There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[TheGunShoj]

Sorry for the delayed response. I was on vacation for the weekend.

Did you mean reasoning with me or do you mean getting me to agree with you. You do realise that I base my faith in God and in his son Jesus Christ. I am a devout Christian. You will never be able to provide evidence that he does not exist as he lives in my heart. He lives in every bodies heart and has written his words right there. To that end if that is the point you refer to then you are right. There is no point in you debating with me if your intentions are to convert me, however, I will discuss with you the evidences that I feel reasonable demonstrates the existence of a God

That's not what I meant. Obviously it is a fools errand to try to disprove god, seeing as how he was constructed as an un falsifiable hypothesis. We don't typically speak in terms of things that don't exist. It's on the person making the positive claim to prove that whatever they are claiming exists does in fact exist, not on the disbeliever.

Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I am saying that the candidate for the causation of the big bang must be limited to the most likely. God is a worthy candidate.

Yes and I'm saying that I hardly see how you get to the conclusion that your particular God contains the least assumptions.

That is a real insult, I resent that remark and request that you do not repeat it.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts? When I give you a hypothetical situation and you give me a cop out answer, I consider that ducking. The question wasn't whether you would ever be in a certain situation based on your level of intelligence. The question was *hypothetically* if you were in that situation, what would the outcome be?

The scenarios you describe are so vastly improbable that there consideration is nonsensical. The common factor is intelligence.

Is that not one of the uses of a hypothetical question? That it could be slightly outlandish but still be considered? Someone could ask me how I would raise a child in a certain situation even if I don't have any or maybe never plan to have any. I can still consider the situation and give an adequate answer.

In addition, are you stating that a human has never been in an enclosed space with a lion? Or out in the arctic? Those aren't even outlandish or improbable situations whatsoever.

Whether or not you would specifically be in these situations may be highly unlikely, however, we know enough about people, lions and the conditions in the arctic that you should easily be able to give me an honest answer to these scenarios but you didn't.

No, they are not superior but with our intelligence we make them superior. We are inferior to none of them.

I have a set of binoculars that are far superior, both day and night, to any cats vision, made by a human with more intelligence then any animal.

I have seen listening devices that can hear conversations in other people's houses, and know what they are talking about, can a gog do that

I have a draw in my kitchen full of sharp teeth (knives) sharp claws (a meat cleaver) strong jaws (a vice)

I have seen fork lift trucks left many time my weight and I have been on a trampoline, made by man's intelligence, lift me several times my height.

I have a sheep skin coat that has the same effect.

So what I am hearing is that we are not naturally superior in these areas but using tools that took us hundreds of years to conceive, design, manufacture and refine. Your ancestors were not so lucky as to have these conveniences. Are you then conceding that primitive man was in fact inferior in the previously mentioned areas?

You have only demonstrated that we are intellectually superior by nature, a point which we both already agreed on.

If we surrender our uniqueness, we surrender our responsibility. The wolf and the ape have no responsibility to other species.

When did I say that? I never said we were not unique, in fact my point was the exact opposite. No two species are exactly the same, they are all unique and have their own niche in the ecosystem.

A failure to recognize the unique, superior qualities of the human represents a failure of the human spirit itself, an effort to reduce mankind to the level of unthinking animals.

Again, you seem to be caught up in the fact that we can replicate natural tools that other animals possess but don't understand that we had to use our only advantage (intelligence) to fabricate these tools so we could level the playing field because we are naturally inferior in all of those areas.

Look, you have taken several pot shots at my level of intelligence.

No I haven't. Pointing out that you may be misinformed or uneducated in a certain area says nothing of your intelligence. Every single person is ignorant on a multitude of different subjects, that does not mean that they are not intelligent.

A man with basic education, as you accredit me with, could not come on here and enter into constructive and logical debate delivering rebuttals that are extensive and informative, having over 1,700 posts in the thread, writing the equivalent of a short best seller, covering so many areas of discussion with consistency and honesty, replying to so many hostile posters from around the world who have an agenda for the Christian faith. It would be quite impossible to do on basic education.

Yes they could. You don't have to be smart to post a bunch of spam on a forum, not saying that's what you are doing, just that sheer number of posts does not directly relate to intelligence. "constructive, logical, extensive, informative, best seller, consistency, honesty" all of these descriptive words that you are using are completely subjective. I would wager that most people posting in this thread would deny that your posts contain most of these elements.

