Originally Posted by BABY J
This certainly proves that someone really doesn't know the bible.LoL, continued reading for entertainment purposes... this guy couldn't be more wrong in Biblical FACTS... their logic is ERRORed.
i see the original poster of this source has yet to make a rebutal. when your wrong your wrong
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
First of all it's spelled rebuttal, and you also misspelled you're wrong TWICE. Am I responding to a person who failed language arts?
And second. You want me to reply to your posts - that have yet to prove my previous posts wrong. Know why? Because you can not. I've been far too busy to really sit down and read the posts in the last couple of pages.
Give me some notes and I'll commit multi-quote assault on them later.
But before I fall asleep lemme say a few things. If you are fully sane you should be able to see how idiotic your posts are, or at least think they are stupid. Because believing things with no or invalid proof is pretty much what being stupid is all about. Let me ask you this, if I told you I believe for sure that masturbating unicorns are secretly planning to take over earth early next year with Mario Cantone clones riding them bareback -would you say that is a stupid belief? Or would you not call it stupid, but just say it's a belief that you 'don't share?'
Also. Just throwing this out there for the hell of it, but I personally don't consider myself atheist or agnostic because claiming to be an atheist is a pretty bold statment, but even the overly enthusiastic atheists -- at least are accurate and logical in what they are talking about - whereas the religious people believe insane illogical crap like a guy coming back from the dead, a virgin birth, and that a guy on an arc who was 500 years old gathered two of each species of animals(must have been a pretty big boat...) and got them all to fuck during a flood of the entire earth which is physically impossible since the water supply of earth is finite and has to go somewhere so if there was a flood that big then where did all this new flood water come from?
And then where did the water go when the flood was over? It would have to evaporate back into the air but there is not enough air space to hold that much proportion of water - so it's impossible and obviously total bullshit.
What do you think of a guy who believes in scientology, and their beliefs that some alien leader named Xenu dropped off alien souls into a fucking volcano on earth and the souls then came out of the volcano and inhabited human bodies? You respect that person's sanity? Well they have exactly the same amount of proof behind their story as Christianity or any other religion, which is zero. Atheists, the ones who spend a lot of time with it, while they may be wasting their time to a degree, although that's pretty subjective, aren't believing in a bunch of bullshit.
This post goes out to everyone who believes in Jesus Christ, God, the Virgin Mary, Noah, Santa Clause, Unicorns, ect ect...
One day long ago in a galaxy far far away, an unmeasurably dense object imploded, then exploded causing a near infinite number of particles smashing into each other while constantly floating away from its origin point. Most combonations resulted in instant death for the compounds. Some resulted in life in various ways --from stars so much more complex in their systems than a human and even more common are all the micro organisms all over the universe.
As far as the masses know, we are the only conscious species with a feedback unit. But if you noticed, we are far from perfect. There can easily be a better species that is built more resistent to the elements, whose consciousness doesn't even have a word or understanding of words such as 'torture,' and who live in orgasmic like constant happiness for thousands of years.
On the flipside, there are probably conscious beings somewhere who have only one apendage and 10 year life spans which end is bulbous throat tumors slowly suffocating the individual. And they too probably looked up one day and wondered what it all meant, and started writing stories about what they thought and recorded it in their 'bible,' and used the same arguement you are. 'Well look how much more complex we are compared to the bugs and rock around us, someone MUST have made us.' That's not a real arguement, that's the type of question you would get wrong on an IQ test.
Think of this another way: To someone from the 1800s, a 1985 computer would be super complex or possibily considered magical witchcraft. Now a 1985 computer is obsolete and quite simple. It's all relative. And a relative statement never makes for fact.
There are infinite possiblities of what is out there, we just happen to be what we are because, well, we just are. If we weren't then we wouldn't be able to think about it. So it's not really luck. It just is. Doesn't mean there isn't a 'higher power.' Shit, we could be the experiment of some chemist on some planet 1000000 light years away whose average citizen is 500 feet tall.
It does mean that arguing about God is pretty pointless. What is destructive however is beliveing for certainty in God. If there is indeed a omniscent God that created mankind, then he would want us to use our gift of consciousness. Believers in God, whichever religion, have forsaked a large part of their free thinking mind.
How's that for a rebutal, geoff?
