There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[viole]

Only a handful of mine elect will recognise the masters voice. There will be but few rooms in the celestial Kingdom.

In other words: the warning of impending destruction He issued to all the world because of its wickedness, has been recognised only by a handful of people?



Ciao

- viole

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity, whatever the reason, it would still be destruction. If I walk into a prison and gun down everyone there I will be charged with destruction, even if it makes me look like a good guy. I am not arguing that some people don't deserve to pay for their crimes, I am simply pointing out that your argument, that destroying someone is fine, when desctruction isn't, is morally bankrupt. If your God destroyed, with good reason, he still destroyed. That is all that is being argued here, nothing more. Also, you pointed out that babies were being tortured in the city, but then the city was destroyed. So....we aren't painting a picture of God torturing babies... YOU ARE!

Also, believe it or not, you aren't most Christians and the things you have argued for and against would be ridiculed, even in a Christian community, in my town.

This makes your argument better how?

Actually, it would be nice to know how I differ from the folks in your town. I do not know if I differ because I do not subscribe to the teachings of men, I have no congregation, so it would be a big insight into who I am. If you have time, and please, the whole truth without holding any punches.

 

[Serenity7855]

In other words: the warning of impending destruction He issued to all the world because of its wickedness, has been recognised only by a handful of people?



Ciao

- viole

No, I am not sure how you have gone from the beliefs of Christians in Blackdog22 town compared to my beliefs, and why I have them, to the souls lost in the flood. There is no connection.

 

[Magic Man]

Read my allegory. I walk to Paddington and arrive for the 9.15 train to King's Cross. I have no schedule I'm my pocket. I have no need to ring the station or go on line to check as everyday I go to the station, at 9.15am, there is a train there that will take me to King's Cross.
Just the regularity of the train always being there tell me that there is a good chance that it will always be there, but do I know that it will be there tomorrow morning. I do not have a clue. Even if I follow it throughout the day there is still no certainty that the train will not break down a 100 metres outside of Paddington. Up until the moment that the train pulls into the station and opens its doors to me, inviting me in, I will be exercising faith. When I am sat in the train purchasing my ticket, I have knowledge that the train will be providing it's usual service. Then I must exercise faith that the train will get to King's Cross safely, like it usually does

Only when I arise on the morning of the first resurrection will my faith in God turn into knowledge, and that is the point I am making and the point you are dissecting, for whatever reason.

Regardless of the the exact details you want to throw in, it's not faith. You're expecting a 9:15 train. That means you've looked at a schedule. Otherwise you wouldn't know about a 9:15 train. Again, there is no guarantee the train will arrive. It's possible it breaks down, or someone didn't show up to work, or plenty of other things. But there is plenty of evidence to support the reasonable belief that it will show up.

The point remains that it's a bad comparison. A lot of religious people do this. When talking about faith, they either use bad comparisons like this or equivocate "faith". You have immensely more evidence for the arrival of that train than you do for God.

 

[Serenity7855]

No sense of humor....lol.
It could be the other way round, since the 3rd law, even if were applicable, is totally symmetric. So, maybe God is the effect and the Universe the cause. Who knows? By using this "evidence" alone you cannot really tell.

God is eternal. He existed beyond space, time, matter and energy. I do not know the nature of God pre-bang. I only think I know now.

You can replace God with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Blue Fairies, or whatever, since they all enjoy the same evidential status of being the uncaused cause (or uneffected effect), if any.

Occam’s razor

I would not generalize. I have no problems to imagine an uncaused Universe. And since I am natural, presumably, uncaused causes are natural again. Or maybe I am supernatural; could I be God?

You are the product of nature but and uncaused universe is not. It is a supernatural event as there is nothing in our natural world that can explain it.

Oh, but I like to be proven wrong. But you need to try harder.

I wonder how truthful you are being. I like being proven wrong if in doing so increases my understanding of the world I live in but when it confuses it even more I am not so keen on being wrong. I have no desire to make you wrong. I am giving you my opinion. You decide if you are wrong.