You have been here 5 minutes and you are already finding it tedious. You know that that is a sign of a lack in intelligence, don't you, because a knowledgeable mind can flit all over the place giving it plenty of scope in responding. If you do not have it there then you cannot use it. I can, and have written books from my own knowledge. I still can.

Haha, oh the hypocrisy. After accusing me of insulting your intelligence which I never did, you are directly insulting mine. What you don't realize is that I am on this forum during my work day. I respond to these in ,at most, 30 second windows every 5 minutes or so at work. It takes a long time to convey my ideas and It's slightly difficult to keep a consistent train of thought when it is disrupted so consistently, all the while having other work related things on my mind. But I don't think I'm doing too poorly, considering the circumstances.

The tediousness is mostly coming from the fact that the debate seems to be going no where. Even when you are wrong, and demonstrated to be wrong, you give no ground whatsoever. And in your first breath on this forum you accused atheists of being closed minded when that is the very essence of what you are. You even flat out admit that you will not be converted and that your faith will not be questioned. Sorry, that isn't open mindedness.

No, I am trying to show you that the ad populum fallacy is subjective. It requires an answer before it can be considered fallacious. The idea that smoking is good for you because millions of people do it is a fallacious argument. It is not true. The idea that Christianity promotes long life and we'll being because there are billions of Christians that provide evidence to it is not fallacious. It is true. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Have you never heard it said that you cannot trust an atheist? .

No, you are simply wrong. I don't know how else to explain it to you. It doesn't matter if the statement is right or wrong. I could say the earth is round and that 6 billion people agree with me, but if I believe it because of, or try to convince someone else that it is true based on the amount of people who also believe in it, rather than basing the belief on evidence then it is still a fallacy.

Of course the statement is true but the reason it is being believed in or argued for is the fallacious part.

The number of people who believe in something do not determine whether it is true or not.

Let me clarify for you what I said. Christianity can do only good, as for their congregations and their interpretations that is not the case. Christianity, if lived according to it precepts and principles cannot do wrong.

I think that is even more absurd. I would actually posit that religions don't do any good, people do good. Religion accomplishes nothing that can't also be achieved by purely secular means.

 

[outhouse]

. Do you think it could be possible to calculate the probability of a God?

Yes = 0

Man has created thousands of gods in the past, and you do not argue this.

Lets say 2000 for math purposes. And you claim 1 is not mythology.

2000 to 1 odds he is mythology.


Then we look at how Israelites used the mythology of Canaanites and their deities, and then later combined two gods into one.

That reduces your odds to 0 due to your ignorance of mans history.

 

[viole]

God cannot intervene. You can also not kill a spirit, as a devil is. It is eternal in nature. There would be thousands of babies dying of starvation instead of safe in heaven. Which would you choose.

But he intervened, didn't He? By killing all those children with an evil spririt.

Great, the evil spirit cannot be killed, so the final result is a dead child and an alive spirit. An unemployed evil spirit, looking for a new job. I would look for adult victims if I were in the situation of that evil spirit. I will still survive the next flood, by being immortal, but my victim will not go the Heaven. Perfectly evil.

I think your God is not very smart, is He? I thought He was immoral, but now I start believing He is mentally below average. Which is good news if you prefer inherently good intentions to intellectual efficiency.

And if the babies die of stravation, they will land safe in heaven, anyway, wouldn't they? So, it all boils down between drowning, being ripped apart in their mothers belly by a sword or starving.

Mmh. I wonder what I would prefer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Serenity7855]

I haven't claimed any absolute knowledge Serenity. Neither of us can have absolute knowledge if we are honest, but that's completely off base with what we were discussing. You mentioned how unlikely it was that there should be life on our planet based on complexity. You then inserted a God that is infinitely more complex to take its place. Logically this makes absolutely zero sense. If an infinitely complex God can just exist, then an extremely complex universe can exist with even more likeliness.

