There Is No God

[Mostly Harmless]

Well apparently when they (Xians) open their mouths (or post), they show they do not know anything.

 

And what is it that we are supposed to know?

 

I take it you are an Xian? Depending on what sect you are from, you take the Bible as the literal inerrant word of God. The Bible has no answers, at least not scientific ones and judging by your previous post, you don't know what dark matter is either.

 

My understanding of dark matter is that it is unobserved mass that is required to explain why the universe exists as it does. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. I am here to learn.

[Ouroboros]

Our reductionism pushes the thoughts through......so it's a finickly thing...the job that a jury has, mixing tangible and intangible.

I don't follow your thoughts there. Sorry.

 

And yeah, we are all sinners, so we all put a nail into Christ.....and I think that's the point even though you don't subscribe to it.

Then you're a killer and should be put in jail, not only eternal torment, but by your own argument, you are in fact legally a murderer. If you have any level of decency and morality in you, you should report to the nearest police station, right now.

[Mostly Harmless]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

 

There is no "dark matter." Prove me wrong.

 

I can no more prove you wrong than you can prove me wrong. We both have separate equations to how the universe was made. Your equation (and I am making the assumption that you are an atheist and believe whatever popular theory scientists are putting forth) requires a tremendous amount of material that has never been observed directly by human senses. My equation relies on an all-powerful being who has been reportedly observed by human senses, but I must admit not by mine. We are both walking by faith.

 

(I do, however, think about Douglas Adams' Babelfish when someone wants to prove God exists. If we could prove His existence, would He disappear? I don't think so, but it is an amusing thought.)

Ha! Love it!

[Mriana]

I think we're talking about different things, if I understand you correctly. The content of dreams vs the event of dreaming, two different things. The content of a dream can't be evidence, since evidence is something with certain conditions and criteria related to them. But regardless, someone is dreaming (as an event) is a fact.

 

Why conditions? As I said, there is a given energy transfer with the event of dreaming, so where is the energy for the content? Do you believe the content to be real?

They are just jumbled reflections of experiences.

 

Are you saying intent does not add something to a crime? Intent is intangible, right?

Intent is not a dream.

 

And is intent in itself a crime? Or does dreaming about a crime make you a criminal?

 

How can this be Hans?

Whatever. You're mixing multiple contexts into one big chaotic pot of ideas.

 

Again, what constitutes the product "content"?

Content is the content. The content of a movie is the story. The content of a dream is the imagery and mixed up stories. If you dream one night that you can fly, and the next night you dream you're a rock, does that prove that you are a flying rock?

 

To some extent, thinking makes you guilty as does a physical act.....because both are a product of your body.

 

Well then, I guess I'm in BIG trouble because I've just finished writing a sacrilegious smutty Star Trek fanfic. I'll hopefully have it on my website sometime next weekend. I also have a bet started with the author of "Confession of Sin", who's story inspired mine. The bet is, my story will get more of a reaction from the religious than hers did. However, I honestly didn't write it to get a reaction out of people. I just know it will though.

[Shyone]

And yeah, we are all sinners, so we all put a nail into Christ.....and I think that's the point even though you don't subscribe to it.

He died a long time ago - before I was born. I had nothing to do with it.

[Guest end3]

I don't follow your thoughts there. Sorry.

 

Just saying that the arrangement of brain cells, whatever arrangement it is for each of us, produces thought content that in fact make us guilty of having the thought. The statement is, if you subscribe to the potential to not having these thoughts, then you would no be guilty of having them.

 

Then you're a killer and should be put in jail, not only eternal torment, but by your own argument, you are in fact legally a murderer. If you have any level of decency and morality in you, you should report to the nearest police station, right now.

 

Right, that would be the argument for OT death....right now, bam, or pay atonement. But by our worldly standards, you would have to physically perpitrate the crime to be guilty.

[Ouroboros]

I don't follow your thoughts there. Sorry.

 

Just saying that the arrangement of brain cells, whatever arrangement it is for each of us, produces thought content that in fact make us guilty of having the thought. The statement is, if you subscribe to the potential to not having these thoughts, then you would no be guilty of having them.

It shows that you didn't follow my argument. I'm not sure if you mix it up on purpose or if you just didn't understand what I was saying.

 

Dreams are evidence for dreams. Thoughts are evidence of thoughts. But the content of the dreams or thoughts are not evidence for the things the person are dreaming or thinking of.

