There is no God

[gingercat]

Re: see

I don't see the air and neither do you but it exists! We have feelings, but we cannot see. Just because we cannot see do not mean they don't exist.

We have buildings and we have builders. We have trees and who is the creator?

False analogy. Please provide evidence that all buildings require builders and all trees require creators.

I am just using common sense. I am not as intelligent and smart like you but God is giving me simple common sense. that's why I can believe God and can trust Him. :angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[TruthMiner]

Re: see

I don't see the air and neither do you but it exists! We have feelings, but we cannot see. Just because we cannot see do not mean they don't exist.

We have buildings and we have builders. We have trees and who is the creator?

False analogy. Please provide evidence that all buildings require builders and all trees require creators.

Your arguments seem to stem from a requirement to have proof based on empirical observation yet when one provides evidence from empirical observation you deny it. When we see something that was "built" we know it is intelligent design, even if it is only a foxhole, a nest, or the empire state building. However, if you want to suppose that foxholes and nests can appear out of nowhere then there is not much point in discussing anything is there?

Arguing against a creator is one thing. Arguing a building doees not require a builder is about as useful as arguing whether there is a Plant ZYC with a colony of intelligent fenceposts ruling their world. You want data? Then stick with the data and not your speculations. Data comes from what is known and what is known comes from observation.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Sounds like selective observation to me. If you're going to look at the world around you, look at the whole thing. While you look at flowers, take note of leprosy and the bubonic plague. When you see the trees, note the food shortages, cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis. If you admire the universe, know that this Earth is an insignificant speck in a small corner of a vast space and know that all it takes is an asteroid just a few miles wide to impact this planet and kill us all off - and there's nothing we can do about it. And if we should die out in that way or nuke ourselves to death, the universe won't care.

I don't mean to sound doom-and-gloom, but picking and choosing what we look at doesn't get us very far.

I take note of the leprosy, AIDS, ect, and I find them very complex as well, so why does this somehow disprove the existence of God?

I see the same flowers , universe and trees that you do. I don't see a God and neither do you. Are you saying you can't possibly think of any other possibility that may be responsible for our existance? Even possibilities that we are not aware of as yet? Is it necessary that we have an answer to our beginnings? Do you realize that we may never know the true origins of our beginnings and that is OK. You see accepting the possibility of a creator is one thing then it's another matter altogether to link him to the Christian god.

That's true, we could have been created by aliens. But there has to be a being which transcends time, so that it would have no beginning.

False analogy. Please provide evidence that all buildings require builders and all trees require creators.

Umm... try taking a look at the evidence all around you.

 

[DivineNames]

Just time to link to what I think is a series to air soon on Christian freeview TV stations, @ how Jesus fulfils so many OT prophecies

I know @ 100 referred to His 1st Advent - of which 30 were @ Calvary

& there are @ 300 @ His return, as the 'consummation of all things' has been uppermost in God's thinking since even before He made the world

The Bible says that He planned the way of salvation back then, even knowing the great pain & cost of choosing to make free-will humans, not robots incapable of love:-

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... 3.107.html

God bless!

Ian

Did Jesus fulfill lots of prophecies? Perhaps not...


Messianic Prophecies Refuted

http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/Tanak ... gendeu.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/Tanak ... judjob.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/Tanak ... s2ps45.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/Tanak ... 55song.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/Tanak ... s6is48.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/Tanak ... 49is61.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/Tanak ... jermal.htm


It is also worth taking a look at the article-

Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... rob93.html

 

[Novum]

Re: see

Your arguments seem to stem from a requirement to have proof based on empirical observation yet when one provides evidence from empirical observation you deny it.

I do not believe any such empirical evidence has been provided to me in this thread. I invite you, however, to point out any that you feel I may have missed.

When we see something that was "built" we know it is intelligent design, even if it is only a foxhole, a nest, or the empire state building. However, if you want to suppose that foxholes and nests can appear out of nowhere then there is not much point in discussing anything is there?

That is a strawman - you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

As for buildings, one must define the term before we can analyze supposed examples of buildings. Would a cave be a building? It certainly provides shelter, yet the only relevant "builder" would be mother nature. The empire state building? We know the "builder" in this case was a team of construction workers. What about a tree? Well, the only "builder" there would be a seed plus water and sunlight.

Arguing against a creator is one thing. Arguing a building doees not require a builder is about as useful as arguing whether there is a Plant ZYC with a colony of intelligent fenceposts ruling their world. You want data? Then stick with the data and not your speculations. Data comes from what is known and what is known comes from observation.

Another strawman on your part. I invite you to understand my position next time before you comment about it.

 

[Novum]

I take note of the leprosy, AIDS, ect, and I find them very complex as well, so why does this somehow disprove the existence of God?

But you didn't mention them - you only mentioned subjectively "happy" or "positive" things.

There was a whole other thread about this a few weeks back, but the argument essentially is this: what kind of omni-benevolent god would allow leprosy, AIDS, and cancer to thrive in this world? This is the classic problem of evil.

That's true, we could have been created by aliens.

...or we could have been produced through evolutionary processes. I am not asking you to accept this as true, merely to accept the possibility.

But there has to be a being which transcends time, so that it would have no beginning.

Why must there be? Our best science gives us a very, very good idea how this solar system - and life on this planet - came about. Nowhere in this body of science do we feel the need to say "god did it".

Umm... try taking a look at the evidence all around you.

What evidence?

 

[reznwerks]

Re: see

I don't see a God and neither do you. [/b]

I don't see the air and neither do you but it exists! We have feelings, but we cannot see. Just because we cannot see do not mean they don't exist.
We can't see the air but we can see it's effects and feel it when it moves. It is predictable and measurable. Feelings can be seen in the brain. It too is measurable and with certain drugs we can manipulate these feelings. So far we can't see God, hear God, feel God and God is not measurable nor predictable.

We have buildings and we have builders. We have trees and who is the creator?
There doesn't have to be a creator. We have buildings we have trees , we have a univeres and that is all we know. Anything else is pure imagination. Not having an answer does not default to a God.

 

[mutzrein]

Re: see

I don't see a God and neither do you. [/b]

I don't see the air and neither do you but it exists! We have feelings, but we cannot see. Just because we cannot see do not mean they don't exist.

We can't see the air but we can see it's effects and feel it when it moves. It is predictable and measurable. Feelings can be seen in the brain. It too is measurable and with certain drugs we can manipulate these feelings. So far we can't see God, hear God, feel God and God is not measurable nor predictable.

And that is exactly the point that Jesus made to Nicodemus when He was explaining what it means to be born of God. “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.â€Â
Now just because you cannot perceive what this means, does not mean it is false. In fact it reinforces what the bible says, you may not be meant to understand.

And just because you haven’t experienced something does not mean that someone else has not. I have heard God. I have felt God. But God is not measurable. He is infinite. He is not predictable but His righteousness never ceases and never changes.

We have buildings and we have builders. We have trees and who is the creator?

There doesn't have to be a creator. We have buildings we have trees , we have a univeres and that is all we know. Anything else is pure imagination. Not having an answer does not default to a God.

Neither does your lack of answers default to no God.

 

[Novum]

Re: see

In fact it reinforces what the bible says, you may not be meant to understand.

Why would he not be meant to understand?

And if he is not meant to understand, it is irrational for you to blame him for being atheist, and it is irrational for God to expect anything from him, and it is irrational for him to be sent to hell - or heaven.

So, why are some people not meant to understand?

 

[mutzrein]

Re: see

In fact it reinforces what the bible says, you may not be meant to understand.

Why would he not be meant to understand?

And if he is not meant to understand, it is irrational for you to blame him for being atheist, and it is irrational for God to expect anything from him, and it is irrational for him to be sent to hell - or heaven.

So, why are some people not meant to understand?

First of all I don't blame anyone for being an atheist. In fact it is kind of refreshing talking to someone who does not think themselves self righteousness enough to want to exclude others from heaven just because their doctrine's disagree. But unfortunately Christendom is full of them.

Secondly God doesn't expect anything from them because He has not chosen them to receive eternal life.

Thirdly, since He has not chosen them, and they have not received eternal life, when they die, why would they be sent to hell? If they have not received eternal life, they perish. Their reward is on this earth.

So, why would some not be meant to understand?

Why am I my father's son and why are you yours? Inasmuch as my parents have conceived and brought me into this world without my choice in the matter, why should that concern you. Or why should it concern me that you have been given life by your parents. And why should it concern me that your abilities, your gifts, your trust, your faith in your parents is something that I don’t have. They are not my parents.

So it is with God. He has chosen some to be his children and to these He has given (eternal) life. Surely it is the prerogative of the giver to bestow a gift to whomever he chooses. So, if the gift in this case is life, therefore knowledge of my relationship to God as his son is also a gift. This is faith. An implicit reliance on the one who has given me life.

But . . . being the child of one parent now does not necessarily exclude you from being adopted by another. If God so chooses, he may give you this gift, and then you will understand.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: see

[

Secondly God doesn't expect anything from them because He has not chosen them to receive eternal life.

Thirdly, since He has not chosen them, and they have not received eternal life, when they die, why would they be sent to hell? If they have not received eternal life, they perish. Their reward is on this earth.

So, why would some not be meant to understand?

.

If you get eternal life then I get eternal life. If there is a creator and he is handing out rewards he is not rewarding gullibility.

 

[mutzrein]

Re: see

[

Secondly God doesn't expect anything from them because He has not chosen them to receive eternal life.

Thirdly, since He has not chosen them, and they have not received eternal life, when they die, why would they be sent to hell? If they have not received eternal life, they perish. Their reward is on this earth.

So, why would some not be meant to understand?

.

If you get eternal life then I get eternal life. If there is a creator and he is handing out rewards he is not rewarding gullibility.

Why would you want eternal life?

And as for rewards, that's not how it works.

 

[Novum]

Re: see

First of all I don't blame anyone for being an atheist. In fact it is kind of refreshing talking to someone who does not think themselves self righteousness enough to want to exclude others from heaven just because their doctrine's disagree. But unfortunately Christendom is full of them.

Fair enough.

Secondly God doesn't expect anything from them because He has not chosen them to receive eternal life.

Thirdly, since He has not chosen them, and they have not received eternal life, when they die, why would they be sent to hell? If they have not received eternal life, they perish. Their reward is on this earth.

So, why would some not be meant to understand?

Why am I my father's son and why are you yours? Inasmuch as my parents have conceived and brought me into this world without my choice in the matter, why should that concern you. Or why should it concern me that you have been given life by your parents. And why should it concern me that your abilities, your gifts, your trust, your faith in your parents is something that I don’t have. They are not my parents.

So it is with God. He has chosen some to be his children and to these He has given (eternal) life. Surely it is the prerogative of the giver to bestow a gift to whomever he chooses. So, if the gift in this case is life, therefore knowledge of my relationship to God as his son is also a gift. This is faith. An implicit reliance on the one who has given me life.

But . . . being the child of one parent now does not necessarily exclude you from being adopted by another. If God so chooses, he may give you this gift, and then you will understand.

I...I...I'm shocked. Really. :o

First, you are arguing for predestination - that some people, through no fault of their own, are destined to not receive God's word. I believe that a large number of Christians would disagree with you on that point, but that's another discussion entirely. I, however, cannot fathom a god who would be so cruel as to not only ignore, but to simply deny a reward to the vast majority of his creation. Even with our human standards of morality and justice, that should still strike us as being very, very wrong.

Second, you appear to be contradicting yourself - or, perhaps, your god is. You said:

"In fact it is kind of refreshing talking to someone who does not think themselves self righteousness enough to want to exclude others from heaven just because their doctrine's disagree."

It seems like your god falls soundly into the category you have defined of people who are too self-righteous, as he denies his creation a reward simply because their doctrines disagreed with his.

It is very, very, very easy for us, in our limited human viewpoints, to conceive of a system that would be far more fair and just - a system in which everyone would at least be presented with the offer, if not the guarantee, of eternal life. That we, in our limited state, can appear to be more just than a god is very telling to me.

 

[TruthMiner]

Re: see

Your arguments seem to stem from a requirement to have proof based on empirical observation yet when one provides evidence from empirical observation you deny it.

I do not believe any such empirical evidence has been provided to me in this thread. I invite you, however, to point out any that you feel I may have missed.

Sure. Start here. We are have the capacity to identify things in this world that were conceptually created, then designed and then built by the conceiver. This is what you wish to deny. So try and stick to the issue.

Or next time you walk by a building don't assume a human or set of humans actually created, designed, and built it.

[quote:f194c]When we see something that was "built" we know it is intelligent design, even if it is only a foxhole, a nest, or the empire state building. However, if you want to suppose that foxholes and nests can appear out of nowhere then there is not much point in discussing anything is there?

That is a strawman - you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

As for buildings, one must define the term before we can analyze supposed examples of buildings. Would a cave be a building? It certainly provides shelter, yet the only relevant "builder" would be mother nature. The empire state building? We know the "builder" in this case was a team of construction workers. What about a tree? Well, the only "builder" there would be a seed plus water and sunlight.
[/quote:f194c]

Caves are not built. We are not talking about shelters. We are talking about created items. Do you know the difference?

[quote:f194c]Arguing against a creator is one thing. Arguing a building doees not require a builder is about as useful as arguing whether there is a Plant ZYC with a colony of intelligent fenceposts ruling their world. You want data? Then stick with the data and not your speculations. Data comes from what is known and what is known comes from observation.

Another strawman on your part. I invite you to understand my position next time before you comment about it. [/quote:f194c]

I understand it quite fine. You are talking in circles for you own amusement.

 

[Novum]

Re: see

Sure. Start here. We are have the capacity to identify things in this world that were designed and built. This is what you wish to deny.

Yet another strawman. Please indicate for this forum precisely where I stated that we do not have the capacity to identify things that were designed or built.

Caves are not built. We are not talking about shelters. We are talking about created items. Do you know the difference?

I understand it quite fine. You are talking in circles for you own amusement.

Wishing it so does not make it so. Please indicate, for this forum, any circular logic on my part.

 

[TruthMiner]

Re: see

Sure. Start here. We are have the capacity to identify things in this world that were designed and built. This is what you wish to deny.

Yet another strawman. Please indicate for this forum precisely where I stated that we do not have the capacity to identify things that were designed or built.

Be glad to. It is necessarily implied by your statement right here:

'False analogy. Please provide evidence that all buildings require builders and all trees require creators."

 

[Novum]

Re: see

Be glad to. It is necessarily implied by your statement right here:

'False analogy. Please provide evidence that all buildings require builders and all trees require creators."

As for buildings, I was probably a bit off in the definition I was using. I was incorrectly counting caves and other such natural formations as buildings, this is rather counterintuitive.

However...

1. I stand by my statement about trees and creators.

2. You have yet to indicate for this forum precisely where I stated that we do not have the capacity to identify things that were designed or built. Would you like to try again?

 

[TruthMiner]

Re: see

Be glad to. It is necessarily implied by your statement right here:

'False analogy. Please provide evidence that all buildings require builders and all trees require creators."

As for buildings, I was probably a bit off in the definition I was using. I was incorrectly counting caves and other such natural formations as buildings, this is rather counterintuitive.

However...

1. I stand by my statement about trees and creators.

2. You have yet to indicate for this forum precisely where I stated that we do not have the capacity to identify things that were designed or built. Would you like to try again?

LOL.

 

[Novum]

Re: see

LOL.

Ah, yes. When logic and rational debate fails you, throw out the internet kiddie slang. :roll:

I'll be elsewhere on the forum. If you feel like discussing like a grown up, I'll certainly come back.

 

[TruthMiner]

Re: see

LOL.

Ah, yes. When logic and rational debate fails you, throw out the internet kiddie slang. :roll:

I'll be elsewhere on the forum. If you feel like discussing like a grown up, I'll certainly come back.

Predictable.

Funny how all those buildings ended up in your town eh?

Please, I would ask you to NEVER assume any of those buildings in your town got there by the intelligent design of a builder. You will need proof of such things first.

We can all play the ole "can't make me believe" game friend. And that is what is immature.