anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[DanInPA]

KH>

And where am I required to do a miracle?

 

Right here.

Mark 16:17-18 (KJV)

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There, Kevin. Drink a bottle of Drano™ and live, or go to a hospital and heal a terminal patient, or ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG.

 

And don't give us that shit about those verses "not in the earliest manuscripts". There are no ORIGINAL manuscripts. These verses are in almost all bibles. Or is "almighty god" sloppy about what goes into his "holy word"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's some more:

John 14:12-14 (KJV)

12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Unless you can perform one of these miracles, I will assume that you don't really "believe" and I will not not listen to any of your bullshit.

 

Buh-bye!

 

Dan

 

PS

Why do you people make us look this shit up for you? Don't you know your "god's word"?

[Taphophilia]

Niiiice Taph!

 

Kevin will likely pretend it's not there though............

 

debating 10 years, and doesn't even know the history of the biggest thorn in the Jesus myth's side?

 

Interesting.

 

I suppose that's possible.......OH! Wait! I'm assuming those 10 years of debate included research into the topics being debated!

 

I'm such a square! Me! Thinking Kevin would actually do research to support his positions!!!!!!

 

 

I should know better by now!

 

I had thought he might disregard it. However, maybe he will get some pointers on how to respond in a quote so everybody can easily understand it and not give people a headache attempting to read his responses.

 

Taph

[Ssel]

How about a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful being? Can one exist? Nope. If you know the future perfectly then that is the future that must occur. An all powerful being should be able to do anything though. However, if this being were to use its power to alter the future then the future that it knew prior to this change was not, in fact, the future at all since it never came to be. Since the future cannot be altered and allow this being to maintain the claim of all-knowing then that being cannot be all-powerful as well as it lacks the ability to make changes that can affect its already known future. This effectly remove free-will from this being as it must do what it already knows it must do to avoid violating its own trait of being all-knowing.

 

This cannot be explained away, ..

On a different thread sometime, I can "explain" all of that. But realize how few out of billions have "seen" this God they are all talking about. Both Moses and Jesus nearly died in their humble attempt to fix a problem. Are you willing to take even one tenth of the journey they took so as to earn the right to see what so few others claim to have seen? Of course not, because when you did not see, you accepted that there was nothing to see. Who would go to so much trouble on mere speculation?

 

Answer: Only those who very, very seriously want to fix something that seems unfixable by any current means - those who have earned the right to see what hasn't been seen by everyone else.

 

[Ouroboros]

You know... just being omnipotent is enough to show it can't exist.

 

If it's omnipotent, it can do anything. (try to follow this, Kevin... it requires logic and reason, so you're gonna have trouble with it)

If it can do anything, it can (just to pluck a random example out of the air) create a rock so heavy it can't lift it. Of course, since it's omnipotent, it can lift any rock no matter how heavy... otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent. (with me so far Kevin?)

But, if it can lift any rock no matter how heavy, then it can't create one too heavy for it to lift... which means it's not omnipotent. (oops... bet you didn't see that one coming...)

 

Ergo, an omnipotent being is proven not to exist, and since the Christian God is omnipotent, the Christian God is proven not to exist. (which is just what you asked us to prove)

...

 

Or another spin on it: If God can do anything, can he make himself disappear and move himself out of existence? If not, then he's not that all powerful, if he can, can he even be sure he can, since he has never tried? Or maybe the answer is that he could, and he did, so God is no more! Hehe...

[SkepticOfBible]

On a different thread sometime, I can "explain" all of that. But realize how few out of billions have "seen" this God they are all talking about. Both Moses and Jesus nearly died in their humble attempt to fix a problem.

 

Thank you for using the correct words. Yes, Ssel, at the end of the day they are only claims. They are thousand of people in this world(including christians) who also claim that they have seen "God". heck man, even Reverand Moon and Joseph claimed to have seen the christian god.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that these are false and the one claimed by Moses and Jesus are true?

 

Both Moses and Jesus nearly died in their humble attempt to fix a problem. Are you willing to take even one tenth of the journey they took so as to earn the right to see what so few others claim to have seen?

