There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

You are segregating me from the Christian religion, primarily to make me feel vulnerable and in the minority.

what ever makes you sleep at night


The way you twist the truth is the reason this thread has carried on so long.

This is just another example.

In no way have you been removed. That is nothing more then twisting the truth out of context due to desperation.

You are not a part of a group here

I am part of the educated people on the topic, and as long as you remain willfully ignorant to the topic, you will never understand where im coming from.

who thinks he is more endowed with knowledge then anybody else here

There are quite a few here that possess more knowledge then I do. They refuse to join such petty threads.

Im bored, lucky you.

Because he cannot face being completely wrong.

I enjoy very much to be proven wrong. Every time I am corrected I am learning something new.

I have no biases LIKE YOU, so my mind is open.


Sadly, you will never prove me wrong.

You have backed your rather abstract opinions with equally abstract Internet links.

Your calling knowledge and education abstract no wonder your in the dark.

Not so, robust and accurate research and study can only provide that.

How would you know? you refuse it. And I actually follow research you remain willfully ignorant too.

 

[Serenity7855]

Why not simply put them to (eternal) sleep. Wouldn't that be easier?
Why insisting that they choked or drawned?

Quite, I do not know how many ways there are in removing a wicked and evil humanity from the earth humanely. I tell myself that nobody died and God was just saying that is is what will happen if you ever become this wicked. This was the predicament that God was faced with.

Genesis 6

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Are you comparing relativity with the idea that the flood was caused by supernatural water or natural ozone?

I am not comparing relatively, I am showing that great minds like Sir Albert Einstein, used quite unique was to rationalise. He even drew pictures of someone moving at the speed of light and the relationship he would have to the universe

But isn't supernatural water or ozone a mean to cause genocide? Or do you prefer global euthanasia?

Yes, global euthanasia seems more clinical and less personal. As for supernatural water, it is a speculation not a reality. I really do not know what took place, if anything.

By the way. Can you imagine supernatural H2O that goes into natural lungs to cause death by drowning? It is a actually a pretty ugly way of dying, although it might be better with supernatural water.

My mother had an angina attack whilst being sick. The pain cause her to draw in breath which drew in the vomit. 15 minutes latter she was dead, and she was only 54 years old. I know the horror of dying by drowning. I am reminded about it everytime I have a stomach upset. I cannot do anything about how the bible describes how these people were euthanased. I hold onto the belief that the bible is a book of commanded, principles and precepts. It is intended to teach not to scare or offend. It is a case of cause and effect. Do this and that will happen every time. There is no means of stopping it. Become that wicked and demonic and eventually there will be a price to lay

Well, you tell me. If you think the accounts of the ark on the Bible might be fiction (or metaphors), it is not clear why you postulate supernatural water. You seem to justify the drowning part but not the ark one, which is odd. Maybe the process of drowning was metaphorical too.

To be honest, I should have used the word metaphorical. It is a more suitable word. Are you asking if I think the building of a ark is metaphoric?

If you call huge meteorites, killing the competition, organized and intelligent, well.. Maybe it was a supernatural meteorite, who knows?

It could indeed.

But this not my point. My point is that if you give value to scientific evidence, as you seem to indicate from your comment about the lack of evidence of a global flood with natural water, then you should also give credit to the fact that it is scientifically absurd to postulate that all species of animals on earth derive from a couple of specimen (for each species).

Not at all. It seems to be the general consensus now. Indeed, it gives credence to the taxon groups of species.

So, who really died and who survived during this (supernatural) flood?

I do not know. Hopefully, no one and they all mended their ways. If not, then Noah and his family were the only survivors and a metaphorical flood euthanased the rest.

 

[viole]

This is my view of faith. Faith is something you have thought through carefully resulting in trust in God and his Word, which is firmly based on reason. The quality of your faith will depend greatly on what you hear or on how dependable the information you feed your mind proves to be. The Bible says that “faith follows the thing heard.”—Romans 10:17.

Nope. It depends on where and when you were born. If you were born in tribal Africa and you had thought thought carefully, you would believe in the great Juju at the bottom of the sea. If you were born in classic Greece and thought thought carefully, you would have believed in Apollo.

A person with real faith has based his beliefs on a careful study of all available information. Reasoning on such information produces the conviction that even things that cannot be seen with the literal eye are, nonetheless, realities. True faith is not credulity, and it is much more than just believing that God exists. It involves an acceptance of God’s ability to act as a rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

Information that was not available to everybody. So, do you think that not having this information will send someone to hell?

“God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

He gave? Would you consider living for a few decades and then dying for a couple of days a ""giving". I think it is more like a "lending".

