Ok, an argument often heard for the existence of god is "something can't come from nothing", which I guess means, something, or somebody had to start the whole thing that became our universe.

Questions:

1. How do we know what "nothing" is? Since it is nothing, it has never been seen or experienced.

2. If in fact something can't come from nothing, well...where did god come from? Certainly couldn't have come from nothing...so, how does this argument prove god started it all...that would mean he came from...nothing.

Oh, wow!

Makes my head hurt!

It is OK to say..."I don't know". It is NOT ok to say..."I don't know...therefore, god!"

OK, go!

And remember, no name calling! Dear sweet jezus wouldn't like that, plus, it makes no sense to call an anonymous person names.

I a god, n I h8 ever 1. I luv yrump

Thoughtful questions, but just to be clear, the burden of proof is on the disbeliever.

Wrong.

The burden of proof is always on the one that makes a claim.

As an example, the legal system places the burden of proof on the charging party, summarized as "innocent until proven guilty".

And also, it is a near logical impossibility to prove the non-existence of something.

You can disagree all you want with this but those are basic rules of logic and debate.

I think you know that, and are just being silly.

Otherwise I feel sorry for you.

Example: Someone claims they are ten feet tall.

It is up to them to prove that, not for you to disprove it.

I know you know this. Again you are just being silly.

Using the "ten foot tall person" as an example.

Even if you can't "disprove" they are ten feet tall, it doesn't prove that they are in fact, ten feet tall.

They could be 11 feet.

Or 9 feet.

Up to them to prove it.

Now, you can certainly refute their "evidence" with evidence to the contrary, but that is a different thing.

You know this.

silly goose!!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong.
>
> The burden of proof is always on the one that
> makes a claim.
>
> As an example, the legal system places the burden
> of proof on the charging party, summarized as
> "innocent until proven guilty".
>
> And also, it is a near logical impossibility to
> prove the non-existence of something.
>
> You can disagree all you want with this but those
> are basic rules of logic and debate.
>
> I think you know that, and are just being silly.
>
> Otherwise I feel sorry for you.
>
> Example: Someone claims they are ten feet tall.
>
> It is up to them to prove that, not for you to
> disprove it.
>
> I know you know this. Again you are just being
> silly.


No. That's not how faith works. I don't need to prove to you whether God exists or not. That's the whole point of having faith in something. You can call me ignorant and you are free to believe or not believe in God if you so choose to. That is your right.

Faith, as you call it, would allow for and justify belief in ANYTHING...just because that is what you want to believe.

So, has no real place in a discussion using logic.

How about, just answer the question in the first post?

Keep things simple.

It's interesting to note that adherents of all religions, including those that are counter to christianity, have faith in their religion.

1,000's of religions, current and past.

So, how could one possibly believe that their religion is the "right" one, while all the others are wrong?

Its been noted that the primary difference between an atheist and believer is that an atheist just believes in one less religion than a believer, who, by virtue of their faith in their religion, believe that all the others are false.

But forget all that...any one want to answer the question in the OP?

grdxc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> silly goose!!!! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong.
> >
> > The burden of proof is always on the one that
> > makes a claim.
> >
> > As an example, the legal system places the
> burden
> > of proof on the charging party, summarized as
> > "innocent until proven guilty".
> >
> > And also, it is a near logical impossibility to
> > prove the non-existence of something.
> >
> > You can disagree all you want with this but
> those
> > are basic rules of logic and debate.
> >
> > I think you know that, and are just being
> silly.
> >
> > Otherwise I feel sorry for you.
> >
> > Example: Someone claims they are ten feet tall.
> >
> > It is up to them to prove that, not for you to
> > disprove it.
> >
> > I know you know this. Again you are just being
> > silly.
>
>
> No. That's not how faith works. I don't need to
> prove to you whether God exists or not. That's the
> whole point of having faith in something. You can
> call me ignorant and you are free to believe or
> not believe in God if you so choose to. That is
> your right.


Then why bother with faith at all?

Try and stop being libtarded and you'll understand.

You're welcome.

President Trump FTW! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try and stop being libtarded and you'll
> understand.
>
> You're welcome.

If believing in God turns one into a hate-filled imbecile like this assKlown, I'd rather stay a heathen Scum.

Reverend Skullfucker... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> President Trump FTW! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Try and stop being libtarded and you'll
> > understand.
> >
> > You're welcome.
>
> If believing in God turns one into a hate-filled
> imbecile like this assKlown, I'd rather stay a
> heathen Scum.


What turned you into a hate-filled imbecile? Was it God?

Reverend Skullfucker... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> President Trump FTW! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Try and stop being libtarded and you'll
> > understand.
> >
> > You're welcome.
>
> If believing in God turns one into a hate-filled
> imbecile like this assKlown, I'd rather stay a
> heathen Scum.


Loving all of humanity as I do is not hate, libtardism is. God-fearing people as myself pray for you.

hnmgagh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's interesting to note that adherents of all
> religions, including those that are counter to
> christianity, have faith in their religion.
>
> 1,000's of religions, current and past.
>
> So, how could one possibly believe that their
> religion is the "right" one, while all the others
> are wrong?
>
> Its been noted that the primary difference between
> an atheist and believer is that an atheist just
> believes in one less religion than a believer,
> who, by virtue of their faith in their religion,
> believe that all the others are false.
>
> But forget all that...any one want to answer the
> question in the OP?

Not all believers can be right, but they can all be wrong.


Pascal's Wager says it is better to believe in God than not to believe in God, "Just in case". It leaves out the important question "Which God?".

There is also another invalid jump. Suppose God did Create the universe, why does mean there ensure there is life after death?

.
Attachments:

God is in the details....
Attachments:

Stated as an independent entity God is by definition an abstract - there is no single thing to be pointed to that is 'God.' Literally taken, the definition of God is 'everything' therefore his presence is existence itself. In our near infinitely limited ability to understand the physical world its virtually (and certainly statistically) impossible to determine 'nothing' from our ignorance of the physical world - we are unable to comprehend 'nothing' in any meaningful way. In all practical sense we are utterly and completely unable to comprehend the physical state of 'nothing' thus rendering it a term even more abstract than the term 'God.'

Time and again we assign the term 'nothing' or 'void' to the physical world only to discover the terms no more than place-holders for things we are not yet aware of. Atoms, microbes, dark matter all occupy space in our vocabulary of things that 'exist' where in some cases (e.g. black matter) they used to be defined by the dearth of existence.

In summation your answers are.

1. We cannot 'know' the experience of nothing in any absolute sense.
2. Since #1 above is true the 'something coming from nothing' is tautological.

Put less syllogisticly , God is a way for man's ego to manage the sentient experience of infinite ignorance and the mutability of life in relation to our inherent drive to perpetuate our existence.

If god is real, why is he so dam ineffective at revealing himself?

He would be the world champ hide and seek player...hiding for billions and billions of years.

If in fact he wanted to save souls or whatever, why make it so hard to recognize him?

Not a very efficient way of "saving souls", either. Doesn't allow for a truly logical look at the whole claim. Basically, just claims to reward crowd followers who are told to believe "just because". One should see the danger in that.

What is so "good" and "pure" about believing with no real logical reason to do so? What is so "good" about just following the crowd?

I mean, even if he did reveal himself in an unmistakable fashion, there would be enough candidates for hell anyway. And no, this "look around you...god is everywhere" business does not count for unmistakable revelation. "Looking around" could be logically and realistically attributed to just about anything...god...gods...aliens...imagination...big bang...evolution.

Yeah, yeah, faith and all that mumbo-jumbo...but faith can be used to justify a belief in just about anything.

No, I'm not "looking" or anything...please don't refer me to a church with the instructions "you just gotta go...and turn your life over".

I'm not interested in that at all. Just interested in how somebody can claim to believe this stuff.

I get why you dont believe in God but why dont you believe in paragraphs?

another questionnn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If god is real, why is he so dam ineffective at
> revealing himself?
>
> He would be the world champ hide and seek
> player...hiding for billions and billions of
> years.
>
> If in fact he wanted to save souls or whatever,
> why make it so hard to recognize him?
>
> Not a very efficient way of "saving souls",
> either. Doesn't allow for a truly logical look at
> the whole claim. Basically, just claims to reward
> crowd followers who are told to believe "just
> because". One should see the danger in that.
>
> What is so "good" and "pure" about believing with
> no real logical reason to do so? What is so "good"
> about just following the crowd?
>
> I mean, even if he did reveal himself in an
> unmistakable fashion, there would be enough
> candidates for hell anyway. And no, this "look
> around you...god is everywhere" business does not
> count for unmistakable revelation. "Looking
> around" could be logically and realistically
> attributed to just about
> anything...god...gods...aliens...imagination...big
> bang...evolution.
>
> Yeah, yeah, faith and all that mumbo-jumbo...but
> faith can be used to justify a belief in just
> about anything.
>
> No, I'm not "looking" or anything...please don't
> refer me to a church with the instructions "you
> just gotta go...and turn your life over".
>
> I'm not interested in that at all. Just interested
> in how somebody can claim to believe this stuff.]