In any cases, events make sense in the Universe; we have no idea what the word "event" means for Universes as a whole. Second: even if there was a cause, you have zillions of possibilities. What evidence do you have that it was the Christian God? It could be Satan.

Occam's Razor, again.

So, if God would not exist, then their wickedness would cause them to burn anyway? If no, then it is God.

That is my belief in a nutshell. It is a universal law.

Do you think the eskimos in Geenland received that warning too?

Everyone will be warned.

By the way: what would you do if God told you to stop being wicked? I would reason like that: if I am the only one to stop being wicked than the world will be safe, but I will live miserably with all those other wicked people. And if I keep staying wicked, then there is high chance that some silly sod stops being wicked and keep me safe while I can go ahead with my wickedness.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing to majority rule?

So. It is a no brainer. It is much better to stay wicked.

It is just not a viable choice. Wickedness never was happiness.

Yes, but this is odd. You are basically saying that He promised not to do it anymore if they do not get wicked again. But this is obvious, for God does not destroy worlds which are not wicked, presumably.

Correct.

In other words: His promise has the same depth as "I promise not to wash my clothes anymore, as long as they stay clean". Which is ridiculous, especially when coming from the uncaused cause of the whole Universe.

Is it ridiculous. Have you any idea what the depths of wickedness these people were at. We have it all in our world today but there are still good loving and compassionate people to be found. Noah was the only one back then. But it is coming, gradually, but surely. Our society has declined morally steadily over the last 50 years.

I would start getting worried about the uncaused cause's IQ.

Uncaused causes are supernatural. I hold no fear from the supernatural.

If someone tells me that the scientific community starts accepting the idea that the earth is flat, I would say that they are deluding themselves, wouldn't you. A couple of crackpots does not qualify as "scientific community".

You are of course right, however, I wonder how many would give it serious consideration.

Your claim that the scientific community is increasingly accepting the idea of independent trees of life is not different.

Well, it is if it the result benefits the theory. That is what science does. It checks and recheck and changes if something knew is found. It is as good of a hypothesis as a unique original ancester is. It is not confirmed though, it is still a theory that cannot be tested because abiogenesis is still a mystery. But don't you think that multiply sources would be a better postulate? Wouldn't it make better sense of taxon groups?

 

[TheGunShoj]

You are the product of nature but and uncaused universe is not. It is a supernatural event as there is nothing in our natural world that can explain it.?

Yet. We don't have a perfect explanation yet. You're assuming things about the universe that you can't possibly know. Asserting that it is supernatural and uncaused, how can you prove this to be the case? And you don't possess all knowledge of the natural world, no one does and we probably never will. So how can you possibly make the claim that no where in the natural world, can this be explained?

Is it ridiculous. Have you any idea what the depths of wickedness these people were at. We have it all in our world today but there are still good loving and compassionate people to be found. Noah was the only one back then. But it is coming, gradually, but surely. Our society has declined morally steadily over the last 50 years.

But isn't that gods fault for creating them all wicked? Or putting them in a position where they could be corrupted to become wicked? However you want to look at it. God is ultimately responsible for all of the actions of men because he supposedly knows every move each one of us will make before creating us and proceeds to create us anyway. So he wipes everyone off the face of the earth and on top of that, he screws it up again with his reboot and has to send Jesus (himself) to die for our sins as a loophole to a rule that he created. That makes sense to you? He couldn't just eliminate evil and wickedness in the world? he's supposed to be all powerful.

Uncaused causes are supernatural. I hold no fear from the supernatural.

Please provide an example of an "uncaused cause". Also, please explain how if we don't have an explanation currently, we get to assert that it is supernatural rather than just admitting that we simply don't know the answer yet?

 

[outhouse]

Murder is The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. God is not a human being. He cannot, therefore, be accused of murder but he can be accused of destroying.

.