No, I am not. I am saying that life on this planet was not possible as it was. Things had to be finely tuned in order for life to exist. It was never going to happen as things were. There had to be changes. Now, you can explain away a good many things on natural laws like Thermodynamics and the Laws of motion as well as special relativity but that cannot explain the improbable conditioning of the universe to allow for life to either come from non-life (abiogenesis) or from life - God (biogenesis). That suggests the fine tuning is complex not the universe, per se. That suggests a designer of that complex fine tuning. Of course you will be looking for an entity of superior intelligence to design and augment that fine tuning so surely God needs to be more intelligent then the work he does. What if the universe is God?

What makes you think that God is complex. Omniscient, yes but complex? I have never really asked that question, which means, I do not believe he is. No, you will have to give me something to argue with as I really cannot conceptualise God being complex.

Assuming there is only your God, and hes into punishing people for true honesty (which would make him evil), then sure, your 50/50 scenario that you seem to imply would make sense. The truth however is that many religions damn you for believing in the wrong God. So you actually do lose something if your wrong. Pascals wager hasn't worked for years now man.

What I was suggesting was not a 50/50 choice, no, the choice has to be 100% but it is your choice and it is my choice.

Religions, or faiths, are the biggest blight on understanding the true nature of God. I know I will get people's backs up, however, faiths are not necessary. They serve no purpose, other than to guess at the meaning of scriptures and claim to be the only true faith to follow. I do not like faiths. They are for weak people who cannot make their own decisions. The are elitist and self serving. Jesus told us exactly how to worship him.

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

That is the true definition of a church. Religion is personal. It is not to be forced or sold to others. It is a personal relationship with you and your God, whoever He may be. I don't want to fall out with you or anyone else over my personal beliefs and you should feel the same about your non-belief. It has as much to do with me as mine has to do with you. This is the only type of venue that the two should meat. Where else in your daily life would you want to talk about your non-belief. I rarely talk about my belief. We got it all wrong by allowing men to continue in their interpretation for us instead of by us. I am not your every day Christian. I am a pragmatist, a bit of a literalist. Do you think there will be Catholics, or Protestants, or methodists in heaven, no, of course not, they will all be Mormons. :no:

Please read this again but without a 50/50 perspective but instead a 100 either or either.

But that is all the beauty of this. Both chance and design are possible. If you decide that chance is a better option then you should stick your eggs in that basket (100%). A word of warning though, if you are wrong then you are going to be very, very wrong without being able to rectify it. If I am wrong then I have lost nothing, as nothing will be my existence. (100%) But we both have free will to make that choice. I will allow you that right, will you allow it to me? I think you will.

 

[Serenity7855]

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there. It's not worth my time to read an article that starts out calling it "this creation" and uses the term "evolutionist". You should really stick to less biased sources.

Please take a look at what you are saying. Anything that contains the words "evolutionists" or "this creation" you avoid and then tell me that I should be less bias. I am, I will listen to the truth who ever says it or whatever words they use. With all due respect, you are being selective, I am not.

I talked about the vast number of stars and planets in my last post. To get a little more specific, scientists estimate that there are 20 billion Earthlike planets in our galaxy. That means this galaxy contains that many planets that have the major qualities needed to be a life-sustaining planet like ours. They are about the right size, about the right distance from a star, etc. That doesn't mean they all contain life, but it means there are that many that cut out the biggest factors you'll raise in your calculations of the odds of a planet being life-sustaining.

I totally agree, for every additional planet that exists that is sustaining life, the probability of a designer increases and the probability of chance decreases.

And that's just in our galaxy. There are 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe, meaning probably around 2 sextillion Earthlike planets in the universe. So, even if you take a bunch of your "1 in 10,000" chances and add them up (even assuming they're legitimate odds and possibilities), it's still likely those conditions would exist in a universe as big as ours.

I agree, I read that there are actually 600 billion galaxies and the chances that we are the only life sustaining planet has to be close to zero, I'll not zero.

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

 

[TheGunShoj]

so surely God needs to be more intelligent then the work he does. What if the universe is God?

What makes you think that God is complex. Omniscient, yes but complex? I have never really asked that question, which means, I do not believe he is. No, you will have to give me something to argue with as I really cannot conceptualise God being complex.

You just said that god must be more intelligent than the work he does and it is apparent that you believe that he created the universe. The universe is complex, So the answer follows that God would be more complex than the universe.

