There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Blackdog22]

Yes but you should quit trying to stupid him to make him look uneducated

Stupiding someone is an unfair tactic and a clear sign of the anti theist.

 

[outhouse]

We are about 1,660 of posts on from the OP.

Your fault.


Ducking questions.

Ignoring what you cannot refute, so it gets repeated.


Ignoring history and twisting science and reality, takes a few pages to do so.


One thing is obvious, there has been no debate at all here.

 

[Serenity7855]

Your fault.

What is my fault.

Ducking questions.

What question did I duck?

Ignoring what you cannot refute, so it gets repeated.

What have I ignored that has caused you to repeat yourself

Ignoring history and twisting science and reality, takes a few pages to do so.

Can you specify what history I ignored
Can you show me what science I twisted
What reality did I twist
You think that I wrote 1,660 posts?

One thing is obvious, there has been no debate at all here.

Yes, you have tried hard, however, unsuccessfully.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes but you should quit trying to stupid him to make him look uneducated

Ah, the band wagon is here and my spelling error has been corrected. You surprise me, I expected more.

 

[adi2d]

Ah, the band wagon is here and my spelling error has been corrected. You surprise me, I expected more.

I also expected more. I told you in my first post to you that I was a reasonable man and I would like to see the evidence you spoke of in your OP. When I didn't agree with something I posted or had a question I responded. What I got back from you were insults. When I asked again for evidence you called me an anti theist. I feel I have been reasonable. You? Not so much. Once again. I expected more

 

[Magic Man]

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.

No, the problem is it's a bad comparison. It doesn't work. I'm not refusing anything, and I'm the one being honest. There is actual evidence supporting the belief that the train will arrive. It doesn't guarantee it, but it makes it reasonable to expect it to arrive.

Until that train rolls into the station you have no evidence in your possession that it ever will. Nothing.

Yes, you do. I already listed the evidence. Again, it doesn't guarantee it, but it supports the expectation. You're confusing proof and evidence.

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.

Regardless of whether you are in the majority who believe in the trinity or not, it's a pretty far-fetched idea to claim that Jesus didn't know God was real.

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.

Yes, we will end up repeating ourselves to the point of frustration until you start being honest and actually consider ideas you don't like.

Been there and have worn the tee shirt. I took the second job...

As I said above, this only works if you start being honest. I don't suggest that for my benefit. I suggest you be honest for your own sake.

 

[viole]

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

A reboot is always good. You never know some wicked birds might survive.

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.

Einstein was rationalizing evidence, you are rationalizing lack thereof. Slightly different.

He came to the conclusion that postulating the non existence of something (ether) was making things simpler. You make things more complicated by insisting on the existence of something else (God).

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.

C' mon. All people in the world were so wicked? So wicked that not even jesus could have saved them?

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.

Yes, it teaches that wicked people, and their pets, should be water-boarded. And that you can sell your daughter to become a sex slave. Great moral teaching.

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

LOL, I can only imagine the conversation:

Wicked People (WP): Oh God, why are you killing us with fire?
God: Because you are wicked and I am disappointed by your behavior
WP: But you promised not to do that anymore. Remember? The rainbow and stuff?
God: You did not pay attention. I promised not to do it anymore with water

Pretty much, yes.
Not possible.

Well, it looked pretty confused. Looks like He does not know what He is doing.

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.

You see? This is what I mean when I say you complicate things to save the indefensible. You now invent independent trees of life and delude yourself in believing that scientists are accepting that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

What is my fault.

This ianane thread with no real value

The only credible evidence shows man created your god.

What question did I duck?

All of them.

What have I ignored that has caused you to repeat yourself

Every aspect of real undisputed history, that shows the bible and you in error

Can you specify what history I ignored

All of it.

Can you show me what science I twisted

All of it.

What reality did I twist

All of it

You think that I wrote 1,660 posts?

No.

People trying to correct your errors and methodology did.

People who do not like militant theist.

Yes, you have tried hard, however, unsuccessfully.

Not much can be done with a closed mind


Not much can be done when someone hates america and its education system that teaches the opposite of your views.


Not much can be done when we give you credible history of the NT from Yale and you flat refuse education and knowledge that could put your books into proper context for you.

 

[outhouse]

LOL, I can only imagine the conversation:

Im not sure to cry or laugh

When some people think they are so special that a ghost/their own conscious talks to them, and teaches them all they need to know

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, God never murders. If ever a people become wicked, to the degree that they did in Sodom and Gomorrah, and need to be euthanased, then it will be a destroying angel that removes them or it will be a supernatural event it will never be at the hand of God. God cannot sin. But maybe this is not murder. That when a people become that wicked it is a blessing for them to be euthanased. Have you ever considered that.

Who sends the "destroying angel?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Murder is very possible for humans but impossible for God. Murder cannot be done by God. It is a sin. He cannot sin. He can only do that which can be done by him. Murder is not one of them.

What's your definition of murder?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can God intervene? It would make everything pointless. How can we prove ourselves herewith if God intervenes.