So, I think that

“God loved the world so much that he lent his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”

Less dramatic, but closer to the facts, at least according to the myth.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Serenity7855]

Your example is not an example of the type of faith you have in your god's existence. It's an example of the second type I mentioned - trust. You have real evidence that the train will come and you can get on it. It's possible it won't, but you expecting it to come is not an example of believing something without evidence.

Well it is an example of believing something without evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that the train will arrive at Paddington. None what so ever. I go to Paddington having faith that all has gone according to plan and that the train will be there. If I did not use faith I would not be leaving the house just in case the train has broken down.

Not showing people you definitely exist is not a method of testing loyalty. It's a method of messing with people that a loving god would not participate in. I can test my friends' loyalty (and they know I exist, obviously).

It is the same as taking a trip to Paddington in the hope that a train will arrive, I am exercising faith in believing that God lives and that there will be a continuation of life. My life is no different to yours. When I die I will either know that my faith was justified or I will not know anything. What if when you die there is a continuation to life and you are unprepared. Will it have been worth not edging your bets.

Um...Jesus was the son of God/God himself. He was conceived through magic, rather than a real father. Trying to pretend he didn't know God/himself was real is a pretty desperate attempt to refuse to admit your mistake.

You cannot say that. No one knows how he was conceived. It may have entailed DNA.

I am pretending nothing. He was told that he was the son of God at the age of 12 but had not had any physical evidence. He would have received guidance and direction from the Holy Ghost but that would not be in physical form. God physically could not appear before Christ. Jesus Christ was a mortal being where as God is a perfected immortal being. It is not possible. If I am wrong then I am wrong, why would I try a pretend that I am right. Is that what you would do?

The point still remains, God showing himself to us would not remove free agency. It would only mean we could make a truly informed decision with our free agency.

Our decisions would be compromised by that knowledge making us act in a way that we would not, under those conditions. That means that the free agency that we would have used has been changed. This is just obvious. I do not know why we are debating something so obvious.

 

[outhouse]

. Jesus Christ was a mortal being where as God is a perfected immortal being. It is not possible.

.

:biglaugh:

jesus is god by your own faith.

What do you base this knowledge and personal definitions from?


your god cannot do certain things? HHmmm

 

[viole]

Quite, I do not know how many ways there are in removing a wicked and evil humanity from the earth humanely. I tell myself that nobody died and God was just saying that is is what will happen if you ever become this wicked. This was the predicament that God was faced with.

Genesis 6

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

The birds? What have they done?

I am not comparing relatively, I am showing that great minds like Sir Albert Einstein, used quite unique was to rationalise. He even drew pictures of someone moving at the speed of light and the relationship he would have to the universe

Yes, every physicist would do that. Nevertheless, I would not call the rationalization of the flood the product of a great mind. For the simple reason that a global flood never took place.

Yes, global euthanasia seems more clinical and less personal.

Yes, God, the great non-personal and clinical perp of global euthanasia. That surely improves His moral status. Look, I am not drowning you and your family, I am just apply euthanasia to you guys...Oh, thank you.

Maybe it was nothing personal. Just business.

As for supernatural water, it is a speculation not a reality. I really do not know what took place, if anything.

Why don't you know? Is the Bible so unreliable?

My mother had an angina attack whilst being sick. The pain cause her to draw in breath which drew in the vomit. 15 minutes latter she was dead, and she was only 54 years old. I know the horror of dying by drowning. I am reminded about it everytime I have a stomach upset. I cannot do anything about how the bible describes how these people were euthanased. I hold onto the belief that the bible is a book of commanded, principles and precepts. It is intended to teach not to scare or offend. It is a case of cause and effect. Do this and that will happen every time. There is no means of stopping it. Become that wicked and demonic and eventually there will be a price to lay

So, what about free will and final judgement after death? And what you mean with "it will happen every time"?. I though God promised not to do that anymore.

So, He regretted to have created mankind. Wiped almost everybody out (including pets) and then promised not to do that anymore. Which is good news if you want to be wicked again.

I think your Deity was rather confused.

To be honest, I should have used the word metaphorical. It is a more suitable word. Are you asking if I think the building of a ark is metaphoric?

Yes.

It could indeed.

A supernatural meteorite?

Not at all. It seems to be the general consensus now. Indeed, it gives credence to the taxon groups of species.

What? It is the general consensus that all species derive form a couple of representatives? Well, that is a heck of an evolutionary bottleneck.

I do not know. Hopefully, no one and they all mended their ways. If not, then Noah and his family were the only survivors and a metaphorical flood euthanased the rest.