How 'bout on the flipside of the coin Maniacc? What if it were possible that in your belief in this dense object implosion and not believing in a God or some omniscient being that it would be you who has forsaken a large part of your free thinking mind?
^ +1. and i have one question for you maniac. this dense object that imploded...how did it get here? let me get at you with some logic son. if your believe in sciences then you must believe in the law of causality or Newtons first law "A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." .
Hence, you CAN NOT have an effect without a cause or vise versa. and Newtons law is pretty self explanitory. so 1. what was the source of the cause of the universe as nothing can not and will never produce something? and 2. if the universe was here and imploded to create what we call life, what was the external force that caused it to leave its state of rest or motionlessness? My God was the one that caused the universe, My God was the external force that put everything into motion. your " precious theories" fall very short my friend and you say that i use my imagination to believe in a God that doesnt exist, when your own scientific logic expects you to just use your imagination to fill in the blanks where it can not explain the origins of all life.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
The flood in Noahs account was a regional flood. The bible talks about the world being flooded because it was a large region. You find that out pretty quickly when you study the text in its context and original language.
Also as for the unicorns. Provide us with compiled selection of evidence and I will be able to make a good conclusion.
Maniacc, the reason we sound so strange to you is that you have not looked at the evidence. The evidence does not have to prove our case or convince you of our worldview, but it should at least get you to understand that the unicorn theory as used by Dawkins, Hitchens, and all of the "free thinkers", is very inaccurate in describing believers. The irony for me is that most of these "free thinkers" or militant atheists who say crap like this are exactly the opposite. They outwardly admit to ignoring the evidence of their errors and the evidence of their non-scientific approach to theorizing and then THEY have the nerve to say that someone else is ignoring the case.
Well, Maniacc, when you have a case and I present a series of arguments from the same field and other fields of study then I have earned the ability to say that I do NOT agree with your theories as a "free thinker" based on the simple point that there is a much better case against you.
Dawkins touts evolution as if it even remotely explains human origins (he admits it doesn't) and that human origins have to be a product of something else. Even though he describes evolution as a very intricate and structured process. I don't believe in his evolution version either by the way.
Then you get Christopher Hitchens, who hasn't made a valid argument yet, but gets off of bickering and name calling like a little british school girl. His strongest argument is the expansion of our universe, which only demonstrates that our universe is STILL submissive to the laws of its origin.
These men are not free thinkers, and if you would just look at some of their debate without trying to be bitter about religions then you would see that they are not making good cases against God. They make god cases against stupid fundamentalists, but never against God. Their points always land on..."its just absurd" but never is there any substance to those arguments.
But again, you don't have to believe and we are not called to provide proof. We are called to provide evidence because that is what leads to legitimate belief.
You admit infinite possibilities yet none of those possibilities in your mind has to do with a resurrection of our God with us, living and breathing on our earth. And your giant chemist argument only leads to the same issues of origins of all things.There are infinite possiblities of what is out there, we just happen to be what we are because, well, we just are. If we weren't then we wouldn't be able to think about it. So it's not really luck. It just is. Doesn't mean there isn't a 'higher power.' Shit, we could be the experiment of some chemist on some planet 1000000 light years away whose average citizen is 500 feet tall.
i would like to add that the biggest down fall to the theory of evolution that dawkins and others like to promote is that THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING and so means that it will have an end. and anything that has an end has to have had and ending for you cant have an effect without a cause. and since the universe had a beggining and it can not account for its own existence and is not sufficient enough to have caused itself then it is contingent meaning it needs someting or someone that is outside of itself who is not subject to the natural laws to have created it or put it in motion. Stephen Hawking ( an extremely intelligent man and Brittians most eminent physicist) once remarked, " the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous, i think there are clearly religious implications."
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
Your argument is a false one because you are inferring that God created the universe but then who created God? Your theory is that 'one thing' cannot be created without a creator - if that's the case. I ask you again. Who created God?
It's a vicious cycle where progress is not made.
Why couldn't you answer my question? You had to question me before even attempting to answer mine. Is it because you can't? Don't answer that. Just let me go ahead and answer yours.
It came from emptiness. Emptiness is different than nothingness. The only thing that can come from nothing is nothing. Every action has a reaction. Theres never been a time where there was no action/reaction. That's the awesome part about not believing in God.
I don't have to make up shit to answer this unknown question.
