ISRAEL PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

God has no beginning or end—He CREATED time. It’s not logical but who says God must live within OUR logic?

This is mere assertion.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Who says God can’t be both?

Logic says so.  Follow the progression:

 

If I have free will, then I can do something god doesn't know I will do.

 

If god doesn't know I will do it, then god is not omniscient. 

 

If god does know I will do it, then it has been pre-ordained and I actually do not have free will.

 

If god knows what I will do, then he cannot change what I will do.  Therefore, he is not omnipotent. 

 

So, if we have free will, as you have claimed, then god can either be omniscient or he can be omnipotent.  But he cannot be both.

[alreadyGone]

Words have meanings.

Honesty dictates that we behave accordingly.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Words have meanings.

Honesty dictates that we behave accordingly.

Do you really think that words have meanings? 

 

Or is it that meanings have words? 

 

What is more real?  Four letters L-O-V-E.  Or the feelings those letters represent?    F-E-A-R, or the memories that word evokes?

 

Not trying to be deep or anything.  Just wondering if sometimes we do look at certain things backwards.

[nontheistpilgrim]

18 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not an atheist. 

Neither am I. But I'm getting there fast. My nontheism attempts to respect those who have gods.

[alreadyGone]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you really think that words have meanings? 

 

Or is it that meanings have words? 

 

What is more real?  Four letters L-O-V-E.  Or the feelings those letters represent?    F-E-A-R, or the memories that word evokes?

 

Not trying to be deep or anything.  Just wondering if sometimes we do look at certain things backwards.

 

Yes, I do. That is the purpose of words.

 

I was referring to your post just prior to mine.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Yes, I do. That is the purpose of words.

 

I was referring to your post just prior to mine.

Please, do elaborate. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

DarkBishop—

 

That was quite a long post. 1942-1945 Satan attempts to WIPE OUT The Jews. 6 million of them die. Why? He knows that prophecy states there must be Jews to turn to their Messiah as a NATION in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. So he reasons (and Satan is insane) that if he can destroy the Jews they CANNOT form a nation who turns back to their Messiah. And thus, prophecy can NEVER be fulfilled.

 

God “allows” the “attempt” (why? Only God knows) and Satan fails. He kills 6 million Jews though. Now consider this— Only (3) years later Israel becomes THAT NATION Satan was attempting to destroy. God FULFILLS His prophecy ANYWAY. At the SAME TIME the Dead Sea Scrolls are found after 2000 years in hiding. God orchestrates both events. My friends don’t be WILFULLY BLIND. It is right in front of you but you are refusing to acknowledge it. And that is very sad.

 

Your being willfully blind to what scholars are discovering in the very dead sea scrolls you speak of. 

 

Your being willfully blind that if the Jewish God is real he is evil. He let 6 million jews die. The other 3 million were on deaths doorstep. And the United nations were left with the problem of.... what do we do with 3 million displaced jews? They had to make room for them somewhere. 

 

Your being willfully blind that "Gods temple" is being managed by a someone to this day who is not Jewish, which is completely against scripture. 

 

Your being willfully blind that the Biblical account has no tangible proof to speak of. You ask us to believe in fairy tales. We are asking you to consider the facts with a rational open mind. 

 

DB

[Fish153]

Just to point out. Because I leave for some time it doesn't mean I've abandoned ship. I'll come back as long as I'm not banned. Thanks. Ihave to work etc too, so I may be gone for a day. But I'll be back.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, nontheistpilgrim said:

Neither am I. But I'm getting there fast. My nontheism attempts to respect those who have gods.

My philosophy encourages compassion for all living beings; but is it still required if the person puts so little thought into life that they may as well be brain-dead?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Just to point out. Because I leave for some time it doesn't mean I've abandoned ship. I'll come back as long as I'm not banned. Thanks. Ihave to work etc too, so I may be gone for a day. But I'll be back.

Does your work involve fixing your bicycle and setting up your tent?

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

Redneck——

 

Who says God can’t be both? You?  Nothing “precludes” it. God created us, we didn’t create God. Must God answer to OUR logic? Says who? You? This is the atheists major problem. To them everything has a beginning and an end. They REFUSE to believe that someone CREATED time and is not constrained by it. God has no beginning or end—He CREATED time. It’s not logical but who says God must live within OUR logic?

 

If we were created in his image and likeness then I would think his logic and our logic ought to be pretty much the same. Did Jesus not say we are gods? Isnt the kingdom of god within us? 

[TABA]

33 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

My philosophy encourages compassion for all living beings; but is it still required if the person puts so little thought into life that they may as well be brain-dead?