 

I'm not subscribing to not having or owning the thoughts or dreams, that's a gross misunderstanding of what I said.

 

Then you're a killer and should be put in jail, not only eternal torment, but by your own argument, you are in fact legally a murderer. If you have any level of decency and morality in you, you should report to the nearest police station, right now.

 

Right, that would be the argument for OT death....right now, bam, or pay atonement. But by our worldly standards, you would have to physically perpitrate the crime to be guilty.

No, I'm talking about American justice and crime in reality, not eternal torment or future punishment from Santa Claus. What you have been saying is that thinking about a crime makes a person a real criminal in this current world. So thinking about the Gospel story makes you a murderer and deserve 25 to life in one of our American prisons.

[Guest end3]

It shows that you didn't follow my argument. I'm not sure if you mix it up on purpose or if you just didn't understand what I was saying.

 

Dreams are evidence for dreams. Thoughts are evidence of thoughts. But the content of the dreams or thoughts are not evidence for the things the person are dreaming or thinking of.

 

I'm not subscribing to not having or owning the thoughts or dreams, that's a gross misunderstanding of what I said.

 

So you are saying that the only evidence for dreaming is physiological? Why would they have any function whatsoever if they had no content? Is a dream a dream without content? Is a thought a thought?

 

No, I'm talking about American justice and crime in reality, not eternal torment or future punishment from Santa Claus. What you have been saying is that thinking about a crime makes a person a real criminal in this current world. So thinking about the Gospel story makes you a murderer and deserve 25 to life in one of our American prisons.

 

No, if you go back a look at my statements, they are all consistent with the point I was trying to get across. You are the one the is declaring "real criminal in the current world", not I.

 

See, here is what I am trying to display. I am thinking in my mind that you are a jackass.....guilty. And by writing it down, now I am guilty of calling you a jackass by your standards. Easy enough.

[Ouroboros]

 

No, if you go back a look at my statements, they are all consistent with the point I was trying to get across. You are the one the is declaring "real criminal in the current world", not I.

 

See, here is what I am trying to display. I am thinking in my mind that you are a jackass.....guilty. And by writing it down, now I am guilty of calling you a jackass by your standards. Easy enough.

But that's not evidence for me being an jackass. It's only evidence for you believing that I am an jackass.

 

And that is inline with what I was saying, thinking a thing doesn't make it true, the only truth and evidence that it provides is that you thought that thought, not that the thought is true.

 

A book telling a story is not evidence for the story to be a true story in history, so it's not evidence in that sense.

 

But a book with a story is evidence of a book with a story. And that's where it ends.

 

Scientific evidence goes beyond just "a book with a story."

 

That's why I claim that a dream is not evidence of something beyond being just a dream dreamed by someone.

[Guest end3]

But that's not evidence for me being an jackass. It's only evidence for you believing that I am an jackass.

 

Right, but that doesn't remove my guilt of thinking it and perpitrating the description.

 

And that is inline with what I was saying, thinking a thing doesn't make it true, the only truth and evidence that it provides is that you thought that thought, not that the thought is true.

 

Although true that you may potentially not be a jackass, it is still true that I have thought it and perpitrated some action(s).....for example writing an offensive statement against another.

 

A book telling a story is not evidence for the story to be a true story in history, so it's not evidence in that sense.

 

So where do you place feelings, interpretations, etc...in the realm of reality?

 

But a book with a story is evidence of a book with a story. And that's where it ends.

 

I see where you are coming from, just think it improper to only look at the book that was typed and not read the story.

[Ouroboros]

End3,

 

I think our problem is that we're talking about two different things. That's why we have a hard time finding a common ground.

 

I was only talking about dreams and ideas as evidence for a scientific fact or the existence of something other than the dream or idea. A dream is the evidence of a dream. A feeling is the evidence for a feeling. I agree. But a feeling is not the evidence for dark matter. A dream is not the evidence for quantum physics. That's my point.

[LNC]

Time is an illusion. So is math. There is no perfect number 1's just floating around everywhere. It is an abstract concept created to define and measure this world. You need something unmovable and unchangable to measure against.. and so the magic math. It is very useful, practical, and repeatable-- it doesn't mean its real. Abstract is not real. Our money moves the world [seems real], but its just paper and if enough of it is printed its worthless. It's only real because we agree to honor it. The same with time-- its practical and used to track previous movement but it is abstract. You will never be able to go back in time, because there is only now.

