|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 01, 2011 07:35 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:40, 01 May 2011.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've never said a Christian is perfect and can't sin. The Bible does not say that. It does say a person who claims to be a Christian but who hates or murders is a liar. It does say that a person who continues to live a sinful LIFESTYLE (constantly living that way) while claiming to be a Christian is a liar.
Quote:
Your claim that Christians are capable of hate and murder is quite simply false according to the Bible.
isn't there a contradiction here? though, you said "can't sin" not "can't murder" or "can't hate" so I'm not sure...
Huh? I never wrote Christians can't sin. Perhaps you need to put on your glasses!  I in fact said, "I never said a Christian is perfect." Christians do sin from time to time but do not have a lifestyle of sinning. And the sins of murder and hate a Chritisn never commits.
yeah that's exactly what I read. "can't sin" came right from the sentence Quote:
I've never said a Christian is perfect and can't sin
ok, so hate and murders are sins, but aren't the only sins. it seems to make sense then. for the rest, mytical already posted.
Quote:
You have faith God does not exist. I know he does.  Moreover, I have lots of evidence that he does. You have nothing but your faith to say that he does not exist.
I don't remember saying that he doesn't exist, I only think that what you call god is probably just the product of your imagination. like the way I perceive people I know is sometimes different from what they really are, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Quote:
It is quite impossible that the universe came into being from absolute nothing without a cause.
The first cause of the universe had to be timeless, spaceless, self-existent, immaterial, intelligent, wise, and personal. God, as described in the Bible.
and god came out of nothing without a cause?
what do you mean by "personnal"?
timeless and intelligent? doesn't being intelligent requires to be able to think? and isn't thinking dependent on time?
though, it could make sense if you call "god" its creation, that is to say all that exists at any moment. well, except for the "material" bit.
if you consider it as an entity separate from his creation, then he can't be timeless and spaceless. the separation involves space and the creation involves time.
Quote:
I've never said anyone should follow my teachings so your statement is deceptive. My beliefs are based the Bible. I encourage you to read it. I do not encourage anyone to follow me but to fix their eyes on Jesus. Spiritual truths are revealed through the Spirit of God as you seek his face. If you do not hunger and thirst for truth don't expect to be filled.
I was talking about Jesus, not about you. what do you expect me to learn from you? in most of your posts, your arguments do not come from you, but from various sources, such as the bible.
damn, those biblical quotes are annoying to read, no one speaks english that way now... why is it translated that way? btw, you realise that what you are posting isn't the original text, but just an interpretation. I doubt the bible was originally written in english.
for example, I read that another sacred text, the tao te king, is so hard to translate that it leads to radically different interpretations.
|
|
1910
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 08:09 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
If you kill somebody then you have sinned and therefore are not a Christian, according to you. You've said multiple times that you're quite willing to kill somebody who breaks into your house. For whatever reason you do it, no matter whether you think it's right or wrong, is murder and therefore you are not a Christian. Also, if somebody killed your child, I'm sure as hell that you'd hate that person and want revenge. But, of course, a Christian can't do that. What a load of rubbish! We all have the ability to murder and we all have the ability to hate and I'm sure if somebody did kill your child or even wife that you would not want to forgive them. You'd be pissed more than you'd ever think possible and would want to get them. Don't you even dare say otherwise because you will be a liar. That is how Humans are.
I also think it is extremely sad for you to go through a post and count how many times you've apparently been insulted and called a liar. You have got to be the biggest whiner I've ever seen and you're how old? You've said that you've got your business, have a family and are doing well for yourself. Why not act your own age and stop whining and calling everybody liars. It gets old real fast and no wonder people say you're trolling..
Also, YOU may have evidence that God exist but do not even try for one second to convince everybody else thathe does. You're trying to make it out as if it's a fact when you can't even really prove he does, you only say you do. You just keep talking and talking, like most Christians do, but you don't have any proof. I had a debate with somebody a few weeks ago about this very thing. I told him that it's impossible for Atheists to say he doesn't exist and try to prove it just like Christians can't say that God exists and try to prove it when they can't. You're wasting your time trying to convince people so stop trying because people will always have their different interpretations on things and whether it's wrong in your eyes doesn't mean it necessarily is. So this whole argument that you always try to make is useless and a waste of time.
