• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

JM2C

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
adi2d said:
I love that whenever I ask for evidence,even in a thread with evidence for God, I get told I'm an atheist.

I'm on a forum called religious education. I am just asking questions. I don't know the answers. That's why I ask
Click to expand...
What is an atheist? One that denies the existence of God.

There is no such thing as an athiest because they believe in God but denies their existence because of lack of evidence, but the evidence are themselves. You see how they contradict themselves. They will relentlessly argue without any basis at all. They argue from their self-thought knowledge. These are the “falsely called knowledge”. They just don’t see it because,

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

What is unbeliever? One that does not believe in God, but believe in the existence of God. The same as the atheist, they want evidence too but the evidence are themselves, they just can‘t see it.

Now, what is the difference between the two?

Nothing! Because,

“God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:”
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
JM2C said:
Why you argue that there is no God?
Click to expand...

Because after years of study.


I see how ancient Israelites, borrowed the concept from their Canaanite ancestors, then watched how the concept evolved as cultural changes took place.


What is funny, is we have many other cultures that used this same methodology when they created their deities.


Better question is, why do you argue there is one? Why is it so important what other people think when it is your personal faith ?
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
JM2C said:
There is no such thing as an athiest
Click to expand...

Stop there and fix your methodology.

Atheist factually exist, YOU don't get to change definitions at will :facepalm:


You don't carry any credibility to change how the world defines that word.
 
Awkward Fingers

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
JM2C said:
What is an atheist? One that denies the existence of God.

There is no such thing as an athiest because they believe in God but denies their existence because of lack of evidence, but the evidence are themselves. You see how they contradict themselves. They will relentlessly argue without any basis at all. They argue from their self-thought knowledge. These are the “falsely called knowledge”. They just don’t see it because,

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

What is unbeliever? One that does not believe in God, but believe in the existence of God. The same as the atheist, they want evidence too but the evidence are themselves, they just can‘t see it.

Now, what is the difference between the two?

Nothing! Because,

“God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:”
Click to expand...

Congratulations on losing any semblance of credibility you might have carried up until this point.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Serenity7855 said:
Whenever new theories are formulated scientists use known laws to construct them. They do not include fairies or leprechauns because they are not known to exist. William Lane Craig uses reasoning, based on known phenomenon, to formulate his metaphysical theories. That means that the theory is entirely possible and reasonable and conforms to Occam's Razor. It is philosophy, an ancient discipline that has served us very well for many years. It is disrespectful to dismiss him as you do.

He is not making a claim, he is philosophising using known science. It is a method that has been used in all scientific breakthroughs since science began to exist.

It is funny how Atheists dismiss the possibility of the existence of a God just because they cannot see the evidence, or don't want to see it, yet they are willing to believe that the universe came into existence uncaused. By magic, as it were. Do you know why they do that? Because to accept it means that God could exist and they will wriggle and writhe, deceive and lie, blow and bluster, as much as is necessary, rather then accept what is the most likely truth. It would mean that they would have to admit that they were wrong. That requires a lowering of pride. What they fail to see is that whether caused or uncaused, it still renders the same conclusion, that is, the possibility of a God. Atheists get angry because they are fighting a lost cause. As time progresses and science becomes more advanced the world will see that this is all the result of diety. It is God's science.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should stop pontificating on the minds of atheists because you never seem to get it quite right. Maybe just accept the obvious fact that some people don't see this "truth" you speak of, especially when good evidence for it is quite lacking. It doesn't require wriggling and writhing, deception and lies to reject your assertions (especially the one where you seem to think that every requires a cause EXCEPT FOR the god you personally believe in).

This atheist can and has admitted that they were wrong once already - it's how I became an atheist in the first place. I'm willing to consider evidence anytime, anywhere, as are most atheists and skeptics I am acquainted with.
 
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
SkepticThinker said:
Maybe you should stop pontificating on the minds of atheists because you never seem to get it quite right. Maybe just accept the obvious fact that some people don't see this "truth" you speak of, especially when good evidence for it is quite lacking. It doesn't require wriggling and writhing, deception and lies to reject your assertions (especially the one where you seem to think that every requires a cause EXCEPT FOR the god you personally believe in).

