Jump to content

Justus

☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content Count

    574
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About Justus

  • Rank
    Skeptic

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canst say for sure, dam things keeps moving, but at least it keeps coming back to the same spot or I would be totally lost.
  • Interests
    Phasmalogy TM
  • More About Me
    How much does a scientist make per theory? Here's one on the scientific mystery regarding which came first, the chicken or the egg? My theory is the Cock, a doddle dew.... so to speak. TM

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    the Holy Ghost

Recent Profile Visitors

608 profile views
  1. It is more like ironic when a person believes that a snake can't talk, but it is funner to listen to them tell us why they don't 't believe a snake can talk, wait for it , anymore. LOL
  2. You better get backto your imaginary sciences, you miss a couple days and you won't be able to recognize it when you get back.
  3. You do know that the Quran is the third Book of the Trilogy. The one which Peter made reference of as the third tabernacle. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. Matt 17:4 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. Mark 9:5 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said . Luke 9:33
  4. Actually I overlooked your comment because I never made any such statement, but of course you believe I did so there really isn't reason to discuss it. Just believe whatever you want to believe .
  5. You obviously can't grasp that there is a difference between believing and having faith.
  6. That is a great question. Have you ever considered that they are describing one thing yet in three different ways. For example, if one witness saw a red car, the second witness saw a late-model automobile and the third witness saw a cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed, then which one was true, or did they see a red late-model cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed. I believe you will find that they all three are true, however each one describes an electromagnetic sound wave, unlike the mechanical sound wave. However, this form of sound wave is produced by the acoustic radiation produced within the co-axial band of light that form the circuits of the electromagnetic field which created the expanse of space in which all physical matter inhabits.
  7. How about the physical evidence regarding the fact that only man has the ability to communicate using the spoken word? Do you think that the ability to speak evolved naturally? If the ability to vocalize sounds into words is something that occurs naturally then obviously the first humans wouldn't have had to begin speaking in they earlier years but could have begun developing the ability to speak at any point during their lifetime. Right? However, why do you think primates lack the ability to communicate using the spoken word? Maybe because primates haven't evolve the necessary vocal anatomy to produce intelligible speech.
  8. Since the scriptures in Matthew 16:4 doesn't state that no sign would would be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, then even the evidence of the actual scripture wouldn't qualify as evidence of your misinterpretation of the scripture. But that reason you believed in the scriptures to begin with is because you are what they call a believer. A believer is someone who summarily believes whatever they choose to believe is true or whatever they choose to believe is false. The believer doesn't necessary require any data in order for them to believe what they choose to believe, and the believer will not believe any data that contradicts what they choose to believe is true. How does he know what you believe evidence means? IMO what you mean by evidence is whatever facts you choose to believe are true is evidence and whatever facts you believe contradicts your belief isn't going to be considered evidence. So do you know the difference between proof and belief? I will even give you an example so you can prove you know the difference: An intoxicated truck driver is standing next to his semi in a truck stop parking lot when the cops pull up and begin questioning him about who was the driver of the truck. The truck driver stated that it was his semi.. The cops asked him if there was anyone else had been with him or had been driving the truck. The truck driver states that he was a solo driver and nobody else had been with him or had driven his truck at any time that day. The cops asked him if had been drinking alcohol and the truck driver acknowledged having been drinking alcohol but said that he wouldn't even think about driving his semi after drinking any amount of alcohol much less in the condition he was presently in. The truck driver admitted that he had no doubt that he couldn't pass a sobriety test for driving. The cops then tell him that they believe he had been he just pulled in an parked and were going to arrest him for driving a commercial vehicle while intoxicated. The truck driver protested claiming that they were mistaken. The cops then inform the truck driver that they were responding to 911 calls from three different motorists that report that a semi driving erratically had just nearly run them off the road and gave his vehicle description with his license plate number being driven by a person meeting his general appearance which they following into the truck stop where they found him parked. The truck driver again claimed that they were mistaken. Based upon all the facts stated above being true and correct, then would that be sufficient evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the truck driver was correctly identified by the 911 callers and the accusation of driving while intoxicated was true? Or would you choose to believe the truck driver simply because he claimed that he didn't do what they said he did therefore there couldn't be sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  9. It doesn't say that no sign would be given to anyone, but rather it is written that no sign except the sign of the prophet Jonas would be given to a wicked and adulterous generation. A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. Matt 16:4 (The convincing part I was referring unto wasn't referring unto the sign of Jonas but rather something else regarding the treatment of the scriptures by some.)
  10. Matthew 16:4 says a sign shall be given. (That is pretty convincing evidence in and of itself regarding the validity of the gospel IMO.)
  11. So the nature of the universe itself doesn't teach us that it had a beginning or not. Ex nihilo nihil fit seems to indicate by default that the universe would not have a beginning if creatio nihilo fit is impossible. No offense intended but that is complete BS, that which is inside the sphere would be bounded by the exterior of the expanse, more specifically by the curvature of the sphere itself. A finite object by it very nature has a hard, physical edge seeing that it occupies a definite amount of space. However, we know the universe is not a infinite body since an infinite body of space would occupy all space at all time yet the universe is said to be expanding. Since an infinite body of space would already occupy all space therefore if it is expanding I fail to see how the assumption isn't made that the universe is finite.
  12. If you would, could you please clarify what you meant by 'science itself is prohibited' in regards to the issue of the origin of the universe. Who or what prohibits science from making a firm claim? Do you mean God controls science? The reason I ask is because in theology things are prohibited but not by God but the doctrine of the Church. I know in theology your funding ends if you talk about the 'Gods' who created the heaven and the earth. Right, the big bang is the end of the universe from its previous state in which all space, matter and energy was in a highly condensed state at which point it rapidly expanded to form the presently known and observed universe. Personally I don't think that you could condense all space and matter into a single space of an atom, since no two objects of mass can occupy the same space at the same time. However, I don't have a problem perceiving that we are inside that we are looking at from outside.
  13. Just because you can't see the bow in the cloud that covers the earth like a garment doesn't mean that the earth's atmosphere isn't curved nor does the fact that you can look up at the stars at night mean that you can see the light, that's right. Wow, you just gave up their secret like the other guy did. You just admitted that there is no plausible basis for the eternal universe of scientism since the ability to achieve a highly condensed state requires a hard boundary. Don't say you are not claiming the universe is eternal, by default when you reject the 'in-kind' principle that holds that 'from nothing can come nothing" you are making the assumption that the universe had always existed. So the two immutable things of the eternal is that it has always existed and that it does not change in its nature or form. Thus, due to the inability of a condensed state to be achieved without a hard boundary, your scientism doctrine is easily debunked by demonstrating what happens when one attempts to draw a vacuum on a open system. Since it can't, thonly thing to call your eternal universe of the scientism doctrine is a FAIL, unless the falsifiable of drawing a vacuum on an open system is meet. Otherwise it will be said that being called FAIL is going to be perpetual since from nothing comes nothing seeing that they be 'in-kind', but it can only occur once, but when it does it is really something to behold. And that something, being liken to nothing never seen, is the same thing from which all things that be in this world came from.
  14. Why are you trying to define whom I believe in when you don't have a clue? Exactly, you don't believe in truth. But if you say that Florduh claims that he does not believe that there is no truth, he just doesn't believe that there is any proof that truth exists.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.