You obviously believe someone somewhere cares about all your bullshit. Given how unlikely that is why is belief in God such a stretch? Also take your meds Mr. Moreno...

Dear Fuckwit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I get why you dont believe in God but why dont you
> believe in paragraphs?


i try to make it easily digestible for some folks.

Is that the best you got?

As in, guy doesn't believe in paragraphs...therefore, god!

Why the name calling? Are you angry?

Pastor Don Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You obviously believe someone somewhere cares
> about all your bullshit. Given how unlikely that
> is why is belief in God such a stretch? Also take
> your meds Mr. Moreno...


Are you really a pastor?

And so, you're going to assert 1. I'm Mr Moreno (which I'm not) and 2. That Mr. Moreno needs to take meds? I'd be careful with that kind of stuff...the little I do know about the Moreno's is that it seems they do have some experience with the local court systems.

But again, let me be clear...I am in no way associated with the Moreno's, and I don't know much about them.

But, you seem comfortable asserting things out of thin air, much like your belief system.

So no surprise there. At all.

And obviously, YOU care about my so-called "BS". If you didn't, you would not have crafted such a witty response.

Pastor Don Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> another questionnn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If god is real, why is he so dam ineffective at
> > revealing himself?
> >
> > He would be the world champ hide and seek
> > player...hiding for billions and billions of
> > years.
> >
> > If in fact he wanted to save souls or whatever,
> > why make it so hard to recognize him?
> >
> > Not a very efficient way of "saving souls",
> > either. Doesn't allow for a truly logical look
> at
> > the whole claim. Basically, just claims to
> reward
> > crowd followers who are told to believe "just
> > because". One should see the danger in that.
> >
> > What is so "good" and "pure" about believing
> with
> > no real logical reason to do so? What is so
> "good"
> > about just following the crowd?
> >
> > I mean, even if he did reveal himself in an
> > unmistakable fashion, there would be enough
> > candidates for hell anyway. And no, this "look
> > around you...god is everywhere" business does
> not
> > count for unmistakable revelation. "Looking
> > around" could be logically and realistically
> > attributed to just about
> >
> anything...god...gods...aliens...imagination...big
>
> > bang...evolution.
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, faith and all that
> mumbo-jumbo...but
> > faith can be used to justify a belief in just
> > about anything.
> >
> > No, I'm not "looking" or anything...please
> don't
> > refer me to a church with the instructions "you
> > just gotta go...and turn your life over".
> >
> > I'm not interested in that at all. Just
> interested
> > in how somebody can claim to believe this
> stuff.]
>
> You obviously believe someone somewhere cares
> about all your bullshit. Given how unlikely that
> is why is belief in God such a stretch? Also take
> your meds Mr. Moreno...

People are real.

Skydaddy isn't.

I love how a pretty legit question is asked in the OP, but somehow all the "people of god" avoid answering it by changing the subject and attacking posters herein, using such terms as F---wit and attacking paragraph structure.

Why not just have a serious discussion about the question?

Too much for you folks?

If your god is "the way, the truth, the light", shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a little questioning and discussion?

It doesn't seem that it can!

Weird.

and, back to the question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love how a pretty legit question is asked in the
> OP, but somehow all the "people of god" avoid
> answering it by changing the subject and attacking
> posters herein, using such terms as F---wit and
> attacking paragraph structure.
>
> Why not just have a serious discussion about the
> question?
>
> Too much for you folks?
>
> If your god is "the way, the truth, the light",
> shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a little
> questioning and discussion?
>
> It doesn't seem that it can!
>
> Weird.


I attacked you for not using paragraphs you simpleton. I stand by that evaluation. Prior to that I gave you a graduate level answer to your question sans critique of your poor writing. If I had to guess you seem to be the gentleman with Asperger's - so that, in some way, makes this exchange fruitless. I dont see a single reply here that directs you to believe any single thing over another - certainly no one stating you should believe in a Deity. If you want rabid religious defense of God why not go troll Breitbart, or some conservative site. All you are getting here is thoughtful detailed replies and of course abuse for your lack of writing ability.

Must hate God and religion so we can ban them and replace it with the all powerful State.

My god, you are angry.

And it seems, a tad self important.

woah, smart guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My god, you are angry.
>
> And it seems, a tad self important.

So who told you to believe in God here? I dont see it. Perhaps some sock-puppetry would solve this problem for you. The OP (if that is you) asked some interesting questions - thus far none of the answers involved any single secular position whatsoever. If the words were simply to difficult for you, look them up.

Like I said no one here really cares what you believe or do not believe. The questions of existence of God and 'nothing' are interesting to me though. Head to Breitbart and post your original post here and you will get all the secular hate you seem to crave. You may wish to consider forming more than one sentence paragraphs tho...

Unhinged dude is definitely William Moreno. Obviously given the anti-eesh spamming today along with 'better watch out for the Morenos as they know the court system' advisory. Absurd to think suggesting a mentally ill William Moreno should take his medication is anything other than a statement of fact. Regardless, Mr. Moreno, while I hesitate to call you a 'criminal retard' those are facts in evidence and I invite you to sue me. Ill wait for your counsel to contact me.

trollin to the oldies! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> woah, smart guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My god, you are angry.
> >
> > And it seems, a tad self important.
>
> So who told you to believe in God here? I dont
> see it. Perhaps some sock-puppetry would solve
> this problem for you. The OP (if that is you)
> asked some interesting questions - thus far none
> of the answers involved any single secular
> position whatsoever. If the words were simply to
> difficult for you, look them up.
>
> Like I said no one here really cares what you
> believe or do not believe. The questions of
> existence of God and 'nothing' are interesting to
> me though. Head to Breitbart and post your
> original post here and you will get all the
> secular hate you seem to crave. You may wish to
> consider forming more than one sentence paragraphs
> tho...

No one "told me to believe in god here". Did I even suggest that somebody did?

I asked a question that it seems only one person (maybe you) seemed to want to attempt to answer.

But, somehow, you feel that every one of my subsequent posts were aimed at you...which in fact they may have been, if, and only if, you were the only other poster on this thread. Which I doubt.

And, I love how you feel like you can represent the feelings of all the other posters..."Like I said no one here really cares what you believe or do not believe". Did you elect yourself the spokesperson of all the other posters?

And, you still seem to be an angry person..."tho"...

Holy shit, eesh you freak. Not everyone is Moreno and don't bring that shit to this thread because you're dumb dead mom is getting slaughtered on the forum. You are eesh so don't even try to deny it.

Retard Moreno Triggered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unhinged dude is definitely William Moreno.
> Obviously given the anti-eesh spamming today along
> with 'better watch out for the Morenos as they
> know the court system' advisory. Absurd to think
> suggesting a mentally ill William Moreno should
> take his medication is anything other than a
> statement of fact. Regardless, Mr. Moreno, while
> I hesitate to call you a 'criminal retard' those
> are facts in evidence and I invite you to sue me.
> Ill wait for your counsel to contact me.

OK.

What's your address and name?

and, back to the question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love how a pretty legit question is asked in the
> OP, but somehow all the "people of god" avoid
> answering it by changing the subject and attacking
> posters herein, using such terms as F---wit and
> attacking paragraph structure.
>
> Why not just have a serious discussion about the
> question?
>
> Too much for you folks?
>
> If your god is "the way, the truth, the light",
> shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a little
> questioning and discussion?
>
> It doesn't seem that it can!
>
> Weird.


I doubt you love it at all. The OP's question is based on both ignorance of God and flawed logic. You can not cling to physics and logic until both undermine your beliefs and then throw them away. That is what the OP is doing. Only something supernatural can explain how fundamental laws of physics can be broken. But the OP will dismiss the explanation as a dodge. He would, once again, be wrong. God is supernatural. The existence of Earth as we currently know it breaks at least two laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can not come from nothing and an uncontrolled system will always move to chaos). Believing a complicated and interdependent system like our universe, galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its ecosystems evolved over billions of years is like believing a tornado can spend a billion years ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually you'll get a fully functioning warp engine. Mathematically impossible.

woah, pardner don! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pastor Don Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > You obviously believe someone somewhere cares
> > about all your bullshit. Given how unlikely
> that
> > is why is belief in God such a stretch? Also
> take
> > your meds Mr. Moreno...
>
>
> Are you really a pastor?
>
> And so, you're going to assert 1. I'm Mr Moreno
> (which I'm not) and 2. That Mr. Moreno needs to
> take meds? I'd be careful with that kind of
> stuff...the little I do know about the Moreno's is
> that it seems they do have some experience with
> the local court systems.
>



LOL! All the morenos know how to do is lose money in court! I spoke to karen once about the moreno case, and she laughed her ass off! Said it was like taking candy from babies!

