Does God exist?
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
And the reason for posting twice is what, to double up on 'the weight of your words? LOL
Me thinks you just blew some of your few remaining brain cells. I love watching people go through meltdowns.
The Bible was written by over 40 people, all of whom were baptized with the Holy Spirit of God before they wrote anything and each and every jot in every book are exactly where God wanted them to be.
There does that cover what you were after?
As long as I tell it the way I see it, what you think about it means nothing really.
I'm trying to remember if you actually tried to make any actual points, other than the mantra you keep chanting, there is no god, there is no god, yadda yadda yadda.
Me thinks you just blew some of your few remaining brain cells. I love watching people go through meltdowns.
The Bible was written by over 40 people, all of whom were baptized with the Holy Spirit of God before they wrote anything and each and every jot in every book are exactly where God wanted them to be.
There does that cover what you were after?
As long as I tell it the way I see it, what you think about it means nothing really.
I'm trying to remember if you actually tried to make any actual points, other than the mantra you keep chanting, there is no god, there is no god, yadda yadda yadda.
Last edited:
Not in the least...
How do you know that these people were "baptized in the Holy Spirit of God", other than that they said so...
Again...if the bible is the authoratative and uncontensted word of god then how can you possibly reconcile the multitudinous inconsistencies, and errors?
Fatal Bible Flaws?
Biblical Inconsistencies
Biblical Absurdities
How can you read with a straight face about Balaam's ass berating him for hanging a whoopin' on him...:lol:
Unfortunately, the way you see it is an obvious departure from reality...
Like the handle you have on it? What you've got is sophistry and BS, you can't possibly know the things you claim to know, they're merely assumptions based on logically invalid arguments from authority and self-referential claims about the Bible. You assume the Bible is true, correct, and authoritative, because the Bible claims that about itself, and your entire argument follows from that, but you can't justify the assumption. If your assumption is correct then your argument is correct, but it's so ludicrously easy to find errors of fact and inconsistencies in the Bible, which you routinely deny and go through elaborate rationalizations and circumlocutions to explain away, that the assumption cannot possibly be correct. We've been through some of this before, like the Biblical claim that value of pi is 3, which you tried to explain away with a lot of ad hoc assumptions about the inner and outer diameters of a circular vessel and how much accuracy was really necessary to describe such a thing, but you can't have it both ways. A circular vessel 10 units across and 30 units in diameter means the value of pi is exactly 3. Either the Bible is literally true and correct as written, or it's not. And it's demonstrably not.
This is a purely emotional and psychological response to a belief system that you've been instructed to have unwavering faith in...
As an example, the present-day Korowai peoples of West Papau living in their jungle treehouses, believe the following...
The reason they don't believe in your god is because they haven't been indoctrinated in that particular culture...and if no one had told you about your god, neither would you...
When you jumped on that explanation I said He simply rounded it off. Whatever answer is given to you is simply rejected and not just the ones that leave your theory about what it says laying in shambles. Re is history, and you call me deluded.
Did God give the dimensions of the earth or is it just a fluke that some numbers line up?
http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/ezekiels-city-circumference-of-the-earth.htm
I don't pay much attention to your rants, in that they have to be one-sided or you get offended, so really you are just wasting your time.
Are you saying the 'begotten Son' looked just like He does in Re:1 (or in the transfiguration on the mountain that a few Disciples saw)? If so, how do you verify that?
I'm quite sure that the way Scripture was written had a purpose to God that was important enough for it to be done in a certain manner. Then there are all those lines that start with 'and God said' or 'the voice of the Lord' or something similar, you see them as making those parts up, I don't.
Actually I was laughing somewhat.
You discount that reality has passed you by because you insist on bigger signs even after being told there aren't going to be any, what you get are a few words in a book, if that isn't enough for you then you get to wait till phase II. You don't even get that part.
I'll cover some of your quiz points later, just to show that there are answers and some are quite plain to understand.
She, metrogirl, god is a she. Look at the skimatics. She's in your head, not in your primary hydraulic circuits at all.