 

What did Moses do that so was so extraordinary? Let's see

 

According to 2 Chron. 30:16 Moses was the man of God; yet, he murdered an Egyptian (Ex. 2:12), ordered an army attack (Num. 31:3, 6), ordered the murder of prisoners (Num. 31:17), ordered the keeping of young female prisoners for several reasons (Num. 31:18), led mass killings of women and children (Deut. 2:34, 3:3, 6), ordered killings (Deut. 13:15,20:13), blasphemously wrote he was a greater prophet than Jesus (Deut. 34:10 NASB), had a son out of wedlock (Ex. 2:21-22), and was excluded by God from Canaan for four different reasons: unbelief (Num. 20:12), rebellion (Num. 27:12-14 RSV), trespassing (Deut. 32:51-52), and rash words (Psalm 106: 32-33 NIV).

 

Apparently if anyone opposed Moses, God will come down in pillar of cloud and give them diseases like leprosy (Num 15)

 

Still want others to go through Moses way?

 

Atleast Gandhi and Buddha have got far better character than Moses. Unfortunately both of them are gonna burn in hell.

 

But wait a minute so will Moses since he never accepted Jesus Christ as his personal saviour.

[Saviourmachine]

How about a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful being? Can one exist? Nope. If you know the future perfectly then that is the future that must occur. An all powerful being should be able to do anything though. However, if this being were to use its power to alter the future then the future that it knew prior to this change was not, in fact, the future at all since it never came to be. Since the future cannot be altered and allow this being to maintain the claim of all-knowing then that being cannot be all-powerful as well as it lacks the ability to make changes that can affect its already known future. This effectly remove free-will from this being as it must do what it already knows it must do to avoid violating its own trait of being all-knowing.

You seem to imply one future and therefore determinism. If there does exist real chance, god does have to know not only one future, but all the futures. He has to know the forest, not just some path through it.

If this being can alter everything, it can also alter his own knowledge. It can also impose limits on his knowledge and choose to forget things. A being that can do everything that is possible is different from one that can do everything that is impossible too. Last, but not least, these terms are just philosophical labels created by bored theologians. I don't want to become one of them.

[Ssel]

What did Moses do that so was so extraordinary? ..

 

At least Gandhi and Buddha have got far better character than Moses. Unfortunately both of them are gonna burn in hell.

The thing that you are leaving out is what allowed him to see what he saw. That was the discussion. I agree that Moses was NOT a saintly character in many regards. I said nothing of being saintly.

 

What Moses did was humbly face the desolation of the desert for 40 years. This is a method, accidental or not, that causes a purifying of the mind and a facing of reality. His experience and concerns were those of conflict and war. He surmised what was "needed" from the perspective of a general. But he saw what he saw due to his Journey through desolation.

 

"Buddha" did the same as he gave in to severe depression under that famous tree. It is a process of giving up on all of your misunderstandings and presumptions. Eventually a more solid reality can be seen by the mind, being void of so much prior guess work.

 

Mohammed did similar (somewhat forced into it much as Moses).

 

I am not saying that such a journey will directly demand the "seeing". This is one of the fallacies of Buddhism and Zen. But that makes it even more difficult to do merely on speculation.

 

They each sought so desperately to find what no one else had seen, that they finally found what they perceived the entire game to be about.

 

How many people are willing to earn the right to see what none others have - only to be told later that because they don't see it, it isn't there. They saw many things that were the same as those before them and gave credit. But they each saw something new which they had sought.

 

Is anyone seeking a solution?

Is anyone "praying" (seeking) a "heaven on Earth"? Or are they merely harassing those they perceive as the "bad guys" with the all too common presumption that once the bad guys are gone, it will all be SO much better. Don't you think that if such a simple minded solution worked, it would have been done thousands of years ago by the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Indians, someone?

 

There was misery long before there were Christians and every other religion and government. To accept there is no solution is to be typical and normal, thus you deserve to see exactly what the normal typical person sees and nothing more.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

"Buddha" did the same as he gave in to severe depression under that famous tree. It is a process of giving up on all of your misunderstandings and presumptions. Eventually a more solid reality can be seen by the mind, being void of so much prior guess work.

 

Mohammed did similar (somewhat forced into it much as Moses).