I don't have to believe that a person who resembles a human-being created existence! Trillions and trillions of light years worth of starts, planets, suns, ect. How could he create all that? It's not possible unless the cosmos is God. My buddy Carl wants to add his 2 cents:Then where did the big bang come from?
The only thing I do know is that anyone who claims to know the answer to the question is a fucking liar, and probably a meth addict.
Haha, what a bold statement, Geo. You claim to already know that God created EVERYTHING before you even know if Hell or Heaven really exist. Amazing! Can you see into the future? Did God bless with you God-like powers to be able to answer questions that aren't answerable by ontologists?
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) Seriously, Geo. Watch the entire series.
Like I told, Geo. You couldn't answer my question so you tried the ol' lemme ask him a question and maybe I won't have to answer this unanswerable question so I don't have to make another excuse about how God is Teh Man.
So, let's get real.
What a lot of people don't even realize is that religion was largely influenced by the ET phenomenon. Benevolent and malevolent extraterrestrial, light-bearing entities that either lived here or visited this planet thousands of years ago were turned into gods and angels by the primitive civilizations and worshipped. America is only 200 years old and every modern-day archeologist was born into that time.
Earth is over 4 billion years old. There's been plenty of time for the evidence to have gotten erased, deleted, or lost. Aliens could have played a huge role in the evolution of religion. Why is that so hard to take into account, guys?
Fuck Dawkins and Hitchens. Who gives a shit about them. I know I don't. I do not follow their shit because I am my own God. I am me.
Now let's talk about Jesus and his powers.
Simple hallucinations are very easy to do nowadays. Chris Angels would be considered God if it weren't for scientists and their logical explanations for his tricks. If he performed all the stuff that he has 2000 years ago he'd been crucified too.
It really sucks that I won't be alive to see our society - change from religious people shaking their pompoms at God and look at 'life' for what it really is.
Ode to Yahweh
Check this video out, dudes. It's very entertaining.
[QUOTE=Maniacc]Fuck Dawkins and Hitchens. Who gives a shit about them. I know I don't. I do not follow their shit because I am my own God. I am me.
Will you go write Chris Angel and see if he has a kill him, and come back to life three days later trick. Maybe he would let you do the beating, the thorns and the crucifying. Of course such a simple hallucination could be performed easily by him.Simple hallucinations are very easy to do nowadays. Chris Angels would be considered God if it weren't for scientists and their logical explanations for his tricks. If he performed all the stuff that he has 2000 years ago he'd been crucified too.
that is exactly what the humanists think. The close our society gets to what you wish for, the less likely we are to kill ourselves. Denial of the spiritual side of humanity is denial of a very important part of who you are. It would be like asking a dog to learn how to purr, scratch and climb like a cat.It really sucks that I won't be alive to see our society - change from religious people shaking their pompoms at God and look at 'life' for what it really is.
But you have fun with being your own god. Fair warning. The whole self god thing has historically NOT worked for anyone yet. And since you are your own god you should not fret over what the world is doing. As your own god its about you. Just watch out for other people who are their own god, they are your worst nightmare, especially if you want something they want.
By the way, what you desire and embrace for your life is a struggle for me to rid myself of in mine. Humanism destroys.
^^ As if Jesus has worked for any1 - LOL
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
Sport, sport, sport. You have no idea how I am in person and how I think. The words that I am posting are my thoughts on the subject -- they don't really reflect on my actions as a person. People like me do not think the way we do to make things work. It's how we live and see life - just like how God plays a role in yours. You live by his rules and except the word of Christ.
Let me ask you this.
What is the meaning of life in your opinion? I'll answer my own question first.
There is no ultimate meaning of life. It's just a ride. What you get out of it you get out of it, but then you die and won't know/remember/care about it anyway. Life is a lot like a dream. It seems so real and so cool but in the end you wake up and can't remember any of it. Is it all for naught? I don't think so. Just enjoy it while you can.