No he/she does not, in my personal opinion.
My question would be -- why should there be one?
I am not alone in this belief. Yet I am a nobody, so my opinion really does not matter.
Go to Answers.com and check the long list of renowned people that feel the same way----key in `Famous Atheists`.
My question would be -- why should there be one?
I am not alone in this belief. Yet I am a nobody, so my opinion really does not matter.
Go to Answers.com and check the long list of renowned people that feel the same way----key in `Famous Atheists`.
Last edited:
Your opinion does matter and a great deal too. I'm sure lists of impressive experts who believe in god can be found too and it is for this reason an appeal to authority is no protection from the god fallacy. Each person must learn to reason on their own and come to their own decision. An expert in reason is probably the best and maybe only true authority on this matter as they can help people sort it out for themselves.
That's good, should your mind change at some point in the future you are at least 'informed'
Both, first inside then outside. I also shed tears at some parts, inside and outside. Both sort of come and go depending on the situation.
It would be a shorter debate if that was all the Bible covered, but it does cover more subjects so in order to be right, it should be right first in those three.
Just to make sure you actually get the message the way it was intended I'll spare you looking up the verses. He is a lot more descriptive than I could ever hope to be.
For instance, I tend to have Hebrews 12 & Isaiah 65 as being about the last that are offered mercy or grace. There is a position in Heaven that is called 'the least', it is the boundary where people could still be alive in the new earth, by the skin of their teeth. That position should not be actively sought.
From a speed read this morning a few things can be put into groups.
The 4th day is the birth of the sun and moon. To map that onto the current science model that would be long before life existed in abundance, at least in the version I see as most likely. That collision resulted in a /speeding up/slowing down situation. If the moon is slowing us down and it is moving away there should come a time when the moon has no effect. Do we then speed up to our 'old velocity'?
My cop-out to this is our current orbit was established only at that time, after life had begun on earth that has continued until this day. The sun and moon were first introduced right at the start of the chapter, they were not covered in any great detail, what was covered was a supply of information about other things that went on about the same time. One was about time, the other was about life. Between the two life would seem to be the more important of the two, so it was covered first. Pattern #1, when a major and minor subject are first introduced, the major is the 1st one to be covered in greater detail and the other is not forgotten. There can be more than one subject in any given passage.
If God was 'fed up with us' there would have been a flood without any Noah. If a few are destined to be saved then it is easy to include the rest. God can make a whole from a remnant, once created it cannot be destroyed (totally) so it can never be 're-created', that day had a finite time and it is over.
Why there are two accounts in Genesis. I already covered that, one is the path the dist has been on and the other is the one the breath of life has been on.
Adam was born on a patch of earth that was barren of any life, once Adam had breath, God introduced all the life that was or had been on earth to him at that time, God also gave Adam the 'rule', and then Eve was conceived from a portion of Adam. There is no instance that says Eve ever met God. By the extra that she adds to the 'rule' she never did, Adam gave Eve the 'rule' but added 'shall not even touch' part. Had Eve gotten that rule from God she never would have been swayed.
Something to think about before a reply to those quizzes, and all from the same site, really, hope it's not yours in case you happen to agree that there are other possibilities.
I think that possibilities are infinite...
...but possibilities are not truths, and when measured against probability, the concept of god gets crushed under the weight of reason and logic every time...
This is not about belief is ideals, this is cold hard facts slaughtering your god at every turn...
The god concept is unsustainable, kept alive by the faith of the ignorant...
We as a species should be demanding proof of your god, as we would demand of anything else that has such power over people (ie. cocaine or gambiling)...when that proof is trumped up hoaxes (as has been the case so far), or non-existent (which has also been the case so far), the we as a species should banish your god to the realm of fairy-tales where it belongs...
First of all, please forgive my tardiness. I meant to reply much sooner, but have been busy.