Ok, a few points, "tho"... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trollin to the oldies! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > woah, smart guy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > My god, you are angry.
> > >
> > > And it seems, a tad self important.
> >
> > So who told you to believe in God here? I dont
> > see it. Perhaps some sock-puppetry would solve
> > this problem for you. The OP (if that is you)
> > asked some interesting questions - thus far
> none
> > of the answers involved any single secular
> > position whatsoever. If the words were simply
> to
> > difficult for you, look them up.
> >
> > Like I said no one here really cares what you
> > believe or do not believe. The questions of
> > existence of God and 'nothing' are interesting
> to
> > me though. Head to Breitbart and post your
> > original post here and you will get all the
> > secular hate you seem to crave. You may wish
> to
> > consider forming more than one sentence
> paragraphs
> > tho...
>
> No one "told me to believe in god here". Did I
> even suggest that somebody did?
>
> I asked a question that it seems only one person
> (maybe you) seemed to want to attempt to answer.
>
> But, somehow, you feel that every one of my
> subsequent posts were aimed at you...which in fact
> they may have been, if, and only if, you were the
> only other poster on this thread. Which I doubt.
>
> And, I love how you feel like you can represent
> the feelings of all the other posters..."Like I
> said no one here really cares what you believe or
> do not believe". Did you elect yourself the
> spokesperson of all the other posters?
>
> And, you still seem to be an angry
> person..."tho"...

knew 'tho' would get you :)

And yes there was a forum election appointing me the spokesperson for this utterly lame thread. I find it curious that you were able to post a somewhat interesting question yet lack any ability whatsoever to process learned replies to same. I have been asked by my constituency to inform you that in the likely event you have medicines for your psychiatric condition that you please take them.

butterfingers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and, back to the question Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I love how a pretty legit question is asked in
> the
> > OP, but somehow all the "people of god" avoid
> > answering it by changing the subject and
> attacking
> > posters herein, using such terms as F---wit and
> > attacking paragraph structure.
> >
> > Why not just have a serious discussion about
> the
> > question?
> >
> > Too much for you folks?
> >
> > If your god is "the way, the truth, the light",
> > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a
> little
> > questioning and discussion?
> >
> > It doesn't seem that it can!
> >
> > Weird.
>
>
> I doubt you love it at all. The OP's question is
> based on both ignorance of God and flawed logic.
> You can not cling to physics and logic until both
> undermine your beliefs and then throw them away.
> That is what the OP is doing. Only something
> supernatural can explain how fundamental laws of
> physics can be broken. But the OP will dismiss
> the explanation as a dodge. He would, once again,
> be wrong. God is supernatural. The existence of
> Earth as we currently know it breaks at least two
> laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can not
> come from nothing and an uncontrolled system will
> always move to chaos). Believing a complicated
> and interdependent system like our universe,
> galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> ecosystems evolved over billions of years is like
> believing a tornado can spend a billion years
> ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually you'll
> get a fully functioning warp engine.
> Mathematically impossible.


There are two retard alerts on display in the above post.
First of all, entropy increases OVERALL. One cannot just isolate a section of a system and see order increasing while ignoring the effect that order has on the rest of the system.

A good analogy is why an air-conditioner actually creates heat. The process of an air conditioner creates more heat by removing heat from a room. The room seems cooler since all that heat is pumped out into the bigger system.

The other concern is our understanding of time is incomplete. Einstein's theory of relativity has been verified and hence there is more to time than we initially assumed. Time flows slower in the vicinity of bigger mass. If the Big Bang was a singularity at t=0, there would have never been the first instance.
Look at the curve y=1/x in the first quadrant. The bigger the x, the closer tot 0 y becomes but it never reaches 0.


Yes, on some level, it is easier to say "We don't know yet, therefore GOD" but we are far from the superstitious past where that is an acceptable answer.
Thinking people have replaced it with "We don't know yet, let's find out."

butterfingers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and, back to the question Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I love how a pretty legit question is asked in
> the
> > OP, but somehow all the "people of god" avoid
> > answering it by changing the subject and
> attacking
> > posters herein, using such terms as F---wit and
> > attacking paragraph structure.
> >
> > Why not just have a serious discussion about
> the
> > question?
> >
> > Too much for you folks?
> >
> > If your god is "the way, the truth, the light",
> > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a
> little
> > questioning and discussion?
> >
> > It doesn't seem that it can!
> >
> > Weird.
>
>
> I doubt you love it at all. The OP's question is
> based on both ignorance of God and flawed logic.
> You can not cling to physics and logic until both
> undermine your beliefs and then throw them away.
> That is what the OP is doing. Only something
> supernatural can explain how fundamental laws of
> physics can be broken. But the OP will dismiss
> the explanation as a dodge. He would, once again,
> be wrong. God is supernatural. The existence of
> Earth as we currently know it breaks at least two
> laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can not
> come from nothing and an uncontrolled system will
> always move to chaos). Believing a complicated
> and interdependent system like our universe,
> galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> ecosystems evolved over billions of years is like
> believing a tornado can spend a billion years
> ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually you'll
> get a fully functioning warp engine.
> Mathematically impossible.

Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its unlikely our current understanding of time and space could arrive at an accurate calculation of those odds because 1. we dont know how 'warp drive' is possible in the physical world. 2. To the OP's point we dont know what came before the 'big bang' and where it may have come from. You can call that ignorance or proof of God up to you, I dont know or care. But, given sufficient time, any set of variables coming together into a certain arrangement at a certain time at the same position is by definition 'possible.'

You can look up at the night sky on a clear night and see light particles/waves billions of years old - we are uncertain of the value of 'time' is in your hypothetical since we are uncertain what came before the Big Bang and how many times it may have occurred. In my mind none of this 'proves' or 'disproves' God as a belief system.

Carl S Wrote:

>
> Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its
> unlikely our current understanding of time and
> space could arrive at an accurate calculation of
> those odds because 1. we dont know how 'warp
> drive' is possible in the physical world. 2. To
> the OP's point we dont know what came before the
> 'big bang' and where it may have come from. You
> can call that ignorance or proof of God up to you,
> I dont know or care. But, given sufficient time,
> any set of variables coming together into a
> certain arrangement at a certain time at the same
> position is by definition 'possible.'
>
Exactly, given the vastness of the Universe, there have been an innumerable amount of combinations and the combinations on Earth was lucky.

Large numbers tend to confuse people. For instance, Pragmatically it is almost impossible for someone to win the lottery. However, people still win the lottery.

Science is fun Wrote:

> Yes, on some level, it is easier to say "We don't
> know yet, therefore GOD" but we are far from the
> superstitious past where that is an acceptable
> answer.
> Thinking people have replaced it with "We don't
> know yet, let's find out."

Scientific method and discovery are useful and comforting however anyone smart enough to cast off superstition understands our species will not survive long enough to understand any amount of information about the physical universe and time beyond the statistical value of near zero. Its a conundrum.

The probability of you existing at all comes out to 1 in 10 to the 2,685,000th

I find it funny our odds of existing are so unlikely and we spend it debating crap on this shitty site. Seems like a waste.

conundrum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science is fun Wrote:
>
> > Yes, on some level, it is easier to say "We
> don't
> > know yet, therefore GOD" but we are far from
> the
> > superstitious past where that is an acceptable
> > answer.
> > Thinking people have replaced it with "We don't
> > know yet, let's find out."
>
> Scientific method and discovery are useful and
> comforting however anyone smart enough to cast off
> superstition understands our species will not
> survive long enough to understand any amount of
> information about the physical universe and time
> beyond the statistical value of near zero. Its a
> conundrum.

It does seem futile on one level. Especially since the more questions that Science answers at least 10 more are asked. Keep in mind the quality of life improvements we have gotten from the search for those answers. Without Einstein's relativity theory we wouldn't have a working GPS on our phones. Technology is the byproduct of physics. Also, what if our species does survive?

jesus...somebody must be talking to themselves...