What happened in your life that made you turn to God?
maniac...you asked who created God. NO ONE, and my reasoning behind this is that the universe that is subject to laws of physics and is not infinite can not have created itself cuz nothing has no potential to create anything. as in the first law of thermodynamics, matter cannnot be created nor destroyed in nature. meaning this...the cause responsible for creating the universe is greater than the universe as an effect cannot be greater than its cause. which in the end means the universe was created by someone or something that is above the laws of physics and is infinite.
no God did not give me God like powers. He gave me logic to use science and put the pieces together to know He is real and then He gave me His word the Holy Bible.
how is emptiness different from nothingness?deffinition of emtiness: containing nothing; having none of the usual or appropriate contents: an empty bottle.
and you stated that only nothing can come from nothing. you just proved my point...there had to be something or someone that created it all.
you also said f@$k dawkins...atleast he has done studies and uses false scientific theories to explain his beliefs. what are you going off of? i have just given you scientific LAWS as to why God EXISTS and you still deny them. where is your logic? you seem to just be going off of emotions. try to put your logic aside for a second cuz you dont seem to be using it anyway and put your conscience into it. why is it impossible to have a creator? when you look at a painting...did it make itself or was there a painter? tell me WHY God cant exist.
and finally, Jesus and His miracles were not a majic act. raising a man from the dead after 4 days is not majic, it defies all laws of nature and Jesus was able to do it because He is not subject to the laws HE created, He IS GOD! not some majician.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
the ultimate meaning to life is to love, to create life ( children), and to worship God our Father and Creator and to love Him and please Him. its a sad day when you believe your here just to die.
and you are your own god? did you create yourself? can you step out on nothing and with nothing and create anything at all? my friend the day you realize that you are just a mere man and are subject to the things of this world maybe then you will see your meant for a higher purpose then to live and just die.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
you are not a god. your not you own god. you are subject to the laws of this world and must obey the natural laws. you have no power to create anything. you are a mere mortal man that has an end.
i would like to say this... athiests are right about one thing. when THEY die...nothing happens
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
so you changed your mind about us going to hell?
no im not one to judge. but for the non believers they experience the second death.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
He works for me.
Is it possible to prove that God does not exist? Of course, it is not possible to prove that all possible gods could not exist, since we do not possess all possible facts. Although we do not have a complete understanding of the universe, it is possible to prove that certain specific gods could not exist, using logical arguments. However, we are interested if there are proofs that the God of Christianity does not exist. It is important to correctly describe the God of Christianity, since arguing against the existence of a lesser god is not relevant. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, in arguing against the existence of the Christian God, one must rely upon what the Bible claims as attributes of this God - regardless of whether or not one accepts the Bible as being true.
#1: The theodice problem:
We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume: If the evil in the world is intended by God he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only God can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not Satan created the universe?
It is true that God cannot be both almighty and good if you restrict Him to our level - three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this God is not the God of reality or Christianity, since both the Bible and science would indicate that God must exist in more than three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The Bible says the universe cannot contain God, indicating He must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began, confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. A single dimension of time (a line) has a beginning point and can only travel in one direction. Two dimensions of time (a plane) has no beginning or ending so that a being existing in such a plane would be free to move to any point along any line of time within that plane.
Both of these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science. According to particle physics and relativity, at least nine dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe. God must be able to operate in all of those nine dimensions in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews indicates God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us. Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time. Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Therefore, if God created the universe, He was acting before the creation of time, indicating He exists in at least two dimensions of time. If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future.
The main problem with this argument is a lack of understanding of the reason for the creation of the universe. The universe was not created to be good. God created the universe as a temporary testing site for creatures to choose to love Him or reject Him. God is good, but He has allowed His creatures free-will to do whatever they want within their limited dimensionality. God has designed the universe to operate under a set of physical principles, which He, only occasionally, suspends. If God were to suspend the laws of physics on a regular basis the universe would be a universe of chaos and unpredictability. Such as universe would not be a good testing ground for confused mortal beings. The purpose of the universe is to allow God's creatures the choice to love Him. Love is not possible without free-will. Therefore God chooses to allow His creatures the ability to do evil for the purpose of permitting them also to love. If God controlled everything we did, we could not demonstrate love, since we would be pre-programmed to respond. A computer cannot love, but free-will beings can.
The temporary nature of the universe and created beings requires that the universe operate under the law of entropy. If there were no entropy, we could not be tested since we would, by definition, be eternal and not have to face the mortality of our existence. Such an existence would not require our dependence upon God, since we would never have to face Him. The law of entropy guarantees our mortality and that we will suffer pain and death at some point. Neither pain nor death is evil from a Christian perspective. For example, pain is a necessary function in our lives. If we could not feel pain, we would end up causing serious damage to ourselves. Whenever I get burned, I move my hand rapidly away from the source of the pain. If I had no pain receptors, I would probably continue to burn my hand until I noticed the smoke. This would obviously not be a good thing to do. Likewise, death is required in a universe governed by entropy. Without animal death, very soon all the carbon on the earth would be bound in living organisms, with none available for photosynthesis.