 

I think you may be confusing the concept of abstract with the concept of illusion. Yes, these concepts (time and mathematics) are abstract, but that doesn't equate to them being illusory. If they are illusory, then math should not work out as it does and although time is relative to effects like gravity and velocity, we can account for them to come up with accurate measurements. We don't simply chalk up these measurements or science, which is reliant upon mathematics, as illusion. You yourself acknowledge this by saying that they are useful, practical, and even repeatable, can you say that about any other illusion? I tend to agree with you that we cannot go back in time as I hold to the tensed view of time. However, I don't know that I would agree with you regarding mathematics, nor do I believe would scientists.

 

Please define what you mean by real. Are you saying that all abstract concepts are not veridical? Maybe you could be a bit more precise as to what you are meaning here.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I'm not sure about that being a problem since all energy would be once again gathered in one spot. But in some sense I do agree. I'm not all convinced about the Big Crunch, but mostly because of the increasing expansion rate, rather than loss of energy after a crunch.

 

 

Even if energy were able to be gathered to one spot (i.e., the force of dark energy is reversed), we would still have a net loss of usable energy and the prevailing view is that there would not be enough energy to re-expand the universe. However, I agree that the increasing expansion rate appears to be a difficult problem for the Crunch view.

 

And I won't argue about the "Past Eternal" Universe. I have my views, and I'm not going to go that direction of discussion again.

 

OK

 

If there's not enough energy to inflate the universe after a crunch, then there's not enough energy to crunch it to begin with.

 

Think of the inflation/crunch as a pendulum, but a pendulum suspended and swinging in a non-friction environment. If it swings from point A to point B, then back to point A, what has chanced that it can't once again swing to point B?

 

The thoughts that all energy collected after a crunch wouldn't be "enough" to inflate the universe again looks like an attempt to apply classical physics (with loss of energy, friction, heat loss, etc) unto the physics of a Universe. I don't believe it can. The laws are different.

 

Like you said, we don't know what dark matter or dark energy is (which btw are two different things), so how can we say that there won't be this or that if A or B? We don't know enough to make absolute statements about how it works.

 

I would agree, that the crunch is the first problem with this model. Do you have any research to point to regarding your model? IOW, has anyone theorized and attempted to provide a model that dark energy would contribute to an eventual crunch and subsequent re-expansion?

 

LNC

[LNC]

One thing is clear however. The expansion and/or inflation of the universe is not some byproduct of "the big bang." It is an intrinsic property that may have consequences that are not currently known. I think that many people assume that the expansion is due to momentum from an "explosion", but that is grossly inaccurate.

 

When you say that expansion is an intrinsic property and not a result of the Big Bang, from where do you get this information? Do you have some research you could point to?

 

LNC

[LNC]

The main point here is-

 

There is no 'Real' evidence for God. I am going to grant a grace [i believe undeserved] and say there is no evidence for the contrary.

 

So let me ask you Christians, if there is no proof for or against, and I have demonstrated a possibility that everything has just existed in a cycle, why would you pick God?

 

Is it Pascals Wager?

 

Why 'if no proof exists' either way- would you choose to believe?

 

I don't get it. I really don't. I would think that if the evidence against God was shown to someone they would choose the real. Are there really 'ignorance is bliss' people out there?

 

 

I would disagree with you on your first premise, that there is no evidence for God. Secondly, I don't believe you have given adequate evidence that everything has just existed as a cycle. I think there is plenty of evidence to counter that claim.

 

Regarding Paschal's wager, I find that many people who refer to it have not read the Pensees from which it comes. Have you read Paschal's full argument from the Pensees to fully understand his argument? I think he gives plenty of proof there. Maybe you could go through and show me your refutation of them before concluding that there are no proofs for God's existence. He refers to the wager in light of the proofs, not in the absence of them.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

We are programmed via natural selection to survive LNC. Nature doesn't care if we disappear off the face of the earth [that explains the holocaust doesn't it?]. Society is civilization and natural selection and popularity will determine what is allowed. Sure there are leaders and kings but if they are bad enough they will be overthrown [natural selection]. Civilization exists because it helps humans survive and therefore most people live in civilization. Some still live isolated in the rain forrest-- and some are still cannibals. How can God explain that? What is objectively moral about that?