Almost all of us here spent many years - or even decades - operating on the basis of religious faith, either the result of parental indoctrination or self-delusion.  I’m inclined to be compassionate even while doing as much as I can to get people to examine their beliefs.  

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

No. I didn’t swim off. But so far the only post that made any sense was from Walter. Agreed, it isn’t a “proof”. That is the wrong Word. But it is an “evidence” has been stated.

 

 

 

Hello Fish.

 

Ok, you've retracted the word 'proof' and are now arguing that the nation of Israel is evidence of god.

 

The problem with your revised argument is that it's not persuasive unless you believe it by faith.

 

So, for people with no faith (like us sceptics) your argument is unpersuasive.

 

But if you could present some objective evidence, that might persuade us.

 

Objective evidence doesn't require faith for it to be persuasive.

 

Eg, to be persuaded that Paris is in France you don't need faith.

 

The objective evidence of going to see it for yourself should persuade you.

 

 

 

So, can you please present objective evidence that Israel is evidence of God?

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fish153]

Can I ask a question? Is it better if I was in "rants and raves" rather than the "Lion's den". It appears the  Lion's den might really be designed to throw Christians to the Lion's. Should I be posting in another area? Maybe one where other Christians are? Let me know 'cause I'm new to this place.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

No. I didn’t swim off. But so far the only post that made any sense was from Walter. Agreed, it isn’t a “proof”. That is the wrong Word. But it is an “evidence” has been stated.

 

I would state though that I hate the argument being used here once again that you won’t except the message because God is condemning people to hell. Imagine if you were drowning and someone offers you a life-saver. You say “I won’t take one until you prove to me everyone else who is drowning is offered one too”. You’ll drown before they can prove that to you. What is the LOGICAL thing to do? Take the life-saver and avoid drowning.

 

Atheists make argument that those never told about Christ will go to hell and how awful that is. Number one: we don’t know that for sure do we? Secondly and very seriously, HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE GOSPEL?  YES YOU HAVE.  Has mercy been extended to you? YES IT HAS. Please don’t use an argument about WHAT “MIGHT” happen to someone who hasn’t heard the Gospel while ignoring the fact that YOU HAVE HEARD IT. That is a foolish, and very honestly, a stupid argument to be using.

 

Why do you believe anything the bible says is true? Why do you believe anything people in your church (pastor, parishioners) say regarding Christianity? You seem to assume Christianity is true, but dont provide much reason why other than the creation of Israel by the U.N. in 1948. I start off with the assumption that Christianity is fiction until God shows up in person. 

 

Why do you assign human qualities to a supposedly all powerful God? In your drowning metaphor why doesnt God just part the sea so I dont drown at all? Why doesnt he just put me on dry land and leave me be? Why doesnt God (the father) do anything to protect us without being asked. If my kid was drowning I'd snatch him out of the water even if he wouldnt profess his love to me. I would snatch any random person out of the water if I could.

 

But in the case of Christianity your God creates the criteria for entry into heaven and hell. He creates heaven. He creates hell. He creates the permanent sentence and the torture in hell. 

 

God doesnt need to throw people a lifesaver. He just needs to not throw them in the water to begin with. 

[Fish153]

Walter--

 

I gave "objective evidence" in my first post. What are the ODDS that both Israel and the DEAD SEA SCROLS would be dispersed (Israel) and hidden (the scrolls) in 70 A.D. ----and then re-gather (Israel) and be found (the scrolls) 2000 years later within one year of one another? Those are ASTOUNDING odds, seeing that the scrolls are an integral part of Israel. And think of it: those scrolls were hidden in caves for 2000 YEARS without a soul stumbling upon them or going into the caves (plural as there were many caves the scrolls were found in) to investigate them. They were protected by God and found when He allowed them to be. That is enough evidence for me. I will not wilfully reject something so blatantly obvious.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

 

I gave "objective evidence" in my first post. What are the ODDS that both Israel and the DEAD SEA SCROLS would be dispersed (Israel) and hidden (the scrolls) in 70 A.D. ----and then re-gather (Israel) and be found (the scrolls) 2000 years later within one year of one another? Those are ASTOUNDING odds, seeing that the scrolls are an integral part of Israel. And think of it: those scrolls were hidden in caves for 2000 YEARS without a soul stumbling upon them or going into the caves (plural as there were many caves the scrolls were found in) to investigate them. They were protected by God and found when He allowed them to be. That is enough evidence for me. I will not wilfully reject something so blatantly obvious.