Most atheists define evil according to their own interpretation. By defining evil as things they don't like, they have created a circular argument guaranteed to "prove the non-existence" of God. The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings.
Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination.
#2: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God.
#3: The ontological evidence
It is necessary that God is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping there cannot be a God. Not any of the existing religions can provide such a God. Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence against God holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.
There are several hundred million Christians who believe the Christian God is worth worshipping. However, there are other religions which worship other Gods. Therefore, this cannot be a valid criteria for determining whether God exists or not.
God both has and continues to communicate with humans. Men with which He has communicated have written His words in the Bible. Those who are born-again Christians communicate with God on a daily basis. When I was an agnostic, I didn't believe this could be possible. However, when I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, His Spirit indwells me and talks to me (The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, Romans 8:16).
There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against God, that you can do to try the existence of God. Pray, and ask God to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that God exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no God.
I am surprised that this example is listed as a test for the Christian God. There are some major problems with the validity of this test, since the Bible tells us this test will fail. The Old Testament tells us not to test God. This concept was reinforced by Jesus when He was tempted by Satan, who told Him to jump off the temple wall. Jesus cited the same verse from Deuteronomy not to test God. Therefore the only thing this test proves is that God is not the God of some non-Christian religion.
However, there is a test you can do which will give valid results. Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him." (John 14:21) This is the only valid direct test for the Christian God's existence. However, it will cost you your life, and require you to bend your knee in submission. I can tell you from experience that Jesus will follow through with His promise and reveal Himself to you, and surprisingly, you will be filled with great joy.
"God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than God because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than God then either God cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or God is the known world, in which case, by definition, God is not a God."
The Bible never defines God as infinite, but defines Him as existing beyond the limitations of our four dimensional universe. This does not mean that He is infinite. Some Christians have said that God is infinite, but this concept cannot be supported biblically. The only characteristic of God described as infinite is His knowledge or understanding. Therefore, the argument does not hold, since the God of Christianity is not described as being physically infinite.
#4: Occam's razor
Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in English: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labor which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.
Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent God. A God which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in himself has his own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning.
Occam's razor is actually a good argument for the existence of God. I will explain shortly. Contrary to the statements above, the universe cannot replace God as explanation for its own existence. The universe is finite in both size and time. The universe had a beginning in finite time at the moment of the Big Bang. How did this universe decide to create itself? How did the universe design itself with physical laws and parameters exactly fine tuned to support life? The laws of physics are designed with such precision that it is almost inconceivable that they could be the result of chance. For example, take the ratio of the number of electrons to protons. This ratio must be exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in 1037 (10 to the 37th power, or "1" followed by 37 zeros), otherwise electromagnetic forces would have superseded gravitational forces and no galaxies, stars or planets would have ever formed in the entire history of the universe. The likelihood of this occurring by chance is described below:
One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037.
Other constants of physics, such as the expansion rate of the universe, are fine-tuned even more delicately, as small as one part in 1055. Random chance does not design such a well-crafted universe. All the atheistic explanations for such an exquisitely defined universe require the presence of trillions of other universes, of which ours is the one which happened, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Therefore the atheistic explanation actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. If one were to calculate the number of universes required, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, it would exceed 1010000 (talk about multiplying entities!). The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation. Check these papers for some of the other parameters for both the universe and our planet, which are designed to exact standards.
The statement that "the world stands above time" is false. The universe stands within time, having come into existence at time = 0. See Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.
"Most theists agree that God has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created God's nature? If we just accept that God has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?"
God is uncreated, therefore His nature is just as eternal as He is. Although it is possible the universe and the physical laws could exist without a cause, 1 in 1010000 is not exactly what one would call good betting odds. It would be much more likely that your car's engine would thermodynamically reverse itself (i.e., freeze solid instead of warm up) every time you started it.
#5: Some things are impossible to do
There are things that are impossible to do. For example nobody can cover a two-dimensional surface with two-dimensional circles, without making them overlap. It is impossible to add the numbers two and two and get 666. You can not go back in time (without passing an infinite entropy barrier). The number of things that are impossible to do are almost infinite. If God were to be almighty he would be able to do them, but it's impossible to do so.
