There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Wow. He has a vast amount of knowledge in physiological experiences. He's smoking reefers with amoebas?

My point is, that your claim just doesn't make sense.

Physiology is the study of living organisms, like chemical and physical functions of an amoeba. The "experiences" of the chemical reactions in an organisms are just natural effects. That WLC has knowledge about these experiences of the functions of the biological organisms makes me really wonder if he's a philosopher or some biologist-mystic?

Here's a definition of "physiology" on Wikipedia:

Do you still think the chemical and physical functions of the liver has an experience and that WLC has a enormous knowledge about the liver function's experiences?

Yes, unfortunately I use a tablet that uses predictive text. I wrote philosophy but it inserted physiological. Thankfully, most here will see the gist of what I am saying so will not interrupt the discussion with semantics. For the most part the predictive text works fine.

 

[Parsimony]

No, God cannot intervene because if he does we no longer have free agency.

How do you figure that?

 

[Serenity7855]

But we already have no choice but to have free will.

How's that then

" God cannot intervene because if he does we no longer have free agency."

Then he voided that with jesus. God intervened by sending down Jesus, thus by your logic we have no free will. Also how does God intervening mean that free will suddenly and mysteriously vanishes without explanation? God is powerful enough to suspend free will, and then restart it, unless you're saying he's not all powerful. I don't see how intervention means no free will anyways.

God did not send down Jesus, he volunteered.

If God influences your decision then it is not your decision.

God cannot suspend free will because he cannot intervene.

God has the power to do all things that can be done. Suspending freewill is a universal law, he cannot do that.

It has all been done.

"God has never sacrificed himself"

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”

In purpose.

 

[adi2d]

But when it doesn't I'm stupefied

 

[Serenity7855]

How do you figure that?

See the above post - 1783

 

[Serenity7855]

If god cant intervene then what was the point of jesus dying exactly?

To save mankind.

 

[Parsimony]

See the above post - 1783

So you were talking specifically about God intervening in our ability to make decisions, not intervening in natural events like miraculously saving lives? That's more understandable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you were talking specifically about God intervening in our ability to make decisions, not intervening in natural events like miraculously saving lives? That's more understandable.

Yeah, except when the Bible says that god hardens people's hearts. Would that not effect their decision making abilities?

 

[serp777]

How's that then



God did not send down Jesus, he volunteered.

If God influences your decision then it is not your decision.

God cannot suspend free will because he cannot intervene.

God has the power to do all things that can be done. Suspending freewill is a universal law, he cannot do that.

It has all been done.



In purpose.

"How's that then"

What do you mean?

"God did not send down Jesus, he volunteered. "

Then God intervened by allowing Jesus to exist, and allowing Jesus to volunteer. Also how do you know he volunteered?

"Suspending freewill is a universal law, he cannot do that. "

Then God is limited and not all powerful. And furthermore then, universal laws supersede God? Did universal laws come before or after God? If so, why would God limit himself?

"God cannot suspend free will because he cannot intervene. "

Just because you intervene does not mean you affect decisions or free will. If God intervened to change the location of a pebble on mars, then that would have no affect on humans or free will. Thus he can intervene in some circumstances at least. Also affecting decisions does not mean you void free will. It merely changes the circumstances free will would face.

Also based on jesus logic, why didn't he just make an angel to volunteer itself to affect free will. Or why not just make Jesus 2.0 to volunteer itself? I mean since it's volunteering it voids the universal law right? Problem solved.

"In purpose."
According to your interpretation. He would have said in purpose if that's what he meant. Any evidence or rationale to back that up?

 

[Bunyip]

Sadly claims of proof have given way to vague theological word salad.

 

[Serenity7855]

"How's that then"

What do you mean?

"God did not send down Jesus, he volunteered. "

Then God intervened by allowing Jesus to exist, and allowing Jesus to volunteer. Also how do you know he volunteered?

"Suspending freewill is a universal law, he cannot do that. "

Then God is limited and not all powerful. And furthermore then, universal laws supersede God? Did universal laws come before or after God? If so, why would God limit himself?

"God cannot suspend free will because he cannot intervene. "

Just because you intervene does not mean you affect decisions or free will. If God intervened to change the location of a pebble on mars, then that would have no affect on humans or free will. Thus he can intervene in some circumstances at least. Also affecting decisions does not mean you void free will. It merely changes the circumstances free will would face.

Also based on jesus logic, why didn't he just make an angel to volunteer itself to affect free will. Or why not just make Jesus 2.0 to volunteer itself? I mean since it's volunteering it voids the universal law right? Problem solved.

"In purpose."
According to your interpretation. He would have said in purpose if that's what he meant. Any evidence or rationale to back that up?

Hmm, couldn't keep it going for long before you spewed forth the usual anti-theist rhetorical guile. You lot are like open books, no more surprises. It just makes God greater because he has warned us of you. Join the list.

