice.

You keep missing this rather obvious point.
The process of freezing creates the ice. The engineer / scientist only sets up a cold environment.

A freezer doesn't "prove" that the ice at the north pole is "designed", so why would controlled conditions for an experiment of abiogenesis be any different?

putting whatever experiment together to create what they believe the atmosphere to be like.

Right, so they set up an environment. What happens inside that environment simply happens through the laws of physics. No scientist is fiddling about with molecules "forcing" them together. That happens spontanously through physics and chemistry. None of which are under the control of the scientist.

If you want to go back to the beginning with the no God scenario then do that? You can start with nothing and sit there and watch life just appear.

Again: at the start of life, there was not nothing. There was a solar system and an earth filled with all the required ingredients. There were also the laws of nature (physics and chemistry).

There is much more to life than the amino acids from the Miller-Ulrey experiment.

They also said that about amino acids before the miller ulrey experiment.
But sure, there is more to it. Hence why research is ungoing - it's not solved yet.

When a healthy human being dies suddenly from an accident why can’t we just install a new organ, get the blood flowing like fixing a car or a new motor?

Because some damage is not repairable.

Once the soul leaves the body that’s it

It has nothing to do with any imaginary ghosts leaving the body and everything with brains being splattered across the dashboard.

unless a supernatural healing takes place like God raising the dead.

Which happened, like, never.

Doctors cannot do this.

Well, they aren't magicians.............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank-you for your input and admission that Jesus Christ is immortal and omnipotent. I agree with that.

//facepalm

I'm just going by the christian lore here.

As for His sacrifice, I see it and it may take you till you see Him face to face to understand the magnitude of what He did for us.

Again, how is it a sacrifice?
What did he sacrifice?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Abiogenesis didn't occur in a void.
It occurred on planet earth, which already existed with all the required ingredients in place.

Really, how? Ingredients came from where?

 

[Muffled]

Certainly, everyone dies.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to find joy in life while it lasts.

I believe it means if you constantly stay in your room because everywhere is not safe then one is missing out on a lot of fun things in life. I did finally go on a roller coaster and it was fun even if it does seem risky.

 

[Muffled]

There are no rewards and no afterlife. Only reincarnation.

I believe that is just as nearsighted as the people who say there is no reincarnation.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe it means if you constantly stay in your room because everywhere is not safe then one is missing out on a lot of fun things in life. I did finally go on a roller coaster and it was fun even if it does seem risky.

Just accept you're going die at some point, make your peace with that, then it's fine.

 

[Muffled]

I agree with one that if somebody kills a person without any lawful authority such person deserves to be punished instead of being rewarded for doing that injustice.
Yet ,I don't see that friend @syo mentioned in his post about " if you kill enough people in battle even though the battle is an injustice the person is rewarded in the afterlife."

Regards

I was referring to Valhalla but he could be a different pagan.