So, in light of all the evidence for a beginning of the space-time universe, the cause must be outside the space-time universe. When God is suggested as the cause, atheism is quick to ask the age old question,"Then who made God? If everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause too!" In one of my previous posts I mentioned the Law of Causality. The very foundation of science. The search for causes, and that search is based on our consistent observation that everything that has a beginning has a cause. In fact, the question "Who made God?" points out how seriously we all take the Law of Causality. It's taken for granted that virtually everything needs a cause. So why doesn't God need a cause? Because atheism's contention misunderstands the Law of Causality. The law does not say that everything has a cause, it says that everything that came to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. God is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he doesn't need a cause.
"But wait!" you might protest "if you can have an eternal God, then I can have an eternal universe. After all, if the universe is eternal then it did not have cause." Okay, it is logically possible that the universe is eternal and did not have a cause. We've got only two choices, either the universe is eternal or something outside of the universe is eternal. What's my reasoning for this? Since something undeniably exists today, then something must have have alwayz existed. Again, either the universe of whatever caused the universe.
That's why it can be believed that God alwayz existed. Because if he's the first cause then we can rationally believe(thru observation of the amazing universe) that he must be:
1. timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial -- since the first cause created time, space and matter the first cause must be outside of time, space and matter. In other words, without limits, infinite, and self existent.
2. unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.
3. supremely intelligent, to create the universe in such amazing precision (I'm going to touch up on this in my next post.)
4. personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space universe, an impersonal force has no ability to make such choices.:smile:
Last edited:
That would only be true if there were an infinite number of possibilities. Two would probably be the minimum. For, after falling asleep, there are but two possibilities for waking up. I do or I don't.
Possibilities based on all know information on any one subject. If I have 3 separate references. Probability might have some past references to similar events. Similar events could trigger similar responses.
Now if it was the other way around there would have been one short (but violent) time compared to your every turn. If there was to be another battle then there was no win.
So, should God violate what He has already given in terms of 'what will be' to satisfy the whims of 'a few of us'?
God operates like this, before He makes something happen He tells those who it will effect how they will be effected, just so it is expected and it does not appear as random. Reading about something is quite different from being face-to-face with what those words describe.
Too bad it isn't completely understood in every detail on the first read.
Which particular concept, He has many things attributed to Him.
How about the # of hairs on your head, is that possible for God to know how many there are? (and for everybody else). Can He repeat the names of all the stars? Can He loose Orion's belt? I assume that means to ask the star to move as God directs it to at any given time.
The Bible is about words, God is about reality unfolding in sometimes dramatic fashion.
1Co:4:20: For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
Isa:42:9: Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
Heb:10:31: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Proof of my God would be the absence of my God. He doesn't claim to control the Earth, let alone the inhabitants in it, at this time. How did you miss the part about somebody named in the Bible that is under that assumption he can keep the earth as his, for the Bible to be real that is who you would see as god of this world at this time. The 42 months will be bad enough and you want proof that there are something called fallen angels and they do not like people, would that be needed for 100's of years or just a few?
Am:5:18: Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
I'm still reading the two longer ones, pretty detailed but same as the shorter one, what he claims is not what Scripture actually says, a verse right next to their referenced one says just the opposite.
There were two I still need to reply to so, no, I didn't skip them.
EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.)
reply, If you actually follow this and swallow this, then it is very poorly researched, who this applies to is in the previous verse, He has also been known to harden a heart.
Eze:20:24:
Because they had not executed my judgments,
but had despised my statutes,
and had polluted my sabbaths,
and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.
question
LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.)
reply
The last king of that Throne has not yet sat down in it,
Zec:6:12: And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec:6:13: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Am:9:11: In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Isa:58:12: And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
question
MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago. (Note: This and many other passages indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus recorded in the Bible are therefore suspect.)
reply,
a week later a few were taken onto a mountain an there they saw a vision of the kingdom of Heaven, later, about 4yrs after the cross Peter saw a vision that signaled the time to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Revelation is certainly a vision into the Kingdom of Heaven, all those were shown something something that could only take place in Heaven. That qualifies. What all was done in the 40 days after His resurrection was not written down so that wouldn't qualify as a valid reference.
question
MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)
reply
These were Apostles, nobody has had their power(s) since they passed away. The could do those 'signs coming' so people they met could tell that they were indeed from God. Other signs are also in there, like healing the sick.