Something has to exist before it can be charged with murder

 

[TheGunShoj]

Something has to exist before it can be charged with murder

His point is that murder is one human to another and God is not human so he can't perform murder. Which by the technical definition is true. But God killed everyone on the planet when there were other alternatives within his power to resolve the situation. Whether it's considered murder or not, it's still immoral.

*edit* The definition that we have for murder is also specifically for humans because it has to have a practical application. If a bear or a cougar kill a human, we aren't going to consider that murder and vice versa. Seeing as how god hasn't been proven to exist, he would obviously not be included in this definition as that would not be practical and we would have to include all fictional characters that *could possibly be proven to exist* some day. That's why the dictionary definition is so narrow.

 

[outhouse]

That's why the dictionary definition is so narrow.

Understood.

Jesus was fully human, and said to be fully god.

Makes god guilty of murder

We also have god depicted in artwork as human.

According to christians jesus was always god.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Understood.

Jesus was fully human, and said to be fully god.

Makes god guilty of murder

We also have god depicted in artwork as human.

According to christians jesus was always god.

Touché. It honestly didn't even cross my mind to make the connection of Jesus being human and thus god being human and falling under the definition of murder. Nice catch. :clap

 

[Serenity7855]

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).

Let me say that in retrospect you are partially rights. Where I have put atheist I should have put anti-theist. I tried to change it but you cannot change the OP. I think you will find that the majority of remarks I make are in retaliation to the hostility of the anti-theist, however, nothing I have said equals, or comes anywhere near, the level of abuse that I have received at their figure tips. I, and other Christians like me, are regularly accused of worshipping a Genocidal, psychopathic murderer. That we, as believers, get on our knees and worship a God that kills babies. A God that drowns a planet. Of course they do not believe in those stories, they are Atheists, but they use them to beat Christians with specifically to upset and hurt Christians. That actually describes a psychopathic narcissist. So, I appreciate you concern, however, this is not a level playing field. I am kicking uphill not the atheists.

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?

Not in a perfect example, however, when conducting polls and survey there is no such thing as a perfect example. We are all different.

I doubt that you can but could you please be more specific?

Why do you doubt whether I can be more specific.

I said: 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 think it is self explanatory. I have limited knowledge of the cosmos, however, with that knowledge I could place God at the helm of the big bang. It is not hard, you could say it was the Honey Monster, it is a case of the most realistic possibility.

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"?

Do you think that an elephant caused the big bang? Superior Force should have read superior being. Most people have understood what I was trying to say.

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.

Well, I have not concluded that it was God. What I said was "could it be a God" you have not read enough posts. Most of this is in fact anecdotal, assumptions, as none of us were there, however, the cosmological model has proven to be very accurate.

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?

Beats me, but you all do, in government, entertainment, the media, and science. I need to research it.

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.

Well there are those 2.2 billion Christian witnesses. They are pretty convincing.

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.

What is taught in our schools is not what should be taught at our schools which is why we are in such a bad moral decline that blights our society.

So, tell me, what evidence do we have on how the universe expanded at a speed faster then the speed of light. What natural explanation is there for dark energy and matter, what natural conditions are found in a black hole. How does abiogenesis work. I can go on but it will only embarrass you.

The same cannot be said for a creator or intelligent designer. We teach what we can demonstrate to be true, nothing more.

That anthropic principle is quite a piece of evidence for a designer. The possibility that God caused the big bang is pretty good evidence, as is the rapid expansion. The intellectual divide between us and our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom offer some evidence. I think you are wrong, as do 2.2 billion other Christians

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.

Yes, and a right that is afforded to everyone, remembering, that every dog will have their day. We are seeing a minority group holding the reigns again but we are still a country where 80% of its population believe in a God and where 49% still attend a church. We are still a Christian society.

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.

Seems like a common belief with atheism that if you do not agree with them then you lack knowledge on the subject. I hear it all the time about evolution, cosmology, virology, biology, and physics from atheists. It seems that only atheists are qualified in these areas.

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?

