Is there really a god?

[whats wrong with me]

I have been wondering this for a while now and although i really wish there was i dont think there is.

 

I mean theres no proof.

 

It makes me so angry that he doesnt help.I will probably get people saying he does but how?

 

Has he helped any of you?

 

There is a GOD, and if you need proof ASK FOR IT! don't expect a burning bush, and I don't suggest you tell anyone of what you might have saw. Depending on what kind of proof you ask for, people might think your'e crazy.

 

He/She does help are you breathing? are you hungry? are you warm? can you speak your feelings (or type them)?

 

GOD gives everyone choices. When we make a decision between good and bad that God gives us another choice. You always are given the opportunity to make a good decision that helps you.

 

Because God gave us free will, it is not his fault when something turns out bad.

 

As for people you love dying, its our life cycle. I dont think anyone knows what our purpose is, but GOD works in mysterious ways.

 

A child dying at age 2, might protect the world from another Hitler and in the process stop the child from going to Hell. I guess its just whether you see the glass half empty or half full.

[Moai]

And, equally you have no idea that he is, or proof that he is.

 

Give it a minute, I am sure he'll get caught again.

 

The fact is, pretending a parallel reality doesn't exist isn't going to help you know anything about it.

 

This dimension talk was an abstract way of trying to explain a reality that you do not understand. What is silly is to dismiss something that you dont know about.

 

I do understand it, I just REJECT it. And if it is silly to dismiss something that you know nothing about, why do you reject evolution?

 

Without veering this too much into an occult bend, there is enough evidence out there to show that there is more out there then what you see. You have haunted houses, ghosts, UFO's, after-life experiences, people who hav experienced God, God answering prayers, and a whole pleuthora of other evidence to show that there is more than meets the eye. You have para- science disciplines that even go into that. I would hardly say that is superstition.

 

There is no such thing as a haunted house, ghosts, UFO's, or God. They are all silly superstitions. For every prayer that you assume to be answered there are 1,000 that aren't. "Para-science" is a misnomer, as there is no science involved in any of it.

 

You have never been in a real haunted house before?

 

There is no such thing as ghosts or haunted houses.

 

What phenomenon?

 

We cannot explain gravity sufficiently, for one thing.

 

No. They have a negative bias against Evangelists. They will ignore, for example, the orphanages and schools his ministry built in Haity, or the world he had done to help people in Third World country, and focus all their attention to dig up any dirt they can.

 

All you have to do in Swaggart's case is go to where the hookers are and set up a camera. But look at the track record of televangelists: Jim Bakker had sex parties and mis-appropriated millions, Robert Tilton took the money out of prayer requests and threw the requests themselves in a dumpster without even reading them, Hinn claims to heal people and doesn't, and there was one guy whose name escapes me that had a microphone in his ear and his wife would tell him what to say, all the while claiming it was the Holy Spirit giving him the information. They are the worst form of scum there is.

 

Just because someone slipped once or twice doesn't mean they are a regular sinner. Suppose you did something stupid ten years ago, would you like to be branded for the rest of your life for it? You would think that would be fair?

 

Funny, that is exactly what god does. Beyond that, if you kill someone you are a murderer forever. Molest a child you are always a pedophile.

 

Jesus teaches about forgiving people who take advantage of you and praying for them.

 

Which is counter-natural and stupid.

 

You have no proof of that. Have you checked the bank accounts? You are someone who believes in scientific proof - dont you think it is just a tad bit presumptious to be making assertions without reliable proof?

 

As long as he is on TV, he is fleecing suckers.

 

Like the world-system.

 

I don't know what that is.

 

The reason is, you did not commit the unforgivable sin.

 

Well, if you are still alive (hopefully you are not pressing your luck), then it means you have not committed the sin, or God is just looking at you like some retarded child and is not taking you seriously enough to strike you. Which I guess would be more insulting to you then actually being stricken down. Imagine, not be taken seriously? Suppose He is just saying, 'Look at what Moai is doing with his free-will, is that the best he can do?'

 

There yougo with more ad hoc explanations. If you don't want to accept that I have done what I have said, fine, but I was not sturck down, nor will I be.

 

Burning a Bible is a sin, but still a forgivable one, so the opportunity to repent and seek forgiveness still exists.

 

Look, I guess, as you suggested, the Lord really may not have spoken to you clearly, because if He did, and then you despised the word of the Lord, then, you would be in trouble. Burning the Bible, and saying those things sounds too much like a 'flesh' or 'child' response and probably was not taken seriously.

 

It seemed real at the time, but I was young and inexperienced. As I have gotten older and learned more about how the world works, I know the whole thing happened in my mind as meant nothing.

 

In your mind God doesn't exist, and that is only in your mind. But reality is different than what is in your own mind you know. The fact you are still here now, attests for the fact that God will speak to you at some point in the future.