You are ALWAYS trying to convince people that the teachings that you follow are the correct ones and defy everything else that anybody has to say by calling people liars and saying they are insulting towards you. Well maybe, for one second, you should look at yourself and realise that you're not exactly the perfect bloody member either. You constantly call people liars without having any proof that they are and you only think they're liars because you are unable to grasp the simple premise that somebody *get ready* has a different opinion to you!!! That must be wrong as it's not your opinion, right? Get a grip on yourself (not in that way) and realise that people have different beliefs than you and because of that doesn't mean that they are wrong. They're just different. If you realised this, I think you'd be a better poster and not piss so many people off.
I think that's all I need to say.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 08:17 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:20, 01 May 2011.
|
Quote:
ok, so hate and murders are sins, but aren't the only sins. it seems to make sense then.
Yes, as I said, a Christian can sin but will not commit the sins of hate or murder.
Quote:
I don't remember saying that he doesn't exist, I only think that what you call god is probably just the product of your imagination. like the way I perceive people I know is sometimes different from what they really are, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Let me refresh your memory. You said, "how can you love god when it is nothing more than the product of your imagination?"
If you did not mean that God does not exist and God is only the product of my imagination you chose a poor way of expressing yourself.
And for the record, do you or do you not believe that any god exists?
Quote:
and god came out of nothing without a cause?
what do you mean by "personnal"?
timeless and intelligent? doesn't being intelligent requires to be able to think? and isn't thinking dependent on time?
though, it could make sense if you call "god" its creation, that is to say all that exists at any moment. well, except for the "material" bit.
God is eternal. He is the first cause that the material world needed. God is a Spirit, not a material being.
God is personal, as in not just a force. It was necessary for a decision to be made to cause a steady state of absolute nothing to no longer be a steady state of absolute nothing.
No, there is no reason why a period of time is necessary for though to occur.
Quote:
if you consider it as an entity separate from his creation, then he can't be timeless and spaceless. the separation involves space and the creation involves time.
No, the space time continuum could not produce itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing. God existed prior to the space-time continuum. His existence is not dependent on it or anything else. Self-existence is a requirement of the First Cause.
If a painter paints a painting:
1) existed before the painting
2) is not dependent on the painting for his own existence
3) is he bound in any way by the properties of his painting.
God is not bound by the properties of his painting.
Of course while God exists outside of his painting, unlike a human painter he also exists at every point in his painting. God exists at every point in space and time as well as whatever lies outside of universe. He fills and transcends the universe.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you did not mean that God does not exist and God is only the product of my imagination you chose a poor way of expressing yourself.
maybe, but I gave you more explanations.
Quote:
And for the record, do you or do you not believe that any god exists?
it isn't relevant for the way I live
Quote:
God is eternal. He is the first cause that the material world needed. God is a Spirit, not a material being.
God is personal, as in not just a force. It was necessary for a decision to be made to cause a steady state of absolute nothing to no longer be a steady state of absolute nothing.
what does that prove?
what is supposed to be a spirit?
god is personal means that he is an individual? in that case he isn't spaceless.
a decision out of nothing?
Quote:
No, there is no reason why a period of time is necessary for though to occur.
to come from the state of not thinking to the state of thinking, involves a continuity, and thus time. as well as to come from a thought to another thought.
Quote:
No, the space time continuum could not produce itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing. God existed prior to the space-time continuum. His existence is not dependent on it or anything else. Self-existence is a requirement of the First Cause.
obviously, god can't exist "prior to the space-time continuum" since "prior" involves time.
he isn't dependent from anything? so he can't be the cause of anything. if he is able to create, that means he can interract, and he can't interract with what is totally independent from him.
but I guess whereas he is independent from everything, everything is dependent on him?
so god isn't modified by his own creation? the fact that god is creating, or just acting or thinking, means that there is a process of modification going on, in god. even though, that's not exactly the creation itself which is forcing that process.
does god identifies himself to his creation?