Contradictions are not possible by definition. Therefore they are impossible by definition in this four dimensional universe. All the things that are impossible in our universe are so because they are defined to be impossible. If you restrict God to our four dimensional universe, He would, likewise, be unable to do those things. However, God is not restricted to our universe. In addition, God can do anything if He changed the laws of physics, which He promises to do in the New Creation.
Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it logically possible to walk on water? Is it logically possible to rise from the dead? Is it logically possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions - and still exist? I'd say that everything which violates the laws of physics are logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically impossible. Besides if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no objective criteria to measure omnipotence so the word itself is useless.
Definition of miracle: Something that violates the laws of physics. God can suspend the laws of physics to provide proof for His existence. He does this on occasion, but not routinely, since routine suspension of physical laws would drive us crazy - nothing would be predictable. Not only is it logically possible to stand above our dimensions of time and space, it is required, according to particle physics studies, for the universe to have come into existence.
#6: God's omniscience restricts His free will
Also, if God knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus God's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If God has no free will God is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If God stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if God stands above all dimensions God is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!
The Christian God exists in at least two time dimensions, therefore His free-will is not hindered by our dimension of time. He stands both above and within our time line, since our line of time runs through His plane of time. The argument totally falls apart at this point.
#7: God cannot be almighty and allow free will simultaneously
Besides there can exist no free wills at all if God is almighty. If you had a free will, God wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.
The two dimensions of time take care of this one, too. God knows what each person will do and can put him anywhere in our time line to accomplish His purposes. Complete free-will and complete predestination is possible in two dimensions of time. However, this concept may require some time to think about.
#8: God must be created so why does the universe need a Creator
If everything must have been created, then God must have been created as well. If God is not created, then everything mustn't have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one?
The Christian God exists in two dimensions of time, by definition being uncreated. The universe exists in only one dimension of time, which Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose tell us must have begun at the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore the universe must have been created at the beginning of our dimension of time. Most scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. It is possible that some multiverse (super-universe) created our universe, but there is no observational evidence to support this idea. Despite the lack of evidence, most atheists who know anything about cosmology believe in the existence of some kind of multiverse.
Had to break it into two sections:
#9: If God created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent.
The logical conclusion is that God must live outside of our dimensions of time and space in addition to living within our dimensions of time and space. The unstated assumption that God cannot live both within and outside space and time simultaneously is false. Since science tells us for God to exist and to have created the universe, He must exist in at least 11 dimensions of space and time (the four within the dimensions of our universe and at least 7 outside of those dimensions). Therefore He is extradimensional, and probably not composed of ordinary matter, but this does not make Him non-existent. The Bible is also clear that God exists both within our universe and outside of it.
#10: God has never contacted me. He must not exist.
We would never notice God: This is not an evidence against God, but rather describes the lack of sense in praying to a God who stands above time.
However, the Christian God exists both within and outside of our single dimension of time. Existing in at least two dimensions of time, God is not restricted to always following our time line, but can, through His second dimension of time, spend as much time as He likes at any point on our time line. This concept is stated biblically in 2 Peter. Therefore, if 100 million people are praying to Him simultaneously, He is able to stay at that point in our time line for as long as necessary to hear and respond to their prayers.
#11: God cannot be involved in our universe if He stands above our time dimension
If God stands above time and created time and space he can not be the first link in a time dependent chain of events. Rather he would affect every step in all chains, and we would only see God in the laws of physics (Davies, 1983, chapter 4). This God is an unnecessary entity to describe the world and should be removed with Occam's razor.
Again, the author fails to recognize the Christian God exists in at least two dimensions of time, as such He is not bound by the chains of events tied to our single dimension of time. Davies book is out of date and he lacks understanding of Christian doctrine. His later comments reflect a different understanding of the universe and its design:
* "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
* "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
#12: If God existed, prayer would have already changed the world into the best possible world.
If somebody would pray to God and God would listen, the laws would change to achieve the desired result. Thus the world would be different and the prayer would never have been said. Besides God would already (in an "above time" sense of view) know that you would pray, and already have changed the world. Prayers would be totally meaningless. We would already live in the best world possible, and any prayer would be to doubt the wisdom of God.
