31 May 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"Why? Because the Bible says so, or because you can actually see such major flaws in my reasoning that you think I deserve the label "fool"?"
Why? Because the Bible says so, or because you can actually see such major flaws in my reasoning that you think I deserve the label "fool"?
And here you are essentially supporting a poster who lists a whole lot of clearly false 'proofs' solely because his conclusions are to your liking, yet when I give perfectly reasonable arguments for my beliefs, you would call me "fool".
Psalms 53:1-3
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
One needs to look at this objectively. This is what it says in the Bible. It looks to me that it is saying we're all fools.
I've heard that in the Hebrew the phrase "There is no God" means "No, God". In other words "The fool has said in his heart, NO God!"
We're all guilty of that to one degree or another.
31 May 10
Originally posted by josephwThat sounds more sensible and less insulting.
Psalms 53:1-3
[b]The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none tha ...[text shortened]... has said in his heart, NO God!"
We're all guilty of that to one degree or another.
My objection was to whodeys implied statement that he thinks Gods existence is so obvious that anyone who does not see it is a fool. My objection if that is what he meant, is that no theist has ever been able to give me a rational and convincing argument for the existence of God, so if it is so obvious to him, what is stopping him from explaining it to others?
And why cant he explain it to seer as well - who seems to be desperately in need of such an argument to the extent that he will make up just about any nonsense. Instead he seems to be supporting seer, despite his obvious errors.
01 Jun 10
Originally posted by seerIf you see this as proofs, then I'm glad that you don't work with science.
GOD Proven.
With this weak kind of proof you can prove anything, including gods non-existance, gods evil, Jesus was gay, Adam and Eve ate a banana, or virtually anything.
But I admire your kind of humour though. I almost fell for it. 🙂 Think of how many christians who actually believe in, and actually use, this kind of proofs.
01 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnas"I almost fell for it".
If you see this as proofs, then I'm glad that you don't work with science.
With this weak kind of proof you can prove anything, including gods non-existance, gods evil, Jesus was gay, Adam and Eve ate a banana, or virtually anything.
But I admire your kind of humour though. I almost fell for it. 🙂 Think of how many christians who actually believe in, and actually use, this kind of proofs.
I nominate this comment for the most sarcastic comment of the century😏
01 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm sure you can think of examples where something was blatantly obvious to one individual and not another. Like when we were in school and the teacher was explaining a particularly difficult math problem. We looked and examined the problem over and over again when finally we saw it.
That sounds more sensible and less insulting.
My objection was to whodeys implied statement that he thinks Gods existence is so obvious that anyone who does not see it is a fool. My objection if that is what he meant, is that no theist has ever been able to give me a rational and convincing argument for the existence of God, so if it is so obvious to h ...[text shortened]... up just about any nonsense. Instead he seems to be supporting seer, despite his obvious errors.
It's the same with the existence of God. I don't know why it's so, but what may seem obvious to me may look ridiculously impossible to you.
I appreciate your sticking with this debate for all these years. Perhaps in time I(we)will be able to develop a rational and logical and convincing argument for the existence of God, one that, when you "see" it, like the math problem, will become obvious.
After all, isn't that what we all want?
01 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwAnd that is why only a horrible teacher would call his students who don't get it first time 'fools'.
I'm sure you can think of examples where something was blatantly obvious to one individual and not another. Like when we were in school and the teacher was explaining a particularly difficult math problem. We looked and examined the problem over and over again when finally we saw it.
But, if something is clear to me, then either:
1. I can explain it to someone else given enough time and effort.
2. It is not as clear to me as I first believe.
When someone on this forum makes the claim that Gods existence or necessity is clear to him, I usually challenge them to explain it to me. Oddly, I am rarely taken up on that challenge.
01 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"When someone on this forum makes the claim that Gods existence or necessity is clear to him, I usually challenge them to explain it to me. Oddly, I am rarely taken up on that challenge."
And that is why only a horrible teacher would call his students who don't get it first time 'fools'.
But, if something is clear to me, then either:
1. I can explain it to someone else given enough time and effort.
2. It is not as clear to me as I first believe.
When someone on this forum makes the claim that Gods existence or necessity is clear to h ...[text shortened]... I usually challenge them to explain it to me. Oddly, I am rarely taken up on that challenge.