That’s funny, since the Bible is full of stories where god supposedly intervened to change the outcome of events. Parting the Red Sea for Moses wasn’t an intervention? Did god not intervene when Abraham was about to kill his son (on god’s own command), then promise to bless him for following orders? Did god not intervene when he supposedly hardened Pharoah’s heart to demonstrate his power?

And if it were the case that god doesn’t or can’t intervene in human affairs, why do people even bother praying?

If God could show himself to us, and if miraculously we survived it, the knowledge would remove free agency.

How so? Was Doubting Thomas’ free agency removed? How about Paul’s? According to the Bible, the devil has seen and interacted with god, and yet still apparently has free agency somehow. If it’s good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

I believe in the principles behind the flood. The story it portrays. I do not know if a flood ever took place. I was not there in order to verify it and I know of nobody else who was there. Were you there, did you witness the event? Nah, that wouldn't work, we would only have your word for it. No, unless there is a video of it then none of us will ever know.

Well, there’s no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood. So yeah, we kinda do know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't feel confused. I have it mostly all worked out.



Regardless as to whether we know it or will never know it any intervention result in a compromise of free agency.



God shows himself. We know that he exists. Where is the test of our faith as faith will become knowledge.

By making us choose a more realistic and informed decision cause us to change our decision. It interferes with decision making processes which could change our entire lives. How have we been tested in the flesh when we have had faith turn into knowledge and our decision making affected. If you look at it logically any and every intervention is going to change the course of our lives by changing the ability to choose for ourselves into a more informed decision. That is what we do not need. That is pretty much how we see quantum physics.



I think you are probably right. There would also be archaeological evidence to show aquatic fossils in unusual places and sediments. It is possible that God used supernatural means to drown these people in supernatural water. Euthenased by the vacuation of air is not dissimilar to drowning. He could have just added a single atom of oxygen for every two of oxygen making ozone that would suffocate us. Ozone is a colourless unstable toxic gas with a pungent odour and powerful oxidizing properties, formed from oxygen by electrical discharges or ultraviolet light. It differs from normal oxygen (O2) in having three atoms in its molecule (O3). Or maybe he used carbon monoxide poisoning which steals oxygen molecules. There are many ways of assimilating drowning. My mother inhaled her own vomit and took 15 minutes to effectively drown on the contents of her stomach. It is all asphyxiation.

So you just said god is not an interventionist, and also not a murderer, but now you say he could have altered the chemical makeup of oxygen to more effectively kill us all?

Huh?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.
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.
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?

Um, there actually is evidence that a train will arrive at Paddington. The first line of evidence is that day after day, it arrives at Paddington, all day long, at fixed time intervals. Another line of evidence that the train will arrive in Paddington, is the train schedule that I can view online. I can even check if it’s on time. I can phone and talk to a person that works in the station about it, if I want to. You can check the schedule before you leave your house, no faith required. Another line of evidence would be people that I can speak with that have actually seen, and been on the train. So yeah, there’s that. More than enough evidence to go on, if you ask me.

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.

Maybe because it’s not obvious at all. See my other post on this.

 

[TheGunShoj]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not..

You already made several grave mistakes in the first few sentences of your post. The most apparent being that you immediately made inflammatory statements about atheists. I read ahead in the forum and you then get upset that atheists are up in arms even though you instigated it by making general statements about the entire community by calling them all closed minded and claiming that they utilize "brainwashing techniques" (the hypocrisy therein is palpable).

Secondly. Have you ever seen an example of a perfectly impartial, un biased, open minded person? if not, how can you determine in such a specific manner, how they would react to the information that you would provide to them?

Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence.

I doubt that you can but could you please be more specific? Superior to what? A human? An elephant has superior force to a human, did an elephant cause the universe to exist? Does the big bang not fit under your criteria of "a superior force"?

Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own. .

It certainly is not sufficient. This argument states that there must be a cause (which is an assumption of it's own) but does not specify what said cause is. You are jumping to a huge conclusion by asserting god.

why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments. .

You can't be serious. Accusing atheists of using brainwashing techniques and preaching counterfeit arguments when that is exactly what almost every religious group does. Not to mention that atheists are a very small minority in this country, how do we have any leverage at all?

I think what you mean is that we have searched high and low and have seen no evidence of a god and are quite convinced that everything in the universe has a naturalistic explanation. Therefore this is the curriculum that is taught to children in schools because we have evidence that supports natural explanations such as cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. The same cannot be said for a creator or intelligent designer. We teach what we can demonstrate to be true, nothing more.

In addition, there's the whole freedom of speech and freedom of/from religion thing. That might have something to do with why we are allowed to "preach" our views. Just maybe.

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them. Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? .

The answer is no. We have not evolved any faster than any other species. This shows a significant lack of understanding of how evolution works.

It just so happens that our niche on the planet is intelligence. How does that make us special? I dare you to go fist fight a lion or see if you can run faster than a cheetah or swim faster than a dolphin. Can you?

We aren't the biggest, the strongest, the fastest, the best swimmers, we can't see in the dark, we can't breathe under water, can't fly, don't have naturally sharp claws or teeth for self defense and the list goes on and on and on.