Again, a complete lack of understanding of the Christian reason for prayer. Prayer is communication with God. Communication is a two way conversation, not a monologue of telling God what to do. If Christians were perfect, every prayer would be answered because we would always be within the will of God. However, as most people are well aware, Christians are not perfect and often pray against God's will. God will not do anything against His will and therefore will not grant our selfish requests. I could pray that God would let me win the lottery (if I played it). However, God knows that I would become greedy, buy all kinds of computers and gadgets, and ignore Him. It is in my best interest that I remain middle class (it might even be better for my spiritual life if I become poor - I hope not!). The main problem is that we are stupid and selfish creatures, and don't really know what is best for us. However, God, being omniscient, does know what is best for us. Therefore, the purpose of prayer is not to tell God what to do, but to be conformed to the will of God (i.e., listen to Him).
#13: Only things that can be sensed with the five senses are meaningful to discus. Therefore, all discussion about God is meaningless.
Logical positivism is based upon the verification principle, which states that for a statement to be meaningful, it has to be either true by definition or verifiable by one or more of the five senses. This means that all discussion about God should be considered meaningless. However, the verification principle itself fails its own test, since it cannot be verified by any of the five senses. It is a self-refuting principle, and, therefore, logically flawed.
Nobody really believes in God
Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulMany atheists tend to stereotype Christians as stupid, uneducated people. However, I personally know dozens of scientists who are Christians, and not only believe in God, but can rationally present evidence for His existence. In our department at the Research Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center we have no atheists - although we have one agnostic. All the other people - 4 M.D.'s, 2 Ph.D.'s, 3 R.N.'s, and the others, with B.S.'s or M.S.'s - are theistic. Christianity specifically calls people to use their brains. As Robert Griffiths (Heinemann prize in mathematical physics) stated:
"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."
It is the atheist who now denies the implications of modern cosmology and physics because they imply the existence of a Creator. Those who believe the Big Bang correctly describes the origin of the universe, must admit that the universe had a beginning in finite time and space. Did it just pop into existence on its own? Did it just happen to have exactly the right physical laws and constants required for life? It is the atheist who must believe in miracles to explain our existence. Therefore, John Gribbin, an atheist physicist has stated:
"The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical - perhaps even theological - what was there before the bang?"
The primary objection to the Big Bang and its implications is this "God problem," not because of a lack of scientific evidence. Geoffrey Burbidge, astronomer from U.C. San Diego has recognized the implications of the 1992 COBE satellite discoveries, when he complained that his fellow astronomers were rushing off to join, "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang."
The fact that the evidence in support of the existence of God has increased in recent years is also a problem. According to atheists, science is supposed to get rid of the gaps, so that there is no longer any room for a "god of the gaps." This evidence has convinced some famous atheists to become deists (e.g., Antony Flew) or even Christians (e.g., Frank Tipler).
If God exists, how can we know what religion properly describes Him?
If God is so mysterious, how can we know anything about him? Through the Bible? How do we know that the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedha books, for example, are the words of God? (or the Bible if you believe in any of the other two books). Considering the cruelties that have been made in the name of God, how do we know that not all religions are made by Satan?
The God of the Koran and Hindu Vedas are Gods restricted to the time and space dimensions of this universe and, therefore, are logically impossible (check out some of your own proofs). In addition, most of these books contain scientific absurdities. All the so-called holy books base their claim of authority on the basis of fulfilled prophecy. Most of these prophecies are either vague or conditional, making them essentially untestable. The highest percentage of prophecy fulfillment, other than the Bible is 50%, with many other prophecies proven to be false. In contrast, the Bible names people, places and dates in remarkable detail, with 2,000 of the nearly 2,500 prophecies already fulfilled, and none provably false. The remaining prophecies are reserved for the end-times, which have yet to have happened.
I absolutely agree with atheists who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. Remember the words of Jesus:
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" (Matthew 7:22-23)
Not all who claim the name of Jesus are actually His disciples. My guess is that in even the best of Christian churches only about half of the people truly are Christians. Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of what people do who merely claim to be Christians.
you are right. I have no earthly idea how you are in person. And all I can do is formulate based off of your posts.
To answer your question: The meaning of my life and the purpose of my life are not the same so I will give both.