A metaphorical flood euthanased the rest? What did they write on their epitaph? "Drowned by metaphorical water because of being wicked"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Magic Man]

Well it is an example of believing something without evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that the train will arrive at Paddington. None what so ever. I go to Paddington having faith that all has gone according to plan and that the train will be there. If I did not use faith I would not be leaving the house just in case the train has broken down.

Um...there is plenty of evidence it will arrive. It is scheduled to arrive; piece of evidence #1. You have always experienced it arriving on time (or close to it); piece of evidence #2. Trains are usually on schedule, or else the whole system would have fallen apart; piece of evidence #3. Does that mean it's guaranteed to arrive? No, it just means your expectation that it will is based on evidence, not just faith.

It is the same as taking a trip to Paddington in the hope that a train will arrive, I am exercising faith in believing that God lives and that there will be a continuation of life. My life is no different to yours. When I die I will either know that my faith was justified or I will not know anything. What if when you die there is a continuation to life and you are unprepared. Will it have been worth not edging your bets.

Nope. Waiting for the train is expecting something to happen because the evidence says it's likely. Believing in your god is believing something without evidence.

As for Pascal's Wager, I've already been over this. First, I can't imagine your god would accept my false belief, if I'm just hedging my bets. Second, I'm as likely as you are to end up in a heaven, if there is one. If the real god (not yours) punishes people for believing in false gods but doesn't punish atheists, then I'm good to go and you're not.

You cannot say that. No one knows how he was conceived. It may have entailed DNA.

I am pretending nothing. He was told that he was the son of God at the age of 12 but had not had any physical evidence. He would have received guidance and direction from the Holy Ghost but that would not be in physical form. God physically could not appear before Christ. Jesus Christ was a mortal being where as God is a perfected immortal being. It is not possible. If I am wrong then I am wrong, why would I try a pretend that I am right. Is that what you would do?

It's pretty convoluted to try to claim God didn't know he himself existed.

The point still remains, God showing himself to us would not remove free agency. It would only mean we could make a truly informed decision with our free agency.

Our decisions would be compromised by that knowledge making us act in a way that we would not, under those conditions. That means that the free agency that we would have used has been changed. This is just obvious. I do not know why we are debating something so obvious.

I don't know either. It is quite obvious that showing us he exists would not compromise our free will. It would just inform our free will, as I've said multiple times now. It would definitely change the way we act, but that would be a good thing. It's pretty messed up to set up a game where you decide your creations eternal fate based on whether they believe something you won't give them any evidence for.

I'll go back to my job scenario that you ignored and that you'll probably ignore again:

You are looking for a job. You get two offers. One is a good opportunity where you know all the details. You know the pay, the benefits, what's expected of you, who you'll be working with, etc. The other says it's a better offer, but you don't know any of the details. You hear through a third-party some of the details, but you don't know whether it's true, and the hiring manager won't confirm them for you. Are you going to pick the second option? I hope not. Would knowing the details of the second job mean you lose your free will to choose one option or the other? Of course not. You would still be able to choose the first option. The only difference is you'd be able to make an informed decision.

 

[Serenity7855]

The birds? What have they done?

What I take from that is that he needed a clean slate.

Yes, every physicist would do that. Nevertheless, I would not call the rationalization of the flood the product of a great mind. For the simple reason that a global flood never took place.

No, you originally said "So the ark was built to float above supernatural water or a layer of ozone? It is mind boggling to observe such levels of rationalizations."

I was responding that before every discovery there is a period of rationalisation, and liked it to a story I once read on Einstein and how he investigated the speed of light. A little light hearted really.

Yes, God, the great non-personal and clinical perp of global euthanasia. That surely improves His moral status. Look, I am not drowning you and your family, I am just apply euthanasia to you guys...Oh, thank you.

Yes, but let's not forget who these people were. The manner in which you say it is that good old Mr & Mrs Jones who lives next door with her 2.4 children have be taken out of the semi-detached Redraw house whilst eating lunch together whilst watching Eastenders, and we're euthanased down the local swimming pool. These people were so wicked that the could not be saved. The law of cause and effect had been well and truly exceeded.

Why don't you know? Is the Bible so unreliable?

No, it is reliable to a perfection. Why would the bible tell us the circumstances surrounding a flood that was being used to show that when a people become that wicked then the consequences, accordingly, is death. You have to see the bible for what it is and not for what you are being told it is by disgruntled Christians turned atheist and anti-theist. It is a book of Commandments intended to guide and direct the "individual" into paths of righteousness so as to make entry into the kingdom of God possible. It is a moral code. Everything in it is intended to teach. The New Testament isn't even chronologically correct so it is not intended to be a history book in anyway. If you look at it in this way then these insignificant question become obsolete.