Quote:
Of course while God exists outside of his painting, unlike a human painter he also exists at every point in his painting. God exists at every point in space and time as well as whatever lies outside of universe. He fills and transcends the universe.
but he isn't the universe?
|
|
Lumske_Beaver
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 10:03 PM |
|
|
"Self-existence is a requirement of the First Cause"
Well, arguing that there must have been a First Cause (primum movens) does not imply the existstence of a god and even if concluding that it is the Christian God is entirely illogical. It could be all other gods or multiple gods at the same time, even gods unknown to humen (although I believe that the idea of and characteristics of god(s) are created and formulated by humen). Aristotle belived the first cause to be energy, Christians and Jews that it was God, some hinduists that it was Lord Brahma the Creator, and I could believe it was a finger nail or all other sorts of preposterous things, and nobody can tell who is right nor what makes most sense to believe.
You cannot be sure that the universe is not perennial either. What is preventing it from be except from your human understanding? To you an enternal universe may seem absurd to others the belief in a god seems absurd. What makes your belief more right? The Bible? Non-believers could point to science books and claim that they make the belief of unexistence of a God more right. Christians could state that the Bible is the words of an omniscient God, the science book words of limited humen, what is the most valid? Non-believers could state that they do not believe that the Bible is the words of God, but the words of humen who have no evidence for what they are claiming, what is more valid a logical attempt to understand and explain our environments (science) or a series of ludicrous postulates?
What we have here are just two contradicting beliefs respectively stating that they are right and the other wrong. But what is the point in doing this when it is a matter of beliefs? One cannot discuss that the other is wrong, only postulate it because no arguments exists in transempiric manners as transempiric implies somthing beyond human perception. Nonetheless the "discussion" in this thread namely by Elodin and Skren... is carried out contrary to the above thus implying that they have understanding of something that goes beyond everybody else's perception unless they can prove that the existence of God is not transempiric to people in general.
None of those "23 examples" are lies because I believed in the truth of them when I wrote them and nothing in your argumentation leads me to do otherwise.
You may find them insulting, but they are backed up by arguments and evidence, and therefore i definetely find it acceptable and rightful. A person may find it horrendously insulting to be charged and judged for murder and thus legally entitled as a murderer, but if the evidence is clear and convincing the person must prove otherwise with stronger evidence and not just shout the court is spreading "insults, lies and slander."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 10:49 PM |
|
|
Wait, let's not make a logical error here.
Everyone can imagine something - anything, claim existance and then come up with a simple "you can't prove it does not exist".
From a logical and scientifical point of view, you need EVIDENCE, when you want to postulate the existance of something, and it's the EVIDENCE that decides whether something is considered as possible. Only then, IF this happens, logic can be applied and the point can be made that as long as someone sees a flaw or comes up with a better "theory" , that cou cannot prove it wrong.
ONLY then.
UNTIL then, in a scientifical sense it's pure imagination.
So scientifically spoken, the EVIDENCE is decisive. If the evidence was not compelling, then, again scientifically spoken, god's existance was NOT in the realm of the possible (because there had never been enough evidence to postulate his existance in the first place as a serious idea).
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 10:51 PM |
|
|
might I add to Jollyjokers point that the bible is not a piece of evidence for gods existance. it is a thesis statement, and not evidence.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Lumske_Beaver
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2011 10:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wait, let's not make a logical error here.
Everyone can imagine something - anything, claim existance and then come up with a simple "you can't prove it does not exist".