Also, I don't want to put words in your mouth for what you believe but many Christians believe that god has many complex characteristics such as omnipotence, omnipresence, Omni benevolence, invisibility, intangibility and many more. These are essentially made up concepts that we don't have a single real, practical example of. Do you view these as complex characteristics?

 

[TheGunShoj]

I totally agree, for every additional planet that exists that is sustaining life, the probability of a designer increases and the probability of chance decreases.

Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

I agree, I read that there are actually 600 billion galaxies and the chances that we are the only life sustaining planet has to be close to zero, I'll not zero.

Weren't you just talking about the miniscule probability of Earth alone being a life sustaining planet and now you are admitting that there are a bunch? I'm confused. Reading through this forum, your positions seem very inconsistent with one another at times.

 

[outhouse]

your positions seem very inconsistent with one another at times.

Ducking and dodging the corners he places himself in.

 

[Serenity7855]

That's not what I meant. Obviously it is a fools errand to try to disprove god, seeing as how he was constructed as an un falsifiable hypothesis. We don't typically speak in terms of things that don't exist. It's on the person making the positive claim to prove that whatever they are claiming exists does in fact exist, not on the disbeliever.

Well, I am not claiming he exists. I come on here to converse with like minded Christians over doctrine and beliefs. I am always contacted by atheists who say that my God does not exist, to which I reply, prove he does not exist. You are making the claim so you substantiate it.

Yes and I'm saying that I hardly see how you get to the conclusion that your particular God contains the least assumptions.

That is easy, I don't. I put him forward as a possible candidate by saying " could it be a god"

I'm sorry if the truth hurts? When I give you a hypothetical situation and you give me a cop out answer, I consider that ducking. The question wasn't whether you would ever be in a certain situation based on your level of intelligence. The question was *hypothetically* if you were in that situation, what would the outcome be?

I no what you are saying but you are using fantasy to prove fact. No matter how you look at it you are presenting a point that will never happens so to answer it would render no response equally hyperthetical and nonsensical. The truth can hurt but it is always good to hear it. This is not the truth so I feel no pain.

Is that not one of the uses of a hypothetical question? That it could be slightly outlandish but still be considered? Someone could ask me how I would raise a child in a certain situation even if I don't have any or maybe never plan to have any. I can still consider the situation and give an adequate answer.

You can indeed, but who will care. What difference will it make.

In addition, are you stating that a human has never been in an enclosed space with a lion? Or out in the arctic? Those aren't even outlandish or improbable situations whatsoever.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that I have never been in an enclosed space with a lion and that the intelligence I possess would never render me in that situation.

Whether or not you would specifically be in these situations may be highly unlikely, however, we know enough about people, lions and the conditions in the arctic that you should easily be able to give me an honest answer to these scenarios but you didn't.

Because what ever answer I give will be hypothetical and that is not honest. It is nothing.

So what I am hearing is that we are not naturally superior in these areas but using tools that took us hundreds of years to conceive, design, manufacture and refine. Your ancestors were not so lucky as to have these conveniences. Are you then conceding that primitive man was in fact inferior in the previously mentioned areas?

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that we are superior. As for it being a natural superiority, who, or what, do you suggest we compare it to.

You have only demonstrated that we are intellectually superior by nature, a point which we both already agreed on.

I do not believe I said naturally superior because I do not know what you mean by naturally superior.

When did I say that? I never said we were not unique, in fact my point was the exact opposite. No two species are exactly the same, they are all unique and have their own niche in the ecosystem.

I said that they have no sense of responsibility to each other. Only humans possess that emotion.

Again, you seem to be caught up in the fact that we can replicate natural tools that other animals possess but don't understand that we had to use our only advantage (intelligence) to fabricate these tools so we could level the playing field because we are naturally inferior in all of those areas.

When you enter into the world of science you enter a natural world. Everything that science has ever produced is a result of being taken from nature. Can you see where I am going with this? That makes us naturally superior because we used nature to manufacture those tools.

No I haven't. Pointing out that you may be misinformed or uneducated in a certain area says nothing of your intelligence. Every single person is ignorant on a multitude of different subjects, that does not mean that they are not intelligent.

Well, that is a circular argument because I believe that you have taken pot shots at me.