This atheist can and has admitted that they were wrong once already - it's how I became an atheist in the first place. I'm willing to consider evidence anytime, anywhere, as are most atheists and skeptics I am acquainted with.
Click to expand...

A very interesting post. "maybe" I should stop pontificating? Your not really sure?

"not quite right" indicating it is very close to accurate but not quite. I will take that.

"... this truth I speak of"? You accept that it is a truth and that it is mine.

Good Evidence is now lacking and not absent, as it has been claimed?

Don't you believe that everything that changes its direction, state of being or velocity requires and action Do you not believe that every action causes an opposite and equal reaction.

It has already been adequately pointed out to you that it is not everything that exists that has a cause but everything that begins to exist that has a cause. A sound scientific constant. God did not begin to exist, he has always existed, therefore, he required. No cause.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Serenity7855 said:
A very interesting post. "maybe" I should stop pontificating? Your not really sure?

"not quite right" indicating it is very close to accurate but not quite. I will take that.

"... this truth I speak of"? You accept that it is a truth and that it is mine.

Good Evidence is now lacking and not absent, as it has been claimed?

Don't you believe that everything that changes its direction, state of being or velocity requires and action Do you not believe that every action causes an opposite and equal reaction.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what and how atheists think and believe. You're out to lunch on that.

More clear?

Serenity7855 said:
It has already been adequately pointed out to you that it is not everything that exists that has a cause but everything that begins to exist that has a cause. A sound scientific constant. God did not begin to exist, he has always existed, therefore, he required. No cause.
Click to expand...

And that changes your assertion, how?
 
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
SkepticThinker said:
You have no idea what and how atheists think and believe. You're out to lunch on that.

More clear?



And that changes your assertion, how?
Click to expand...

I have typed many words and spent much time tying them to militant atheists. When you expend that amount of energy defending your corner and critiquing their perceptions you get a feeling for the type of people they are. The most obviously trait that they possess is their eagerness to be confrontational, regardless as to who they might offend and upset. Followed closely behind by their desperation to maintain the impossibility of the existence of a God and the resulting hostility if you successfully show their ethos to be erroneous. I can give you a list of their idiosyncrasies but those two are the most prevalent. I therefore object strongly to your assertion, however, please be mindful that it is militant atheists I refer to and not Atheists in general.

If I am out to lunch on that one then they obviously frequent the same restaurants as I do. :sorry1:

What assertion do you refer to? I have made many.
 
Last edited:
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Philomath said:
Someone who believes in a God but doesn't claim to have knowledge of his existence. I take it one step further by admitting I have no testable evidence to verify my belief.
Click to expand...

No Christian does have testable evidence. No one can replicate the big bang and rapid expansion or any of the other supernatural events that we know of. The best that a Christian can do is to prove it to themselves, which really should be sufficient. God has given us a fool proof method to do that in James 1:5-6.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Serenity7855 said:
No Christian does have testable evidence. No one can replicate the big bang and rapid expansion or any of the other supernatural events that we know of. The best that a Christian can do is to prove it to themselves, which really should be sufficient. God has given us a fool proof method to do that in James 1:5-6.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would we need to replicate the Big Bang? That is just nuts. Christians worship an invisible god - a god you can not replicate, or even detect.
Why would we need to replicate the BB, when you can not even demonstrate that your god exists?
 
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Bunyip said:
Why on earth would we need to replicate the Big Bang? That is just nuts. Christians worship an invisible god - a god you can not replicate, or even detect.
Why would we need to replicate the BB, when you can not even demonstrate that your god exists?
Click to expand...

If you read the post I was responding to you would understand why I have said that.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Serenity7855 said:
If you read the post I was responding to you would understand why I have said that.
Click to expand...

I did read the post you were responding to.

My question stands - why would anyone need to replicate the big bang? You claimto have testable evidence, but have yet to identify a shred of it. After all these pages, when are you going to identify the first example of evidence for your god?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top