So, what about free will and final judgement after death? And what you mean with "it will happen every time"?. I though God promised not to do that anymore.

He did, but he is God. He has many more choices. The next time will be fire.

So, He regretted to have created mankind. Wiped almost everybody out (including pets) and then promised not to do that anymore. Which is good news if you want to be wicked again.

Pretty much, yes.

I think your Deity was rather confused.

Not possible.

What? It is the general consensus that all species derive form a couple of representatives? Well, that is a heck of an evolutionary bottleneck.

No, Darwin thought we all evolved from a single protozoa. Our original ancestor. Evolutionist today seem to favour the many species from many protozoa. The latter is just more likely.

A metaphorical flood euthanased the rest? What did they write on their epitaph? "Drowned by metaphorical water because of being wicked"?

No, it says why did that ***** eat that apple.

 

[Serenity7855]

:biglaugh:

jesus is god by your own faith. [

Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God. Separate and distinct.

What do you base this knowledge and personal definitions from?

This is the problem. You are so vague. What knowledge, what personal definition do you refer to?

your god cannot do certain things? HHmmm

I know that, but what is your point?

 

[Serenity7855]

Um...there is plenty of evidence it will arrive. It is scheduled to arrive; piece of evidence #1. You have always experienced it arriving on time (or close to it); piece of evidence #2. Trains are usually on schedule, or else the whole system would have fallen apart; piece of evidence #3. Does that mean it's guaranteed to arrive? No, it just means your expectation that it will is based on evidence, not just faith.

You are refusing to see the reasoning in the scenario, for what ever reason. We will remain in stalemate unless you are honest with yourself and try and see the principles of the allegory.

Nope. Waiting for the train is expecting something to happen because the evidence says it's likely. Believing in your god is believing something without evidence.

Until that train rolls into the station you have no evidence in your possession that it ever will. Nothing. Until you transcend through the barrier of death and receive salvation you will never be certain that a God actually exists. You have lived your life with faith in his existence. You go down to the station because when you have done it before a train turns up, as scheduled.

As for Pascal's Wager, I've already been over this. First, I can't imagine your god would accept my false belief, if I'm just hedging my bets.

I was being light hearted.

Second, I'm as likely as you are to end up in a heaven, if there is one. If the real god (not yours) punishes people for believing in false gods but doesn't punish atheists, then I'm good to go and you're not.

You are only as likely as I am if I keep the Commandments. I am not a particularly prime example to use. This is all personal. You will get into the kingdom of God if after the Judgement the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ can save you by bridging the gap between perfection and imperfection. It is all down to how you live your life and if Christ can save your rear end. Do not worry though. god said that in his Kingdom there are many mansion. I will go and prepare a place for you.

It's pretty convoluted to try to claim God didn't know he himself existed.

Sadly, this remark suggests that you are a believer, or were a believer, in the Trinity. God, the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost. The biggest misconception of the whole Bible started by a group of old men who thought that they would try and add a logically fallacious phenomenon to the Bible.

I believe in the words of the bible. The word "trinity" or "triune" is no where to be found in my Bible. I believe in God, the father, in His son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. Three separate and distinct individuals, The Godhead, which is mentioned in the Holy Bible.

I don't know either. It is quite obvious that showing us he exists would not compromise our free will. It would just inform our free will, as I've said multiple times now. It would definitely change the way we act, but that would be a good thing. It's pretty messed up to set up a game where you decide your creations eternal fate based on whether they believe something you won't give them any evidence for.

I am not here to fool myself. If I do not like the results then I will stop playing the game. If I thought that it was possible for free agency to exist in religion if we knew who God is then I would have to be honest and say that it is possible. It is not possible. I can wrap it up in all sorts of guises but the truth will still stand. All the time that you will not allow the concept to freely flow into your brain then we will never be able to resolve this. We will/have ended up repeating ourselves and that gets frustrating.

I'll go back to my job scenario that you ignored and that you'll probably ignore again:

Argumentative.

You are looking for a job. You get two offers. One is a good opportunity where you know all the details. You know the pay, the benefits, what's expected of you, who you'll be working with, etc. The other says it's a better offer, but you don't know any of the details. You hear through a third-party some of the details, but you don't know whether it's true, and the hiring manager won't confirm them for you. Are you going to pick the second option? I hope not. Would knowing the details of the second job mean you lose your free will to choose one option or the other? Of course not. You would still be able to choose the first option. The only difference is you'd be able to make an informed decision.