 

Like people of old who thought the earth was flat, and it would be superstitious to believe it was round, so you have denied by ignorance the existance of the spirit world, of God, despite the preponderonce of evidence that the supernatural exists.

 

There is no evidence anywhere for the supernatural. In fact, by definition "supernatural" is impossible.

 

Like I said, like you, I too believe in the natural world, and pretty much everything else you believe as it pertains to the natural world. But my faith, goes beyond the natural, while your faith is stuck there. Discounting something you can not prove doesn't exist is futile.

 

It is not incumbent upon me to prove it doesn't exist. It is incumbent upon you to prove that it does. You are the one making the assertion.

 

Got a problem with that? The fact is, the human race was almost genetically wiped out and God saved it with a flood. That was to preserve the line of the Messiah. Anyway, most Christians aren't into that 'type' of theology so it doesn't represent what most churches are going to likely focus on or believe.

 

No, that is not a fact. There was no global flood. And most Christians don't believe in hybrid angel/humans because the whole idea is stupid.

[Moose]

I do understand it, I just REJECT it. And if it is silly to dismiss something that you know nothing about, why do you reject evolution?

My Opinion: Evolution is theory, just like creationism. Both should be taught in Schools, regardless of your preference.

 

Fact: Adaptivity is fact, proven over time. But in no way indicates where we came from.

There is no such thing as a haunted house, ghosts, UFO's, or God. They are all silly superstitions. For every prayer that you assume to be answered there are 1,000 that aren't. "Para-science" is a misnomer, as there is no science involved in any of it.

This is only your opinon, which is, by the way, rejected by millions.....There are thousands of facts, and scientific proof of the para-normal and UFO's, You're just not aware of it all.

 

As far as God is concerned in your life, and proof that He exists....He reveals Himself to all.

We cannot explain gravity sufficiently, for one thing.

WHAT? Ok.....you need to study more. That's all there is to it.

All you have to do in Swaggart's case is go to where the hookers are and set up a camera. But look at the track record of televangelists: Jim Bakker had sex parties and mis-appropriated millions, Robert Tilton took the money out of prayer requests and threw the requests themselves in a dumpster without even reading them, Hinn claims to heal people and doesn't, and there was one guy whose name escapes me that had a microphone in his ear and his wife would tell him what to say, all the while claiming it was the Holy Spirit giving him the information. They are the worst form of scum there is.

Yeah, that's it, pick out the bad apples, and use that as fire power against the rest of those who actually make a positive impact in the world......classic.

Funny, that is exactly what god does. Beyond that, if you kill someone you are a murderer forever. Molest a child you are always a pedophile.

WAIT, just a second.....didn't you just say that God doesn't exist???? If that's true, how in the world do you know what He does or doesn't do???? Besides that, you're way off base on this.....

No, that is not a fact. There was no global flood. And most Christians don't believe in hybrid angel/humans because the whole idea is stupid

Again, there is proof the flood happen. Scientific proof. I'm not going to waste my time providing links, I've got other things to do......normally, I don't like to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but I just had to point out all of the holes in your arguement.

[Moai]

I'm sure you can afford to buy scuba-diving gear.

 

Not the point. The fact that we are smart and can develop marvelous technology doesn't make us better or different from animals. We ARE animals. If intelligence was such a benefit, tuna would be doing calculus.

 

No. We can mimick virtually anything animals can do with our technology, but animals cant do the reverse.

 

So?

 

It is another example that we have nothing to do with animals.

 

This is just stupid. We are animals. We have EVERYTHING to do with animals.

 

Or I can say, according to your ignorance you dont like to reason because you cry sour grapes every time you reach a dead-end. The Bible is full of reason.

 

I am not ignorant at all. I know the Bible at least as well as you do, and I know demonstrably more about science.

[Moai]

My Opinion: Evolution is theory, just like creationism. Both should be taught in Schools, regardless of your preference.

Wrong. There is no debate about this, and you don't get to have an "opinion". Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains that fact. Nobody who understands biology disputes this.

 

Creationism is not science. It is a superstition and has no place in science classrooms.

 

Fact: Adaptivity is fact, proven over time. But in no way indicates where we came from.This is only your opinon, which is, by the way, rejected by millions.....There are thousands of facts, and scientific proof of the para-normal and UFO's, You're just not aware of it all.

 

Actually, all of the evidence we have shows that all life shares a common ancestor. This is inescapable. And there is no scientific "proof" of the paranormal, or of UFOs visiting this planet. Zilch. That's why thinking people reject such stupid notions.

 

The number of people who believe something is not indicative of its truth. If you had a brain in your head you'd know that. There are millions of Hindu people. By your above statement, Hinduism must be true.

 

It is not my opinion that evolution is a fact. All of the information we have shows that evolution is a fact. I just accept that which is inescapable.

 

As far as God is concerned in your life, and proof that He exists....He reveals Himself to all.WHAT? Ok.....you need to study more. That's all there is to it.Yeah, that's it, pick out the bad apples, and use that as fire power against the rest of those who actually make a positive impact in the world......classic.WAIT, just a second.....didn't you just say that God doesn't exist???? If that's true, how in the world do you know what He does or doesn't do???? Besides that, you're way off base on this.....Again, there is proof the flood happen. Scientific proof.

 

No, there is no scientific proof for a global flood. None. You can post all the links you want to Answers In Genesis or any other Creationist site. I have read them all. I have also taken geology, biology, chemistry, and anthropology. Have you? I doubt it. No person with even a basic understanding of geology believes in a global flood.

 

I don't believe god exists, therefore I don't believe he does ANYTHING. Your above paragraph is nonsense.

 

I'm not going to waste my time providing links, I've got other things to do......normally, I don't like to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but I just had to point out all of the holes in your arguement.

Easy for you to insult me, but the fact of the matter is you have little or know understanding of science or logical argument.

[whats wrong with me]

I'm curious what do you do for a living?

[Moai]

WHAT? Ok.....you need to study more. That's all there is to it.

 

It is you who needs to study more. I quote from Wikipedia:

 

"Gravity was rather poorly understood until Isaac Newton formulated his law of gravitation in the 17th century. Newton's theory is still widely used for many practical purposes, though for more advanced work it has been supplanted by Einstein's general relativity. While a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question and gravity remains an important topic of scientific research."

[Moai]

I'm curious what do you do for a living?

 

If you are asking me, I network computers for sports books.

[whats wrong with me]

Why do you seem so bitter? maybe your not, it might just be the way I'm reading.

I dont doubt your very smart, but do you know WHY your armpits stink? Dont tell me sw eat glands etc. You dont know WHY, they just do...

 

WHY: something (as a belief) that serves as the basis for another thing <asked the whys behind the surprising decision

[Bogun]

Again, there is proof the flood happen. Scientific proof. I'm not going to waste my time providing links, I've got other things to do......normally, I don't like to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but I just had to point out all of the holes in your arguement.

Ok where is that proof mr moose?? Are you referring to a rather dubious rock formation in turkey that is no where near the size of a boat that would need to hold every species on the planet?

The other guy that claimed there was physical evidence that jesus existed also couldnt be bothered backing up his claim, because there is no archaelogical evidence of jesus existing or the flood occurring.

 

So if the flood did occur, then presumably it only drowned people in the middle east, as there are no stories of big floods in eastern cultures, mythical or otherwise. Which brings up another issue about god. If the christian god is the real deal, why did he only make an appearance in a relatively small region of the world 2000 years ago? For a long time buddhism was the dominant religion in india (in fact there's historical evidence that buddhist monks travelled as far as egypt over 2000 years ago, so perhaps jesus was in fact a buddhist monk!), and then hinduism and more recently islam. China, japan, korea etc have not come into contact with christianity until fairly recently, and it hasn't exactly taken off. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and in my own country buddhism is the fastest growing religion.

[d'Arthez]

Creationism is as much true as a scientific theory as is Hegel's idea of the Spirit is a scientific theory. It is an idea that cannot be rejected, therefore it must be taught in schools.

 

Now, shall we also take the liberty to make Marxism and Psycho-analysis compulsory in schools, as there is no known and valid method to reject the claims of either of them? Great idea.

[converse02]

My Opinion: Evolution is theory, just like creationism. Both should be taught in Schools, regardless of your preference.

Ugh!!!!! I can't believe had bad education has gotten. Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

NO. The theory in the "scienitific theory of evolution" does NOT have the same meaning as "I have a theory by buddy is gay." The word theory has MORE than one meaning.

A scientific theory isn't a "hunch" like creationism. A scientific theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

Evolution can actually explain fossil, variations of species, the existance of DNA, mutations, and so on. Creationism, ie "Goddditit in six days," explains squat.

 

opinon, which is, by the way, rejected by millions.....There are thousands of facts, and scientific proof of the para-normal and UFO's, You're just not aware of it all.

There's scientific proof of para-normals and space aliens!!! Where?

In order for it to be a science, it got to be published in a scientific journal like Science or Nature. Someone would have to write up an article discussing the evidence for UFOs and collect the data. Then a scientific committee would peer-review the article and see if it is valid, if there is any other explanation or does the article point to strong evidence for UFOs. Then the article is released to the public, to be reviewed by universities and the public, who are going to try to poke hole in it. No such article exists. The only "proof" is grainy home videos and interviews. It may be real, but equally likely to be a fake. It isn't "scientific proof."

 

As far as God is concerned in your life, and proof that He exists....He reveals Himself to all.

By definition, there is no proof of religion. If there was proof God exists. It would be a science. It isn't.

 

On the theory of gravity: WHAT? Ok.....you need to study more.

Dude, you're the one who needs to study more. Scientists DON'T know everything about gravity, and the theory of gravity has changed over time. But gravity is a FACT, just like evolution.

 

Again, there is proof the flood happen. Scientific proof. I'm not going to waste my time providing links, I've got other things to do......normally, I don't like to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but I just had to point out all of the holes in your arguement.

There is NO scientific proof the Flood happen. In fact, geolgists, biologists and historians from nearly every respected university on the planet have found evidence AGAINST the existance of the Great Flood. It may surprise you, but it is impossible for Noah to fit a zoo onto a boat, land on a mountain, and have the kangeroos swim back to Australia.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Not the point. The fact that we are smart and can develop marvelous technology doesn't make us better or different from animals. We ARE animals. If intelligence was such a benefit, tuna would be doing calculus.

 

You missed the obvious point. We can do things animals can do. Animals can not do things we can do.

 

This is just stupid. We are animals. We have EVERYTHING to do with animals.

 

I dont think so.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Wrong. There is no debate about this, and you don't get to have an "opinion". Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains that fact. Nobody who understands biology disputes this.

 

Evolution is a theory. Unless you can use a time-machine and actually observe what happened in the past and write a report about it, it remains theory. Whatever you call it is certainly not empirical and observable science based on pheonomina on an observable world.

 

Creationism is not science. It is a superstition and has no place in science classrooms.

 

Science can not explain how the first energy or matter was formed, simply because everything had a beginning. But, then what is the beginning of everything that had a beggining? Eventually your version of science has to concede to the inevitable fact that it will never have those answers. In the end, it will ultimately have to concede that there is a God that created the first energy or matter, as God by defination, has no beginning.

 

 

Actually, all of the evidence we have shows that all life shares a common ancestor.

 

Sure, Adam and Eve, and the first animals created.

 

This is inescapable. And there is no scientific "proof" of the paranormal, or of UFOs visiting this planet. Zilch. That's why thinking people reject such stupid notions.

 

But there is plenty of evidence that people have seen them. Even science fiction movies can speculate that if intelligent life really existed from another planet, then does it not occur to you that they may be so advance that they would not leave clues behind so they could be studied, especially if they are planning to launch an invasion? Now, we are not going to go 'War of the Worlds' here, but the point of illustratoin is just to show how ignorant your position can be. Conceptually, 'thinking people' would be road-kill on a UFO invasion, while those who work under the X-files, who studied them, came up with a strategic plan to attack them should they start an invasion, but because nobody took them seriously, the world was taken over.

 

Again, this scenerio is just a conceptual illustration of the futility of such thinking. The fact of the matter is that haunted houses, ghosts, UFOs are well documented events, and to simply dismiss all of it as non-existant, just shows that you are more interested in trying to win an arguement than take this discussion with a level-head.

 

The number of people who believe something is not indicative of its truth. If you had a brain in your head you'd know that. There are millions of Hindu people. By your above statement, Hinduism must be true.

 

Moose was referring to an experience not a religion. Incidentally, being born-again Christian is also an experience, and not a religion.

 

You should really listen to yourself on the shoes of people who really had these experiences. If you came up and started discounting people's experiences, you are either calling them liars, publicity seekers, or delusional, which would deeply offend people who really experienced them. Anyway, it is an established fact concerning the paranormal, and discussing this is getting absurd. If you have never been inside a haunted house, or experienced something 'out of the ordinary', does not discount people who may have. This is like a child reasoning that their world is the only correct one, and if they did not experience it, then it is not true. Come on.

 

 

It is not my opinion that evolution is a fact. All of the information we have shows that evolution is a fact. I just accept that which is inescapable.

 

 

Assuming the information is reliable, which it is not.

 

No, there is no scientific proof for a global flood. None.

 

Wasn't the Ark found on Mount Ararat?

[Admiral Thrawn]

So if the flood did occur, then presumably it only drowned people in the middle east, as there are no stories of big floods in eastern cultures, mythical or otherwise. Which brings up another issue about god. If the christian god is the real deal, why did he only make an appearance in a relatively small region of the world 2000 years ago? For a long time buddhism was the dominant religion in india (in fact there's historical evidence that buddhist monks travelled as far as egypt over 2000 years ago, so perhaps jesus was in fact a buddhist monk!), and then hinduism and more recently islam. China, japan, korea etc have not come into contact with christianity until fairly recently, and it hasn't exactly taken off. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and in my own country buddhism is the fastest growing religion.

 

People used to have civilisations in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean floors, as you can see, it is still flooded, the waters only receded somewhat.

[d'Arthez]

Moai, I took a few of your points, as I have not gotten decent responses in a while.

Evolution is a theory. Unless you can use a time-machine and actually observe what happened in the past and write a report about it, it remains theory.

If this were to apply, the following also does: Creation is a theory. It is not a fact. Unless we can use a time-machine and actually observe God creating the universe, and write reports about it, in scientific language, it remains a theory.

 

Whatever you call it is certainly not empirical and observable science based on pheonomina on an observable world.

It is observable. But not on the scale of millennia. But then again, the development of a cancer (including incubation) has also never been observed in a human being (in a proper way). Therefore it must be concluded that cancer is merely a theory, and cannot be held responsible for the deaths of so many of our fellow human beings?

 

But there is plenty of evidence that people have seen them.

There is plenty of evidence of people claiming George W. Bush to be a total idiot. Does not make that true, either. There is plenty of evidence that people can be led to believe that they have seen what they have not, by mere suggestion.

As for claiming to having seen something, schizophrenics have the same illusion - but that does not mean that the illusion is true. In fact brain imaging suggests that experiences like that might be quite similar to schizophrenia.

 

Even science fiction movies can speculate that if intelligent life really existed from another planet, then does it not occur to you that they may be so advance that they would not leave clues behind so they could be studied, especially if they are planning to launch an invasion?

A science fiction movie that can speculate? What is next? A bag of potato chips that can meditate? A movie is a creation of man, and should be considered as such.

1. If extraterrestial life exists, it may be too far away to travel. Excepting the sun the nearest star is about 4 lightyears away from here. That is a bit longer than the New York City Marathon.

2. If it does not exist anymore, it cannot contact us. Nor can we contact them. And we have barely been able to see (which is different from making inferences) a planet outside of this solar system.

3. If you are planning to launch an invasion you are not going to tell. "Hey, Teddy, you know that military basis Pearl Harbour, yes, tomorrow it won't be anymore, as we will launch an all out attack."

4. But if they do exist, and do not leave clues behind, (which apparently they do, according to you), we simply would be at their mercy anyway. It takes quite a bit to get on this planet.

5. It is laughable that you assume that whatever civilization may exist, it will be out to destroy us - you are assuming that others are as you are.

 

The fact of the matter is that haunted houses, ghosts, UFOs are well documented events

So this proves that various illusions and hallucinations of schizophrenic people also exist in the real world. The next step would be to deny that schizophrenic people suffer from illusions and hallucinations, because they do simply exist. So it is the non-schizophrenic people who are deficient, because they cannot spot objects that really exist? Right ...

 

You should really listen to yourself on the shoes of people who really had these experiences. If you came up and started discounting people's experiences, you are either calling them liars, publicity seekers, or delusional, which would deeply offend people who really experienced them.

True. But most often they are frauds. And sometimes there is an explanation that seems far-fetched, but it is there nonetheless.

 

This is like a child reasoning that their world is the only correct one, and if they did not experience it, then it is not true. Come on.

Strange to say, that you persist in doing that. The whole idea of paranormality is an offense to God.

 

Assuming the information is reliable, which it is not.

No, the great Thrawn is the universal elect who decides what constitutes reliability. Coincidentally that exactly is the same thing, as all the prejudices and stereotypes, and beliefs said Thrawn holds.

[Moose]

Wrong. There is no debate about this,

 

Again, you need to open your eyes. There always has been, and always will be, until Christ returns, debate about evolution and creationism......where do you live? In a hole in the ground? Secluded in a cave with satellite internet???

 

and you don't get to have an "opinion".

 

Wrong......again It's God's gift to all of us. One thing you can't touch, or effect, is another man's opinion. Evolution is a fact. How do you know?? All you know is what man has written down as, THEORY. Man hasn't witnessed this, Man HAS witnessed God in the flesh, and God in the Spirit. Tangable PROOF, not just writing.

 

We have a theory that explains that fact. Nobody who understands biology disputes this.

 

Wrong. And again, I'm not going to waste my time looking it up for you, or anyone else. Do more research.....you'll find several bioligists who will not discount that God indeed exists.

 

Creationism is not science. It is a superstition and has no place in science classrooms.

 

Again, this only your opinion. Which you're allowed to have, but, you are very rude, and arrogant to state as fact. Your problem is you can't stand someone challenging you. You can't handle someone with a brain disagreeing with you. Get over it, you'll be a better person for it.

 

Actually, all of the evidence we have shows,

 

Listen to yourself. "All of the evidence we have".......YOU DON"T HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.....noone does........

 

that all life shares a common ancestor.

 

Of course. I agree with you here......only the, "all life shares a common ancestor" part.

 

Easy for you to insult me, but the fact of the matter is you have little or know understanding of science or logical argument.

 

I know what I need to know about science. I'm an engineer, it's my job to know a little more than the average bear on the subject. I don't claim to have read this, or that like you do.....and that's only here say, I'm just to take your word for it.

 

Now, as for logical arguement, who's argueing? Some of us are sharing our opinions, while others here are trying....key word, "trying", to prove they can piss people off, and know more than the other about this and that....

 

Truth is, unless you've had my experiences, or Admiral's, or Quank's, or any other Christian for that matter, you have NO grounds....I repeat....NO GROUNDS....to tell me or anyone else what is fact, only your opinion......got it???

[quankanne]

People can go on and on about what it says in the bible.How we should act and what we should do.You dont know that this is all the truth.

 

because we believe in what it is about (God) and gives the gameplan for living a good life (Ten Commandments and Golden Rule), it is the truth.

 

If someone has some concrete evidence that god exists then put it forward.

 

how can you be concrete about matters of the soul? My "proof" is not necessarily recognizable by the world outside, but that's okay, because it's really not about whether others understand, it's about my personal relationship with God. It's icing on the cake if someone looks at my life and says, "I want was she has, I want to know more about God because she's happy, she's satisified with what she has with him."

 

Oh yes if God is real say is he the God of the universe?Or just earth?There is galaxies everywhere maybe there's life on them does he own them too?

 

he's Lord of all ~ universes, life forms, everythin. He doesn't own them, merely created them

 

If god loved us unconditionally then it wouldnt matter wether we comitted sin or not.To me if god is real it sounds like where experiments to see what we'll do.

 

you love your child unconditionally, and you'd grieve if he did something to hurt himself or others around him, even if you can see it coming because he behavior predicts that. While you understand that it's ultimately his decision how to act, that doesn't mean you're without hope that he'll be a fine, upstanding lad who is kind and loving to others. You want the best for him because of that love for him. God's the same with us ~ when we sin, we break down the communication in our relationship with him. He loves us enough to want what's between us whole and healed.

 

D'Art … regarding free will ... it's as I've explained above. God sees what's ahead, but he doesn't try to sway our behavior out of his love for us. This is why we say we have free will ~ we get to do whatever we choose and even though God sees what's coming, he doesn't obstruct our behavior even if it's sinful. Because it's up to us to keep that relationship with him whole, to reconcile after we sin, and he's ever hopeful that we turn to him. Just like a loving parent responds to a child who does his best to destroy himself and the relationships he has with them.

[Bogun]

People used to have civilisations in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean floors, as you can see, it is still flooded, the waters only receded somewhat.

ehhhhyayaya what?????????????????? Please don't tell me you were serious???? You think people used to live where the pacific ocean is now??? Certainly there were dinosaurs in that area before the tectonic plates moved, but too early for humans. And the story of atlantis is a MYTH.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this statement was a joke.

[Bogun]

The line that jesus descended from as written in Matthew;

jesus

joseph

jacob

matthan

eleazar

eliud.....etc

 

As written in Luke;

jesus

joseph

heli

matthat

levi

melchi.....etc

 

Your argument that everyone has 2 geneologies is true admiral, and this would be the case if the line in luke went back through mary, but as you can see it also goes back through joseph. So unless joseph was the son of 2 homosexual men , the geneologies contradict each other.

[d'Arthez]

because we believe in what it is about (God) and gives the gameplan for living a good life (Ten Commandments and Golden Rule), it is the truth.

The Golden Rule is not specific for Christianity. And Christianity is certainly not the first religion to come up with the Golden Rule. And most of the Ten Commandments are shared by all major religions in the world.

 

D'Art … regarding free will ... it's as I've explained above. God sees what's ahead, but he doesn't try to sway our behavior out of his love for us. This is why we say we have free will ~ we get to do whatever we choose and even though God sees what's coming, he doesn't obstruct our behavior even if it's sinful.

Then we do not have free will. It is merely an illusion. It is simply because we lack the understanding of the will (and but few writers were masters in this understanding), that we attribute free will to man.

 

If I am starving, and have $2 available for me, I will try to buy a bread, and not try to buy a pencil-sharpener. For the pencil-sharpener does not serve the necessary purpose of feeding me, as I am starving. I think if I were actually to buy a pencil-sharpener in that situation, many people would see that as good evidence of ill mental health, would they not?

 

I am not writing in my mother-tongue, because I know most users on LoveShack do not understand that language at all. Even though I might be under the illusion that I could write my posts in that language, I would also be well aware that they would simply not be understood, and with that I could not attain my goals. So I will simply have to write in a language that is understood by most users on LoveShack, and that is English.

 

We can come up with thousands of possible influences on behavior, yet the behavior of man is anything but random, it obeys certain laws of the psyche.

To call the will free, because we do not grasp what determines the will, is a bridge too far.

 

Logically speaking it makes sense to attribute foreknowledge to God. God cannot will freely. God cannot act freely, even in accordance with his nature (which for the sake of argument we assume to be known). Man lacks foreknowledge (other than what can adequately predicted, and prediction is not even foreknowledge), and does not have free will either. It is simply the case that the laws governing man are not known yet - and this is even moreso an issue, if there can exist a being that knows beforehand what will be.

 

As for God not intervening / intervening, that is also a limitation on God. Every attribution we make on God limits God. Therefore every attribution we make, cannot be true, for God is not limited. The only form of reasoning about God, that does not get trapped in contradictions that cannot be solved is probably a negative theology.

 

Just like a loving parent responds to a child who does his best to destroy himself and the relationships he has with them.

Destroying himself? Interesting that you bring this subject up - for you use reason to understand what the child is trying to achieve. You attribute a form of reasoning to the child, even though this behavior and reasoning may not be the most healthy. But if a child does objectively his best to destroy himself we can also say, that the child does not do the opposite, and cannot do the opposite at the same point in time - thus no free will.

[Admiral Thrawn]

If this were to apply, the following also does: Creation is a theory. It is not a fact. Unless we can use a time-machine and actually observe God creating the universe, and write reports about it, in scientific language, it remains a theory.

 

This was a response to the idea of treating 'Evolution' as a fact as argued by Moai. It is a falsefiable scientific theory and not conclusive should further evidence come to light that contradicts the established evidence. To preclude the possibility that further evidence may come to light would be presumptious.

 

Creationism is a matter of faith. For the record, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, then perhaps God told Him in the burning bush how everything began. I personally believe the account of Genesis as do many other people. Science itself fundamentally can not answer what the origin of everything material/energy came from, because to it, there is always a cause and effect relationship.

 

It is observable. But not on the scale of millennia. But then again, the development of a cancer (including incubation) has also never been observed in a human being (in a proper way). Therefore it must be concluded that cancer is merely a theory, and cannot be held responsible for the deaths of so many of our fellow human beings?

 

They have microscopes or ways of seeing cancer cells. You do not need to employ a time-machine.

 

There is plenty of evidence of people claiming George W. Bush to be a total idiot. Does not make that true, either. There is plenty of evidence that people can be led to believe that they have seen what they have not, by mere suggestion.

 

George Bush wouldn't be in power if he was an idiot. An idiot is defined as someone with a lower IQ than normal. The slang defination is derogatory and ignorant.

 

As for claiming to having seen something, schizophrenics have the same illusion - but that does not mean that the illusion is true. In fact brain imaging suggests that experiences like that might be quite similar to schizophrenia.

 

Right, but then you run the problem of discounting people's experiences that do not add up to your own as having a mental delusion, which is the epithomy of ignorance. Granted, there are some cases of people who really have a problem, but I think the term could be misused in a perjurative or deragotory sence.

 

A science fiction movie that can speculate? What is next?

 

What do you think the purpose of ficitonal literature is - to expand the mind and speculate. War of the worlds is plain speculation about an invasion.

The point of issue is this, people who claim to know everything there is to know about the world, may suprised in a hypothetical situation, where they dont. People accept the possibility, as seen in movies such as Matrix, and others like, that the 5 sences may not be all that there is about knowing the world around you. I think it is just ignorant to just rationalise the world on just your 5 sences, and think the world is only limited to that, and just dismiss the possibility that there could be more than meets the eye. That is why I find Moai's logic to be absurd.

 

So this proves that various illusions and hallucinations of schizophrenic people also exist in the real world. The next step would be to deny that schizophrenic people suffer from illusions and hallucinations, because they do simply exist. So it is the non-schizophrenic people who are deficient, because they cannot spot objects that really exist? Right ...

 

As I have said, the epithomy of igorance is to use a legitimate mental disorder and start using it in a deragory and pejurative label to people who think differently from you. You are extremely ignorant.

 

True. But most often they are frauds. And sometimes there is an explanation that seems far-fetched, but it is there nonetheless.

 

Most of them are frauds? Whether you are labelling people as frauds or schizophrenic as a means of discounting their experience, it is all one word "ignorance" - on your part.

 

It is surprising that people who are supposed to be 'enlightened with scientific knowledge' are turning out to be extremely ignorant by summarily discounting ancedontal evidence. You select the evidence you want to hear, and discount the rest as 'schizophrenic' or 'frauds' - I may not agree with everything that is said, but I dont use those labels.

 

Strange to say, that you persist in doing that. The whole idea of paranormality is an offense to God.

 

Paranomality exists. And yes, it is an offence to God. However, I thought Moai would at least concede to point that there is more to the natural world than his five sences on that point.

 

No, the great Thrawn is the universal elect who decides what constitutes reliability. Coincidentally that exactly is the same thing, as all the prejudices and stereotypes, and beliefs said Thrawn holds.

 

I'm not the one making ignorant labels of people who dont agree with me.

[Admiral Thrawn]

ehhhhyayaya what?????????????????? Please don't tell me you were serious???? You think people used to live where the pacific ocean is now??? Certainly there were dinosaurs in that area before the tectonic plates moved, but too early for humans. And the story of atlantis is a MYTH.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this statement was a joke.

 

You wanted evidence of a flood? The Oceans are flooded as you can see.

