21 Oct 18
@secondson saidIt's like the words you type have no bearing on what i said or asked. Curious behaviour.
Do you mean the obvious evidence you're already aware of?
Surely you're jesting what with all the begging for evidence. If not, then obviously you lost the capacity to reason when you discarded God from your life.
Now don't start getting all worked up and name calling ok? 😆
I appreciate the 'armchair psychology', but i can assure you, i'm not getting 'worked up'. I've been debating Ancient Jewish Zombie Blood Cult believers like yourself since before you had hair on your ball bag. It's cute, and i appreciate your concern but i'm tickity-boo thanks.
22 Oct 18
@ghost-of-a-duke said"My point was simply sir that 'creation' is not evidence for the existence of the Christian God, as the same 'evidence' is used by other religions to support the existence of their particular deities."
My point was simply sir that 'creation' is not evidence for the existence of the Christian God, as the same 'evidence' is used by other religions to support the existence of their particular deities.
From the point of view of an atheist, you are all claiming the 'same evidence' validates your Deity. - So you may very well be right to point at a flower and say it ...[text shortened]... a link' to your particular God to the exclusion of all others. (Outside of your own religious text).
I understand what you're saying my friend, and I get the point. From your perspective, or mine, which has been debated in this forum since its inception over a decade ago, it seems to be the proverbial immovable rock and irresistible force syndrome in play.
The evidence has been weighed. The fact that there are two opposing ideological viewpoints, both equipped with the same evidence, is in and of itself a peculiar thing. I am deeply troubled by it.
I am constrained by the God I know so well to go and spread the Word to as many as possible, and bring with me brothers and sisters into God's kingdom because I know it is His will that I do so.
"From the point of view of an atheist, you are all claiming the 'same evidence' validates your Deity. - So you may very well be right to point at a flower and say it was created by a God, but you are unable to 'evidence a link' to your particular God to the exclusion of all others. (Outside of your own religious text)."
There is a particularly profound difference between all other faiths, and their sacred texts, and that of the Bible and the Christian faith. None of them claim a resurrected saviour.
Naturally all faiths will use creation as evidence, making evidence a moot point, so then something else more compelling must be addressed to resolve the impasse.
Prophecy and eyewitness accounts provide irrefutable evidence that the Bible is true to the exclusion of all other sacred texts. Simply put, only the Bible contains the greatest number of prophecies, many hundreds of which have come to pass and attested to by history, and the numbers and names of those that bore personal testimony and eyewitness accounts of the life of the man Jesus Christ that no other religious texts can or do. They are dwarfed in comparison on so many levels it would take years to enumerate them.
Perspective is everything. Just my two cents worth.
22 Oct 18
@secondson saidThis circular logic.
There is a particularly profound difference between all other faiths, and their sacred texts, and that of the Bible and the Christian faith. None of them claim a resurrected saviour.
A religion, to be the true one, has to have a "resurrected saviour".
Christianity has a "resurrected saviour".
Christianity is the true religion.
Religions that don't have a "resurrected saviour" are not true.
All religions apart from Christianity have no "resurrected saviour".
All religions apart from Christianity are not true.
Circular logic.
@proper-knob saidI have children older than you, and I've been debating unbelievers like you since before you could talk.
It's like the words you type have no bearing on what i said or asked. Curious behaviour.
I appreciate the 'armchair psychology', but i can assure you, i'm not getting 'worked up'. I've been debating Ancient Jewish Zombie Blood Cult believers like yourself since before you had hair on your ball bag. It's cute, and i appreciate your concern but i'm tickity-boo thanks.
One thing I'll give you though is your behavior isn't very curious, and I'm not surprised that you can't see how my words bear on what you said.
Just don't take offense. None intended.
22 Oct 18
@fmf saidYes, I know. The resurrection of Jesus Christ means nothing to you.
This circular logic.
A religion, to be the true one, has to have a "resurrected saviour".
Christianity has a "resurrected saviour".
Christianity is the true religion.
Religions that don't have a "resurrected saviour" are not true.
All religions apart from Christianity have no "resurrected saviour".
All religions apart from Christianity are not true.
Circular logic.
22 Oct 18
@secondson saidFrankly, you sound like you started talking to people with beliefs different from yours only last week.
I have children older than you, and I've been debating unbelievers like you since before you could talk.
22 Oct 18
@secondson saidThe argument you tried to use was a clear example of circular logic.
