There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Shad]

Rather than continue the back and forth when are you going to answer any of my questions?

Hypothetical speaking If I were to grant simultaneous causation, how can you tell which is the cause and which is the event?

 

[Serenity7855]

That doesn't seem to be god?

You do believe that guy whose picture you post already popped in for a meal with his Jewish followers and he hung out with a guy on the road? Right? That is the whole point of that story - physically risen from the dead. That is what you are hoping for? Physical resurrection?

Nah, I am not hoping for resurrection, that comes to all of us, yes, even you. You might have thought that if you are going to critique Christianity that you might at least know something about what you are dissing. You obviously don't.

I am asking no more or less than Thomas did. Have JC pop on by and say "hey!" I can pop my hand in his side and then we can lunch on some Liebfraumilch and kippers; or, Chinese take out. I'm easy.

Or is it all just talk?

I guess you are going to be a little disappointed then. It don't work like that. Are you another of those God haters who know nothing about God, or Jesus Christ, that is, if you think my avatar is Jesus when nobody knew what he looked like.

 

[Serenity7855]

Rather than continue the back and forth when are you going to answer any of my questions?

To what questions do you refer?

Hypothetical speaking If I were to grant simultaneous causation, how can you tell which is the cause and which is the event?

I answer this with quite a large quote from William Lane Craig.

 

[WhatGod]

Nah, I am not hoping for resurrection, that comes to all of us, yes, even you. You might have thought that if you are going to critique Christianity that you might at least know something about what you are dissing. You obviously don't.

Sorry dude. I can't keep up with every splinter group's revisionist dogma. But I know the mainstream stuff just fine.

I guess you are going to be a little disappointed then. It don't work like that. Are you another of those God haters who know nothing about God, or Jesus Christ, that is, if you think my avatar is Jesus when nobody knew what he looked like.

How could I be disappointed? Of course you can't deliver on any of your claims. You got nothing and every one knows it.

And see how all this equivocating just makes you look silly? Every one knows your avatar is supposed to be JC. Why play senseless games about it?

You know at some point all this shifty language turns into just plain lying.

But I'll give you a second chance. Convince this reasonable person that god is more likely.

And yes that is exactly how it plays out in the bible.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Have JC pop on by and say "hey!" I can pop my hand in his side and then we can lunch on some Liebfraumilch and kippers; or, Chinese take out. I'm easy..

It'd be a waste of time mate, because if Jesus turned up, atheists would simply say he's a hallucination or fake..

 

[McBell]

It'd be a waste of time mate, because if Jesus turned up, atheists would simply say he's a hallucination or fake..

No worries.

Since we all know he is not about to show up.

 

[Serenity7855]

Sorry dude. I can't keep up with every splinter group's revisionist dogma. But I know the mainstream stuff just fine.

It is mainstream stuff? I cannot think of a single denominations that does not believe in salvation. You are blowing hot air from ignorance. You are here to cause trouble for Christian but you don't know anything about Christianity. You just want to be a part of the Christian bashing team but descent non-believers will see your game in seconds.

How could I be disappointed? Of course you can't deliver on any of your claims. You got nothing and every one knows it.

What claims do you refer to? Who is everyone, only, if everyone means everyone then you are deluding yourself.

And see how all this equivocating just makes you look silly? Every one knows your avatar is supposed to be JC. Why play senseless games about it?

Because you have to play senseless games with those whose motives are hostile and senseless. It is a depiction of what Christ might look like not what he does look like.

You know at some point all this shifty language turns into just plain lying.

Not always, there are some descent and honest atheists on here who do not lie.

But I'll give you a second chance. Convince this reasonable person that god is more likely.

I fear that such a feat would be impossible to achieve with people who have preconceived beliefs, so much so, that within a couple of posts, after joining the forum, they are attacking Christians unprovoked.

And yes that is exactly how it plays out in the bible.

Then you read a different Bible to mine, which explains your poor attitude.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Originally Posted by Shuttlecraft: if Jesus turned up, atheists would simply say he's a hallucination or fake..

No worries.
Since we all know he is not about to show up.

Jesus said "I'll be back" (Mark 13:26)
So argue it out with him when you meet him..

 

[Serenity7855]

No worries.

Since we all know he is not about to show up.

Hey, don't speak for me in your "all know" because I know that he will show up when you least expect him.

 

[McBell]

Jesus said "I'll be back" (Mark 13:26)
So argue it out with him when you meet him..

Hey, don't speak for me in your "all know" because I know that he will show up when you least expect him.

Bold empty claims to support bold empty claims does not impress.

 

[outhouse]

Bold empty claims to support bold empty claims does not impress.