By the way your knowledge of divinity and scriptures make you sound intellectually redundant. Almost as bad as your grasp on cosmology. Jesus is eternal and the bible said that he volunteered, duh.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, unfortunately I use a tablet that uses predictive text. I wrote philosophy but it inserted physiological. Thankfully, most here will see the gist of what I am saying so will not interrupt the discussion with semantics. For the most part the predictive text works fine.

Sure. I can underwrite those. Butt how world I knew? Pointy it out help clarion that problem, since its makes poster explode what he really mount.

 

[serp777]

"How's that then"

What do you mean?

"God did not send down Jesus, he volunteered. "

Then God intervened by allowing Jesus to exist, and allowing Jesus to volunteer. Also how do you know he volunteered?

"Suspending freewill is a universal law, he cannot do that. "

Then God is limited and not all powerful. And furthermore then, universal laws supersede God? Did universal laws come before or after God? If so, why would God limit himself?

"God cannot suspend free will because he cannot intervene. "

Just because you intervene does not mean you affect decisions or free will. If God intervened to change the location of a pebble on mars, then that would have no affect on humans or free will. Thus he can intervene in some circumstances at least. Also affecting decisions does not mean you void free will. It merely changes the circumstances free will would face.

Also based on jesus logic, why didn't he just make an angel to volunteer itself to affect free will. Or why not just make Jesus 2.0 to volunteer itself? I mean since it's volunteering it voids the universal law right? Problem solved.

"In purpose."
According to your interpretation. He would have said in purpose if that's what he meant. Any evidence or rationale to back that up?

Hmm, couldn't keep it going for long before you spewed forth the usual anti-theist rhetorical guile. You lot are like open books, no more surprises. It just makes God greater because he has warned us of you. Join the list.

By the way your knowledge of divinity and scriptures make you sound intellectually redundant. Almost as bad as your grasp on cosmology. Jesus is eternal and the bible said that he volunteered, duh.

Logic too tough to deal with?

You spewed fourth typical religious BS and nonsense regarding physics, like your assumptions about physical entities.

"It just makes God greater because he has warned us of you. Join the list."

It just makes Allah greater because he has warned muslims of you. Join the list.

"Jesus is eternal and the bible said that he volunteered, duh."
Your baseless assertions mean nothing

 

[serp777]

But the word is an abrasive word so the recipient is bound to take it abrasively.



You said this



To be fair, multi-verses, multiple timelines, infinity, and past eternal are all viable concepts but they are also all anecdotal, or maybe I should have said metaphysical or without real evidence. That does not warrant the label of ignorance.



I am not going to argue with you. It is all sound reasoning to me.



Yes, I did.



I use Wiki myself but I am very aware of who writes it.



That maybe true, however, you had a choice to write it or not to write it. You wrote it. It didn't need to be said. Nothing in the discussion warranted it, indeed, it took away from the discussion because here we are discussing I instead. It just stifles debate and I was kinda hoping that you were a little different because your disagreements with me were polite.



How do you determine that something is eternal when your in it. How is it possible when it neither has a beginning or an end. How can a physical thing be eternal because if it is physical it will occupy space and have mass and energy all existing in time. Prior to the big bang, none of these things existed. They all came into being when the universe came into being, therefore, they are finite. God is eternal because he existed before the big bang, as did we.



Well, there is no evidence for either so I guess you are right.



If you knock anybodies belief system, whether it be religion or antiques collecting or race car enthusiasm, you will not get a positive response. You can disagree with religion without being hostile. Sadly, it is a known fact that anti-theists are very angry people. The internet is full of blogs on it.

You have to remember that our religion is none of your business, and I am not being offensive, but it just isn't. You are coming into our arena and criticising our beliefs, which is fine, I do not mind, I like to be challenged, but at least do it respectfully and without malice. Surely that is not too much to ask?

“How can a physical thing be eternal because if it is physical it will occupy space and have mass and energy all existing in time.

Right, so because you can't understand it, that means you know all the properties of all physical objects. Give me a break. That would require you to know all physical objects. How can you know what you cannot know? Why would having mass and energy mean it cannot be eternal? That's ridiculous logic and a huge assumption. And all existing in time? Do you know anything about the theory of relativity, or did you spend more time making your own incorrect interpretations of the bible? Read up on time dilation.

A photon also does not experience time.
“From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again. It doesn’t experience distance either.

Read more: Does Light Experience Time?

A singularity does not occupy space, and it does not experience time as we know it. So all of your assumptions are based on nothing, just like your assumptions and interpretations about Christianity.

 

[Parsimony]

Yeah, except when the Bible says that god hardens people's hearts. Would that not effect their decision making abilities?

I would think so, yes. I don't think He'd do it without the person in question having done something to cause it, however.