Been there and have worn the tee shirt. I took the second job because I prayed about it and received confirmation from the Holy Ghost to take the second job. I have never, ever looked back. I am as well informed as my righteousness allows me to be. I always, but always, pray over major decisions.

Doesn't it just annoy you when there is always a reasonable answer to your questions. It is the truth. Anybody can effectively debate on any forum if they only post that which is true. Truth is a constant, it never changes, it is always the same. It will always back your argument. You can never forget what you have posted because all you need to is ask what the truth is, and hey presto, you got it. I used to get annoyed with Christians when they were able to answer my questions but I got over that now. I became a Christian.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

It is not 'refusing to accept the scenario', the fact is that you do have evidence that the train will arrive. Train timetables are evidence, so is the history of trains turning up at the station regularly in the past. So it is not a question of faith at all.

You say that you have no evidence that the train will ever turn up - and that is false.

 

[Bunyip]

I have read every book he has written and watched every debate that he has been involved in. There is very little that you can tell me about his beliefs.

Apart from the fact that he does not claim to have the proof you are using his name to claim.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God. Separate and distinct.

Says you!

The first son of god around that time was Augustus, jesus was born later.

And that same culture who called the Emperor "son of god", also called jesus "son of god"



Your own religion says he is not seperate or distinct, he is one and the same.

 

[Bunyip]

You must have confused WL Craig for another author.

You began here claiming that the evidence you had would be enough to convince any reasonable person - but this is what Craig believes (note that it is the opposite of what you imagined);

”The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.

— William Lane Craig*[1]

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity

It is not 'refusing to accept the scenario', the fact is that you do have evidence that the train will arrive. Train timetables are evidence, so is the history of trains turning up at the station regularly in the past. So it is not a question of faith at all.

You say that you have no evidence that the train will ever turn up - and that is false.

Well I think that it is. When I am walking to Paddington I have nothing of evidentiary value that proves there will be a train arriving at 9.15. I have personal knowledge that tell me that a train will be there, and when I get to the station there will be a display giving an estimation as to what time it will arrive, but even that is meaningless as today it just may breakdown and they are estimations, because trains are frequently late, not absolute facts. Only when that train arrives at the platform will my faith change to knowledge, likewise, only when I depart from this world, and arrive in the next, will my faith in God turn into knowledge.

 

[Bunyip]

Well I think that it is. When I am walking to Paddington I have nothing of evidentiary value that proves there will be a train arriving at 9.15. I have personal knowledge that tell me that a train will be there, and when I get to the station there will be a display giving an estimation as to what time it will arrive, but even that is meaningless as today it just may breakdown and they are estimations, because trains are frequently late, not absolute facts. Only when that train arrives at the platform will my faith change to knowledge, likewise, only when I depart from this world, and arrive in the next, will my faith in God turn into knowledge.

Now you are conflating evidence with proof.

You DO have EVIDENCE that the train will arrive, you said that you had no EVIDENCE.

Changing the subject from EVIDENCE to PROOF and ABSOLUTE FACT is just obfuscation.

 

[adi2d]

Now you are conflating evidence with proof.

You DO have EVIDENCE that the train will arrive, you said that you had no EVIDENCE.

Changing the subject from EVIDENCE to PROOF and ABSOLUTE FACT is just obfuscation.

Sort of like proof in the title. Evidence in OP and now to faith. Rolling downhill pretty fast

 

[Serenity7855]

You must have confused WL Craig for another author.

You began here claiming that the evidence you had would be enough to convince any reasonable person - but this is what Craig believes (note that it is the opposite of what you imagined);

”The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.

— William Lane Craig*[1]

I wonder what the rest of the quote says, but here are two that are in complete harmony to my beliefs.

God has given evidence sufficiently clear for those with an open heart, but sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed.
William Lane Craig

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”
― William Lane Craig

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

Yes, and if you read what you just quoted carefully you will see Craig saying that the evidence for god is vague, not proven or undeniable.

Another quote from WL Craig

"Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not a science. Reason and religion are thus at odds with each other. "

"A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the Gospel which a person who is secularized will not. For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! "

Read more:*Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?

 

[Ouroboros]

What I take from that is that he needed a clean slate.

If God needed a clean slate, he only needed to say "Light off. Let there be light." And start over completely. It's like when I make software, if I don't like it, I can start from scratch. No need to cut-n-paste the parts I don't want and put them into some "torture" function. Just delete it. No need to put it through some punishment process. God could have just waved his wand and wiped out all the evil people in one little stroke. No need for the drama, really.