 

 

Natural selection is a description not a programmer. Natural selection has not programmed anything as it is not a thing in itself. Nature as well is a descriptor but not a thing in itself, so, there is no "nature" to care. No, that doesn't explain the holocaust as that was caused by people and those people were either programmed to commit those atrocities, or they had some inclination toward it, which goes against species survival as the killing of those people would have apparently been counter productive to species survival, wouldn't it. So, did the Nazis somehow work against their programming, as if that was possible, or did a virus get into their programming to cause them to do this? I don't see the overthrow of Hitler as a process of natural selection, but rather of intelligent causation on the part of human armies who crafted specific plans of action to accomplish that overthrow. Again, I asked you to define culture, which you haven't, but instead, throw out the term "civilization" which begs definition. How do you explain cannibals given the instinct to survive and the need for cultures and civilization to do so. Yet, these people have survived for a long time with this practice. I can explain it from a theistic viewpoint as the presence of evil in the heart of man brought on by his rebellion against God. However, you have no category for objective morality in your worldview, so whether someone is a cannibal or a doctor helping to cure the poor and sick, there is no objective moral difference.

 

Your right there is no "reason". Society exists because it increases survival. The things banned reduce survival [think about it]. It is might makes right, but the ultimate right is in numbers. People can overthrow a government if they want to bad enough.

 

Your right there is no oughtness by an abstract reason, but there is an oughtness prescribed by society [a more practical one].

 

We do think we can get along by our own rules. Prisons are full. People get DUI's everyday, there is: rape, murder, incest, polygamy, drugs, pissing in the bosses coffee pot, jerking off in public, and all sorts of nonsense.

 

You still haven't defined "society" yet you continue to use the term in an explanatory way. Please define and explain why it helps in survival. Does that mean that the larger the society, the more chance of survival? So, a small country with high technology weapons will be be at a disadvantage to a country with a larger population but poor technology? Why has Israel survived all of these years even though it is surrounded by enemies of larger populations? Answer: they have better weapons and better trained military. I'm not sure that I agree with you that things banned reduce survival. Would that include things like guns for criminals? How about laws that ban certain behavior, like murder?

 

You say that there is no oughtness by abstract reason, but that there is oughtness prescribed by society, but isn't society just an abstract concept? So, aren't you just substituting one abstract basis for another?

 

Regarding the rules, if they are merely subjective prescriptions, why should anyone obey them if they can get away with not doing so? Shouldn't we all just do what we want as long as we can get away with it?

 

But you cannot foresee ultimate effects of temporal events. None of us has an understanding of what our present day actions will mean to the future. So, we cannot make rules that will lead to the ultimate survival of the species as an end since we don't know for sure whether our rules will have that effect

.

 

We don't have to because natural selection does. If you break the rules you get killed or land in jail and can't mate. On the other hand if society does not have enough rules it just falls apart, and too many will lead to the same. People keep forming society because it helps survival. ei they make towns, cities, countries

 

Studies have shown that children raised in single parent households do not fair as well as children raised in stable two parent households. Yet, we see the continuing breakdown of the family and laws that are amenable to that end. I would ask you for statistics to show that people divorce to spread the gene pool. That seems like a rather ad hoc explanation and I doubt that you will be able to produce more than anecdotal information to back up that claim. Society doesn't effect a kid from a stable family, the parents do. So, if that is what you mean by society, then you have simply tried to form a definition to back up your claim, but instead you have diluted the definition to become meaningless to prove anything that you claim. In that case, every family unit would count as a society and would then be able to make its own rules for survival. Chaos would then ensue.

 

I said childred raised in single house holds do not fair as well didn't I? That's true, but man was not in cities for the first 195,000 years-- even longer if you go back to Lucy.. so it is a left over trait of evolution that pushes to break up relationships at 4-5 years not society. Im not going to write a research paper in here but a quick google will verify relationships averaging about 4-5 years.

 

The only reason a kid needs a stable family is modern society.. They dont do as well in school and career... not the same as hunter gatherer which is about the tribe, and the tribe will pick up the slack on an older boy-- the kid still needed a mom to breast feed him to another person being able to care for the kid

 

Why must it have a meaning? The universe doesn't have a meaning. Do you mean that science can't give you a ultimate purpose for your life so you wont accept it?