I certainly agree and I find that we are saying the same thing. I am not implying that if you cannot prove something, it does not exist, I'm saying that it is irrational to believe in it. My point is that denying the existence of a God is as faithful as believing in one. That does not mean that you cannot reason that the existence of a God is unlikely and irrational to assume since we lack supporting evidence, notheless a possibility. The difference between indisputable rejection and a stance that it is implausible is crucial.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2011 11:22 PM |
|
|
It seems you didn't understand the point?
The point is, that it depends on the evidence, whether a very specific god crosses the border between sheer imagination and possibility of existance.
If it does not cross the border, it IS sheer imagination, and you CAN say so.
That's immediately obvious, if you look at other gods: Thor/Odin/Loki or the Egyptian pantheon. Would we make a fuss about a person stating they don't exist? Is there compelling evidence suggesting their existance? If no, has it ever been more than a STORY? If no, have they ever crossed said border?
Is there compelling evidence for the existance of the Christian god?
Now, the really interesting question is this: Is there any way to objectively determine whether there IS compelling evidence or not: some seem to believe, yes, some seem to believe no (and I point to the word "believe" here).
Obviously, those who claim existance, must offer or present the evidence, and Elodin has tried to do this, as have other people in history, who tried to prove the existance of god.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 01:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you did not mean that God does not exist and God is only the product of my imagination you chose a poor way of expressing yourself.
maybe, but I gave you more explanations.
Quote:
And for the record, do you or do you not believe that any god exists?
it isn't relevant for the way I live
OK, since you refuse to say what you believe I will go by your first statement, that God is only the product of my imagination, and assume you are an atheist as that statement would indicate.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and god came out of nothing without a cause?
what do you mean by "personnal"?
timeless and intelligent? doesn't being intelligent requires to be able to think? and isn't thinking dependent on time?
though, it could make sense if you call "god" its creation, that is to say all that exists at any moment. well, except for the "material" bit.
God is eternal. He is the first cause that the material world needed. God is a Spirit, not a material being.
God is personal, as in not just a force. It was necessary for a decision to be made to cause a steady state of absolute nothing to no longer be a steady state of absolute nothing.
No, there is no reason why a period of time is necessary for though to occur.
what does that prove?
what is supposed to be a spirit?
god is personal means that he is an individual? in that case he isn't spaceless.
a decision out of nothing?
It is answering your question. You said "and God came out of nothing without a cause?" My answer was "God is eternal. He is the first cause that the material world needed. God is a Spirit, not a material being." Unlike the universe, God needs no cause.
A spirit is neither matter nor energy. All things that have a beginning need a cause. The universe had a beginning. It needed a cause. God had no beginning and needs no cause. God is not subject to the laws of the universe that he created. The universe is subject to entropy, God is not.
Errrrr, no, the Spirit of God being personal does not mean that he "takes up space." Personal does not mean human being.
"a decision out of nothing?" Huh? God made a decision to cause what was a steady state of absolute nothing to become no longer a stedy state of absolute nothing.
Quote:
to come from the state of not thinking to the state of thinking, involves a continuity, and thus time. as well as to come from a thought to another thought.
No, you a placing the limitation of human perceptions on God. God is not subject to the properties of his "painting." There is no reason to believe that if time did not exist that thoughts would not occur.
God "lives" in the eternal "Now." He described himself as "I AM." Time is meaningless to God, as the Bible specifically says.
Quote:
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Quote:
obviously, god can't exist "prior to the space-time continuum" since "prior" involves time.
No, that is not obvious. What we do know is the universe could not cause itself. God is the only rational explanation. The Bible describes God in exactly the manner that way the first cause would have to be.
Quote:
he isn't dependent from anything? so he can't be the cause of anything.
That is a rather silly statement. The effect does not cause the cause. The cause causes the effect. The cause of an effect is not dependent on the effect that it causes.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course while God exists outside of his painting, unlike a human painter he also exists at every point in his painting. God exists at every point in space and time as well as whatever lies outside of universe. He fills and transcends the universe.
but he isn't the universe?
No, the painter is not the painting.