Yes they could. You don't have to be smart to post a bunch of spam on a forum, not saying that's what you are doing, just that sheer number of posts does not directly relate to intelligence. "constructive, logical, extensive, informative, best seller, consistency, honesty" all of these descriptive words that you are using are completely subjective. I would wager that most people posting in this thread would deny that your posts contain most of these elements.

Would you ever expect to hear an angry atheist say anything positive about a Christian. Your argument is a non sequitur. It goes without saying.

Haha, oh the hypocrisy. After accusing me of insulting your intelligence which I never did, you are directly insulting mine. What you don't realize is that I am on this forum during my work day. I respond to these in ,at most, 30 second windows every 5 minutes or so at work. It takes a long time to convey my ideas and It's slightly difficult to keep a consistent train of thought when it is disrupted so consistently, all the while having other work related things on my mind. But I don't think I'm doing too poorly, considering the circumstances.

Yes, of course?

The tediousness is mostly coming from the fact that the debate seems to be going no where. Even when you are wrong, and demonstrated to be wrong, you give no ground whatsoever. And in your first breath on this forum you accused atheists of being closed minded when that is the very essence of what you are. You even flat out admit that you will not be converted and that your faith will not be questioned. Sorry, that isn't open mindedness.

Well, we are still here so there are still those who are interested in contributing.

My religion is who I am. I will not compromise it as it is my life. It is the only part of my life in which I am bigoted, however, you will only see that on here. I do not wear my religion on my sleeve.

No, you are simply wrong. I don't know how else to explain it to you. It doesn't matter if the statement is right or wrong. I could say the earth is round and that 6 billion people agree with me, but if I believe it because of, or try to convince someone else that it is true based on the amount of people who also believe in it, rather than basing the belief on evidence then it is still a fallacy.

If you said that the earth is flat because 6 billion people said it then the argument would be fallacious. We all know that it is not true so ad populum fallacy does work on that. 6 billion people saying that a God exists cannot be proven true or false because no evidence exists. If we all knew for a fact he does not exist then the argument ad populum would be fallacious. As we neither know either way argumeneom ad populum is a non sequitur.

The number of people who believe in something do not determine whether it is true or not.

I disagree as I believe it is subjective to the argument. To say that argumeneom ad populum can be used in every argument is not true. It is fallacious. You are just taking out a weapon in the atheists arsenal.

I think that is even more absurd. I would actually posit that religions don't do any good, people do good. Religion accomplishes nothing that can't also be achieved by purely secular means.

Faith in God and adherence to his Commandments will create a greater awareness and feeling of responsibility for us to act in a moral way, yes, I believe more so then with atheists but not uniquely to Christians. Moral values are always, always better kept when there is a detergent. It is common sense.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Well, I am not claiming he exists. I come on here to converse with like minded Christians over doctrine and beliefs. I am always contacted by atheists who say that my God does not exist, to which I reply, prove he does not exist. You are making the claim so you substantiate it.

So you don't believe that god exists? I think you do. And it's not up to me to disprove it, or any atheist. Most atheists don't assert that God does not exist without a shadow of a doubt, because they would then hold the burden of proof which is a ludicrous position to me because there is no way to disprove an un falsifiable hypothesis. I think the majority just say "I don't know"

That is easy, I don't. I put him forward as a possible candidate by saying " could it be a god"


I no what you are saying but you are using fantasy to prove fact. No matter how you look at it you are presenting a point that will never happens so to answer it would render no response equally hyperthetical and nonsensical. The truth can hurt but it is always good to hear it. This is not the truth so I feel no pain.




You can indeed, but who will care. What difference will it make.



No, I am not saying that. I am saying that I have never been in an enclosed space with a lion and that the intelligence I possess would never render me in that situation.



Because what ever answer I give will be hypothetical and that is not honest. It is nothing.

So a hypothetical situation which is completely valid to the topic at hand is useless but positing that god could be the answer but it could also be a thousand other things is somehow useful?

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that we are superior. As for it being a natural superiority, who, or what, do you suggest we compare it to.

Other Animals inhabiting this planet...haven't we been over this?

I do not believe I said naturally superior because I do not know what you mean by naturally superior.