 

I am not saying that such a journey will directly demand the "seeing". This is one of the fallacies of Buddhism and Zen. But that makes it even more difficult to do merely on speculation.

 

 

 

So are saying that Mohammed and Buddha saw god too just like Moses and Jesus?

[Ssel]

So are saying that Mohammed and Buddha saw god too just like Moses and Jesus?

As I said once before, the single most significant characteristic of any definition of a god is that they have effect. Considering the millions of people prattling around these and the other famed figures, can you honestly believe they saw nothing which yielded very significant effect?

 

Buddha brought serenity to millions who had known very little more than disease, contention, and misery, creating the influential and long lasting “Buddhism”.

 

Moses took on the unconquerable Pharaoh so as to free a group of slaves. The Pharaoh fought him so desperately so as to totally destroy all of Egypt. Moses and his slaves walked away from a destroyed empire, creating the influential and long lasting Judaism.

 

Jesus brought a sense of love and peace to a people smothered in conflict, disease, and suspicion, creating the influential and long lasting Christianity.

 

Mohammed brought unity and civilization to a people who, by our standards, would have appeared as no more than desperately superstitious, uncivilized animals, creating the influential and long lasting Islam.

 

Each of these men utilized what they saw in the manner they could manage so as to address the problems they faced. But what they accomplished is a reflection of what they saw. Can you say that any of these men saw nothing of significant and substantial effect?

 

As each man, these and others, sees what will create very serious and substantial effect, “God” receives a new name. The given names of God are not mere labels but descriptors of their method. Each saw what they believed to be an unstoppable force. For thousands of years each still remains unstopped. Were they wrong?

 

But of course the question was, “did they each see the same cause to such significant effects?" I would say that they each saw another piece of the same fundamental cause to every effect. They saw as much as they were willing to strive to see.

 

If Jesus was willing to stop when he saw the method of Satanism, then would he have ever seen any more?

 

Moses saw enough to conquer his foe with a staff, how much more would he have seen if he kept looking?

 

Buddha saw enough to feel serenity in a time of misery. Would he have seen more if he had kept waiting for more answers?

 

They each sought and found what they were looking for to solve the problems they were addressing. Each accepted that there could be nothing greater than what they had found.

 

Each of them took a long and stressful journey to try to resolve very serious problems. Their solutions were not simple minded else anyone would have seen them long before.

 

But did any of them seek the final answer to all problems, even the problem of having no more problems to resolve? It is only by seeking this, that any can see what we today call “God”.

 

I have been led by that one question for as long as I can remember. I have taken that journey that Buddha took and saw what he saw and why. I have, unwittingly and undesiringly, took the journey that Moses took and saw the bush and staff that he saw and why. I have kept climbing the mountain beyond unsatisfactory solutions as the journey that Jesus took and saw what he saw and why. I looked at both the height and destiny of Islam and the Hindu.

 

I have taken the required journey to earn the right to peer through the clouds and see the cause of eternalness, of the real Heaven on Earth, and the absolutely unstoppable force that will soon consume all before it and all after it. I possess nothing of my own fore to truly earn one thing of most importance, all else must be willingly given. I am older than you think. I know tomorrow’s name for God and I am tired. I am not a holy man by a long shot, but when it comes to the “holy spirit”, you might say that I have occasional visiting rights.

[Cerise]

 

*koff*

 

suuuuuure....

[spamandham]

So are saying that Mohammed and Buddha saw god too just like Moses and Jesus?

As I said once before, the single most significant characteristic of any definition of a god is that they have effect. Considering the millions of people prattling around these and the other famed figures, can you honestly believe they saw nothing which yielded very significant effect?

 

Yes, I can believe that. I can believe they had an experience, without also believing there is an objective reality transcending the self that is beyond that experience and responsible for it. Why can such an experience not be within the mind itself?

[SkepticOfBible]

So are saying that Mohammed and Buddha saw god too just like Moses and Jesus?

As I said once before, the single most significant characteristic of any definition of a god is that they have effect. Considering the millions of people prattling around these and the other famed figures, can you honestly believe they saw nothing which yielded very significant effect?