 

Fish,

 

An argument based upon odds and probabilities isn't an argument based upon objective evidence.

 

Objective evidence consists of independently verified facts that are available to everyone.

 

You have been persuaded by the likelihood of Israel being evidence of god.

 

But we sceptics are not persuaded by likelihoods.

 

 

So, let me ask you again, do you have any objective evidence to support your argument?

 

Not odds or probabilities or likelihoods, but verifiable facts.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

50 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Can I ask a question? Is it better if I was in "rants and raves" rather than the "Lion's den". It appears the  Lion's den might really be designed to throw Christians to the Lion's. Should I be posting in another area? Maybe one where other Christians are? Let me know 'cause I'm new to this place.

No.  This would not be appropriate.  You are here to proselytize, which is not allowed in any other forum outside of the (aptly named) Lion's Den.  This is the only forum in which your beliefs are allowed, and for good reason.  I know you're hoping to get yourself banned because of your beliefs, so that you can feed your martyr complex; but we don't generally operate that way here.  You are welcome to stay as long as you like; but you will be expected to respect the rules of our community.   

[TABA]

36 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Can I ask a question? Is it better if I was in "rants and raves" rather than the "Lion's den". It appears the  Lion's den might really be designed to throw Christians to the Lion's. Should I be posting in another area? Maybe one where other Christians are? Let me know 'cause I'm new to this place.

The Lions Den section IS the right place for debate/discussion/argument between any ex-Christian members and any Christian guests who are up for such engagement.  While Christians may post in other sections, the Lions Den is the only area (apart from the more formal Colosseum section) where Christians may promote their beliefs - and they should expect to encounter firm opposition from us.  Firm but courteous, ideally.  Just as humans tend to not fare well in lions’s dens, we like to think that Christians who enter our Den experience intellectual defeat, in the eyes of our audience if not in their own.
 

Unfortunately it does get a bit chaotic at times, since there are typically several of us responding to one Christian (we tend to only get one Christian visitor at a time).  There is always the option of a one-on-one debate in the Colosseum if there are willing participants on both sides. 

[disillusioned]

For what it's worth, I'm in the northern hemisphere, and my toilets swirl counter-clockwise.

That's the main point of the thread, right?

[AliT]

4 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Alit—

So it appears you would rather be in HELL with b——-d who raped the woman next to you then? I don’t get your logic. In Heaven all tears will be wiped away. There will be NO MORE murderers or rapists or liars. All evil will be gone. Sin will be gone forever. Your argument is baseless.

He's one of your lot so apparently he gets to go to your Heaven , making it Hell as far as I'm concerned. But ad neither exists, it's not a problem. 

[AliT]

I have a baseless argument? That's rich coming from someone who believes in the sky fairy.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

For what it's worth, I'm in the northern hemisphere, and my toilets swirl counter-clockwise.

That's the main point of the thread, right?

Can you support this claim with evidence?  A video of purported swirling, for example?

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Redneck——

 

Who says God can’t be both? You?  Nothing “precludes” it. God created us, we didn’t create God. Must God answer to OUR logic? Says who? You? This is the atheists major problem. To them everything has a beginning and an end. They REFUSE to believe that someone CREATED time and is not constrained by it. God has no beginning or end—He CREATED time. It’s not logical but who says God must live within OUR logic?

 

Lots of assertions. Got anything to back this up with? Apart from your Israel exists therefore God argument, which is pretty much along the same level as Ray Comforts "perfect Banana" argument, or the "earth exists therefore God" argument. These arguments only work if you already believe God exists.

 

You mentioned earlier why you think the majority of ex-Christians deconvert.  You mentioned a few tried and worn troupes, but of all the ex-Christians I know, none of them deconverted because they were hurt by the church, or angry at God. The deconverted because they questioned the proclaimed existence of God, looked for evidence of that claim, and found it wanting.

 

You are also doing a wonderful amount of gaslighting. You say we have thin skin and that mods will ban you. Now you can act out, not converse in good faith, and if the hammer falls on your arse you proclaim it's because we can't handle the truth... you know as opposed to you just being an arsehole, if that is the case. (Not saying it is now, but I've seen this trend before) We have had long term Christians' here before and never banned them because there was mutual respect. They didn't gaslight, troll or refuse to converse honestly.

 

Now I do have a question for you and we will see where this leads. It may or may not tie into some of your posts above:

 

Do you accept the theory of evolution? (And note, we are talking about evolution, not initial creation or abiogenesis etc... some folks get terribly confused about the difference)