 

[Serenity7855]

“How can a physical thing be eternal because if it is physical it will occupy space and have mass and energy all existing in time.

Right, so because you can't understand it, that means you know all the properties of all physical objects. Give me a break. That would require you to know all physical objects. How can you know what you cannot know? Why would having mass and energy mean it cannot be eternal? That's ridiculous logic and a huge assumption. And all existing in time? Do you know anything about the theory of relativity, or did you spend more time making your own incorrect interpretations of the bible? Read up on time dilation. [/QUOTE]

This is absurd. You call me thick and then announce that there is no reason why a physical object cannot be eternal. What do you know about physics or cosmology. Not a lot, by the sounds of it. I am not about to give you a lecture on why a physical object cannot remain in that condition for eternity. It is all down to pre-big bang conditions and the singularity. Educate yourself on it the try to debate it. Whilst you are doing it remember that elements are eternal. The configuration of those elements is not. A brick can become heat but it then ceases to be the brick.

A photon also does not experience time.
“From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again. It doesn’t experience distance either.

Read more: Does Light Experience Time?

Yes, I knew that. It is how God travels everywhere in no time or distance. You are explaining God science.

A singularity does not occupy space, and it does not experience time as we know it. So all of your assumptions are based on nothing, just like your assumptions and interpretations about Christianity.

What about matter and anti-matter. Goes over your head perhaps.

 

[Blackdog22]

If you knock anybodies belief system, whether it be religion or antiques collecting or race car enthusiasm, you will not get a positive response. You can disagree with religion without being hostile. Sadly, it is a known fact that anti-theists are very angry people. The internet is full of blogs on it.

Hmm, couldn't keep it going for long before you spewed forth the usual anti-theist rhetorical guile. You lot are like open books, no more surprises. It just makes God greater because he has warned us of you. Join the list.

By the way your knowledge of divinity and scriptures make you sound intellectually redundant. Almost as bad as your grasp on cosmology. Jesus is eternal and the bible said that he volunteered, duh.

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.

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.

So the Agenda of the Militant Atheist continues to show it's bigoted head because it is being threatened with extinction.

I have honest opinions about the hostile attitude of Atheists that are based on my experience and knowledge. I will express those opinions when appropriate. It is called debate. If you do not have sufficiently thick enough skin to be able to take contradictions to your belief then perhaps this forum is not the best place for you to frequent.

You truly are an interesting person Serenity. You mind explaining how anyone should make sense of this mess you have made? For example, aren't you an anti theist based on everything you have said? No? Well, then maybe you can rephrase and stop your hate filled agenda. BTW no one here has claimed to be an anti theist. Everytime you use that word, you are only making yourself out to be an anti theist by your own backwards logic.

 

[Serenity7855]

You truly are an interesting person Serenity. You mind explaining how anyone should make sense of this mess you have made? For example, aren't you an anti theist based on everything you have said? No? Well, then maybe you can rephrase and stop your hate filled agenda. BTW no one here has claimed to be an anti theist. Everytime you use that word, you are only making yourself out to be an anti theist by your own backwards logic.

I credit you with more intelligence then this post portrays. This guy came in all softly softly for a couple of days then he found that I had answers to his questions and very quickly started his Malicious attacks on me, in the typical style that anti-theists use. I merely returned the favour. If you continue to take my post out of context and indict me as the hostile poster against eight amicably exceptional anti-theists posters I will have no option in going through the posts doing the same with the anti-theists post. I have done it before and will do it again to prove a point.

Anti-theist
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

 

[Blackdog22]

Serenity no one has said they are against Theism or think its destructive. One of your problems is you keep bundling all these hateful comments together and naming them as characteristics of anti theists (previously just militant atheists) and then you go about calling everyone an anti theist with no regard to what they actually believe.

I have seen many posts, and I can paste them, when someone is arguing JUST on what you are saying and you label them in a negative light. You then post saying how people shouldn't do that.

I'm not saying that people haven't been rude to you at all on this page, but the people who have, you have labeled anti theists, to then be rude right to those people, and say things like

"You can disagree with religion without being hostile. Sadly, it is a known fact that anti-theists are very angry people. The internet is full of blogs on it."

you have painted yourself as the anti theist you seem to hate. You really do get what you give. I'd also make note that you labeled me an anti theist about half way through this thread and I am 100% not. Good and bad things can come from Religion. Some religions seem to cause more harm than others like in the case of Muslims vs Buddhists, but it doesn't mean I think no good comes from religion.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

I'm not sure how you figured out those odds, but let's say you're right. We are one planet revolving around one star in a universe that contains millions of trillions of stars. Even if the odds are 1 in 100 quadrillion that a planet would form the exact right conditions to sustain advanced life, that still means it would happen fairly often in a universe with over a quintillion planets.