 

Buddha brought serenity to millions who had known very little more than disease, contention, and misery, creating the influential and long lasting “Buddhism”.

 

Moses took on the unconquerable Pharaoh so as to free a group of slaves. The Pharaoh fought him so desperately so as to totally destroy all of Egypt. Moses and his slaves walked away from a destroyed empire, creating the influential and long lasting Judaism.

 

Jesus brought a sense of love and peace to a people smothered in conflict, disease, and suspicion, creating the influential and long lasting Christianity.

 

Mohammed brought unity and civilization to a people who, by our standards, would have appeared as no more than desperately superstitious, uncivilized animals, creating the influential and long lasting Islam.

 

Each of these men utilized what they saw in the manner they could manage so as to address the problems they faced. But what they accomplished is a reflection of what they saw. Can you say that any of these men saw nothing of significant and substantial effect?

 

As each man, these and others, sees what will create very serious and substantial effect, “God” receives a new name. The given names of God are not mere labels but descriptors of their method. Each saw what they believed to be an unstoppable force. For thousands of years each still remains unstopped. Were they wrong?

 

But of course the question was, “did they each see the same cause to such significant effects?" I would say that they each saw another piece of the same fundamental cause to every effect. They saw as much as they were willing to strive to see.

 

If Jesus was willing to stop when he saw the method of Satanism, then would he have ever seen any more?

 

Moses saw enough to conquer his foe with a staff, how much more would he have seen if he kept looking?

 

Buddha saw enough to feel serenity in a time of misery. Would he have seen more if he had kept waiting for more answers?

 

Then I suppose you would no doubt extend the same kind of recognition to Joseph Smith and Reverand Moon, since there are also "millions of people prattling around these famed figures"

 

They each sought and found what they were looking for to solve the problems they were addressing. Each accepted that there could be nothing greater than what they had found.

 

Each of them took a long and stressful journey to try to resolve very serious problems. Their solutions were not simple minded else anyone would have seen them long before.

 

But did any of them seek the final answer to all problems, even the problem of having no more problems to resolve? It is only by seeking this, that any can see what we today call “God”.

 

May I deduce that you consider Jesus a mere mortal being than a god.

 

I have been led by that one question for as long as I can remember. I have taken that journey that Buddha took and saw what he saw and why. I have, unwittingly and undesiringly, took the journey that Moses took and saw the bush and staff that he saw and why. I have kept climbing the mountain beyond unsatisfactory solutions as the journey that Jesus took and saw what he saw and why. I looked at both the height and destiny of Islam and the Hindu.

 

I have taken the required journey to earn the right to peer through the clouds and see the cause of eternalness, of the real Heaven on Earth, and the absolutely unstoppable force that will soon consume all before it and all after it. I possess nothing of my own fore to truly earn one thing of most importance, all else must be willingly given. I am older than you think. I know tomorrow’s name for God and I am tired. I am not a holy man by a long shot, but when it comes to the “holy spirit”, you might say that I have occasional visiting rights.

 

 

Well if you say so. Congratulation then. Try explaining to fundamentalist christians like Kevin that you have earned eternal life through your "works".

[Vigile]

I have taken the required journey to earn the right to peer through the clouds and see the cause of eternalness, of the real Heaven on Earth, and the absolutely unstoppable force that will soon consume all before it and all after it. I possess nothing of my own fore to truly earn one thing of most importance, all else must be willingly given. I am older than you think. I know tomorrow’s name for God and I am tired. I am not a holy man by a long shot, but when it comes to the “holy spirit”, you might say that I have occasional visiting rights.

 

Are you out of your fucking mind?

 

Are you offering discount tithing to charter followers?

[Amethyst]

I know tomorrow’s name for God and I am tired.

 

Okay, then. What is it?

[Mythra]

II have taken the required journey to earn the right to peer through the clouds and see the cause of eternalness, of the real Heaven on Earth, and the absolutely unstoppable force that will soon consume all before it and all after it. I possess nothing of my own fore to truly earn one thing of most importance, all else must be willingly given. I am older than you think. I know tomorrow’s name for God and I am tired. I am not a holy man by a long shot, but when it comes to the “holy spirit”, you might say that I have occasional visiting rights.