 

If nothing has a meaning or purpose, why not just do what you want. No, science can't give an ultimate purpose for life, science merely describes how things work. You are saying, in essence, that if we describe a how, we can determine a what. A friend of mine who is studying philosophy (and is an evolutionist) concluded this week that you cannot simply describe how and from what something is made and tell what it is (its purpose or telos). Suppose that you came across something that landed here from another planet with intelligent life (suppose it fell out of their craft and landed on earth) that we had never seen or seen anything like it. We could look at that thing and possibly tell what it was made of and maybe how it was put together, but that doesn't mean that we could tell what it was or what its intended purpose was. Only the designer could determine that. Now, we might come up with other possible uses for that thing, but it still would not necessarily be what the designer intended for it. Science could tell us the how, but not necessarily the what, that is outside of the domain of science.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Even if energy were able to be gathered to one spot (i.e., the force of dark energy is reversed), we would still have a net loss of usable energy and the prevailing view is that there would not be enough energy to re-expand the universe.

Where would the loss go? According to the laws of nature, energy is not lost. The universe is the total sum of all energy, kinetic, radioactive, all of it. To say that energy would go bye-bye to some unspecified void, outside of the universe, is just wrong.

 

So where would the loss go? If the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (the favorite argument from Christians) would apply to the Universe (i.e then it would be a closed system), then energy is NEVER lost (only transformed, but never gone).

 

In other words, if you admit that energy can disappear in the big crunch, you have to admit that the universe is an open system and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply. You can't have it both ways.

 

However, I agree that the increasing expansion rate appears to be a difficult problem for the Crunch view.

It sure is.

 

If there's not enough energy to inflate the universe after a crunch, then there's not enough energy to crunch it to begin with.

 

Think of the inflation/crunch as a pendulum, but a pendulum suspended and swinging in a non-friction environment. If it swings from point A to point B, then back to point A, what has chanced that it can't once again swing to point B?

 

The thoughts that all energy collected after a crunch wouldn't be "enough" to inflate the universe again looks like an attempt to apply classical physics (with loss of energy, friction, heat loss, etc) unto the physics of a Universe. I don't believe it can. The laws are different.

 

Like you said, we don't know what dark matter or dark energy is (which btw are two different things), so how can we say that there won't be this or that if A or B? We don't know enough to make absolute statements about how it works.

 

I would agree, that the crunch is the first problem with this model. Do you have any research to point to regarding your model? IOW, has anyone theorized and attempted to provide a model that dark energy would contribute to an eventual crunch and subsequent re-expansion?

Eh? No dark energy cannot contribute to an eventual crunch, it would be dark matter. But I'm not saying that his is "my" theory, or that this will be then end of the Universe. It's just one of the theories out there, and it seems a less likely theory now, at the moment, just because of the increasing speed of the expansion.

 

For sources, the idea has been out there for a very long time, just go to any website where they talk science, like this one http://www.windows2universe.org/the_universe/Crunch.html, and they say pretty much the same thing. If matter (including dark) has a larger force than the forces that makes it expand, or that the forces of matter eventually could overtake the expanding forces, the Universe would collapse into one singularity, and if the system is closed, all energy would be restored again. (According to this one: http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/big-crunch-theory)

 

But I'm not taking a standpoint if this theory (or hypothesis) is the correct one or not. I keep my mind open for all the alternatives.

 

This is a good article: http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-universe/big-crunch/

 

Perhaps I can sort out the confusion a little about dark energy and dark matter by first explaining that those are two opposite forces. Dark matter is what it says it is. It's matter with gravitational force pulling all other matter inward, but we can't see it. And it's a large part of the whole Universe, something like over 20%. While dark energy is the opposite. It's energy pushing everything away, and this force is more mysterious. No one really knows what force this is. Something is pushing all galaxies apart. It's stronger than the force from dark matter, and dark energy counts for over 70% of the total mass-energy in the Universe. In other words, the visible matter and the energy we can see or measure (radiation), is only around 5%.

[Ouroboros]

One thing is clear however. The expansion and/or inflation of the universe is not some byproduct of "the big bang." It is an intrinsic property that may have consequences that are not currently known. I think that many people assume that the expansion is due to momentum from an "explosion", but that is grossly inaccurate.

 

When you say that expansion is an intrinsic property and not a result of the Big Bang, from where do you get this information? Do you have some research you could point to?

 

LNC

Sorry to butt in here, but intrinsic property of the Universe and Big Bang are pretty much synonymous since they are relating to the same event/entity. There's a correlation between the event itself and the entity that exists because of the event.