I (the OP) left at about 3:00, when there were like 15 responses, to go do other stuff (like live life) and somebody, who has claimed a couple times (at least) that "nobody cares about you and your opinions" or something like that...has kept this discussion going!

Somehow you've kept the discussion, that "nobody cares about", going almost single-handedly,

LOL!

Science is fun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> butterfingers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > and, back to the question Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I love how a pretty legit question is asked
> in
> > the
> > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god" avoid
> > > answering it by changing the subject and
> > attacking
> > > posters herein, using such terms as F---wit
> and
> > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > >
> > > Why not just have a serious discussion about
> > the
> > > question?
> > >
> > > Too much for you folks?
> > >
> > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> light",
> > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a
> > little
> > > questioning and discussion?
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > >
> > > Weird.
> >
> >
> > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's question
> is
> > based on both ignorance of God and flawed logic.
>
> > You can not cling to physics and logic until
> both
> > undermine your beliefs and then throw them away.
>
> > That is what the OP is doing. Only something
> > supernatural can explain how fundamental laws
> of
> > physics can be broken. But the OP will dismiss
> > the explanation as a dodge. He would, once
> again,
> > be wrong. God is supernatural. The existence
> of
> > Earth as we currently know it breaks at least
> two
> > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can
> not
> > come from nothing and an uncontrolled system
> will
> > always move to chaos). Believing a complicated
> > and interdependent system like our universe,
> > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> > ecosystems evolved over billions of years is
> like
> > believing a tornado can spend a billion years
> > ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually
> you'll
> > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > Mathematically impossible.
>
>
> There are two retard alerts on display in the
> above post.
> First of all, entropy increases OVERALL. One
> cannot just isolate a section of a system and see
> order increasing while ignoring the effect that
> order has on the rest of the system.
>
> A good analogy is why an air-conditioner actually
> creates heat. The process of an air conditioner
> creates more heat by removing heat from a room.
> The room seems cooler since all that heat is
> pumped out into the bigger system.
>
> The other concern is our understanding of time is
> incomplete. Einstein's theory of relativity has
> been verified and hence there is more to time than
> we initially assumed. Time flows slower in the
> vicinity of bigger mass. If the Big Bang was a
> singularity at t=0, there would have never been
> the first instance.
> Look at the curve y=1/x in the first quadrant.
> The bigger the x, the closer tot 0 y becomes but
> it never reaches 0.
>
>
> Yes, on some level, it is easier to say "We don't
> know yet, therefore GOD" but we are far from the
> superstitious past where that is an acceptable
> answer.
> Thinking people have replaced it with "We don't
> know yet, let's find out."


Opening with an ad hominem. The usual trope of those who do Satan's bidding. But sure, let us keep trying to find out what we don't know. No Christian is against that. Belief and God and seeking knowledge are not in conflict. Only atheists believe that.

There is nothing in the Bible that has been proven incorrect. You would think with all these smart atheists running around, they'd be able to prove at least one thing. Not with some theory that is, in itself, unprovable. But an observable, controlled, and mathematically constant proof. Perhaps all the soul-dead folks could spend some time doing that instead of throwing around ridiculous theories that would require 10 to the billionth chance of occurrences to be true. Just a suggestion.

Carl S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> butterfingers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > and, back to the question Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I love how a pretty legit question is asked
> in
> > the
> > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god" avoid
> > > answering it by changing the subject and
> > attacking
> > > posters herein, using such terms as F---wit
> and
> > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > >
> > > Why not just have a serious discussion about
> > the
> > > question?
> > >
> > > Too much for you folks?
> > >
> > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> light",
> > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a
> > little
> > > questioning and discussion?
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > >
> > > Weird.
> >
> >
> > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's question
> is
> > based on both ignorance of God and flawed logic.
>
> > You can not cling to physics and logic until
> both
> > undermine your beliefs and then throw them away.
>
> > That is what the OP is doing. Only something
> > supernatural can explain how fundamental laws
> of
> > physics can be broken. But the OP will dismiss
> > the explanation as a dodge. He would, once
> again,
> > be wrong. God is supernatural. The existence
> of
> > Earth as we currently know it breaks at least
> two
> > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can
> not
> > come from nothing and an uncontrolled system
> will
> > always move to chaos). Believing a complicated
> > and interdependent system like our universe,
> > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> > ecosystems evolved over billions of years is
> like
> > believing a tornado can spend a billion years
> > ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually
> you'll
> > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > Mathematically impossible.
>
> Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its
> unlikely our current understanding of time and
> space could arrive at an accurate calculation of
> those odds because 1. we dont know how 'warp
> drive' is possible in the physical world. 2. To
> the OP's point we dont know what came before the
> 'big bang' and where it may have come from. You
> can call that ignorance or proof of God up to you,
> I dont know or care. But, given sufficient time,
> any set of variables coming together into a
> certain arrangement at a certain time at the same
> position is by definition 'possible.'
>
> You can look up at the night sky on a clear night
> and see light particles/waves billions of years
> old - we are uncertain of the value of 'time' is
> in your hypothetical since we are uncertain what
> came before the Big Bang and how many times it may
> have occurred. In my mind none of this 'proves' or
> 'disproves' God as a belief system.


Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God or no-God. However, there is sufficient scientific, mathematical and logical proof to suppose that God exists. It is up to each individual to use their own understanding as to what conclusions are reached. Whether or not God exists is a belief system. God is not a belief system. What is true and what is false is what comprises a belief system. Nouns are not belief systems.

The OP demands conclusive proof of God's existence in his countless and repetitive threads on this subject. When it is explained to him that, in the end, belief is God is, but it's very definition, faith in a truism that one can not conclusively prove, he twists that into proof that there is no God. It is barely worth my time to ever engage in these threads of his as name-calling and illogic will eventually kill it, as it has all the rest.

hitting my snooze alarm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science is fun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > butterfingers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > and, back to the question Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I love how a pretty legit question is asked
> > in
> > > the
> > > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god"
> avoid
> > > > answering it by changing the subject and
> > > attacking
> > > > posters herein, using such terms as F---wit
> > and
> > > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > > >
> > > > Why not just have a serious discussion
> about
> > > the
> > > > question?
> > > >
> > > > Too much for you folks?
> > > >
> > > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> > light",
> > > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a
> > > little
> > > > questioning and discussion?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > > >
> > > > Weird.
> > >
> > >
> > > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's
> question
> > is
> > > based on both ignorance of God and flawed
> logic.
> >
> > > You can not cling to physics and logic until
> > both
> > > undermine your beliefs and then throw them
> away.
> >
> > > That is what the OP is doing. Only something
> > > supernatural can explain how fundamental laws
> > of
> > > physics can be broken. But the OP will
> dismiss
> > > the explanation as a dodge. He would, once
> > again,
> > > be wrong. God is supernatural. The
> existence
> > of
> > > Earth as we currently know it breaks at least
> > two
> > > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can
> > not
> > > come from nothing and an uncontrolled system
> > will
> > > always move to chaos). Believing a
> complicated
> > > and interdependent system like our universe,
> > > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> > > ecosystems evolved over billions of years is
> > like
> > > believing a tornado can spend a billion years
> > > ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually
> > you'll
> > > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > > Mathematically impossible.
> >
> >
> > There are two retard alerts on display in the
> > above post.
> > First of all, entropy increases OVERALL. One
> > cannot just isolate a section of a system and
> see
> > order increasing while ignoring the effect that
> > order has on the rest of the system.
> >
> > A good analogy is why an air-conditioner
> actually
> > creates heat. The process of an air conditioner
> > creates more heat by removing heat from a room.
>
> > The room seems cooler since all that heat is
> > pumped out into the bigger system.
> >
> > The other concern is our understanding of time
> is
> > incomplete. Einstein's theory of relativity has
> > been verified and hence there is more to time
> than
> > we initially assumed. Time flows slower in the
> > vicinity of bigger mass. If the Big Bang was a
> > singularity at t=0, there would have never been
> > the first instance.
> > Look at the curve y=1/x in the first quadrant.
> > The bigger the x, the closer tot 0 y becomes
> but
> > it never reaches 0.
> >
> >
> > Yes, on some level, it is easier to say "We
> don't
> > know yet, therefore GOD" but we are far from
> the
> > superstitious past where that is an acceptable
> > answer.
> > Thinking people have replaced it with "We don't
> > know yet, let's find out."
>
>
> Opening with an ad hominem. The usual trope of
> those who do Satan's bidding. But sure, let us
> keep trying to find out what we don't know. No
> Christian is against that. Belief and God and
> seeking knowledge are not in conflict. Only
> atheists believe that.
>
> There is nothing in the Bible that has been proven
> incorrect. You would think with all these smart
> atheists running around, they'd be able to prove
> at least one thing. Not with some theory that is,
> in itself, unprovable. But an observable,
> controlled, and mathematically constant proof.
> Perhaps all the soul-dead folks could spend some
> time doing that instead of throwing around
> ridiculous theories that would require 10 to the
> billionth chance of occurrences to be true. Just
> a suggestion.