I would say that intelligence and reasoning is a pretty good niche to make one far more superior then the animals. Does a Arabian horse ring in your groceries, develop a vaccine, reduce your phone bills and sing like an angel. Common mate, you are not making sense, and why is that? Because you are not debating for knowledge you are looking for anything, regardless as to how small, to make religion wrong and you right. You are not interested in honest opinions you are interested in taking a religion, dissecting it's doctrine, then using the fault you find, or create, to beat the Christian religion with. If you want to know why I am a Christian then I will tell you but don't then call me on every word to stupid me and my faith. That is dishonest.

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.

I hope there is a point here.

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!

Intelegence causes quite a devide because it enables so many other things. It gives us dominion over the animals. If we all evolved equally then why isn't the attendant at the garage a penguin.

We are quite big though and strong. I can swim and run quite fast. I can climb trees and make loud noises but I can also build a house and use fire to keep me warm.

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

The majority of the earth's population does. 6 billion people believe in a God of some sort or another. 1.1 billion either do not believe or do not know. So I have good company in my belief.

 

[Serenity7855]

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. Special pleading for God. It is for anything that is eternal in nature, our spirits. You cannot bring into existence something that already exists. It is common sense.

No, the "by chance" hypothesis" is not impossible but it is improbable, by a factor so large that it would fill the page. The chances that we are a life permitting planet are astronomically large verging on the impossible.

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

No we don't. We are nowhere near it. Those building blocks have genes. They are already alive. Everything on our planet is alive. It is difficult to produce anything that can be called non-life, which is the condition required to prove abiogenesis. Come on.

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

From ignorance? Did you feel that was necessary? Especially having told me that abiogenesis has been solved. Do you not know that like attracts like. You say something offensive to me and I will return the favour.

"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?

There had to be some cause for the universe but instead of investigating and providing evidence for what that cause was, I will assert that it is just unexplainable and put it down to the gaps in human knowledge 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" but where I will show my ignorance is in applying the law of what comes into existence has a cause, not that which has always existed, because it cannot have a cause. It didn't begin to exist. And the I realise that I foolishly did not consider that.

 

[outhouse]

Touché. It honestly didn't even cross my mind to make the connection of Jesus being human and thus god being human and falling under the definition of murder. Nice catch. :clap

I wish it mattered, but were talking about a thread dedicated to lack of reason and understanding. One that promotes personal bias to the likes of 1 + 1 = 7

 

[outhouse]

I think you will find that the majority of remarks I make are in retaliation to the hostility of the anti-theist,


.

You would not know an anti theist if it bit you.

You label anyone promting reality, science and history as anti theist.


I have a biger passion then you do for theism being an atheist. I want to further my religious education.

YOU have flat refused to advance your education, and remain fixed on your one personal view of something interpreted so many different ways.

 

[Serenity7855]

You would not know an anti theist if it bit you.

You label anyone promting reality, science and history as anti theist.


I have a biger passion then you do for theism being an atheist. I want to further my religious education.

YOU have flat refused to advance your education, and remain fixed on your one personal view of something interpreted so many different ways.

When do you intend to answer the very many questions I have asked you. Like, what do you mean by sigh.

 

[outhouse]

When do you intend to answer the very many questions I have asked you. Like, what do you mean by sigh.

Do you deny refusing education and knowledge from Yale?

You do not get to steer a debate, or ask loaded questions.

 

[Serenity7855]

You do not get to steer a debate, or ask loaded questions.

Neither do you, however, I have asked you to substantiate every hostile accusation that you have made about me. To date you have not answer a single one. Not one. What does that make you?

 

[outhouse]

Neither do you, however, I have asked you to substantiate every hostile accusation that you have made about me. To date you have not answer a single one. Not one. What does that make you?

This reply is typical to you.

Avoid the original question at any cost.

Do you deny refusing education and knowledge from Yale?

 

[outhouse]

Will you ignore this common knowledge?


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult.



This states no exodus, no moses, no abraham developping monotheism. It addresses the Canaanite origins of early Israelites.

This also states early Israelites created your one god from two previous deities.

 

[outhouse]

You want to talk about god or debate god?, when will you start?