 

I have taken some required journeys too. And I peer into you and see that you are full of self-aggrandizing bullshit.

[ExRC]

morality proves the existance of a programer

 

gravy proves the existence of a turtle

 

See, kids? It's easy to make shit up!

 

 

LMAO! For some reason I found that really fucking funny!

[All Gods Fail]

I have taken the required journey to earn the right to peer through the clouds and see the cause of eternalness, of the real Heaven on Earth, and the absolutely unstoppable force that will soon consume all before it and all after it. I possess nothing of my own fore to truly earn one thing of most importance, all else must be willingly given. I am older than you think. I know tomorrow’s name for God and I am tired. I am not a holy man by a long shot, but when it comes to the “holy spirit”, you might say that I have occasional visiting rights.

 

No offense, but you're still way off, Ssel. I've done all that and more, and I can tell you exactly what the secret of life is. And you couldn't be farther away from it. Complexity of thought only clouds the issue, and anything man-made (like the bible) isn't even close.

 

I'll give you another hint - it's not what you discover, it's what discovers you.

[Ssel]

I have taken some required journeys too. And I peer into you and see that you are full of self-aggrandizing bullshit.

I had little doubt that such would be the response. So be it.

[mwc]

You seem to imply one future and therefore determinism. If there does exist real chance, god does have to know not only one future, but all the futures. He has to know the forest, not just some path through it.

If this being can alter everything, it can also alter his own knowledge. It can also impose limits on his knowledge and choose to forget things. A being that can do everything that is possible is different from one that can do everything that is impossible too. Last, but not least, these terms are just philosophical labels created by bored theologians. I don't want to become one of them.

Well, you'd be right except for the whole perspective issue. Looking forward there might be an infinite number of possible paths to be taken but looking back only one path was ever taken (I'm assuming a singular universe here since an omniverse complicates things a bit more). Since this being ("god" is you will) is supposedly outside of time and its constraints he would be in the position to see exactly which path is/was the path which makes all others irrelevant.

 

Also, I would say that the ability to alter, or forget, the knowledge of an all-knowing being is not possible to do and remain all-knowing. If this being were to "forget" something on purpose then it could never get that information back as it would not know that it ever knew it. If it did know this then it never truly "forgot" the information. So any information "lost" for any reason causes this being to cease being all-knowing. The same goes if this being "alters" information. If the knowledge of the "altered" information is "forgotten," well, see what I just said. If not, then it doesn't know what it used to know and this also causes it to cease being all-knowing. The only thing that can happen is that this being can wilfully choose what it does with all the information it has (although it must act accordingly and therefore cannot change its own destiny without falsifying its own knowledge).

 

mwc

[mwc]

Sweet... she was all-knowing too. (well, she knew when I'd been bad...)

My mom happens to possess this very same trait. Spooky.

 

I claim that most moms I've met far surpass bible-god (any one of the 3) in just about every single aspect. My mom gave me life, support, nurturing, comfort, discipline, understanding and love. I know she would have died to protect me and, get this, she can actually carry on a real two-way conversation with me. It's all fact and provable. Lets see bible-god do any of those things!

 

You know... just being omnipotent is enough to show it can't exist.

Yeah, I know but I wanted to use a different two items than what you chose in your example.

 

The omni-everything "god" simply cannot exist as it contradicts itself right out of existance. So I'm now willing to concede that bible-god might have existed (came into existance/contradicted itself/winked out of existance...talk about a failure of evolution) for whatever the smallest possible length of time that there might be...but probably not.

 

mwc

[mwc]

On a different thread sometime, I can "explain" all of that. But realize how few out of billions have "seen" this God they are all talking about. Both Moses and Jesus nearly died in their humble attempt to fix a problem.

Feel free to start the thread and give your "explanation." You can be certain I'll read it when I see it.

 

You can also explain the "problem" that Moses and Jesus nearly died to fix (I thought the bible said jesus died? I must have the wrong one.). Was it the problem that they were invented characters in a story?

 

Are you willing to take even one tenth of the journey they took so as to earn the right to see what so few others claim to have seen? Of course not, because when you did not see, you accepted that there was nothing to see. Who would go to so much trouble on mere speculation?