Your claims are empty, and your trolling is obvious.

 

[WhatGod]

It'd be a waste of time mate, because if Jesus turned up, atheists would simply say he's a hallucination or fake..

What "atheists?" Its just me and my cat.

No spurious excuses.

 

[McBell]

Your claims are empty, and your trolling is obvious.

Your transference is most comical.

 

[WhatGod]

Originally Posted by WhatGod View Post
Sorry dude. I can't keep up with every splinter group's revisionist dogma. But I know the mainstream stuff just fine.

It is mainstream stuff?

Yep I would say Jesus manifesting physically to the disciples and Thomas sticking his hand in his side and xtians expecting physical resurrection is pretty mainstream.

I cannot think of a single denominations that does not believe in salvation.

So? We were discussing resurrection and just in passing to show that JC should be able to pop by and have tea. Go ahead and start convincing me.

You are here to cause trouble for Christian but you don't know anything about Christianity.

Actually I studied it in depth for 11 years. But I'm cuurently just calling you on your claim. You said you could do something so do it already. Stop shaming the faith.

What claims do you refer to?

Sheesh. Reread your first post in this thread.

And see how all this equivocating just makes you look silly? Every one knows your avatar is supposed to be JC. Why play senseless games about it?

Because you have to play senseless games with those whose motives are hostile and senseless. It is a depiction of what Christ might look like not what he does look like.

Do you even read what you post?

You seem to want to just fluff your ego and play games instead of proving anything about god. You seem more in the sway of satan than god.

You know at some point all this shifty language turns into just plain lying.

Not always, there are some descent and honest atheists on here who do not lie.

Sorry, its your shifty language I'm talking about and yes, always.

But I'll give you a second chance. Convince this reasonable person that god is more likely.

I fear that such a feat would be impossible ...

Third and final chance to make good and persuade me. You really should at least try.

 

[Sonofason]

It is quoting out of context. If I quote a Christian which support evolution but fail to provide a context in which this view is accepts I can put a spin on it. A Christians accepted view of evolution comes with a tag, that of theist evolution. However without providing the context I could easily say since this person supports evolution but the Bible has a creation of mankind, which conflicts with evolution. Therefore this Christian is against the Bible and not really a Christian. There are a number of people I could quote which support the Bible. However without providing context of their greater view I can misrepresent the views with their quote for my own purpose. Thus the quote can be used to support an argument which the person themselves does not support.

Context should be applied in a quote. Hawking supports the timeline of the universe but has ruled out God completely. This is different from someone which supports the timeline but does not hold the no-boundary theory. My quotes provide context. Such as my reference to QM include information that the universe is uncaused. There is no room for superimposing my view into another persons views. This is what you have done.

I am a Christian, and I am quite certain that God exists. While I believe that God created all life, including mankind, I have never found any biblical statement that excludes the possibility of evolutionary processes from also being true. Now finally, you have come to put my mind at ease.

You said,
"the Bible has a creation of mankind, which conflicts with evolution."

Please, now, for the love of God, show me these conflicts, and put my mind at ease.

 

[Shad]

I answer this with quite a large quote from William Lane Craig.

None of which identified a method to see which is the cause and effect. The example given fails and has been refuted for centuries. The ball is a temporal force, as with my previous example, requires information lag. The ball requires gravity which is again delayed by information lag and time. Try again.

 

[Shad]

I am a Christian, and I am quite certain that God exists. While I believe that God created all life, including mankind, I have never found any biblical statement that excludes the possibility of evolutionary processes from also being true. Now finally, you have come to put my mind at ease.

You said,
"the Bible has a creation of mankind, which conflicts with evolution."

Please, now, for the love of God, show me these conflicts, and put my mind at ease.

Easy, Adam and Eve. Figures which were taken literally in the Gospels to the point that this was added. Luke 3:23-3. Flip to Genesis regarding who Adam was. Ergo a conflict.

 

[Sonofason]

Easy, Adam and Eve. Figures which were taken literally in the Gospels to the point that this was added. Luke 3:23-3. Flip to Genesis regarding who Adam was. Ergo a conflict.

No, no, I am asking you to show the conflict. If I wanted to do my own research, I would. Just submit the conflict between God creating all living flesh and evolution, as I had requested.

 

[Shad]

I have provided sufficient evidence, citations. If you can not be bothered to look up the citations this is your problem not mine.

 

[Sonofason]

I have provided sufficient evidence, citations. If you can not be bothered to look up the citations this is your problem not mine.

You have given me absolutely nothing.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," (Luke 3:23)

Please explain what this verse has to do with who Adam was?

If you think this is giving me citations, you've got a lot to learn about citations.