Quote:
So scientifically spoken, the EVIDENCE is decisive. If the evidence was not compelling, then, again scientifically spoken, god's existance was NOT in the realm of the possible (because there had never been enough evidence to postulate his existance in the first place as a serious idea).
There is nothing in science that indicates that God's existence is not in the realm of the possible.
What we do know is that the universe had a definite beginning. All things that have a beginning must have a cause. The Bible's description of God is exactly what is needed to be the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause.
God as the first cause fits with known science. Claiming the universe is eternal (the foundational argument of atheists not very long ago) does not fit with the known facts. Saying the universe produced itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing without a cause does not fit with known scientific facts.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 01:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It is answering your question. You said "and God came out of nothing without a cause?" My answer was "God is eternal. He is the first cause that the material world needed. God is a Spirit, not a material being." Unlike the universe, God needs no cause.
gods are created out of nothing all the time? if they have no cause, do they just appear spontaneously?
Quote:
"a decision out of nothing?" Huh? God made a decision to cause what was a steady state of absolute nothing to become no longer a stedy state of absolute nothing.
doesn't it imply time? a decision has to be made at a specific point in time. well except for god, since he doesn't give a damn about physics laws and logic 
I mean, yeah, if you consider that god can do all he wants, I guess there is no way I can find a good counter argument.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 03:55 AM |
|
|
Quick question, Elodin. What exactly do you mean when you say that a Christian is incapable of hate? Could you elaborate on that?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 04:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quick question, Elodin. What exactly do you mean when you say that a Christian is incapable of hate? Could you elaborate on that?
I've already written extensively about that in this thread and others. I'm not sure what more to say about it.
I will answer again briefly.
1) The New Testament is the authoritative source of Christian doctrine.
2) The New Testament states that anyone who claims to know God but who hates another person or who murders is a liar.
Quote:
1Jn 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
1Jn 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
As I mentioned when responding to Mytical, one does not become a Christian by joining a religion. A born again person is not a perfect person but is a person who will never again hate anyone or commit murder.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 05:33 AM |
|
|
That doesn't answer my question. So someone who suddenly experiences hate stops being a Christian?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 06:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That doesn't answer my question. So someone who suddenly experiences hate stops being a Christian?
It means someone who claims to be a Christian but who hates another person was in fact never a Christian to begin with.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 08:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is nothing in science that indicates that God's existence is not in the realm of the possible.
For the record: it doesn't work that way. There would have to be compelling evidence for the existance of god. You cannot "invent" something, let's say, another 666 universes outside and beyond ours, all with their own set of physical laws and whatnot, and then seriously claim, "there is nothing in science that indicates that the existance of these universes is not in the realm of the possible". Or better: you CAN do it, but that doesn't give your invention any probability of existance outside of your imagination.
You need POSITIVE evidence. Another example: You cannot claim the existance of the Yeti by reasoning, science wouldn't have found evidence against his existance until now (for example, by proving that such a being cannot exist at all). Instead you would need POSITIVE evidence - footprints, bones and so on, high in a mountain range, for example - to be able to allow for a claim like that.
If there is no such evidence, any claim is just a figment, a product of imagination.
To help you on the right track - for YOU the positive evidence is the Bible and the fact that you don't find any contradictions or errors in it. Since you find that rather astonishing, plus you had a couple of personal, let's call it "revelations", you consider it as enough and compelling evidence to claim and postulate the reality and truth of God's existance, until disproven.
For others, however, the Bible is as compelling an evidence for the existance of anything except a lurid imagination of people as is an Harry Potter book for the existance of the Hogwarts school, and here we are at the heart of the problem of everything, and that's
The evaluation, assassment and interpretation of "evidence".
This is in the centre of every process of "truth-finding": do we accept a certain something as valid and authentic evidence, and how do we evaluate and interpret the evidence in order to reach more or less reasonable conclusions.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 10:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That doesn't answer my question. So someone who suddenly experiences hate stops being a Christian?
It means someone who claims to be a Christian but who hates another person was in fact never a Christian to begin with.