 

And the reason why Shyone use the word intrinsic property to the Universe is because dark energy is that property. All energy and mass in the universe are properties of the universe.

 

As far as they know (now), dark energy does not have its source from some external place. It doesn't come from something outside of the Universe. But if it does, then we have some really cool things that would follow. Infinite energy. Infinite expansion. Infinite number of stars and galaxies. We could call that external source for meta-universe, branes, or God.

[Shyone]

One thing is clear however. The expansion and/or inflation of the universe is not some byproduct of "the big bang." It is an intrinsic property that may have consequences that are not currently known. I think that many people assume that the expansion is due to momentum from an "explosion", but that is grossly inaccurate.

 

When you say that expansion is an intrinsic property and not a result of the Big Bang, from where do you get this information? Do you have some research you could point to?

 

LNC

Not being a cosmologist, my reading is largely confined to books and web pages, so the summaries of the available research are the source for the comment.

 

Given two theories - one an explosion resulting in the dispersion of mass and the other an inflation of the universe from an intrinsic expansion, the latter seems to be what cosmologists have decided conforms with the data.

 

While Hubble's words were forgotten, the notion of the expansion of the universe became consensus. Until the theoretical developments in the 1980s no one had an explanation for why this seemed to be the case, but with the development of models of cosmic inflation, the expansion of the universe became a general feature resulting from vacuum decay. Accordingly, the question "why is the universe expanding?" is now answered by understanding the details of the inflation decay process which occurred in the first 10−32 seconds of the existence of our universe. It is suggested that in this time the metric itself changed exponentially, causing space to change from smaller than an atom to around 100 million light years across.

 

Again, not being an expert, I am only aware of a bit or two of the experiments that confirm this:

 

By observing distant, ancient exploding stars, physicists and astronomers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and elsewhere have determined that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate -- an observation that implies the existence of a mysterious, self-repelling property of space first proposed by Albert Einstein, which he called the cosmological constant. This extraordinary finding has been named Science magazine's "Breakthrough of the Year for 1998.

 

Hence, if it is accelerating, then it can't have resulted from a single explosive event that is slowing down by virtue of gravity.

 

If you don't mind, I'll leave it at that. I'm really not up to anything more detailed, but it should be easy to find tons more information about cosmological expansion.

[Guest Justyna]

Why do you all need all this proof? Why cant you have faith and just believe? Is that so hard to ask for?

[Astreja]

Why do you all need all this proof? Why cant you have faith and just believe? Is that so hard to ask for?

That's just it, Justyna. In My case, if I pretended to have faith and pretended to believe I would know from the outset that I was trying to trick My mind into an untenable position.

 

That untenable position is the psychological state called cognitive dissonance, which is a very unpleasant mental state indeed: When you try to hold two contradictory ideas in your mind at the same time, it tends to be "resolved" by ignoring one idea and clinging desperately to the other.

 

This is not an actual resolution; it is the denial of reality. It's the mindset of a woman with purpling bruises on her face, protesting that she still loves her abusive spouse. It's the mindset of someone who buys a lottery ticket with the last of their cash, with the memory of their previous failure to win the lottery still fresh in their minds.

 

We choose reality, Justyna, because our lives have far more integrity that way.

[Guest Justyna]

You have been deceived by the world and all its "logic." You think it is true, when actually Gods ways are higher than this world's ways. To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real. I used to think I was brainwashed too, I have since changed my mind. I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

[Darklady]

You have been deceived by the world and all its "logic." You think it is true, when actually Gods ways are higher than this world's ways. To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real. I used to think I was brainwashed too, I have since changed my mind. I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

 

you meationed in another thread that you stopped taking your meds, prehaps you should start again as you seem rather delusional.

[buffettphan]

Why do you all need all this proof? Why cant you have faith and just believe? Is that so hard to ask for?

 

 

Spoken like one fully brainwashed in christinsanity.

 

There are leprechauns living in my basement. Really there are. I'm Irish. All true Irish people have them. It's in my bible, The Irish Book Of Fairy Tales.

 

Proof? I don't need proof. You just need to have faith and believe. Is that so hard to ask for?

 

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Why do you all need all this proof? Why cant you have faith and just believe? Is that so hard to ask for?

Need all this proof? Eh? Did your mom drop you on the head when you were little, or something?