Science has shown there was no flood on the earth as told in the story of Noah's ark.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of the 'miracles' in the Bible actually did occur.

The Bible remains a book of myths, legends, and superstitions.

That said, the numbers you present show you have no concept of how vast the universe is.

Keep pulling the "It must be God" out of your backside and live on your false hope since reality seems to confuse you.

It is always fun when believers pull an Einstein quote out of context with total disregard of his true thoughts on the subjects of God and Religon


http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

Princeton, 3. 1. 1954

Dear Mr Gutkind,

Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."

Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,

Yours,

A. Einstein

>
> Science has shown there was no flood on the earth
> as told in the story of Noah's ark.
>



Oh really? When did science show that? Ever crack open a geology book? You'd be amazed how little you know.

butterfingers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carl S Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > butterfingers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > and, back to the question Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I love how a pretty legit question is asked
> > in
> > > the
> > > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god"
> avoid
> > > > answering it by changing the subject and
> > > attacking
> > > > posters herein, using such terms as F---wit
> > and
> > > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > > >
> > > > Why not just have a serious discussion
> about
> > > the
> > > > question?
> > > >
> > > > Too much for you folks?
> > > >
> > > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> > light",
> > > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a
> > > little
> > > > questioning and discussion?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > > >
> > > > Weird.
> > >
> > >
> > > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's
> question
> > is
> > > based on both ignorance of God and flawed
> logic.
> >
> > > You can not cling to physics and logic until
> > both
> > > undermine your beliefs and then throw them
> away.
> >
> > > That is what the OP is doing. Only something
> > > supernatural can explain how fundamental laws
> > of
> > > physics can be broken. But the OP will
> dismiss
> > > the explanation as a dodge. He would, once
> > again,
> > > be wrong. God is supernatural. The
> existence
> > of
> > > Earth as we currently know it breaks at least
> > two
> > > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can
> > not
> > > come from nothing and an uncontrolled system
> > will
> > > always move to chaos). Believing a
> complicated
> > > and interdependent system like our universe,
> > > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> > > ecosystems evolved over billions of years is
> > like
> > > believing a tornado can spend a billion years
> > > ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually
> > you'll
> > > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > > Mathematically impossible.
> >
> > Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its
> > unlikely our current understanding of time and
> > space could arrive at an accurate calculation
> of
> > those odds because 1. we dont know how 'warp
> > drive' is possible in the physical world. 2.
> To
> > the OP's point we dont know what came before
> the
> > 'big bang' and where it may have come from.
> You
> > can call that ignorance or proof of God up to
> you,
> > I dont know or care. But, given sufficient
> time,
> > any set of variables coming together into a
> > certain arrangement at a certain time at the
> same
> > position is by definition 'possible.'
> >
> > You can look up at the night sky on a clear
> night
> > and see light particles/waves billions of years
> > old - we are uncertain of the value of 'time'
> is
> > in your hypothetical since we are uncertain
> what
> > came before the Big Bang and how many times it
> may
> > have occurred. In my mind none of this 'proves'
> or
> > 'disproves' God as a belief system.
>
>
> Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God or
> no-God. However, there is sufficient scientific,
> mathematical and logical proof to suppose that God
> exists. It is up to each individual to use their
> own understanding as to what conclusions are
> reached. Whether or not God exists is a belief
> system. God is not a belief system. What is true
> and what is false is what comprises a belief
> system. Nouns are not belief systems.
>
> The OP demands conclusive proof of God's existence
> in his countless and repetitive threads on this
> subject. When it is explained to him that, in the
> end, belief is God is, but it's very definition,
> faith in a truism that one can not conclusively
> prove, he twists that into proof that there is no
> God. It is barely worth my time to ever engage in
> these threads of his as name-calling and illogic
> will eventually kill it, as it has all the rest.

The OP has never once twisted anything into "proof that there is no god".

Rather, the OP has asked very good questions as to the existence of any god, which are answered rather unsatisfactorily, if they are answered at all.

The usual responses contain hate and attacks against the OP.

The OP is smart enough to know it is nearly impossible the prove that something exists, rather, the burden of proof is on those that make a positive claim.

As in if one claims that something exists, the burden of proof is on them.

But that logic makes many adherents to christ belief angry, as do many other truths.

But no, the OP has never asserted god does not exist.

He/she is too smart for that.

OP meant to say, "prove that something DOESN'T exist"

vejeb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Science has shown there was no flood on the
> earth
> > as told in the story of Noah's ark.
> >
>
>
>
> Oh really? When did science show that? Ever
> crack open a geology book? You'd be amazed how
> little you know.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/03/twenty-one_reasons_noahs_worldwide_flood_never_happened/

The tale of Noah's Ark is one that is so ridiculous that it barely deserves discussion.

It can be fun, though, to watch a bible believer twist logic, truth, etc to match their infantile belief that a wooden boat the size of an aircraft carrier could be built by a 200 year old man and his family, and this boat could get 2 of every species (there are over 10,000 different reptile species) and keep these animals alive and healthy, and once the flood ended, these animals bred and repopulated the earth in less than 6,000 years...and where did all the water come from? Where did it go?

And oh yeah...there were dinosaurs on the ark? what?

Even more fun...Adam and Eve...repopulated the earth? ooh...yuck...incest city!

But they were able to singlehandedly repopulate the earth? Their kids were...yes...screwing each other, and maybe mommy and daddy...ewww...

A couple of funny things about the ark...nobody else had boats back then?

Fishermen had...no boats with fishing equipment so they could float around for a while, fishing?

And, when the flood ended...what did the animals eat? The world had been flooded for a while, so, where was the food?

How did polar bears get to the poles? Kangaroos to Australia? How'd they get to the Ark in the first place?

So, god...who's is a kind and loving god...killed ALL OTHER animals except for those on the Ark?

Is he a dick? Sounds like it...can you imagine watching your dog drown? All of your neighborhood pets...drown?

I'm not sure I'd want to be part of that new world. Would be just too awful realizing what had happened to other humans and animals.

The Ark is a silly AF tale.

Even sillier are those who twist and turn to believe this fairy tale.

OP speaks!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The OP has never once twisted anything into "proof
> that there is no god".
>
> Rather, the OP has asked very good questions as to
> the existence of any god, which are answered
> rather unsatisfactorily, if they are answered at
> all.
>
> The usual responses contain hate and attacks
> against the OP.
>
> The OP is smart enough to know it is nearly
> impossible the prove that something exists,
> rather, the burden of proof is on those that make
> a positive claim.
>
> As in if one claims that something exists, the
> burden of proof is on them.
>
> But that logic makes many adherents to christ
> belief angry, as do many other truths.
>
> But no, the OP has never asserted god does not
> exist.
>
> He/she is too smart for that.


Everything posted above is an opinion. You could put, "imo" in front of all of these. Whether you believe something has been answered well is your opinion. No one, other than you, cares what whether you like an answer or not.

"Truths". lol

So, it's merely my opinion as to what I've done? Technically, that could be true...as in, it's my opinion that 2+2=4.

So, I can't really refute that too much.

But to the extent you are using "opinion" to separate from "fact", umm, no.

Please, please show me where I have asserted "there is no god".

IMO, this is just another attempt at obfuscating and muddying up the facts.

Please, again, show me where I've asserted there is no god.

You have, on the other hand, failed at providing proof for the claim there is in fact a god.

And in order to take attention away from that, you find it necessary to attack OP and claim things that just aren't true.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Science has shown there was no flood on the earth
> as told in the story of Noah's ark.

False.

>
> Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of the
> 'miracles' in the Bible actually did occur.

Again, lack of evidence that satisfies your "100% verifiable" hurdle proves nothing.

>
> The Bible remains a book of myths, legends, and
> superstitions.

So you believe. Proving nothing buy your own opinion, which carries no weight with anyone else.


>
> That said, the numbers you present show you have
> no concept of how vast the universe is.

If you want to believe that billions of random, chaotic events, each with a infinitesimal chance of occurring, even over billions of years, can explain everything, I could not care less. Over 1 billion Christians around the world do not have that much faith to believe it however.


>
> Keep pulling the "It must be God" out of your
> backside and live on your false hope since reality
> seems to confuse you.

As I said would happen. Not happy with the answers.....

Do you want to tell us your OPINION of the Ark? Adam and Eve?

I've given mine...which happens to be based on fact.

Give us your opinion...will it be, "I done read it in the bible, therefore, it's my opinion that it's true"?

Borderline circular reasoning, buy that's typically the best you've got. IMO.

butterfingers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carl S Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > butterfingers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > and, back to the question Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I love how a pretty legit question is asked
> > in
> > > the
> > > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god"
> avoid
> > > > answering it by changing the subject and
> > > attacking
> > > > posters herein, using such terms as F---wit
> > and
> > > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > > >
> > > > Why not just have a serious discussion
> about
> > > the
> > > > question?
> > > >
> > > > Too much for you folks?
> > > >
> > > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> > light",
> > > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to a
> > > little
> > > > questioning and discussion?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > > >
> > > > Weird.
> > >
> > >
> > > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's
> question
> > is
> > > based on both ignorance of God and flawed
> logic.
> >
> > > You can not cling to physics and logic until
> > both
> > > undermine your beliefs and then throw them
> away.
> >
> > > That is what the OP is doing. Only something
> > > supernatural can explain how fundamental laws
> > of
> > > physics can be broken. But the OP will
> dismiss
> > > the explanation as a dodge. He would, once
> > again,
> > > be wrong. God is supernatural. The
> existence
> > of
> > > Earth as we currently know it breaks at least
> > two
> > > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something can
> > not
> > > come from nothing and an uncontrolled system
> > will
> > > always move to chaos). Believing a
> complicated
> > > and interdependent system like our universe,
> > > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> > > ecosystems evolved over billions of years is
> > like
> > > believing a tornado can spend a billion years
> > > ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually
> > you'll
> > > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > > Mathematically impossible.
> >
> > Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its
> > unlikely our current understanding of time and
> > space could arrive at an accurate calculation
> of
> > those odds because 1. we dont know how 'warp
> > drive' is possible in the physical world. 2.
> To
> > the OP's point we dont know what came before
> the
> > 'big bang' and where it may have come from.
> You
> > can call that ignorance or proof of God up to
> you,
> > I dont know or care. But, given sufficient
> time,
> > any set of variables coming together into a
> > certain arrangement at a certain time at the
> same
> > position is by definition 'possible.'
> >
> > You can look up at the night sky on a clear
> night
> > and see light particles/waves billions of years
> > old - we are uncertain of the value of 'time'
> is
> > in your hypothetical since we are uncertain
> what
> > came before the Big Bang and how many times it
> may
> > have occurred. In my mind none of this 'proves'
> or
> > 'disproves' God as a belief system.
>
>
> Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God or
> no-God. However, there is sufficient scientific,
> mathematical and logical proof to suppose that God
> exists. It is up to each individual to use their
> own understanding as to what conclusions are
> reached. Whether or not God exists is a belief
> system. God is not a belief system. What is true
> and what is false is what comprises a belief
> system. Nouns are not belief systems.
>
> The OP demands conclusive proof of God's existence
> in his countless and repetitive threads on this
> subject. When it is explained to him that, in the
> end, belief is God is, but it's very definition,
> faith in a truism that one can not conclusively
> prove, he twists that into proof that there is no
> God. It is barely worth my time to ever engage in
> these threads of his as name-calling and illogic
> will eventually kill it, as it has all the rest.

1. The OP is a person who managed to present an interesting question but seems to lack the capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion of same. One could conclude he was trolling for an angry secular defense of the existence of God. Thus far his only contribution was the question contained in his original post.

2. To argue that there is scientific evidence sufficient to 'suppose' God exists is not, in my view a meaningful statement. One can suppose just about anything. The best secular argument to date along these lines is Intelligent Design which, in my opinion, relies on inference much more than deductive reasoning. Personally, I find attempts to use science to prove the existence of God a misunderstanding of both.

3. "God is not a belief system." I would argue since God's existence cannot be in any proven outside faith the opposite is true - God exists only as a belief system.

I love how you think you've got the OP all figured out.

Seems to be a pattern for your life.

Hey...looks, it's a butterfly! Oh, gee...isn't god great?

OP would love to engage in discussion regarding the initial post...and, since he really found only one reply that dealt with the substance of that question, he focused his attention on responding to various attacks, criticisms, etc.

But, as to your claim that "his only contribution was the question contained in his original post", that would be YOUR OPINION only, and, it is wrong...since, OP has also contributed the gems of the Ark and Adam and Eve questions/criticisms.

But like many of your beliefs...you kinda make up alot of what you believe about people and facts out of thin air...

And expect everyone else around you to say..."oh, isn't god great?"

Another fail by the OP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP speaks!!! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The OP has never once twisted anything into
> "proof
> > that there is no god".
> >
> > Rather, the OP has asked very good questions as
> to
> > the existence of any god, which are answered
> > rather unsatisfactorily, if they are answered
> at
> > all.
> >
> > The usual responses contain hate and attacks
> > against the OP.
> >
> > The OP is smart enough to know it is nearly
> > impossible the prove that something exists,
> > rather, the burden of proof is on those that
> make
> > a positive claim.
> >
> > As in if one claims that something exists, the
> > burden of proof is on them.
> >
> > But that logic makes many adherents to christ
> > belief angry, as do many other truths.
> >
> > But no, the OP has never asserted god does not
> > exist.
> >
> > He/she is too smart for that.
>
>
> Everything posted above is an opinion. You
> could put, "imo" in front of all of these.
> Whether you believe something has been
> answered well is your opinion. No one, other than
> you, cares what whether you like an answer or
> not.
>
> "Truths". lol


If you believe this than start adding "IMO" in front of all your verbiage.

Pastor Don Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> butterfingers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Carl S Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > butterfingers Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > and, back to the question Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > I love how a pretty legit question is
> asked
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god"
> > avoid
> > > > > answering it by changing the subject and
> > > > attacking
> > > > > posters herein, using such terms as
> F---wit
> > > and
> > > > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not just have a serious discussion
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > question?
> > > > >
> > > > > Too much for you folks?
> > > > >
> > > > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> > > light",
> > > > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up to
> a
> > > > little
> > > > > questioning and discussion?
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > > > >
> > > > > Weird.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's
> > question
> > > is
> > > > based on both ignorance of God and flawed
> > logic.
> > >
> > > > You can not cling to physics and logic
> until
> > > both
> > > > undermine your beliefs and then throw them
> > away.
> > >
> > > > That is what the OP is doing. Only
> something
> > > > supernatural can explain how fundamental
> laws
> > > of
> > > > physics can be broken. But the OP will
> > dismiss
> > > > the explanation as a dodge. He would, once
> > > again,
> > > > be wrong. God is supernatural. The
> > existence
> > > of
> > > > Earth as we currently know it breaks at
> least
> > > two
> > > > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something
> can
> > > not
> > > > come from nothing and an uncontrolled
> system
> > > will
> > > > always move to chaos). Believing a
> > complicated
> > > > and interdependent system like our
> universe,
> > > > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of its
> > > > ecosystems evolved over billions of years
> is
> > > like
> > > > believing a tornado can spend a billion
> years
> > > > ravaging a huge pile of junk and eventually
> > > you'll
> > > > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > > > Mathematically impossible.
> > >
> > > Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its
> > > unlikely our current understanding of time
> and
> > > space could arrive at an accurate calculation
> > of
> > > those odds because 1. we dont know how 'warp
> > > drive' is possible in the physical world. 2.
> > To
> > > the OP's point we dont know what came before
> > the
> > > 'big bang' and where it may have come from.
> > You
> > > can call that ignorance or proof of God up to
> > you,
> > > I dont know or care. But, given sufficient
> > time,
> > > any set of variables coming together into a
> > > certain arrangement at a certain time at the
> > same
> > > position is by definition 'possible.'
> > >
> > > You can look up at the night sky on a clear
> > night
> > > and see light particles/waves billions of
> years
> > > old - we are uncertain of the value of 'time'
> > is
> > > in your hypothetical since we are uncertain
> > what
> > > came before the Big Bang and how many times
> it
> > may
> > > have occurred. In my mind none of this
> 'proves'
> > or
> > > 'disproves' God as a belief system.
> >
> >
> > Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God or
> > no-God. However, there is sufficient
> scientific,
> > mathematical and logical proof to suppose that
> God
> > exists. It is up to each individual to use
> their
> > own understanding as to what conclusions are
> > reached. Whether or not God exists is a belief
> > system. God is not a belief system. What is
> true
> > and what is false is what comprises a belief
> > system. Nouns are not belief systems.
> >
> > The OP demands conclusive proof of God's
> existence
> > in his countless and repetitive threads on this
> > subject. When it is explained to him that, in
> the
> > end, belief is God is, but it's very
> definition,
> > faith in a truism that one can not conclusively
> > prove, he twists that into proof that there is
> no
> > God. It is barely worth my time to ever engage
> in
> > these threads of his as name-calling and
> illogic
> > will eventually kill it, as it has all the
> rest.
>
> 1. The OP is a person who managed to present an
> interesting question but seems to lack the
> capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion of
> same. One could conclude he was trolling for an
> angry secular defense of the existence of God.
> Thus far his only contribution was the question
> contained in his original post.
>
> 2. To argue that there is scientific evidence
> sufficient to 'suppose' God exists is not, in my
> view a meaningful statement. One can
> suppose just about anything. The best
> secular argument to date along these lines is
> Intelligent Design which, in my opinion, relies on
> inference much more than deductive reasoning.
> Personally, I find attempts to use science to
> prove the existence of God a misunderstanding of
> both.
>
> 3. "God is not a belief system." I would argue
> since God's existence cannot be in any proven
> outside faith the opposite is true - God exists
> only as a belief system.


Sure, all of the things you've written are "in your view or what you'd argue" since it's what you wrote. There are dozens of books about the scientific case(s) for God, most written by scientist.

When you truly seek God, you will find Him. That is when you will know He is real. I know God is real because I know God. It's really as simple as that.

Now here's something you god folk might want to discuss, if you don't want to discuss the silliness of the ark or adam and steve.

Now, I'm not an incredibly smart person. Smart enough, yes. Einstein smart? No.

But I've figured out over the years everyone processes information differently, and, amongst 100 different people, you can have 100 different opinions...some based on fact, some based on just BS.

One of the basic rules of communication is "know your audience", keeping in mind the fact that people process info differently.

And so...if I were god...the kind, loving, thoughtful god as advertised...I wouldn't make my existence so reliant upon a bunch of charades, half signals, etc that could easily be construed by a thoughtful, logical man as possibly indicative of something else entirely.

What's the purpose of that?

After all, I want to save people!

Why make it so hard to believe in me?

And, knowing for fact that people...good people...smart, well intentioned people...process things differently...

I, being god and ALL KNOWING, would approach it so that there would be NO DOUBT and NO REASONABLE EXCUSE for every person to know of my existence.

And again, knowing my audience (because I'm god, duh!), i would know for some...this just might mean that their mommy and daddy had to tell them. For others, though, maybe they've been exposed to certain things in life, and, their thought processes are different...and so they require something else to be convinced of something.

They are not bad people, just have different ways of accepting truth. Maybe they are smarter? Maybe they were exposed to science and logic at an early age, and thus, those are guiding principles for them over just blind faith in something mommy and daddy hayseed told them. Doesn't matter...just realize people are in fact different.

And so, being the kind loving god I am, wanting to "save" as many people, I'd say, OK, this is what is required to convince that person beyond a reasonable and defendable doubt that I exist.

And then, once having done this (should be easy, as remember, I am god!), I would then be able to say, in good conscience...hey...if now you ain't with me, too bad. Those that are, and behave well, you're saved. And know full well...there will still be those who have been reasonably "exposed" to god, and still don't act right...hey, baby, too bad for them. Not saved!

So, why does god rely on veiled signals...weird messages with possible different interpretations, that some smart and well intentioned people might interpret way differently than others? Why does god want to reward those that simply say, uh, yeah...gee...OK, sounds swell to me.

He wouldn't.

Not a kind, lovely thoughtful god, that is.

He'd know that it takes more than "one size, fits all smoke signals" to convince all that he is real, especially if he is looking to save people.

round and round we go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pastor Don Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > butterfingers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Carl S Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > butterfingers Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > and, back to the question Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > I love how a pretty legit question is
> > asked
> > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god"
> > > avoid
> > > > > > answering it by changing the subject
> and
> > > > > attacking
> > > > > > posters herein, using such terms as
> > F---wit
> > > > and
> > > > > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not just have a serious discussion
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > question?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too much for you folks?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> > > > light",
> > > > > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up
> to
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > questioning and discussion?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weird.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's
> > > question
> > > > is
> > > > > based on both ignorance of God and flawed
> > > logic.
> > > >
> > > > > You can not cling to physics and logic
> > until
> > > > both
> > > > > undermine your beliefs and then throw
> them
> > > away.
> > > >
> > > > > That is what the OP is doing. Only
> > something
> > > > > supernatural can explain how fundamental
> > laws
> > > > of
> > > > > physics can be broken. But the OP will
> > > dismiss
> > > > > the explanation as a dodge. He would,
> once
> > > > again,
> > > > > be wrong. God is supernatural. The
> > > existence
> > > > of
> > > > > Earth as we currently know it breaks at
> > least
> > > > two
> > > > > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something
> > can
> > > > not
> > > > > come from nothing and an uncontrolled
> > system
> > > > will
> > > > > always move to chaos). Believing a
> > > complicated
> > > > > and interdependent system like our
> > universe,
> > > > > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of
> its
> > > > > ecosystems evolved over billions of years
> > is
> > > > like
> > > > > believing a tornado can spend a billion
> > years
> > > > > ravaging a huge pile of junk and
> eventually
> > > > you'll
> > > > > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > > > > Mathematically impossible.
> > > >
> > > > Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its
> > > > unlikely our current understanding of time
> > and
> > > > space could arrive at an accurate
> calculation
> > > of
> > > > those odds because 1. we dont know how
> 'warp
> > > > drive' is possible in the physical world.
> 2.
> > > To
> > > > the OP's point we dont know what came
> before
> > > the
> > > > 'big bang' and where it may have come from.
>
> > > You
> > > > can call that ignorance or proof of God up
> to
> > > you,
> > > > I dont know or care. But, given sufficient
> > > time,
> > > > any set of variables coming together into a
> > > > certain arrangement at a certain time at
> the
> > > same
> > > > position is by definition 'possible.'
> > > >
> > > > You can look up at the night sky on a clear
> > > night
> > > > and see light particles/waves billions of
> > years
> > > > old - we are uncertain of the value of
> 'time'
> > > is
> > > > in your hypothetical since we are uncertain
> > > what
> > > > came before the Big Bang and how many times
> > it
> > > may
> > > > have occurred. In my mind none of this
> > 'proves'
> > > or
> > > > 'disproves' God as a belief system.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God
> or
> > > no-God. However, there is sufficient
> > scientific,
> > > mathematical and logical proof to suppose
> that
> > God
> > > exists. It is up to each individual to use
> > their
> > > own understanding as to what conclusions are
> > > reached. Whether or not God exists is a
> belief
> > > system. God is not a belief system. What is
> > true
> > > and what is false is what comprises a belief
> > > system. Nouns are not belief systems.
> > >
> > > The OP demands conclusive proof of God's
> > existence
> > > in his countless and repetitive threads on
> this
> > > subject. When it is explained to him that,
> in
> > the
> > > end, belief is God is, but it's very
> > definition,
> > > faith in a truism that one can not
> conclusively
> > > prove, he twists that into proof that there
> is
> > no
> > > God. It is barely worth my time to ever
> engage
> > in
> > > these threads of his as name-calling and
> > illogic
> > > will eventually kill it, as it has all the
> > rest.
> >
> > 1. The OP is a person who managed to present an
> > interesting question but seems to lack the
> > capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion
> of
> > same. One could conclude he was trolling for
> an
> > angry secular defense of the existence of God.
> > Thus far his only contribution was the question
> > contained in his original post.
> >
> > 2. To argue that there is scientific evidence
> > sufficient to 'suppose' God exists is not, in
> my
> > view a meaningful statement. One can
> > suppose just about anything. The best
> > secular argument to date along these lines is
> > Intelligent Design which, in my opinion, relies
> on
> > inference much more than deductive reasoning.
> > Personally, I find attempts to use science to
> > prove the existence of God a misunderstanding
> of
> > both.
> >
> > 3. "God is not a belief system." I would argue
> > since God's existence cannot be in any proven
> > outside faith the opposite is true - God exists
> > only as a belief system.
>
>
> Sure, all of the things you've written are "in
> your view or what you'd argue" since it's what you
> wrote. There are dozens of books about the
> scientific case(s) for God, most written by
> scientist.
>
> When you truly seek God, you will find Him. That
> is when you will know He is real. I know God is
> real because I know God. It's really as simple as
> that.

A book or many books written by scientists dont prove the existence of anything, thats up to physical evidence. Personally I do have belief in a Higher Power but I do not have nor know of any evidence in existence of tangible proof outside of my own belief. Hence my careful claims stating things 'in my view' or what I would 'argue.'