The point is, there are so many attributes where other animals are far superior to us and one of the few things we have going for us is intelligence and somehow you think that makes us special. I don't understand it. I honestly think that intelligence is both a blessing and a plague to mankind because if we didn't have superior cognitive function we wouldn't be able to invent gods anymore and how amazing that would be!

Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation. The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

Just saying it is fundamentally obvious doesn't make it so. If it were, everyone would believe what you do.

The "by chance" hypothesis is not that improbable and definitely not impossible. The universe is an inconceivably huge place and it is constantly expanding. The odds of life occurring naturally somewhere was bound to happen eventually. Maybe the odds are incredibly low but with a possibly infinite number of planets and time, is it really that absurd to think that eventually one of them would contain the correct formula for life? I don't think so.

We already know that it is possible for the building blocks of life to occur naturally under the correct conditions.

All I see you providing is one giant argument from ignorance. Allow me to paraphrase your position.

"There had to be some cause for the universe but instead of investigating and providing evidence for what that cause was, I will assert a god of the gaps and you must believe. If you don't believe the same thing as me you are a brainwashed, irrational, biased, bigoted and closed minded moron that can't see what is so fundamentally obvious and right under your nose. I will also utilize the special pleading fallacy for god by saying that there is no way the universe could have always existed but then allow that exact same attribute for god"

Does that about sum it up?

 

[outhouse]

You can't be serious.

He is.

His arguements are so weak, they fall before we can discuss them.

He is forced to avoid and ignore every credible refutation.


As you noticed he attackes the messenger after failing to be able to attack the message. It is a sigh of his desperation, and about that time he claims were all anti theist to boot.

 

[Serenity7855]

A reboot is always good. You never know some wicked birds might survive.

Ah, sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

Einstein was rationalizing evidence, you are rationalizing lack thereof. Slightly different.

Lack of evidence, you say? Not really is it?

If the cause of the big bang happening simultaneously, at t=0, then the evidence is Newton's 3rd law of motion. Could the cause be a God.

If the big bang was uncaused that would make the event outside of our natural understanding., in other words, supernatural. Could it be a God?

Both situations are evidenced by the effects of the big bank and in both situations God can be a proponent of the event. I would say that is good evidence, however, there are many people who would not accept any form of evidence as it would make their opinion wrong. No one likes to be wrong.

He came to the conclusion that postulating the non existence of something (ether) was making things simpler. You make things more complicated by insisting on the existence of something else (God).

Naturally, that is not how I see it.

C' mon. All people in the world were so wicked? So wicked that not even jesus could have saved them?

Yes.

LOL, I can only imagine the conversation:

Wicked People (WP): Oh God, why are you killing us with fire?

No, it will not be God, it will be the results of man's wickedness. It should be a surprise either as the bible has said that the wicked will burn as stubble.

God: Because you are wicked and I am disappointed by your behavior or I have given you plenty of warning that if you do not stop your wicked was I will have to cleanse the world by fire to remove it.

WP: But you promised not to do that anymore. Remember? The rainbow and stuff?
God: You did not pay attention. I promised not to do it anymore with water or no I said I would not use water to remove the wicked, I did not say that the law on cause and effect, in as much as this amount of wickedness invokes a cleansing of evil, has been removed. It cannot be removed.

You see? This is what I mean when I say you complicate things to save the indefensible. You now invent independent trees of life and delude yourself in believing that scientists are accepting that.

No, scientists are not believing it, evolutionary biologists are the ones making the claim. I am not an Evolutionist.

I think it a little disingenuous being told that I would invent something for gain or reward. It paints quite an inaccurate and dishonest picture of me and then insinuate that I am delusional. Was that intentional, to be offensive.

 

[Serenity7855]

He is.

His arguements are so weak, they fall before we can discuss them.

What arguments do you refer to?

He is forced to avoid and ignore every credible refutation.

Where have I been forced to avoid anything. What credible refutation have I ignored.

As you noticed he attackes the messenger after failing to be able to attack the message. It is a sigh of his desperation, and about that time he claims were all anti theist to boot.

As I am the messenger why would I attack myself?

Where have I failed to attack the message that I am a messenger for?

What is a sigh of desperation. Only when using words to converse I would not hear a sigh.

I have labelled some here with the label of being "anti-theist" , but, sadly for you, you cannot include yourself in that group, as much as you want to. Because you have to have a half a mind as to what a theist is to be anti-theist. You don't.

 

[Serenity7855]

What's your definition of murder?

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human,

 

[TheGunShoj]

What arguments do you refer to?



Where have I been forced to avoid anything. What credible refutation have I ignored. .

Well I'm still awaiting a response to my entire refutation, for one.

I have labelled some here with the label of being "anti-theist" , but, sadly for you, you cannot include yourself in that group, as much as you want to. Because you have to have a half a mind as to what a theist is to be anti-theist. You don't.

You think he doesn't know that a theist simply means someone who holds a belief in a god? That's just silly. I don't think you even understand what theist means.