You know, you can have your pseudo-xianity. I don't really care but stop being so damned condescending! For someone who's "enlightened" (or pretending to be) you sure have one hell of an attitude about it.

 

If one-tenth of the journey is "opening" my mind to the "knowledge" contained in some old books since I want to "believe" there is some ancient insight that has been "lost" then you're out of luck. Those people, just like all that came after, all had wisdom in one form or another. I can read fairy tales (stories written primarily for that purpose and not "religion") and come away with better insight than given in most religious texts...especially if that religion is the judeo/xian/muslem tradition.

 

I don't totally grasp your flavor of belief but I get the concept and the "new age" style trappings that is intertwined with it. Nifty. You're trying to teach that old dog xianity a new trick.

 

Answer: Only those who very, very seriously want to fix something that seems unfixable by any current means - those who have earned the right to see what hasn't been seen by everyone else.

To what end? Are you going to bible heaven? Are you simply "transending" or some related thing? What is the end result of your beliefs? You discount the bible as literal, except where it suits you) the opposite of most "real" xians). You've done no better than any other xians in "proving" your position. You simply have a position that is next to impossible to pin down. This doesn't make it better or more "right" in any way. You still have the same burden of showing the "insight" or "wisdom" contained within is really from a god and that we are to "use" it somehow.

 

Sorry for the rant but take it down a notch unless you can actually prove something instead of just regurgitating old the hippie-isms of "free your mind" and all that.

 

mwc

 

 

I have taken the required journey to earn the right to peer through the clouds and see the cause of eternalness, of the real Heaven on Earth, and the absolutely unstoppable force that will soon consume all before it and all after it. I possess nothing of my own fore to truly earn one thing of most importance, all else must be willingly given. I am older than you think. I know tomorrow’s name for God and I am tired. I am not a holy man by a long shot, but when it comes to the “holy spirit”, you might say that I have occasional visiting rights.

And I have seen the past littered with the bodies of people like you and any unfortunate followers they might have. Prove yourself old wise sage. Prove yourself.

 

mwc

[Guest Guest]

I can point you in the direction that there is a God.

 

1. The alternitives for the origin of life do not make sense. The alternitive states that our organized universe came from nowhere. To go into detal I will use what I call the theory of Zero Space AKA Absolute Zero. If you draw a number line in your head, start at 2 and by halves work your way to 0. half of 2 is one half of one is 1, half of 1 is 1/2, half of 1/2 is 1/4. As you will soon realize, you will never reach 0.

 

With this in mind lets look at something in a room lets say a wooden table. The table is made of wood, wood is made from trees, trees form plants, plants from grass, grass from roots, roots from atoms, atmos form electrons, protons, and neurtons. Logically something must make up electrons, protons, and neurtons, and what ever makes them up has to be made of something else. If we are to accecpt that there is no divine intervention then me must accept that these pieces of matter are spontanelsy appearing with no orginized fassion. The only rational explination is that something outside the limits of matter that does not need to be made of anything else is holding the first piece.

 

2. If there is no God then there are no laws. Why? Because if there is no God then we came from nothing and the product of nothing is still nothing, therefore if a person murders someone else then using transitive reasoning we must conclude that nothing killed nothing and if nothing was killed then there is no crime.

 

 

3. There is no other rational explination for the origin of laguages. It does not make sense for billions of people to suddenly decide to speak an entirly new language unless something supernatural had a hand in it.

 

These are just a few reasons I can offer you at the moment. I hope I have been of assistance. I hope and pray for the best.

[crazy-tiger]

I can point you in the direction that there is a God.

 

1. The alternitives for the origin of life do not make sense. The alternitive states that our organized universe came from nowhere. To go into detal I will use what I call the theory of Zero Space AKA Absolute Zero. If you draw a number line in your head, start at 2 and by halves work your way to 0. half of 2 is one half of one is 1, half of 1 is 1/2, half of 1/2 is 1/4. As you will soon realize, you will never reach 0.

The alternative doesn't state that at all, it's a strawman.