On the surface, proof of the existence of anything should be cut and dry. But God is invisible to the senses. That's why His existence is so difficult to prove.
So, if there be a God, and His existence is not obvious to our senses, then we must look in another way.
I realise that to you that approach sounds ethereal. And of course it is.
But there is concrete evidence. The universe itself is one. Although it can be argued that it isn't. Then there is eye witness accounts of the resurrection. One might argue that that is just hearsay. Then there is personal experience of the creator by those who by faith access a relationship with God. That of course is purely subjective.
The search for God occurs within the heart. God is found in the heart. I know what you're thinking. Delusion. Who wants to be delusional? I sure wouldn't want to fall for an illusion.
It must be frustrating to you to think that there may be a God, and josephw knows Him and has personal experience with Him, but you see no proof, so either I am delusional or you just can't see it yet.
I swear, God will reveal Himself to you. In His time and in His way. Otherwise there is no God.
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwActually, I consider Gods existence to be so improbably that I feel no frustration whatsoever in that regard.
It must be frustrating to you to think that there may be a God, and josephw knows Him and has personal experience with Him, but you see no proof, so either I am delusional or you just can't see it yet.
I do however feel frustration that so many people can not only deliberately delude themselves, but cause so much harm from doing so.
I swear, God will reveal Himself to you. In His time and in His way. Otherwise there is no God.
I have heard that before. But it is meaningless.
I swear that when you die you will discover that there is no God. Otherwise there is a God. See how silly it sounds?
02 Jun 10
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.'
- Douglas Adams
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI swear, God will reveal Himself to you. In His time and in His way. Otherwise there is no God.
Actually, I consider Gods existence to be so improbably that I feel no frustration whatsoever in that regard.
I do however feel frustration that so many people can not only deliberately delude themselves, but cause so much harm from doing so.
[b]I swear, God will reveal Himself to you. In His time and in His way. Otherwise there is no God.
I have ...[text shortened]... u die you will discover that there is no God. Otherwise there is a God. See how silly it sounds?[/b]
I swear that when you die you will discover that there is no God. Otherwise there is a God.
"See how silly it sounds?"
No I don't see how silly it sounds. In fact it illustrates a point I've been trying to make here for years.
Two opposing concepts. One is right, one is wrong. You can't have it both ways. It has to be one or the other. It quite neatly proves that there are absolutes. Which in turn proves that there is truth.
No God No life.
Yes God Yes life.
It takes little imagination to believe in nothing.
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwThere is life on our planet in both alternatives. I know that, because I'm alive.
[b]No God No life.
Yes God Yes life.
It takes little imagination to believe in nothing.[/b]
Wheather or not god exists, there is life here.
There is even a third alternative.
God: maybe or maybe not.
Doesn't change the fact that there are life here.
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by seerIs the degree the unit for measuring distance? How can be Earth an degree closer or furher from the Sun? And, actually, the Earth orbit is not an circle. The distance from the Sun varies between aphelion and perihelion with about 5 000 000 km. Maybe this is "one degree": a distance bigger that 5 000 000km.
The intricate delicacies of Earth and space, the fact that if we were on degree closer to the sun we would burn, one degree further from the sun, we would freeze, is evidence of a PERFECT GOD. That is Two
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by seerHow oxygen "evolved" can be scientifically explained. What surprise me is how somebody who believe that oxygen don't exists on other planets except Earth, believes that an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite, bla bla, entity exists.
We exist on an odorless, shapeless, invisible gas that is not found on any other planet in the cosmos or our galaxy anyway. Proof of intelligent design because MAYBE evolution could have made apes, but how can oxygen evolve? That is three.
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwAnd who exactly are you trying to illustrate this point to? Who in this forum disagrees with you?
No I don't see how silly it sounds. In fact it illustrates a point I've been trying to make here for years.
Two opposing concepts. One is right, one is wrong. You can't have it both ways. It has to be one or the other. It quite neatly proves that there are absolutes. Which in turn proves that there is truth.
[b]No God No life.
Yes God Yes life.
It takes little imagination to believe in nothing.[/b]
I of course am not sure what you mean by "life" here, nor what you mean by "believe in nothing". Would you care to elaborate?