My guess is that you define hate as a passive combination of envy, self-hatred for something(IE: Being incapable), and etc.
I guess I would call that strong envy, if I am correct in interpreting you.
I guess the "you suck"-hatred(small onetime) is not the kind?
Well, if it the first kind I mention, I find it believable that one could indeed be without it, but it is quite hard to never have it come into your head against your will. Denying it will not make it go away either, so it is a fun ball to throw around.
I guess the question is then: Will someone stop being a Christian when they first feel it, or when they first give inn to it?
I am also going to agree with JJ: If you say "God" causes the world, then God still needs a reason, because you demand that the world needed a reason too.
But that is a fruitless debate.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 12:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You cannot "invent" something, let's say, another 666 universes outside and beyond ours, all with their own set of physical laws and whatnot, and then seriously claim, "there is nothing in science that indicates that the existance of these universes is not in the realm of the possible"
well, that's the problem with Elodin, with the way he is reasonning, there isn't any single valuable counter argument
you point any logical mistake (well, maybe some of them weren't mistakes, I could be wrong as well), and he answers : "yeah, but he is god, so he do what he wants, he isn't dependent on our rules"
a 1st step would be to define what is god exactly. it is rather vague so far.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 06:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So scientifically spoken, the EVIDENCE is decisive. If the evidence was not compelling, then, again scientifically spoken, god's existance was NOT in the realm of the possible (because there had never been enough evidence to postulate his existance in the first place as a serious idea).
Quote:
There is nothing in science that indicates that God's existence is not in the realm of the possible.
For the record: it doesn't work that way.
Sure it does. I was responding to your false claim that God's existence is not scientifically possible. SCIENCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT EVERYTHING IT HAS NOT PROVEN IS NOT TRUE.
Science has not proven that there is intelligent life on other planets yet it is untrue to say that that intelligent life on other planets is not scientifically possible.
Science has not proven that there are no undiscovered species on the earth yet it is untrue to say that there are no undiscovered species on earth.
Ect, ect.
Quote:
You need POSITIVE evidence
YOU need positive evidence to claim "God does not exist." Unfortunately for you there is no evidence that God does not exist.
I have evidence that God exists, which I have mentioned before.
1) The universe. The only rational explanation for the universe is God being the First Cause. The former atheist position that the universe is eternal has been proven false.
2) The Bible, with the prophecies and historical recordings of God dealing with humanity throughout history.
3) The witness of billions of people of their personal encounters with God.
4) My personal encounters with God.
5) The Spirit of God who lives inside of me.
6) My own human spirit communing with God.
7) Miracles I have personally witnessed and experienced.
Frankly the evidence is there for those who are open to it.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
SCIENCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT EVERYTHING IT HAS NOT PROVEN IS NOT TRUE.
and if it did, would you believe it? (I mean, considering that it would be written in the Bible of course )
Quote:
YOU need positive evidence to claim "God does not exist." Unfortunately for you there is no evidence that God does not exist.
Yes, but I still agree with JJ, especially as long as what "god" is, isn't perfectly defined, then you can just twist your definition of god to defeat any argument.
Quote:
1) The universe. The only rational explanation for the universe is God being the First Cause. The former atheist position that the universe is eternal has been proven false.
that's faulty logic, maybe it is the only rational explanation because all others have been proven to be false, but it still doesn't make it true.
Quote:
2) The Bible, with the prophecies and historical recordings of God dealing with humanity throughout history.
3) The witness of billions of people of their personal encounters with God.
that's faith, not proof. you've not experienced what those people experienced. it could all be lies. if you do not think that so many people could be wrong about the same belief, reconsider your view about atheism.
Quote:
4) My personal encounters with God.
5) The Spirit of God who lives inside of me.
6) My own human spirit communing with God.
interesting, how do you know it's god?
Quote:
7) Miracles I have personally witnessed and experienced.
and how do you know it was the work of god?
Quote:
Frankly the evidence is there for those who are open to it.
what about Othello?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