Yes, I know. The resurrection of Jesus Christ means nothing to you.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
22 Oct 18
@secondson said"Naturally all faiths will use creation as evidence, making evidence a moot point."
"My point was simply sir that 'creation' is not evidence for the existence of the Christian God, as the same 'evidence' is used by other religions to support the existence of their particular deities."
I understand what you're saying my friend, and I get the point. From your perspective, or mine, which has been debated in this forum since its inception over a deca ...[text shortened]... levels it would take years to enumerate them.
Perspective is everything. Just my two cents worth.
Agreed. I would also go a step further and similarly dismiss 'eyewitness accounts' as 'evidence.' Why is this? Because eyewitness accounts are not verifiable and if we were to accept them as 'evidence' we would similarly have to accept the many recorded eyewitness accounts of ghosts and flying saucers. (Which I don't). - My own sister has given vivid eyewitness account of seeing a ghost, which I fully reject, so eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago carry no weight with me whatsoever.
I believe that only leaves prophecies which I will happily dispell later, after I've walked the dog. 😉
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 18
1 edit
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
That's a nice poem.
But where did the "unillumined cosmic water" come from?
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
And of the two questions:
Where did God come from?
Where did an eternally existing universe come from?
The former's eternality is inherent in the meaning of God - a Person above which a greater Person cannot be imagined.
I think God, uncreated, eternal, ever existing and self existing, calling into being the universe is a better belief.
A material universe of laws which ever existed is not only gone out of favor with many cosmologists but also less logical, I think.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 18
The first question posed by God's enemy to God's other creature was designed to cause man to doubt God's heart, God's love, and God's care for man.
Satan's job is ever and always to reverse the appearance of reality. God is made to be the enemy and the Devil is made to be the savior.
Yea, Has God said that you shall not eat from every tree of the garden?
The arch-enemy of God proposes a creation in which absolutely NO boundary, NO prohibition is allowed. Such does not exist.
There was one and only one boundary - man should not take into himself the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Its source is rebellion against the Ultimate Governor of all being - God.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
22 Oct 18
@sonship said"The former's eternality is inherent in the meaning of God."
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
That's a nice poem.
But where did the "unillumined cosmic water" come from?
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
And of the two questions:
Where did God come from?
Where did an eternally existing universe come from?
The former's eternality is inherent in the m ...[text shortened]... ch ever existed is not only gone out of favor with many cosmologists but also less logical, I think.
The same applies Sherlock to an eternal universe.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
22 Oct 18
@sonship said"That's a nice poem." Sonship acknowledges it is a poem.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
That's a nice poem.
But where did the "unillumined cosmic water" come from?
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
And of the two questions:
Where did God come from?
Where did an eternally existing universe come from?
The former's eternality is inherent in the m ...[text shortened]... ch ever existed is not only gone out of favor with many cosmologists but also less logical, I think.
"But where did the "unillumined cosmic water" come from?" Sonship shows he doesn't understand poetic language.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 18
1 edit
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Is it NOT a nice poem then?
"But where did the "unillumined cosmic water" come from?" Sonship shows he doesn't understand poetic language.
Ghost shows he doesn't understand how to answer the simple questions regardless of whether I fully got the poetic thought in it or not.
Which is more likely?
Nothing created something from nothing?
Or God created something from nothing?
Creation is evidence of a Creator.
Robert Jastrow - admitted agnostic and former director of Goddard Center for Space Flight.
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
― Robert Jastrow
From https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/87585.Robert_Jastrow
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
22 Oct 18
@sonship saidQuick explainer:
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Is it NOT a nice poem then?
"But where did the "unillumined cosmic water" come from?" Sonship shows he doesn't understand poetic language.
Ghost shows he doesn't understand how to answer the simple questions regardless of whether I fully got the poetic thought in it or not.
Which is more likely?
Nothing created something from no ...[text shortened]... ”
― Robert Jastrow [/quote]
From https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/87585.Robert_Jastrow
An eternal universe was not 'created' but has always existed, in one form or another.
In the years to come, this will become commonly accepted.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 18
An eternal universe was not 'created' but has always existed, in one form or another.
In the years to come, this will become commonly accepted.
Not likely. It seriously contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. If the universe existed forever it should have run down by now to cold ashes dispersed in the blackness of space. Everything is returning to a lazy state.
Robert Jastrow also spoke of traumatized scientists who react with dismay at the conclusion that the universe had a definite beginning.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/87585.Robert_Jastrow
“There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.”
― Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom