Is there really a god?

[Moai]

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

 

I'm not bitter at all, actually.

 

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...

 

Actually, I do know why sweat has an odor. What if anything does that have to do with the non-existence of god?

 

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

 

I have no idea what that means.

[Moai]

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.

 

This is just ignorant. The fossil record, DNA evidence, and observed instances of speciation all show that evolution is happening right now, and explains the variation of life we saee on Earth. No time machine is required, and it isn't "just a theory." You do not understand what "theory" means, nor do you understand how science works.

 

Science can not explain how the first energy or matter was formed, simply because everything had a beginning.

 

If everything has a beginning, then God must have a beginning. Who created Him, and why aren't we worshipping THAT god instead? Or the god who created the god who created god? It is tue that science has yet to explain everything, but that doesn't mean it hasn't explained anything. I am sure that at some point we will have enough evidence to show who the first matter formed.

 

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.

 

Why? Matter could just as easily have always been here. It probably always has been.

 

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

 

Sorry, that is stupid myth written by ignoarnt shepherds a few thousand years ago. If youdidn't worship a book, you'd realize this.

 

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?

 

I am amazed that you believe in aliens. Do they need to accept Jesus, too? Is your church planning to send missionaries there to evangelize them?

 

"People seeing them" is not evidence.

 

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.

 

If my position is ignorant, then when the invisible pink unicorns attack I will look just as foolish. UFO's do not exist. There is no reason to fear them. While it is highly likely that there is life on other planets, they cannot come here. Read a little about physics and relativity.

 

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.

 

No, haunted houses and UFO's and Bigfoot and all the other nonsense are not well-documented. Not at all. Look it up. What is futile is to accept everything at face value because it MIGHT be true, or because someone says they saw it. That is just stupid.

 

Funny how someone who believes in UFO's, ghosts, etc. is asking me to be level-headed. Without a trace of irony.

 

Beyond that, if in fact I am wrong and the aliens are amongst us, there is nothing we can do to prevent their takeover of Earth. If they have somehow developed the ability to travel beyond light speed (which is impossible), can live for generations on a spacecraft and not lose bone intergrity, can carry enough food for such a journey, and find us in the first place nothing we do could stop them.

 

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

 

Yes, being "born-again" is just part of the religion known as Christian Fundamentalism.

 

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.

 

I don't care if I am offending them. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Just because someone believes earnestly that he saw a ghost doesn't mean that is actually what happened.

 

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.

 

There is no such thing as the "para-normal". I'm sorry that what you belive is nothing but superstitions, but that doens't make them any less lame. The more ignorant someone is, the more "out of the ordinary" things they experience.

 

Wasn't the Ark found on Mount Ararat?

 

Nope. There are people who think that it has, and ask for money for expeditions every year, but somehow *shocker* they can't quite get to it beffore the snow comes, or the "government" kicks them out, or whatever.

[Moai]

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.

 

I am curious. What is the highest level of education that you have acheived?

[Moai]

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???

 

Certainly there are ignorant people who doubt that evolution is a fact and sit aorund their local coffee shop and discuss it as if they know somehting, but within the scientific community there is no debate about whether or not evolution is a fact. And while it may suck for you, that is the only community that matters, since they are the ones conducting experiments and reviewing the data.

 

Wrong......again It's God's gift to all of us. One thing you can't touch, or effect, is another man's opinion.

 

Science is not based on opinion. It is interesting but because we are all equal under the law and your vote counts the same as mine, you seem to extrapolate that the same goes for ideas, and that is not the case. All ideas are not equal, and just because you hold an untenable idea in your head that doesn't mean it is equal to someone who has devoted their life to studying biology and evolution.

 

How do you know?? All you know is what man has written down as, THEORY.

No, we have the fossil record, DNA evidence, and observed instances of speciaiotn in the wild. You can look at a picture of your own extended family and see evolution happening. Scientists have developed a theory to explain all of this evidence. That is called the "Theory of Evolution". It has many parts to it, like punctuated equillibrium, genetic drift, nattural selection--it goes on and on, and it isn't always the easiest material to grasp--at least for some. Evolution is this: "Species change over time." That's it. And it is a fact.

Man hasn't witnessed this, Man HAS witnessed God in the flesh, and God in the Spirit. Tangable PROOF, not just writing.

I don't think that you know what "proof" means--and there is no "proof" in science, by the way. ALl you have to postulate that Jesus lived and rose from the dead is WRITING. That's it.

 

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.

The men to whom you refer got their "biology" degrees and fundamentalist bible colleges, and are not within the mainstream scientific community. They don't publish sceintifc research, nor do they conduct field work. Call anybiology department at any major university--and all the non-sectarian smaller ones, and they will all tell youthat evolution is a fact. Every single one.

Evolution being a fact has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. The Creation fable is not true, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

 

Again, this only your opinion. Which you're allowed to have, but, you are very rude, and arrogant to state as fact.

 

No, it is not my opinion, it is a basic rule of science. Provide me with one scenario that would falsify Special Creation. Explain one experiment that we can do to show evidence for it. You can't because Creationism isn't science. This is not a matter of opinion. To say it is is to say that if I put apple juice in my car it will work, and you can't say it won't because I am entitled to my opinion.

 

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, be definition people challenging me is what I live for. That is what science is all about. That is what makes it so valuable, and self-correcting. It is a really cool thing. What Ican't stand is people who are ignorant of the very subject they are discussing making blind assertions and assuming that just because they or "millions" hold the same view that their view is equally teneable. And it isn't.

 

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

 

Listen to YOURSELF. "All the evidence we have" is not equal to "we have all the evidence". More evidence is collected everyday. And all of the evidence we currently have, and every time we come up with new evidence the theory of evolution gets stronger, and we better understand how evolution works. There is not one piece of evidence that shows evolution to not be a fact.

 

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

You keep refering to things as if I just have an "opinion" and that I am somehow making all this up. DNA shows that all life has a common ancestor. If not, please provide a mechanism that prevents this from being so. Please show how the DNA testing was flawed. Oh, and while you are at it pleasse show me how all of the twelve or so methods for dating the Earth are off by a factor of ten. All of them off by exactly the same amount. Until then, you can "disagree" all you want but it just shows that you are ignorant of basic science and the world around you. And that is your fault, not mine.

 

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.

 

That's an intelligent statement. "I know what I need to know." How do you determine that? Because you know just enough to misunderstand basic biology? It is obvious by your assertions that you don't know anyting about how science actually works. What kind of engineer are you? I am in networking, and my degree is in history. But I payed attention in biology and reading on the subject is a hobby of mine. Biology fascinates me.

 

And none of this is "my word." Sheesh! Goto the library and read the biology books there. Look at the evidence for yourself. Take a class. It isn't just my word for it--there is overwhelming evidence to support what I am asserting. ANd actually, i am not asserting anything, really, I am just describing reality.

 

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....

You don't know what an arument is, obviously. Are you honestly a college graduate? If so, what school? I am amazed at your lack of basic education sometimes.

 

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???

 

I have had those experiences, and yes, I do have grounds to tell you what is fact. It is a fact that the sky is blue. It is a fact that the Earth is round. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact that humans breathe air. It is a fact that life changes over time. None of this has anything to do with your superstitions, and it is none of my concern that your superstitions cause you to reject observable reality. It is not my opinion, any more than it is my opinion that when I drop something it falls toward the Earth, not away from it.

[Moai]

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.

 

The Theory of Evolution will most certainly change. That is how theories work. But evolution is a fact. Just like gravity.

 

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.

 

Yes, Creationism is a matter of faith, while evolution is not. Thank you for conceding. Science does not address whether or nto there is or isn't a supreme being, but it does address origins of things. We have created self-replicating RNA in a lab, so in a sense man has created life. Pretty cool.

 

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

 

I am writing to you now. I don't need a time machine either.

 

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.

 

Huh? Read for meaning, bro. he wasn't calling Geroge Bush an idiot.

 

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.

 

Experience has nothing to do with it. There is evidence and there is not. For ghosts there is no evidence.

 

What do you think the purpose of ficitonal literature is - to expand the mind and speculate.

 

Nope. Entertainment.

 

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.

 

I never said that all of reality is determined by my five senses. I can't see or feel x-rays, but they are as real as I am.

 

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.

 

I thought he made a good point, and wasn't name calling at all. Again, it seems that you pick out that to which you can respond, and ignore the larger point of the paragraph.

 

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.

 

Yes, most of them are frauds. And those who are mentally ill have my deepest sympathy, but one of the ways we use to determine mental illness is their perception of reality.

 

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.

 

That's because anecdotal evidence has little or now scientific value.

 

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.

 

No, I look at all the evidence and then draw conclusions based on the evidence, and experimantation where I can--or look at the experimants of others. And there is no evidence for the paranormal.

 

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.

 

Paranormality only exists in the minds of those who accept it.

 

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

 

You have to call people who believe nonsensicla things something. Everything has a label.

[Admiral Thrawn]

AT please tell me where dinosaur bones come from?

 

Duh, maybe they came from Dinosaurs?

 

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

 

Duh, how to people get animals into zoos?

 

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?

 

They eventually will know the truth that my faith is correct if they are really searching for the truth.

 

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?

 

Finally, an intelligent question. The reason for that is because God is a God of reason. He would not just send His Son out of the blue, without us humans understanding why He would send His Son. That is why you have the Old Testament to lay the whole foundation behind the ministry of Christ.

 

What does the OT show? It shows that people, who have choosen to obey the commandments of God as a way of being right with God, have failed miserably in over 4000 years of practise. It shows that they continually needed to sacrifice Lambs and animals in order to purge their sins for a year.

 

The Israelites had it all for them. God delivered them from Egypt, set them in the land of Cannan, did countless miracles, but despite the miracles, they still doubted God, and still went after idols. Things got so bad, with God's choosen people Israel, that He had to chastise them several times as foreign rulers caputred and exiled people in Israel for all their sins.

 

You have documented case-example of the Ministry of the Law. This is what following a 'religion' means without Christ. You are going nowhere and just fail miserably. This is what is termed as 'legalism', trying to be good to save yourself. God would take long to send Christ so rational thinking people could reflect on Israel as a case-study example of what it means to live without grace and trying be righteous just by having the commandments and laws and following them.

 

By the time Jesus came to start His Ministry - He had allot of words to say about the Pharisees, the Lawyers and the Saduccees, who have miserably lost their way, creating laws unto themselves for interpreting the laws of God, in order to fit their selfish ways.

 

So, in turse answer to your question, the cause for the delay is to address questions that people like you may raise about other religions. Because, it shows, when a people has the purest form of revelation from God, and are giving laws to follow - they cant do it and just fail miserably.

 

That is why a Savior for humanity is needed because we cant make ourselfs righteous or be in obedience to the laws of God, if our life depends on it, and to be frank, our eternal life certainly depends on it - so we need a Savior who could bridge that gap. 4000+ years of evidence to show following a religion, following a law, trying to earn brownie-points, is FUTILE.

 

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.

 

Another intelligent question. It is a question of people falling through the cracks and challenging how sincere God is with His will of ensuring everyone has a chance to be saved.

 

I believe God reveals Himself to people who are searching for Him. How did Abel, know what to sacrifice to God, and Cain did not, in the beginning of Genesis? God has always reached out to people in the OT and revealed Himself before Jesus came to earth, so I'm sure that He will reveal Himself somehow to people who are seeking Him.

 

Other than that this is a dificult question. We know that God is fair and just as it comes to judgement. So, it is better to ask questions about your own life in contrast with judgement than others, since on Judgement Day, the subject of judgement is going to be yourself, rather than the native Indians.

 

Are you right with God? Are you saved? Those are questions that pertain to you that you should be asking, not whether God is just or not.

 

When you pay your taxes, are you going to tell the government you dont want to pay your taxes because you dont agree with everything they are spending your tax dollars on? No, you have to pay it like everyone else.

Same thing here. You may not agree with everything God does or understand it, but God is no respector of persons. So, the right question you should be asking is how are you going to make it?

 

So, what you did with Christ, would be the subject matter of judgement, and you certainly cant deny not having the benefit of hearing the Gospel, and accusing God as being unjust to justify yourself is not going to help you.

[Admiral Thrawn]

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.

 

Marxism - you mean the doctrine that started Soviet Communism, is built on a 'Christ-less' premise. LIke everything that is without Christ, it is a complete and absolute failure. Communist countries like the Soviet Union have crumbled. Other Communist countries have bad human rights records and betray the very premise in which they came into power.

 

So, find me a utopian society founded on Marxism.

 

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.

 

I thought it was common scientific knowledge that radiation, free-radicals, or any substance that can alter the DNA of a cell and causes it to mutate is enough to trigger cancer growth. Proper excercise, proper diet, and no smoking vice are probably the best means available of minimising a cancer risk. Also, do not go into a nuclear plan facility without a radiation suit, do not play with pleutonoium or uranium - it would also help the chances.

 

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.

 

I dont know the exact number, but it is an official category on an IQ score.

You are missing the point. George Bush is an intelligent guy. If people call him a moron or an idiot, than they are using a neutral term and turning it into a deragatory one. It is what 'ignorant' people say about people who have different views as they do.

 

So, if there is a camp that says George Bush is a moron, then they are too ignorant to express their differences of views in a rational way. If they disagree with George Bush, they can say, "I disagree with the policies and political doctrine of George Bush because of so and so', no need to call anyone a moron or an idiot.

 

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.

 

Yes you do, and you are doing it now. There is plenty of ancedonal evidence out there that can establish haunted hauses are real. By contrasting this to schizophrania, you are making an unacceptable line of arguement.

 

Do you know what the Chinese government do to political dissenters? I read about this in an article in the Toronto Star. Let me tell you what they do. They put them in a Psychiatric institution, and give them nice mental disease labels such as 'litigation addiction', or 'polticial delusions' - why, because they disagree or voiced opposition against a politician?

 

What you are doing here follows the same vein of reason. You never had an experience of being in a haunted house. Someone else, who is sane, may have had one. You start saying, they may have a mental disease because they have that experience. What makes your line of reasoning better than how the Chinese government reasons with politician dissenters?

 

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.

 

And 100 years ago, people speculated about landing on the moon.

It happened in 1969. People have to first imagine the possibility before doing anything. Imagine if people always thought they could not land on the moon, then perhaps, nothing would have happened in 1969.

 

 

 

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.

 

You are raising foolish suggestions about free-will - because you are choosing whatever you are doing. You can choose to accept or reject Christ.

 

I'm not claiming to know anything that is apart from the Word of God. Anything that I claim can be backed by scripture, and, if you disagree with any of my claims, you are more than welcome to disagree and use the Bible.

I know my theology is soundly backed up by the Bible.

 

 

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.

 

It's not just about reading English, it is the intent of what you are saying and the context you are saying it that is more important than words. You are discrediting ancedontal evidence by dismissing people who document their experiences as having mental issues. That is unacceptable.

 

 

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.

 

I'm talking about ancedontal evidence from people who claimed to have experienced something. There is plenty, plenty of ancedontal evidence to show that there is more than meets the eye to the natural world, or the world of the 5 senses.

 

That is why, for someone like Moai, or anyone to say there is nothing beyond the natural world reality, would have to be done at the expense of dismissing tons of documentary evidence. It is a lame or sad arguement to start portraying people who give ancedontal evidence as insane, or giving the appearance that they are insane.

 

 

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?

 

The credibility would be called into question as to what advantage he/she would have of making an assertion, and you would be looking for collaborating witnesses, including myself.

 

There are tons of documtantary material of people who have experienced things beyond the 5 sences to conclude that there is more than meets the eye than the three-dimensional 5 sences world that we are used to.

 

 

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

 

If you are talking about English and twisting words up - do you wish to make an example by doing it yourself?

 

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

 

Just like hell, the devil, and other things that are mentioned in the Bible that I wish did not exist.

 

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

 

Well, some people are best to know it after the fact when it is too late to do anything about it. What can I say?

[Moai]

Duh, maybe they came from Dinosaurs?

 

Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, so they couldn't have existed.

 

Duh, how to people get animals into zoos?

 

Modern zoos are incredibly complex, and take up vast amounts of space, and employ thousands of workers who specialize in particualr species to keep all those animals alive.

 

Noah did it with no knowledge of biology, and on a boat about the size of a small cruise ship. And every animal currently on earth was on there with him.

 

Please explain how sloths got on the Ark. They must have been forwarned generations before the actual flood, as it would take them hundreds of years to travel from where they live to where the Ark left from.

 

I would also like to know how it is that the animals saved made it back to where their fossilized ancestors are found, and none of their bones are found elsewhere.

 

I would also like to know how Noah and his family lived as loing as they did all the while walking aorund infected by every disease and parasite that infest man.

 

I'd also like to know where all the water came from, and where all the water went.

 

I'd like to know where Noah stored enough food for JUST THE HERBIVORES.

 

They eventually will know the truth that my faith is correct if they are really searching for the truth.

 

Judging by the book in which you believe, your faith is misplaced.

[Moose]

And while it may suck for you, that is the only community that matters, since they are the ones conducting experiments and reviewing the data

Nah....it doesn't suck for me at all....It just doesn't matter to me. So, since it doesn't matter to me, how could they be the only community that matters. It ONLY matters to you. Period.

Science is not based on opinion

Whatever you say....Science has proven itself wrong over, and over, and over, and over again. AND will continue to do so. Science is man made, is far from perfect. I'm not willing to bet my soul on something so imperfect.

It is interesting but because we are all equal under the law and your vote counts the same as mine, you seem to extrapolate that the same goes for ideas, and that is not the case. All ideas are not equal, and just because you hold an untenable idea in your head that doesn't mean it is equal to someone who has devoted their life to studying biology and evolution

HEY, I don't care what you think about my ideas. TO me, they are truth. Sure, I'd like for all to believe the same as I, but that's just not going to happen.

 

The difference between you and I, is that I can let go of your ignorance, and have hope that someday you'll see things differently. While you cling to mine and continue to TRY, I said, TRY to make me look stupid or something.

 

I know about the evolution, THEORY, I know a little about biology. I know about all of these experiments, DNA, data being collected.....IT JUST DOESN"T MATTER TO ME!!!!

 

When you and your SCIENTIFIC community can create life from absolutely NOTHING.....then I might perk up with interest. Until then........

 

Oh.....and about my education.....yes, I'm a college graduate, and it's none of your friggin' business where I went.

 

I don't get off on comparing brain pans....I have my wife and family, and I don't owe anybody ANYTHING......there's also no doubt in my mind that I'm better off than you and your, "knowledge" of biology......

[Admiral Thrawn]

This is just ignorant. The fossil record, DNA evidence, and observed instances of speciation all show that evolution is happening right now, and explains the variation of life we saee on Earth. No time machine is required, and it isn't "just a theory." You do not understand what "theory" means, nor do you understand how science works.

 

Fact in point - Evolution is NOT empiracal science and is not at the same level of natural things that can be observed in this time period. It is not in the same vein as Chemistry, Physics, Biology (current biology), Thermodynamics, etc. yet is it is taught like fact.

 

You would need a time-machine to see how life was really like back then. This assertion may be a mockery to the evolution theory as a whole. After all, you have made jeering remarks yourself, so that means I can too.

 

Not to worry, you can ask Doc if you can borrow a Delorian from Back to the Future.

 

 

If everything has a beginning, then God must have a beginning. Who created Him, and why aren't we worshipping THAT god instead? Or the god who created the god who created god? It is tue that science has yet to explain everything, but that doesn't mean it hasn't explained anything. I am sure that at some point we will have enough evidence to show who the first matter formed.

 

No, that is what you think. God, by defination, can not have a beginning or an end.

 

In terms of first matter - then the question would be - where did that matter come from? It will go on and on until conceptually, you have to come up with a defination such as "God created it.". It is inevitable.

 

 

Why? Matter could just as easily have always been here. It probably always has been.

 

But, how was the matter put there? In science, something is always created from something else? Laws of thermodynamics, energy is changed or transferred, not created. There is a missing black-box somehwere that science can not open.

 

Sorry, that is stupid myth written by ignoarnt shepherds a few thousand years ago. If youdidn't worship a book, you'd realize this.

 

Wow. And you are complaining that I am ignorant?

 

I am amazed that you believe in aliens. Do they need to accept Jesus, too? Is your church planning to send missionaries there to evangelize them?

 

You missed the point entirely. Your world is confined to the 5-sences.

There are tonnes of ancedontal evidence to show the contrary.

 

"People seeing them" is not evidence.

 

That is the problem with you. You are selecting what evidence you want to hear. Which is fine, but it sort of puts you as an ignorant person. Remember, you are complaining that I may be discounting all the evidence and scientific proof about evolution? Well, here you are doing the same thing here.

 

There are 'tonns' of documentary ancedontal evidence of 'people seeing or experiencing' something beyond the realm of the 5-sences or 'natural world' as you want to call it - who are sane, and are like everyone else.

 

If my position is ignorant, then when the invisible pink unicorns attack I will look just as foolish. UFO's do not exist. There is no reason to fear them. While it is highly likely that there is life on other planets, they cannot come here. Read a little about physics and relativity.

 

I'm not making a case about life in other planets - I'm making a case about ancedontal evidence that there is more to the 'natural world' and 'universe' beyond the 5-sences. So, if people have experienced UFOS, and there is lots of documentary evidence about it, then it is probably true, they have experienced a UFO. Now, whether or not the UFO could be explained by some natural phenominan such as 'ball-lightening', or a 'weather baloon', or whether it could be speculated that they are evil spirits distracting people and playing mind-tricks, is left for speculation. However, it can not be discounted that they have experienced what they experienced.

 

For the record, I believe people have experienced seeing or hearing a UFO.

I speculate, that they are either evil spirits playing tricks with people's minds, or are weather baloons or ball-lightening.

 

 

No, haunted houses and UFO's and Bigfoot and all the other nonsense are not well-documented. Not at all. Look it up. What is futile is to accept everything at face value because it MIGHT be true, or because someone says they saw it. That is just stupid.

 

Funny how someone who believes in UFO's, ghosts, etc. is asking me to be level-headed. Without a trace of irony.

 

There is plenty, plenty of ancedontal documentary evidence to show that people are seeing and experiencing things beyong their 5-sences, who are not under the influence of drugs, who are mentally sane, but they have documented their experience.

 

My charge to you is that you are simply making a summary dismissal of all of the ancedontal evidence that is out there that would substantiate the fact, and I mean tons of ancedontal evidence, that there is a reality, beyond the 'natural world' or your 5-sences reality.

 

Yes, being "born-again" is just part of the religion known as Christian Fundamentalism.

 

It is an experience and it is a relationship with Christ.

 

I don't care if I am offending them. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Just because someone believes earnestly that he saw a ghost doesn't mean that is actually what happened.

 

And evidence by the volume, and checking the credibility of the witness of making such an assertion (ruling out any reason to do so), is good ancedontal evidence enough. Again, this is not something that is just witnessed or documented by ONE person, but many, many, many people.

 

 

There is no such thing as the "para-normal". I'm sorry that what you belive is nothing but superstitions, but that doens't make them any less lame. The more ignorant someone is, the more "out of the ordinary" things they experience.

 

Right, but just remember one thing, what you are asserting is at the expense of summarily dismissing all the ancedontal evidence that is out there.

 

As one who claims to be 'scientifically enlightened' to dismiss the preponderonce of people's testimonies or experiences is probably as ignorant as one can get.

 

Nope. There are people who think that it has, and ask for money for expeditions every year, but somehow *shocker* they can't quite get to it beffore the snow comes, or the "government" kicks them out, or whatever.

 

I did not say all ancedontal evidence may be without ulterior motives, or may be 'off' in another way, but with the sheer volume of evidence that is out there, it can not be discounted either.

[Moose]

Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, so they couldn't have existed.

Actually, I believe they are called, "behemoths"...if I understood my pastor correctly.

Noah did it with no knowledge of biology, and on a boat about the size of a small cruise ship. And every animal currently on earth was on there with him

Noah didn't have to know, God was with him, and took care of everything.

Please explain how sloths got on the Ark. They must have been forwarned generations before the actual flood, as it would take them hundreds of years to travel from where they live to where the Ark left from.

 

I would also like to know how it is that the animals saved made it back to where their fossilized ancestors are found, and none of their bones are found elsewhere.

 

I would also like to know how Noah and his family lived as loing as they did all the while walking aorund infected by every disease and parasite that infest man.

 

I'd also like to know where all the water came from, and where all the water went.

 

I'd like to know where Noah stored enough food for JUST THE HERBIVORES.

Easy answer for the laymen: With God, ALL things are possible......

[quankanne]

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??? I have had those experiences, and yes, I do have grounds to tell you what is fact. It is a fact that the sky is blue. It is a fact that the Earth is round. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact that humans breathe air. It is a fact that life changes over time. None of this has anything to do with your superstitions, and it is none of my concern that your superstitions cause you to reject observable reality. It is not my opinion, any more than it is my opinion that when I drop something it falls toward the Earth, not away from it.

 

clarification is needed here: Yes, there are scientific facts that we can recite because they are based in truth. The sky is blue. The earth is round. People believe what they will. What Moose is trying to point out is that no amount of "proof" someone has built up to dispel the existence of God is going to shake a believer. There comes a point, however, where it becomes less an exercise to present evidence to back our respective opinions and more an opportunity to belittle the other guy for what he chooses to believe.

 

maybe it's time to agree to disagree and walk away from this thread ....

 

to the original poster: Is there really a God?

 

you are the only one who can answer this for yourself, and the only way you can do this is to study everything you can and open you heart and mind to the possibility. What you discern is your personal answer, the best we believers can do is to show you how He's worked in our lives with hope that maybe you'll understand.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, so they couldn't have existed.

 

When Lucifer fell from grace and God banished it to the earth, and it became the devil, then its landing caused a catastrophy that destroyed all the Dinosaurs and the world as it were back then.

 

Genesis 2:2 "And the earth was without form and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep...".

 

The devil is associated with the kingdom of darkness. That would mean that something happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:2 that would explain the extinciton of the dinosaurs and pre-historic life as we know it.

 

When the 'nuclear winter' from the meteror (i.e.) dust settled, then light and darkness would be seen, as the sun, stars, and other aspects of creation.

Then everything else, including man was a subsequent creation.

 

The creation story, may be told from the perspective of vision of someone witnessing the events from the earth, as opposed to from space. How did the Lord communicate or make visions of creation to the person writing Genesis is not know. But, if he was writing from the perspective of a terrestrial observer than it would make perfect sence that the creation story of this world would coinicide remarkably with the events of a recovery from a 'nuclear winter' so to speak.

 

Let's look at it in more detail:

 

Arial creations cooncide with the dust-settling. (i.e. sun, moon, stars, heavenly bodies). When the dust first settles all you can see is light and darkness. As the dust settles further, you can distinguish, sun, moon, stars and other heavenly bodies.

 

Then after this, plant and animal life can be sustained. Finally people.

 

So, can Dinosaurs and their extinction be supported by the Word of God.

I challenge the assertion that yes - if the creation story is taking from the perspective of a post-nuclear winter caused by a falling comet or something, and if that bears a spiritual significance to the fall of Lucifer.

 

Remember, in the Garden of Eden, the devil was already present there, so it must have been there much earlier on.

 

 

Modern zoos are incredibly complex, and take up vast amounts of space, and employ thousands of workers who specialize in particualr species to keep all those animals alive.

 

Noah did it with no knowledge of biology, and on a boat about the size of a small cruise ship. And every animal currently on earth was on there with him.

 

How do you know he had no knowledge of biology? Maybe God zapped the information he needed in his mind?

 

Please explain how sloths got on the Ark. They must have been forwarned generations before the actual flood, as it would take them hundreds of years to travel from where they live to where the Ark left from.

 

They must of picked them up and carried them into the ark. Fire and hot amber or good whips are always good incentives for animals.

 

I would also like to know how it is that the animals saved made it back to where their fossilized ancestors are found, and none of their bones are found elsewhere.

 

Because after the waters receded, they just went back to where they decided to come from.

 

I would also like to know how Noah and his family lived as loing as they did all the while walking aorund infected by every disease and parasite that infest man.

 

Back then, people lived longer. Adam lived closed to 1000 years. When sin came more predominant in the world, life spans were shortened until you got an average 60-80 years old.

 

I'd also like to know where all the water came from, and where all the water went.

 

From the sky and into the ocean.

 

I'd like to know where Noah stored enough food for JUST THE HERBIVORES.

 

Don't worry, the same God that took care of Noah, is the same God that multiplied loaves of bread and fish to feed 5000 people. I'm sure that was taken care of.

 

Judging by the book in which you believe, your faith is misplaced.

 

How so?

[d'Arthez]

Marxism - you mean the doctrine that started Soviet Communism, is built on a 'Christ-less' premise.

Umm, you are seriously distorting history here. It is like claiming that Margaret Thatcher invented the Conservative Party while she was already the Prime Minister. Please explain how to accomplish such a feat.

 

LIke everything that is without Christ, it is a complete and absolute failure.

You cannot prove that Marxism is wrong. Popper tried, and utterly failed. Therefore, Marxism cannot be falsified. And by your own argument should be considered true. And taught in classes.

 

Communist countries like the Soviet Union have crumbled.

And dictatorial countries once were democratic countries (many countries in Africa, including Christian Africa & most of South America had their dictators after democracy once existed). Therefore democracy is proven an utter failure. Therefore we should strive to abolish democracy.

 

Other Communist countries have bad human rights records and betray the very premise in which they came into power.

Yet, in the US it is possible to execute minors. That is oozing with concern for human rights. Shall we also mention Guantanamo Bay? And the unilaterlism in military right? It must be an atrocious thought to let independents decide whether or not hefty massacres (as perpetrated by some US service-men) were indeed warcrimes.

 

The whole freedom rhetoric in the US was already considered to be a joke in the 1830's by citizens of the US itself.

 

So, find me a utopian society founded on Marxism.

Why? It is not necessary for me to prove that such a society will exist in the future. And then I am only following you in your claim that the Second coming of Christ has not yet occured, so we cannot find utopia on earth. The premises are the same you cannot reject just one of them.

Therefore, Marxism is still not falsified, and should be taught in school.

 

I thought it was common scientific knowledge that radiation, free-radicals, or any substance that can alter the DNA of a cell and causes it to mutate is enough to trigger cancer growth.

Yes, we know there is a connection between the two. But have you actually seen a mutation grow? We know there is a causal connection, but we can still argue that there is no determining connection. This can never be disproven. So you must necessarily hold that cancer cannot be caused by radiation. Were it otherwise, you should concede the original point I made.

 

I dont know the exact number, but it is an official category on an IQ score.

The thing is, IQ does not measure intelligence. That is the biggest joke - and psychologists still have the power to molest a child by assigning it to have inferior intelligence.

George Bush is an intelligent guy.

I beg, nay, the majority of the world population begs to differ. Which by virtue of your own logic already proves, that George Bush cannot be an intelligent guy.

 

So, if there is a camp that says George Bush is a moron, then they are too ignorant to express their differences of views in a rational way.

Why bother? Some of the most avid supporters of Bush perfectly make it clear why a lot of people do not even bother to attempt discussion. People have better things to do, than constantly correcting the horse manure as it is produced by the most biased people. As it is easier to make a tree fall down, by shouting at it.

 

There is plenty of ancedonal evidence out there that can establish haunted hauses are real.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that George Bush is an idiot.

 

By contrasting this to schizophrania, you are making an unacceptable line of arguement.

Why unacceptable? The parallel perfectly exists. And if you can't handle illusions that are real, but do not exist (as in schizophrenia), the possibility that other illusions are real, but do not exist (as is the case of the haunted houses)

 

They put them in a Psychiatric institution, and give them nice mental disease labels such as 'litigation addiction', or 'polticial delusions' - why, because they disagree or voiced opposition against a politician?

Western methods are a bit more subtle. Consider the criminalization of homosexuality for instance, etc. Different regimes, different crimes. But the penalties are paid by those who deviate from the norm, or whatever may be desired by the respective governments. That is no different in the US, than in China, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, and where not.

 

Someone else, who is sane, may have had one. You start saying, they may have a mental disease because they have that experience.

Stop attributing words and positions to me, that I have not expressed or advocated. I said there were similar processes involved, and that you cannot say that one group has real illusions and another group has fake illusions. Because I can just as easily claim that you do not see the objects, or hear the voices a schizophrenic hears, therefore that your experience must necessarily be flawed.

 

What makes your line of reasoning better than how the Chinese government reasons with politician dissenters?

Because in fact you attribute to me a line of reasoning I have not expressed.

 

And 100 years ago, people speculated about landing on the moon.

It happened in 1969. People have to first imagine the possibility before doing anything.

Makes no sense. For then everything should be conscious, or at least accessible by the conscious mind. So far, we have little evidence to suggest that is true.

 

You are raising foolish suggestions about free-will - because you are choosing whatever you are doing.

That is the most absurd argument for free will. I will the Christ to come now. Does not happen. Therefore the Second coming of Christ must be a joke... Right ... If you come up with an argument, make it a sensible one. And I have told you, no philosopher or theologician has solved the issue of free will in an universe with a God who has foreknowledge.

 

You can choose to accept or reject Christ.

It is already foreknown whether or not I do that. And again, and this is a point you have succesfully ignored for the past 13 posts (!) there is no free will, simply a lack of understanding on our part on the laws that govern human behavior. Simple as that.

We are just ants, albeit it seems we are a bit more complex in our behaviors.

 

I'm not claiming to know anything that is apart from the Word of God. Anything that I claim can be backed by scripture, and, if you disagree with any of my claims, you are more than welcome to disagree and use the Bible.

You cannot even proof with Scripture that the Universe has existed longer than 2 seconds, in human counting that is.

 

I know my theology is soundly backed up by the Bible.

And I could base baseball tactics of the Braves on the philosophy of Leibniz. Does not mean that application of that philosophy will create sensible game plans. But as long as I believe they do, the perfect season might be attainable, as long as we believe hard enough in that.

 

You are discrediting ancedontal evidence by dismissing people who document their experiences as having mental issues. That is unacceptable.

You have proven for over the 50th time, how good you are in purposely misreading my words. I did not say that. There is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that George Bush is indeed an idiot. So why is that not true in your book - after all, anecdotical evidence is anecdotical evidence?

 

That is why, for someone like Moai, or anyone to say there is nothing beyond the natural world reality, would have to be done at the expense of dismissing tons of documentary evidence.

What is well documented are the utter impossibilities in the Bible. What is well documented is the impossibility to reconcile Christianity in the form you believe in with free will.

 

It is a lame or sad arguement to start portraying people who give ancedontal evidence as insane, or giving the appearance that they are insane.

I did not do that. But it is interesting that you read it as such.

 

Just like hell, the devil, and other things that are mentioned in the Bible that I wish did not exist.

So you are a sinner for believing in the paranormal? Or are we sinners for not believing in the paranormal?

 

Well, some people are best to know it after the fact when it is too late to do anything about it. What can I say?

That you grant yourself the aura of holiness, yet at the same time disagree so vehemently with those who do not share your persuasion, and call that compassion. Right ... ever wondered why a lot of people do get sick of religion these days?

[Moose]

There comes a point, however, where it becomes less an exercise to present evidence to back our respective opinions and more an opportunity to belittle the other guy for what he chooses to believe.

Took the words right out of my mouth.......

[d'Arthez]

How do you know he had no knowledge of biology? Maybe God zapped the information he needed in his mind?

Which is impossible. As that would mean God intervenes in the world. Which is a position that is contrary to your own expressed limitations you told God had.

 

Back then, people lived longer. Adam lived closed to 1000 years. When sin came more predominant in the world, life spans were shortened until you got an average 60-80 years old.

So, we should expect life expectancies to decrease since written history, and not increase. You don't have to be a genius statistician to know that that is not true.

 

From the sky and into the ocean.

How would it get there? Created by God to be there? That runs against your own assumptions. If there was a giant flood, that means the land, hundreds of feet above current sealevel must also have been a bit wet to say the least. Where did that water go? Disappear? Did God make water suddenly more compact, which it still is to this day?

[Admiral Thrawn]

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that George Bush is an idiot.

 

The term 'idiot' is being used as a deragatory one. Everybody makes mistakes when they are in power, no matter what power they are from.

 

Why unacceptable? The parallel perfectly exists. And if you can't handle illusions that are real, but do not exist (as in schizophrenia), the possibility that other illusions are real, but do not exist (as is the case of the haunted houses)

 

It is the image that you are portraying that is unacceptable of people who have had such experiences, because inevitably you are making judgements about their character, whether you like to or not. You are somehow saying their experiences are less than valid because something is wrong with them.

 

Stop attributing words and positions to me, that I have not expressed or advocated. I said there were similar processes involved, and that you cannot say that one group has real illusions and another group has fake illusions. Because I can just as easily claim that you do not see the objects, or hear the voices a schizophrenic hears, therefore that your experience must necessarily be flawed.

 

It is a matter of what type of 'image' you are portraying more than what you are saying. Perhaps someone else reading these messages should comment besides either you or me; But your post here seems to be the portrayal of people who are having these experiences, in your view, have something that is wrong with them. It is the way it is being phrased.

 

How can a normal, sane person, not under the influence of drugs experience an illusion, and at that, many other people experiencing the same types of illustion. That does not wash unless you wish to attack the credibility of the observer.

 

 

Makes no sense. For then everything should be conscious, or at least accessible by the conscious mind. So far, we have little evidence to suggest that is true.

 

The evidence out there suggests otherwise.

 

That is the most absurd argument for free will. I will the Christ to come now.

 

To come * where * now?

 

Does not happen. Therefore the Second coming of Christ must be a joke... Right ... If you come up with an argument, make it a sensible one. And I have told you, no philosopher or theologician has solved the issue of free will in an universe with a God who has foreknowledge.

 

Maybe if you are locked up in a prison or something, then you will understand what free-will means, because, you have allot of that. You can walk, sing, run, you can do anything you want. People may think you are crazy if you just start doing reckless sponetonious actions in public out of the blue by yourself - but for arguement's sake, you have free-will.

 

You cannot even proof with Scripture that the Universe has existed longer than 2 seconds, in human counting that is.

 

What are you trying to say?

 

And I could base baseball tactics of the Braves on the philosophy of Leibniz. Does not mean that application of that philosophy will create sensible game plans. But as long as I believe they do, the perfect season might be attainable, as long as we believe hard enough in that.

 

When I start talking about the Bible, you go and talk about something else.

 

You have proven for over the 50th time, how good you are in purposely misreading my words. I did not say that. There is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that George Bush is indeed an idiot. So why is that not true in your book - after all, anecdotical evidence is anecdotical evidence?

 

It is not a matter of what you are saying, but what you are portraying. You are placing people who have had 'experiences' in a negative light when you start making comparisons to people who have mental dillusions and are in a sence painting them under the same brush.

 

What is well documented are the utter impossibilities in the Bible. What is well documented is the impossibility to reconcile Christianity in the form you believe in with free will.

 

What is well documented?

 

So you are a sinner for believing in the paranormal? Or are we sinners for not believing in the paranormal?

 

Of course not, that is absurd. It's like saying, X believes he'll die if he jumps over the bridge, therefore, X will jump over the bridge. But, since everyone knows they can die if they jump over a bridge, then everyone is dead.

 

Do you see how absurd that line of reasoning is - because it sounds like yours.

 

That you grant yourself the aura of holiness, yet at the same time disagree so vehemently with those who do not share your persuasion, and call that compassion. Right ... ever wondered why a lot of people do get sick of religion these days?

 

What is your problem? You dont want to experience something after the fact that you cant change? If you feel so confident that everything is fine with you, why are you making such a big deal now?

[Admiral Thrawn]

Which is impossible. As that would mean God intervenes in the world. Which is a position that is contrary to your own expressed limitations you told God had.

 

God intervenes with people who need His help or want Him to. That is why prayer is necessary most of the time.

 

So, we should expect life expectancies to decrease since written history, and not increase. You don't have to be a genius statistician to know that that is not true.

 

Well, at least with the type of people who lived before the flood. Sometime after, I think life-expectancies were shortened because people were and are too wicked to deserve long lives here.

 

How would it get there? Created by God to be there? That runs against your own assumptions. If there was a giant flood, that means the land, hundreds of feet above current sealevel must also have been a bit wet to say the least. Where did that water go? Disappear? Did God make water suddenly more compact, which it still is to this day?

 

Besides the Oceans, you also have lakes and clouds.

[d'Arthez]

God intervenes with people who need His help or want Him to. That is why prayer is necessary most of the time.

Thus he intervenes in the world. This runs exactly contrary to your own assertions and claims. Both cannot be true. Therefore your position is untenable.

 

Well, at least with the type of people who lived before the flood. Sometime after, I think life-expectancies were shortened because people were and are too wicked to deserve long lives here.

You think!? And you claimed that your statement was the truth?!? Read the verbs and come up with an answer that does not contradict itself in the verbs already.

 

Besides the Oceans, you also have lakes and clouds.

Um, and the lakes would not have flooded during a gigantic flood?

As for the clouds, have you ever calculated how much the clouds would need to gain in density to hold all the excess water?

[d'Arthez]

The term 'idiot' is being used as a deragatory one. Everybody makes mistakes when they are in power, no matter what power they are from.

Again that is what you are reading.

 

 

 

It is the image that you are portraying that is unacceptable of people who have had such experiences, because inevitably you are making judgements about their character, whether you like to or not.

Promising me eternal hell and damnation is not a judgement about my character? Sure ...

 

You are somehow saying their experiences are less than valid because something is wrong with them.

Again, that is what you read, and I have not written.

 

It is a matter of what type of 'image' you are portraying more than what you are saying.

It is not the image. People who can read English properly do not have an issue with my messages in this thread. You do, but again, you have proven yourself a master at misreading my posts. As you claim to have a college degree, there is nothing I can do to change that.

But your post here seems to be the portrayal of people who are having these experiences, in your view, have something that is wrong with them.

You are constantly claiming that everything is wrong with people who do not agree with your interpretation of the KJV. Right ..., makes perfect sense as you have already a large number of contradictory attributes and behavioral states attributed to God that are perfectly opposed to each other, and therefore necessarily false.

 

How can a normal, sane person, not under the influence of drugs experience an illusion, and at that, many other people experiencing the same types of illustion.

Drugs like caffeine? Not all schizophrenics (if that is what you are referring to) use drugs. And not all drug users develop schizophrenia, or even other hallucinations.

 

I am still waiting for your reaction on the experiment with the crop circles. The ultimate proof that extraterrestial life must exist.

 

The evidence out there suggests otherwise.

Ever heard of irrationality? The subconscious. Can you describe in the minutest detail how you tie your laces?

 

To come * where * now?

Here. He did not come. By the virtue of your own logic I have proven Christianity false.

 

Maybe if you are locked up in a prison or something, then you will understand what free-will means, because, you have allot of that.

No I don't. Neither do you. That you do not understand it, is a different matter.

You can walk, sing, run, you can do anything you want. People may think you are crazy if you just start doing reckless sponetonious actions in public out of the blue by yourself - but for arguement's sake, you have free-will.

No. That is nonsense. I could sing, yes. Run, yes. But not freely. Now, the illusion of free will is apparently sufficient for you. Can't blame me for that (you think you can, but that is another illusion )

 

For that already implies a lot of assumptions to be present, which will never be met, as man as a human being is not eternal, and without needs, to name but the most problematical requirements.

 

What are you trying to say?

Just what I said. Prove to me that the Universe has existed for longer than 2 human seconds. You cannot do that.

 

When I start talking about the Bible, you go and talk about something else.

The moment you start talking about the Bible you start talking about something else, and pretend you are talking about the Bible.

Not to mention that you refuse to address the many issues and contradictions you have created yourself, even without the help of me, in order to explain "the truth" of the Bible.

 

It is not a matter of what you are saying, but what you are portraying. You are placing people who have had 'experiences' in a negative light when you start making comparisons to people who have mental dillusions and are in a sence painting them under the same brush.

First of all, I did not do what you accuse me of. Second of all, most if not all people have mental delusions (hold for true, that which is false).

 

Do you see how absurd that line of reasoning is - because it sounds like yours.

First of all, I would make a valid argument instead of this manure. Second of all, do not judge words on their sounds, but their content. And third, are people who do not believe in paranormality sinners?

 

You dont want to experience something after the fact that you cant change?

Such as? You are talking in mysteries again, to justify your own wicked interpretation of Scripture, which lacks even the slightest trace of sensibility.

[quankanne]

Thanks Quank!

Quote:

There comes a point, however, where it becomes less an exercise to present evidence to back our respective opinions and more an opportunity to belittle the other guy for what he chooses to believe.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.......

 

you're welcome

[Admiral Thrawn]

Thus he intervenes in the world. This runs exactly contrary to your own assertions and claims. Both cannot be true. Therefore your position is untenable.

 

How do you figure?

[Admiral Thrawn]

Again that is what you are reading.

 

This is getting absurd. Are you playing with me or something?

You think calling someone an idiot is not deragatory? Well, it looks like I'm really arguing with a duck.

 

 

Promising me eternal hell and damnation is not a judgement about my character? Sure ...

 

Here we go twisting things around. I'm making a point about ancedontal evidence and how all the available evidence around can not be dismissed.

I guess you are not taking any of this seriously and I'm wasting my time.

 

FYI: The Bible promises eternal life through Jesus Christ. That is why it is called the Gospel = Good News. The bad news was already there apart from the Gospel. Everybody, including myself, apart from Christ, deserves to go ot hell, but through Christ, a believer has eternal life.

 

 

You are constantly claiming that everything is wrong with people who do not agree with your interpretation of the KJV. Right ..., makes perfect sense as you have already a large number of contradictory attributes and behavioral states attributed to God that are perfectly opposed to each other, and therefore necessarily false.

 

Again, it is quite clear this is a total and absolute waste of time as you can spew out is BS. So, like Moai, you can reject all the ancedontal evidence that is out there because you know what - what a priest said long ago holds true:

 

1) To those who choose to believe - no evidence is too small to support their belief.

 

2) To those who choose not to believe - no evidence is great enough to convince them.

 

And this can be clearly seen to be working with the so called 'enlightened' people here who instead of addressing the issues that they are rejecting evidence, choose to twist everything up and start getting personal. Gross ignroance.

 

Drugs like caffeine? Not all schizophrenics (if that is what you are referring to) use drugs. And not all drug users develop schizophrenia, or even other hallucinations.

 

That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I think you are playing games and are just saying nonsence now. So, you are hopeless - I dont care if you or Moai reject tons of anidontal evidence - I just want to show to yourself how ignorant you are for discounting other people's experiences as being illusionary. You cant own up to your own ignorance.

 

I am still waiting for your reaction on the experiment with the crop circles. The ultimate proof that extraterrestial life must exist.

 

That was one particular experiment. So what? I could borrow a book from the library that talks about documented cases of UFO's almost causing aircraft collisions. Or whole military aircrafts being dispatched in South America to chase after UFO's.

 

Ever heard of irrationality? The subconscious. Can you describe in the minutest detail how you tie your laces?

 

What are you talking about?

 

Here. He did not come. By the virtue of your own logic I have proven Christianity false.

 

Where is * here *? Who did not come? What were you expecting to happen?

What did you say?

 

No. That is nonsense. I could sing, yes. Run, yes. But not freely. Now, the illusion of free will is apparently sufficient for you. Can't blame me for that (you think you can, but that is another illusion )

 

What do you mean you cant do these things freely? What illusion of free will? There is no illusion of free-will, or there would be no courts, jails or lawsuits, right, since you cant assign responsibility to anyone. That is an anarchistic type of thought.

 

For that already implies a lot of assumptions to be present, which will never be met, as man as a human being is not eternal, and without needs, to name but the most problematical requirements.

 

The Bible says the human being is eternal. That is why the soul must reside in eternity with or without God, but reside somewhere it will.

 

Just what I said. Prove to me that the Universe has existed for longer than 2 human seconds. You cannot do that.

 

I dont answer stupid questions.

 

First of all, I did not do what you accuse me of. Second of all, most if not all people have mental delusions (hold for true, that which is false).

 

There you go again.

 

First of all, I would make a valid argument instead of this manure. Second of all, do not judge words on their sounds, but their content. And third, are people who do not believe in paranormality sinners?

 

No, it would make them fools. We are just talking about whether a spirit world exists. God is a spirit, and can not be seen with physical eyes, so the attempts of trying to prove that God exist in the natural world - as far as - showing evidence that God exists at some fixed point and place that everyone can see, hear and experience, in the natural world would be untenable.

 

Paranormality in this discussion - is simply acknowleding the fact that there is more to the world than the natural world - there is plenty of ancedontal evidence of that. This often strays into the occult. But, that is not the point at issue. However, for purposes of this discussion - I'm raising it so I can ease my own self knowing that a few people here are just ignorant beyond hope. Belief on something beyond the natural world is prevalent in culture, society, literature, art, movies, that it is just absurd that someone who claims to be scientific would just dismiss the ancedontal evidence that points to something beyond the natural 5-sence world. People are looking and searching for something that is beyond the realm of scientific knowledge, because there is something more.

 

If we are going to get wrapped up in a discussion about paranormality - I'm already saying that it is immoral or wrong. Failure to receive Jesus Christ as your savior is the only thing that can damn you.

 

Such as? You are talking in mysteries again, to justify your own wicked interpretation of Scripture, which lacks even the slightest trace of sensibility.

 

Here we go again - the fact of the matter that you would take issue on my interpretation of scripture to the extent that you are doing so, shows, that you believe in it yourself and are in a state of denial.

 

It is obviously bothering you. It is not just my interpretation of scripture, it is a belief of many, many people who have the born-again experience, and most Evangelical and Fundamentalist protestent churches out there.

 

If you dont like it, that is really to bad. Not liking something is not going to help you. Dealing with it is. Jesus alrady dealt with all your sins on the Cross. All you have to do is ask Him into your life. It is really that simple.

[d'Arthez]

You think calling someone an idiot is not deragatory? Well, it looks like I'm really arguing with a duck.

And you still get ousted by a duck

 

Here we go twisting things around. I'm making a point about ancedontal evidence and how all the available evidence around can not be dismissed.

Yet you persist in dismissing plenty of anecdotical evidence which served to prove Bush's stupidity. You can't dismiss that evidence and claim that the evidence of beliefs you support must necessarily point to the truth.

 

FYI: The Bible promises eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Last time I checked, that is not true. But to each his own.

 

Again, it is quite clear this is a total and absolute waste of time as you can spew out is BS.

Yes, if you lack basic understanding of argumentation, in its many possible forms, this is indeed a waste of your time.

 

1) To those who choose to believe - no evidence is too small to support their belief.

Seems perfectly applicable to you. We have brought up so many contradictions in the "flawless Bible" yet you keep persistently ignoring all that, and come up with flaky arguments at best.

 

2) To those who choose not to believe - no evidence is great enough to convince them.

Also true. But it would help that if evidence were given, that it would be reasonable, and not laughable. Have you already calculated how dense the air would have to be, as a result of the flood?

 

And this can be clearly seen to be working with the so called 'enlightened' people here who instead of addressing the issues that they are rejecting evidence ... . Gross ignroance.

Evidence? There is even more evidence for the presence and current ownership of weapons of Mass Destruction by Mr. Saddam Hussein, than for your outrageous claims. Logic does not work according to the idea, that the more outrageous is necessarily more true. There are ways to describe that kind of thinking (which you should know as a psychologist, not to mention that you should know that morality presupposes knowledge, and with that that your interpretation of the whole story of the Tree of Knowledge is an exercise in absurdity), though.

 

That has nothing to do with what I am saying.

You are getting angry, because I get fed up with the fact that you are consistently avoiding the points I bring up? And another suggestion: It would help if your spelling was a bit better, as it is hard to make out at times what you are even writing, let alone suggesting what your position is.

 

I just want to show to yourself how ignorant you are for discounting other people's experiences as being illusionary. You cant own up to your own ignorance.

Yet you persist in your own ignorance by discarding tons of anecdotical evidence that suggests Bush is an idiot - which by virtue of it being there is already proven said fact true, by your own logic.

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

 

That was one particular experiment. So what? I could borrow a book from the library that talks about documented cases of UFO's almost causing aircraft collisions. Or whole military aircrafts being dispatched in South America to chase after UFO's.

Let me help you writing that library. A book does not proof a thing. Such a fake experiment does not prove a thing. As does anecdotical evidence. Those are the basics of science, whether you like it or not.

 

What are you talking about?

Just do what I ask. You will see it is impossible to do such a simple act completely conscious. Just try it.

 

Where is * here *? Who did not come? What were you expecting to happen? What did you say?

It is obvious. Christ did not come. By your own logic, as you applied it to Marxism, I have disproven Christianity.

 

What do you mean you cant do these things freely? What illusion of free will?

If you had actually read my posts, you would have seen that I have made that point 5 times before, without you even bothering to reply to that. So read back in the thread, and you will see what I mean.

 

There is no illusion of free-will, or there would be no courts, jails or lawsuits, right, since you cant assign responsibility to anyone.

This is monumental. Are you saying that because we have courts, free will must necessarily exist?

 

I will return to this point a bit later.

 

 

That is an anarchistic type of thought.

There is no conclusive proof anarchy does not work. Therefore it should also be taught in schools.

 

I dont answer stupid questions.

Stupid? Why? Because you are unable to do so?

 

There you go again.

You meant illusions? I am sorry, it is hard to make sense of your spelling mistakes at times.

 

I'm raising it so I can ease my own self knowing that a few people here are just ignorant beyond hope.

Ease your self? With your views, it is ascertained that 99.93 percent of the world population is without hope.

 

Belief on something beyond the natural world is prevalent in culture, society, literature, art, movies, that it is just absurd that someone who claims to be scientific would just dismiss the ancedontal evidence that points to something beyond the natural 5-sence world.

And who produces these culture products? Men and women. And again, it may be hard to comprehend, but the fact that we can think of traveling at warp speed does not mean that it is in fact possible. I can think of my grandma when she was 15 years old. Does not mean that that is in fact the case right now. I can describe her, etc, but it does not make my representation of the world a true one.

 

People are looking and searching for something that is beyond the realm of scientific knowledge, because there is something more.

You are attributing reasons to people that are not established at all.

Of course there is more than scientific knowledge. It is not part of the canon of science that your cousin's name is Michael (to give an example). That the hair of the British Prime Minister is not black. Etc.

 

If we are going to get wrapped up in a discussion about paranormality - I'm already saying that it is immoral or wrong.

So you are sinning for believing in paranormality? Now that that is established, I would suggest to you: "Go, and sin no more."

 

Here we go again - the fact of the matter that you would take issue on my interpretation of scripture to the extent that you are doing so, shows, that you believe in it yourself and are in a state of denial.

Denial? Yes. I'd rather choose to live elsewhere than to convert to these particular beliefs.

 

It is obviously bothering you.

I have an interest in mental health. So I am curious as to why people "choose" to believe what they believe, and how they rationalize / justify their beliefs.

 

It is not just my interpretation of scripture, it is a belief of many, many people who have the born-again experience, and most Evangelical and Fundamentalist protestent churches out there.

Yes. But there are a billion Muslims, and hundreds of millions of Buddhists as well. It is not about placing bets on a number of people, based on the false belief that so many people can't be wrong.

 

If you dont like it, that is really to bad.

Shucks. Can happen. I'd rather stick to a version of Christianity that is compassionate towards the unbeliever.

 

Not liking something is not going to help you. Dealing with it is. Jesus alrady dealt with all your sins on the Cross. All you have to do is ask Him into your life.

I did, but he did not come. And with that, according to your own logic, I have defeated the belief in this version of Christianity as true.

 

If I ever become spiritually organized though, I'd look for other churches. In all likelihood, I would end up buddhist.

[converse02]

I personally think it's all based on the language of love, which comes from the heart. Written and spoken language sometimes can create impediments when you're trying to get down to the heart of the matter, because it's easy to get tangled up in those words when you're meant to be responding viscerally, or from the inside .... Someone made the case for understanding of faith and the Bible coming through the Holy Spirit, and I think that's true. Unless one is open to the Spirit, to the possibilities of a Super Natured being we know as God, it's hard to fathom.

It must've been brillant for God to have his message in a book, written in three languages, especially 2000 years ago when the majority of the people couldn't read and the printing press wasn't invent yet.

Christians all say you have to have the magical "Holy Spirit" in order to understand the Bible. However, you rarely can find two Christians inhibited by the same Holy Spirit. Even Christians cannot agree what the Bible really means, which is why the religion has thousand of denominations.

The Bible is a collection of myths written by primitive men long ago who tried to make sense of a world without science and education, as likely to be from the Universal Over-mind as Zeus on Mt. Olympius.