They were not to drink poison openly as a sign, that was a protection was so they could not be poisoned by others who would do them harm.
That doesn't mean what we can call works (towards others) should be avoided.
Jas:2:26: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
This is my fourth official post on my case in favor of intelligent design.
The next point to my case is called the theological argument. Logically, my argument looks like this:
(I know my friend Dexter Sinister is going to be all over me on this, I know about the Concept of Validity, we could spend forever arguing the premise. -lol) :lol:
1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complex design.
3. Therefore the universe had a designer.
I know that atheism says that it's just the appearance of design, but the constants of the universe are so precise that it can be believed that it actually was designed. This can be backed up by the Anthropic constants. (I can't remember all the details from the various articles I've read, so I'm going short form with what I can remember.Wish I kept 'em.)
Anthropic constant #1: Oxygen level
On Earth, oxygen comprises of 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an anthropic constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen ways 25 percent, then fires could very easily and would erupt spontaneously; if it were 15 percent, humans would suffocate.
Anthropic constant #2: Atmospheric transparency
The degree of transparency of the atmosphere is an anthropic constant. If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth's surface. If it were more transparent, we would be bombarded with far too much solar radiation.
Anthropic constant #3 : Moon/Earth gravitational interaction
If the interaction were greater than it is currently, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.
Anthropic Constant # 4: Carbon Dioxide level
The level of carbon dioxide(and nitrogen) is another constant. If the CO2 were level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop(we'd all burn up). If it were lower, plants would not be able maintain efficient photosynthesis(we'd all suffocate).
Anthropic Constant # 5: Gravity
This one's amazing. Gravity is definitely an anthropic constant. If the gravitational force was altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and neither would we. Talk about precision!
There's something like 100 or more constants that have been observed. I'm going to talk about some more in my next post. Gotta go, there's a show on I wanna watch....Later guys!!!!:smile:
The next point to my case is called the theological argument. Logically, my argument looks like this:
(I know my friend Dexter Sinister is going to be all over me on this, I know about the Concept of Validity, we could spend forever arguing the premise. -lol) :lol:
1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complex design.
3. Therefore the universe had a designer.
I know that atheism says that it's just the appearance of design, but the constants of the universe are so precise that it can be believed that it actually was designed. This can be backed up by the Anthropic constants. (I can't remember all the details from the various articles I've read, so I'm going short form with what I can remember.Wish I kept 'em.)
Anthropic constant #1: Oxygen level
On Earth, oxygen comprises of 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an anthropic constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen ways 25 percent, then fires could very easily and would erupt spontaneously; if it were 15 percent, humans would suffocate.
Anthropic constant #2: Atmospheric transparency
The degree of transparency of the atmosphere is an anthropic constant. If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth's surface. If it were more transparent, we would be bombarded with far too much solar radiation.
Anthropic constant #3 : Moon/Earth gravitational interaction
If the interaction were greater than it is currently, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.
Anthropic Constant # 4: Carbon Dioxide level
The level of carbon dioxide(and nitrogen) is another constant. If the CO2 were level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop(we'd all burn up). If it were lower, plants would not be able maintain efficient photosynthesis(we'd all suffocate).
Anthropic Constant # 5: Gravity
This one's amazing. Gravity is definitely an anthropic constant. If the gravitational force was altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and neither would we. Talk about precision!
There's something like 100 or more constants that have been observed. I'm going to talk about some more in my next post. Gotta go, there's a show on I wanna watch....Later guys!!!!:smile:
Shot yourself in the foot. You're simply multiplying unjustified assumptions to make your case. It's pretty late in my time zone and I don't have time to reply in detail to your two most recent posts tonight, I have to get up early in the morning, but I can tell you tonight that you've yet to produce anything I haven't seen before, you've committed several logical fallacies, and your argument is weakening by the second. I'll try to get back here tomorrow afternoon for you.