I believe that the purpose of this life is to love and learn to understand the God of our universe. I often wonder if it is about getting us ready to experience his universe in a greater scope. But I believe that I am supposed to learn how to understand myself in relation to him. To learn who he is and to experience him in a way that is not available to all creation. This was a very long path for me to become a believer and it still continues now. I spent lots of time discussing thing with my professors, church pastors and friends who are in or went to seminary. I have studied and read tons on apologetics and I have read a ton on atheism and alternative theories.
I find that the alternate theories do not work for me. They leave very large holes for faith and confusion and question, but refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a God out of spite and denial. Even Steven Hawkins changed his initial big bang theory because it left a very large gap in logic that was (even to him) only logically filled by a transcendent God. So in order to avoid God, he changed his theory. To me this is error and fallacy beyond belief. He made scientific observations, and changed them not because his observations were flawed but because he did not like the conclusion. I could not accept this because I would know that every time I discussed God, I was not really arguing in disbelief, I would be arguing in denial of the evidence and denial of what is demonstrated by EVERYTHING we have known, and will know in the future. Knowing that some of the greatest minds who were arguing against believers were sitting in their labs observing our universe and seeing evidence in the cosmos that supported the arguments of the apologists yet lying on stage and in books to people like you and me.
But as i have said the evidence is there.
My life is becoming dedicated to making sure that the believers in my church are NOT ignorant. That they understand their reasons for faith and that they embrace knowledge in all arenas as it is ALL evidence of God, and his love for us. This is joy for me, and I am strengthing every time I discuss these things with a believer or non-believer, because when you are on the side of truth, you do not have to fear, as truth always survives and it stands on its own.
very nice...LOOOOOOONG, but good read.
Yea.. I couldn't fit it into one post. Apparently anything over 20,000 characters is too long.
Lulz.
It was cute, at most.
and I don't know if anyone else knew that rule until now.
so we now have all these peices of evidence that God does exist. studies, physical laws, ect... where are the athiests now? where is your scientific proof or evidence? all i have seen is the believers providing everything they have and the athiest simply saying, " thats stupid and cant be right". that is the extent of their proof.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
I am not even going to bother with that huge wall of text.
Geo can you cut down all the evidence that proves God really existed and post it in a quote format.
Lolol. I left the thread because there will never be scientific, actual, materialistic evidence of the existence of God. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
for someone that wanted scientific evidence and wanted us to provide you with everything we had your gonna sit there and not even take the time to read it? that shows me you have no genuine desire to know the truth or to hear evidence of it. you just believe whatever you WANT not what is proven so in that case it really doesnt matter how much proof we provide. it will never be enough for you cuz you truly dont desire or care to know
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
I do care.
I just have to be at work at 3pm and don't have time. Just do it, Geo. In the name of God.
I havent seen a single piece of "proof" all ive heard is you blabbering like an idiot.
lol see sig for "proof"
I came back to the thread cause it's still funny.
Of course there is no scientific, actual, or materialistic evidence.
It's impossible to extract all that from BELIEF OR FAITH, NO MATTER HOW STRONGLY YOU BELIEVE OR HOW MUCH FAITH YOU HAVE!
THE END!
Anything after this will be in PS: format.
for the two above me. obviously you two have not learned to read. there is the proof. put your eyes to the posts and try to use your brain to comprehend it. i promise its not that difficult. and im sorry profiteer but that is how you spell conscience. and maniac to quote all the evidence would be to just repost what i had said, sport had said, and the other guy. take the time to read it after work if you trully do care. its really good stuff. and +1 to you for actually having interest instead of just writing it off cuz you just dont care
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
i know its long to read maniac but if your trully seeking all the evidence in both sides of the arguement to be able to come to your own logical conclusion then please do read from pages 12-14 of this thread. God bless
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
Yeah because I'm just writing it off. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
QD i respect you man, mostly cuz your car is nasty, but if you trully want to seek knowlegde you have to take ALL of it into consideration. what part do you want me to explain exactly as it is all there in these posts?
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
I'll be honest dude. You don't have to explain anything to me. I will guarantee that it won't change my mind. Like I said, I believe God may be out there. We came from somewhere. But I'm just the type that likes to have claims backed up with real evidence. All I see are interpretation of what people get from stuff written hundreds of years ago. To me it's just like sitting in English Lit. class and having my assignment be to write down my interpretation of a Shakespeare play. I believe some of your beliefs about things are way off base, but it's all good. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