[a4a]

AT please tell me where dinosaur bones come from?

 

please explain how Noah got all the animals on that boat?

 

please explain what will happen to those that follow other religions and how are you able to discount their theories on the creation of the earth ect?

 

please explain why your god took so long to send this jesus fella .....would it have not been easier to pretty much do that right off the bat?

 

did all those that were out of the reach of the teaching of chrisianity go to hell? Those civilizations located out of the reach of teaching...... native americans ect before the christian colonization of the Americas or other countries for that matter..... How are you expected to believe if you never heard of the bible or this god..... that does not seem all that fair.

 

These are very basic questions.... curious as how you think.

 

a4a

[d'Arthez]

Creationism is a matter of faith.

And so is Marxism. It cannot be falsified. Which must mean that it is true according to you. I still have not seen your reaction to the suggestion that Marxism should be made compulsory in classes then too.

 

They have microscopes or ways of seeing cancer cells.

Yes but they must have been created. How? Have you ever seen a cancer cell being created? No? Therefore cancercells cannot be established as the cause of cancer by your own logic. And people can therefore not die because of cancer.

 

An idiot is defined as someone with a lower IQ than normal.

Lower than normal? And what is normal? And that is already assuming that IQ is a measure of intelligence. An assumption that is dubious at best. For a person who claims to hold a degree in psychology, the lack of knowledge of a simple fact as that, is shocking to say the least.

 

But then you run the problem of discounting people's experiences that do not add up to your own as having a mental delusion, which is the epithomy of ignorance.

I did not do that. But I simply showed that you cannot make a distinction between true illusions and false illusions. As the illusions of schizophrenics are also well reported, and well established, so you cannot use that as a reason why haunted houses and such are real. For then there is no reason to say that the illusions of schizophrenics are illusions - they are real too, even if we cannot see the objects or hear the sounds they hear.

 

What do you think the purpose of ficitonal literature is - to expand the mind and speculate. War of the worlds is plain speculation about an invasion.

It is much more than that. It is also speculation on the reaction of people. But still, the fact that humans can produce science fiction does not prove the truth of science fiction. E.g. people can fantasize a lot about traveling at warp speed. Does not mean that it is technically possible, in the ways portrayed in the novels and movies.

 

The point of issue is this, people who claim to know everything there is to know about the world, may suprised in a hypothetical situation, where they dont.

So, why do you claim you know my destiny, or of the other non-believers? So far I have not seen a single bit of proof that you are right. You still have not adressed the free will issue you have single-handedly created.

 

I think it is just ignorant to just rationalise the world on just your 5 sences, and think the world is only limited to that, and just dismiss the possibility that there could be more than meets the eye.

There could be. But still, to fall back on a single dimension to explain all, knowing beforehand that that single dimension explains all, does not cut it in my book. In philosophy, that attempt has been made. But it failed miserably.

 

As I have said, the epithomy of igorance is to use a legitimate mental disorder and start using it in a deragory and pejurative label to people who think differently from you.

Um, if you cannot even read English properly and keep attributing positions to me, I do not hold, that is your problem, and your lack of understanding of language.

I simply disagree that haunted houses exist. And explain that the phenomenon may be quite similar to what happens when a person suffers from schizophrenia. If you cannot read English properly, then so be it.

 

You are extremely ignorant.

Coming from you, that is a compliment.

 

Most of them are frauds? Whether you are labelling people as frauds or schizophrenic as a means of discounting their experience, it is all one word "ignorance" - on your part.

Nonsense. We did an experiment a couple of years ago, near where I live, to show whether or not the whole science of crop circles was a fraud. A few farmers made crop circles. Those circles were investigated by the experts, who claimed that these circles were very important proofs for the existence of extraterrestial life. Then the joke came out: the farmers told they made the circles. Yep, I can perfectly see why the assumption that extraterrestial life is among us cannot be refuted.

 

It is surprising that people who are supposed to be 'enlightened with scientific knowledge' are turning out to be extremely ignorant by summarily discounting ancedontal evidence.

Yes, if I were to say to a person in the street that Thrawn is a buddhist, does not mean that said person has indisputable evidence that Thrawn is a buddhist. Very hard to comprehend?

 

You select the evidence you want to hear, and discount the rest as 'schizophrenic' or 'frauds'

And if you could actually read the English language, and stop attributing positions to me I do not hold, you would see that that is not the case.

 

- I may not agree with everything that is said, but I dont use those labels.

No, we are "only" condemned to eternal damnation in hell by you. I must say, compassion radiates from that condemnation alone.

 

Paranomality exists. And yes, it is an offence to God.

Therefore we may assume, that you should not want it to exist. So you are sinning by believing in paranormality?

 

I'm not the one making ignorant labels of people who dont agree with me.

Yes, as we all know the condemnation to hell for non-believers is just indisputably true. And well established.