You don't understand that naturally means born that way? We use tools which were invented over hundreds of years to level the playing field so we can fly, travel quickly, lift large objects, ect. You aren't born with these attributes, therefor you are by nature, smaller, weaker, slower, grounded, ect. ect. ect. than other animals. You aren't born with these traits.

I said that they have no sense of responsibility to each other. Only humans possess that emotion.

That doesn't really address what I said but actually they do. There are a lot of other social species on the planet that are responsible for one another.

When you enter into the world of science you enter a natural world. Everything that science has ever produced is a result of being taken from nature. Can you see where I am going with this? That makes us naturally superior because we used nature to manufacture those tools.

I'm having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make. But again, you're speaking of intellectual superiority. You aren't addressing any of the other types that I have mentioned.

Well, that is a circular argument because I believe that you have taken pot shots at me.

That wasn't even an argument. It was a statement of fact. I was not insulting you directly. I'm sorry if you felt insulted but as I said, stating that someone may be misinformed or uneducated in a particular field is not insulting their overall intelligence. It's simply a lack of information on said subject. I'm not sure how you took that so personally.

If you told a motorcycle mechanic that he has no idea how to fix an airplane, would it make sense for him to get offended or say "yeah, you're right"?

Would you ever expect to hear an angry atheist say anything positive about a Christian. Your argument is a non sequitur. It goes without saying.

Yes I would. I don't know why you are putting the "angry" qualifier on there. Not every atheist is angry and if that's what you think then you have a very narrow view of who and what atheists actually are. They are normal people simply with one different belief than you.

Yes, of course?

This made absolutely no sense in response to what I said.

My religion is who I am. I will not compromise it as it is my life. It is the only part of my life in which I am bigoted, however, you will only see that on here. I do not wear my religion on my sleeve.

that's fine if that is how you want to be, just don't advertise yourself as open minded when you admittedly are not.

If you said that the earth is flat because 6 billion people said it then the argument would be fallacious. We all know that it is not true so ad populum fallacy does work on that. 6 billion people saying that a God exists cannot be proven true or false because no evidence exists. If we all knew for a fact he does not exist then the argument ad populum would be fallacious. As we neither know either way argumeneom ad populum is a non sequitur.

No dude, you are just plain wrong. How many times can I re explain it? Argument ad populum is possible in every single argument. The earth is flat. That statement is true or false based on what the evidence points to. We know that the earth is round. If I take someone who doesn't know whether the earth is flat or round and I tell them "the earth is round and you should believe that because 6 billion other people do." that is a fallacy. The statement that the earth is round is true, but believing or trying to convince someone simply because a large number of people also believe in it, is a fallacy.

If I said "the earth is round and you should believe it because of these photos that were taking by a satellite orbiting the earth" that would not be a fallacy because I am not appealing to the number of people who believe it to convince this person.

Do you understand now?

 

[adi2d]

FINALLY. After all these pages of dodging and dancing you finally admit that your subject and OP was not true. Isn't that an example of false witness?

 

[Serenity7855]

But he intervened, didn't He? By killing all those children with an evil spririt.

No, of course not. That was the fault of the parents.

Great, the evil spirit cannot be killed, so the final result is a dead child and an alive spirit.

A bit like that, however, the body will return to the earth from whence it came, the evil spirit will seek to possess someone else, and the spirit of the children will go directly to the highest Kingdom in heaven without having to experience the judgement and the resurrection.

An unemployed evil spirit, looking for a new job. I would look for adult victims if I were in the situation of that evil spirit.

No, unploymentment would not be an option, he/she would have to be straight out and looking for someone to possess. That is what they want to be doing to insure Satan is victorious. He is winning at the moment as well.

I will still survive the next flood, by being immortal, but my victim will not go the Heaven. Perfectly evil.

They will survive right up until the final battle. I sort of like responding to you because you do not take yourself too serious but your question intrigue me. Sadly, this is the only let down, you think that the victim will not go to heaven, suggesting that you have not taken my words on board, babies have not sinned so they all go straight to the highest kingdoms of God as he to is perfect so they can live together. Everyone will receive salvation. It is a free gift from God, it is why we came here. Regardless of who we are we will all become immortalised. Only those who pass the final judgement will be given eternal life in the presences of God. Everyone else will be given appropriate mansions in the kingdom of God, but they will not get access to God. They will be damned, or, as the bible says, this will be eternal damnation to them, hell.

And if the babies die of stravation, they will land safe in heaven, anyway, wouldn't they? So, it all boils down between drowning, being ripped apart in their mothers belly by a sword or starving.

Mmh. I wonder what I would prefer.

Now you are saying there are no victims, which do you believe. Either they go to heaven or the don't

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow.
You really took that and ran off into left field with it.
How about you get to the meat of the matter and present the "statistical probability" of god existing?
Don't worry about the statistical probability of it being your particular favoured god, as we know that will jack your number way up, just concentrate on showing the math for any god existing.

And where is the math shown for your alleged "statistical monstrosity"?
Actually, come to think of it, you have not yet presented an actual number...
Why is that?

The whole thing was a copy and paste job. That probably explains why it was out in left field.

Anthropic Principles
Atheism
Y-Origins.com - Science and the Origin of Life

 

[TheGunShoj]

Serenity, your lack of comprehension astounds me. Do you not recognize satire? His point is that god is needlessly allowing children to die rather than killing the demons possessing them which results in a dead child and a demon inhabiting yet another innocent person who will then suffer the same fate, yet if the demon were smart he would inhabit adults because they have sinned and therefore will not go to heaven because they are not a baby who gets a free pass.

Oh and salvation? I wouldn't consider it a free gift from god considering that you have to prostrate yourself before him and worship his giant ego for your entire life and live by the antiquated rules in his book.

*edit* it also tickles me that you like answering his questions because you don't realize that every word is dripping with mockery. L o L.

 

[AlphaAlex115]

The whole thing was a copy and paste job. That probably explains why it was out in left field.

Anthropic Principles
Atheism
Y-Origins.com - Science and the Origin of Life

What..

 

[SkepticThinker]

They will survive right up until the final battle. I sort of like responding to you because you do not take yourself too serious but your question intrigue me. Sadly, this is the only let down, you think that the victim will not go to heaven, suggesting that you have not taken my words on board, babies have not sinned so they all go straight to the highest kingdoms of God as he to is perfect so they can live together. Everyone will receive salvation. It is a free gift from God, it is why we came here. Regardless of who we are we will all become immortalised. Only those who pass the final judgement will be given eternal life in the presences of God. Everyone else will be given appropriate mansions in the kingdom of God, but they will not get access to God. They will be damned, or, as the bible says, this will be eternal damnation to them, hell.

[youtube]FEMN64KEsKc[/youtube]
Invention of Lying - The Best Mansion You Can Think Of - YouTube

 

[outhouse]

you have to prostrate yourself before him and worship his giant ego for your entire life and live by the antiquated rules in his book.

.

Not to mention the 11'th commandment.

Thou shalt place me in every gap in thoust limited knowledge.


About that time Jesus yelled back "Hey! dont do anything until I get back!

 

[Katzpur]

Do you think there will be Catholics, or Protestants, or methodists in heaven, no, of course not, they will all be Mormons. :no:

For the record, there is no Christian denomination that believes in a larger Heaven or a smaller Hell than Mormonism. The statement you made could aptly be applied to Baptists, but definitely not to Mormons.

 

[Serenity7855]

FINALLY. After all these pages of dodging and dancing you finally admit that your subject and OP was not true. Isn't that an example of false witness?

I am not being funny, but, do you not consider, for a second, that remarks like this only serve to stupefy. First, my OP was no specific to any poster or atheists. Secondly, I have said, literally hundreds of times, that I have no single piece of evidence to prove the existence of a God. It would be stupid of me to make such a statement and then offer my personal testimonial as evidence. Nothing, not a thing. What I did say was : 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.

Where do you see the word evidence? Where have I said that God definitely exists. I have said "using scientific knowledge" and I have said that God more then likely exists. I have not said that I have evidence and I have not said that he exists for a surety, now, do you want to debate over fine tuning, that you have been waiting so very long to be started, or do you want to pick through my post for contradictions and errors. Do you want to look for ways in making me a liar or do you want to debate my beliefs. You final sentence indicates your agenda here, that is, to stupefy your opponent and turn them into a liar. That is dishonest.

Perhaps you can demonstrate where I have dodged or danced for me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What..

Those are the various links he copied and pasted his response from.