With this in mind lets look at something in a room lets say a wooden table. The table is made of wood, wood is made from trees, trees form plants, plants from grass, grass from roots, roots from atoms, atmos form electrons, protons, and neurtons. Logically something must make up electrons, protons, and neurtons, and what ever makes them up has to be made of something else. If we are to accecpt that there is no divine intervention then me must accept that these pieces of matter are spontanelsy appearing with no orginized fassion. The only rational explination is that something outside the limits of matter that does not need to be made of anything else is holding the first piece.

Guess what? Certain particles have been observed to appear out of nothing...

2. If there is no God then there are no laws. Why? Because if there is no God then we came from nothing and the product of nothing is still nothing, therefore if a person murders someone else then using transitive reasoning we must conclude that nothing killed nothing and if nothing was killed then there is no crime.

Ah... the delights of using a strawman.

 

Again, the alternatives to God include there being something we came from. (eternal matter) Kinda kills your argument stone-dead.

3. There is no other rational explination for the origin of laguages. It does not make sense for billions of people to suddenly decide to speak an entirly new language unless something supernatural had a hand in it.

You're right... it doesn't make sense. Then again, it never happened like that so your strawman argument (yes, that's 3 of them) doesn't work at all...

These are just a few reasons I can offer you at the moment. I hope I have been of assistance. I hope and pray for the best.

Please... offer some more. But this time, try offering reasons that aren't strawmen.

 

 

On second thoughts, keep offering the same kind of reasons... we could do with the reminder of the irrationality we left. (and a damn good laugh too...)

[Ouroboros]

I can point you in the direction that there is a God.

 

1. The alternitives for the origin of life do not make sense. The alternitive states that our organized universe came from nowhere. To go into detal I will use what I call the theory of Zero Space AKA Absolute Zero. If you draw a number line in your head, start at 2 and by halves work your way to 0. half of 2 is one half of one is 1, half of 1 is 1/2, half of 1/2 is 1/4. As you will soon realize, you will never reach 0.

And that explains God? So God is of infinite existence, and whatever was before the Universe and Big Bang could not? Why? Why couldn't it be a so called White Hole that existed "before" the Universe came to existence? Before time and space.

 

With this in mind lets look at something in a room lets say a wooden table. The table is made of wood, wood is made from trees, trees form plants, plants from grass, grass from roots, roots from atoms, atmos form electrons, protons, and neurtons. Logically something must make up electrons, protons, and neurtons, and what ever makes them up has to be made of something else. If we are to accecpt that there is no divine intervention then me must accept that these pieces of matter are spontanelsy appearing with no orginized fassion. The only rational explination is that something outside the limits of matter that does not need to be made of anything else is holding the first piece.

So God is creating matter all the time? Why don't we see matter come into existence randomly everywhere then? Why does matter follow strict laws and rules? Unless maybe God is a mechanized robot that govern everything, but without any morals, purpose or insights.

 

2. If there is no God then there are no laws. Why? Because if there is no God then we came from nothing and the product of nothing is still nothing, therefore if a person murders someone else then using transitive reasoning we must conclude that nothing killed nothing and if nothing was killed then there is no crime.

Look at physicis. There are physical laws that are not broken or changed over time, without morals or ethics or divine intervention. So things can behave organized without God. So can people. When it comes to religious morals, then my question is why so many Christians have no problem killing their enemies or supporting death penalty. Is killing wrong or is it not, or is killing allowed in certain circumstances even for a Christian?

 

3. There is no other rational explination for the origin of laguages. It does not make sense for billions of people to suddenly decide to speak an entirly new language unless something supernatural had a hand in it.

*Bullshit!*

 

These are just a few reasons I can offer you at the moment. I hope I have been of assistance. I hope and pray for the best.

You attack an elephant with a toygun and expect to take him down. Sorry, but you are the weakest link, bye bye...

[Amethyst]

3. There is no other rational explination for the origin of laguages. It does not make sense for billions of people to suddenly decide to speak an entirly new language unless something supernatural had a hand in it.

 

Have you studied linguistics even remotely? Languages evolve over time (yeah, there's that "evil" word, evolve). Look at Shakespearan English and modern day English. There's nothing supernatural or magical about languages changing over time. You are deluded if you think otherwise.