As you stated you know God is real because you know God. A perfect example that your proof rests exclusively in your own personal belief system not in any kind of scientifically verifiable construct. You may wish to consider the fact that millions of people share your own belief in God as evidence of His existence with the same certainty you have - their God may vary significantly from your own version. Certainty in God's existence vis-a-vis how you personally feel is not unique to whichever religion you may prescribe to.

If you are a simple Diest (as is my own belief) this variation in and often conflict in religious dogma are less problematic. I neither endorse nor reject your personal belief in what or Who God is but rather respect the fact that it is each individual's right to the belief in their own Higher Power.

IMO, discuss this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now here's something you god folk might want to
> discuss, if you don't want to discuss the
> silliness of the ark or adam and steve.
>
> Now, I'm not an incredibly smart person.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to read one or two sentence paragraphs? I get you are trolling but no one will read past the first few sentences. You are wasting your time. BTW the grown ups are discussing the OP's post not 'adam and steve.' Why not start a new thread on that topic?

The belief that god views people as "one size fits all" would also explain the christian belief that if Hitler atoned for his "sins" on his deathbed, you'll see him in heaven, while Anne Frank does not go to heaven.

Wouldn't that be weird to run into Hitler in heaven? All you've heard about this wonderful place...and there he is...hanging out, playing that big violin thing, eating big grapes, people all happy with him...and god and everybody being all like "what a guy this hitler has turned out to be".

And would you want to ever bring up the holocaust with him?

After all, that would have to make a "Heaven Hitler" unhappy, I would HOPE? and we know, unhappiness ain't what heaven is all about!

So, would he just wave you off, if you said...hey, hit...old buddy...what about those jews...do you feel bad? Of course he would! But, you can't feel bad in Heaven! No sir!

Weird, huh?

Just one of those mysterious ways that god works? Is that how we get around that?

Pastor Don Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMO, discuss this Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now here's something you god folk might want to
> > discuss, if you don't want to discuss the
> > silliness of the ark or adam and steve.
> >
> > Now, I'm not an incredibly smart person.
>
> Do you have any idea how difficult it is to read
> one or two sentence paragraphs? I get you are
> trolling but no one will read past the first few
> sentences. You are wasting your time. BTW the
> grown ups are discussing the OP's post not 'adam
> and steve.' Why not start a new thread on that
> topic?


I love it, Pastor Don! You've elected yourself the spokesman of the "grownups" on FFXU!

What an idiot.

I write like this because it kind of follows the bible...you know, a series of declarations.

So sorry you can't get around a series of sentences. Yeah, that should really obscure the message and make it difficult to follow.

round and round we go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pastor Don Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > butterfingers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Carl S Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > butterfingers Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > and, back to the question Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > I love how a pretty legit question is
> > asked
> > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > OP, but somehow all the "people of god"
> > > avoid
> > > > > > answering it by changing the subject
> and
> > > > > attacking
> > > > > > posters herein, using such terms as
> > F---wit
> > > > and
> > > > > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not just have a serious discussion
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > question?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too much for you folks?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your god is "the way, the truth, the
> > > > light",
> > > > > > shouldn't your belief in that stand up
> to
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > questioning and discussion?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weird.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's
> > > question
> > > > is
> > > > > based on both ignorance of God and flawed
> > > logic.
> > > >
> > > > > You can not cling to physics and logic
> > until
> > > > both
> > > > > undermine your beliefs and then throw
> them
> > > away.
> > > >
> > > > > That is what the OP is doing. Only
> > something
> > > > > supernatural can explain how fundamental
> > laws
> > > > of
> > > > > physics can be broken. But the OP will
> > > dismiss
> > > > > the explanation as a dodge. He would,
> once
> > > > again,
> > > > > be wrong. God is supernatural. The
> > > existence
> > > > of
> > > > > Earth as we currently know it breaks at
> > least
> > > > two
> > > > > laws of physics/thermodynamics (something
> > can
> > > > not
> > > > > come from nothing and an uncontrolled
> > system
> > > > will
> > > > > always move to chaos). Believing a
> > > complicated
> > > > > and interdependent system like our
> > universe,
> > > > > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of
> its
> > > > > ecosystems evolved over billions of years
> > is
> > > > like
> > > > > believing a tornado can spend a billion
> > years
> > > > > ravaging a huge pile of junk and
> eventually
> > > > you'll
> > > > > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > > > > Mathematically impossible.
> > > >
> > > > Correction 'mathematically improbable.' Its
> > > > unlikely our current understanding of time
> > and
> > > > space could arrive at an accurate
> calculation
> > > of
> > > > those odds because 1. we dont know how
> 'warp
> > > > drive' is possible in the physical world.
> 2.
> > > To
> > > > the OP's point we dont know what came
> before
> > > the
> > > > 'big bang' and where it may have come from.
>
> > > You
> > > > can call that ignorance or proof of God up
> to
> > > you,
> > > > I dont know or care. But, given sufficient
> > > time,
> > > > any set of variables coming together into a
> > > > certain arrangement at a certain time at
> the
> > > same
> > > > position is by definition 'possible.'
> > > >
> > > > You can look up at the night sky on a clear
> > > night
> > > > and see light particles/waves billions of
> > years
> > > > old - we are uncertain of the value of
> 'time'
> > > is
> > > > in your hypothetical since we are uncertain
> > > what
> > > > came before the Big Bang and how many times
> > it
> > > may
> > > > have occurred. In my mind none of this
> > 'proves'
> > > or
> > > > 'disproves' God as a belief system.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed. There is no scientific proof of God
> or
> > > no-God. However, there is sufficient
> > scientific,
> > > mathematical and logical proof to suppose
> that
> > God
> > > exists. It is up to each individual to use
> > their
> > > own understanding as to what conclusions are
> > > reached. Whether or not God exists is a
> belief
> > > system. God is not a belief system. What is
> > true
> > > and what is false is what comprises a belief
> > > system. Nouns are not belief systems.
> > >
> > > The OP demands conclusive proof of God's
> > existence
> > > in his countless and repetitive threads on
> this
> > > subject. When it is explained to him that,
> in
> > the
> > > end, belief is God is, but it's very
> > definition,
> > > faith in a truism that one can not
> conclusively
> > > prove, he twists that into proof that there
> is
> > no
> > > God. It is barely worth my time to ever
> engage
> > in
> > > these threads of his as name-calling and
> > illogic
> > > will eventually kill it, as it has all the
> > rest.
> >
> > 1. The OP is a person who managed to present an
> > interesting question but seems to lack the
> > capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion
> of
> > same. One could conclude he was trolling for
> an
> > angry secular defense of the existence of God.
> > Thus far his only contribution was the question
> > contained in his original post.
> >
> > 2. To argue that there is scientific evidence
> > sufficient to 'suppose' God exists is not, in
> my
> > view a meaningful statement. One can
> > suppose just about anything. The best
> > secular argument to date along these lines is
> > Intelligent Design which, in my opinion, relies
> on
> > inference much more than deductive reasoning.
> > Personally, I find attempts to use science to
> > prove the existence of God a misunderstanding
> of
> > both.
> >
> > 3. "God is not a belief system." I would argue
> > since God's existence cannot be in any proven
> > outside faith the opposite is true - God exists
> > only as a belief system.
>
>
> Sure, all of the things you've written are "in
> your view or what you'd argue" since it's what you
> wrote. There are dozens of books about the
> scientific case(s) for God, most written by
> scientist.
>
> When you truly seek God, you will find Him. That
> is when you will know He is real. I know God is
> real because I know God. It's really as simple as
> that.

"I know god is real because I know god".

So, basically a discussion about god with you would go thusly:

YOU "I believe in god"

RATIONAL, LOGICAL, WELL INTENTIONED PERSON: "Why, though?"

YOU: "Because I believe in god"

You really have no problem with that?

Are you a child?

Hey, Pastor dan-o

Take a look at the "hitler post" above, maybe on behalf of your constituents, the grown ups of FFXU...

Either way, let me know what you think!

Yes, it's written in a series of sentences, double spaced, like 7 in total...but see if you can fight through that mine field without rendering it silly on behalf your constituents.

Stand proud and fight on for the Grown-ups of FFXU!

Donny?

You there?

Would also love you to see if you could possibly "interpret" those sentences above.

Specifically, those posts regarding the ark, and why does god make it so dam impossible to know that he is around, especially given there are easier ways to reach more people (and hold them accountable) and, save them if they are worthy.

Yeah, the posts are typically a series of sentences and questions, which I feel are written properly, maybe not in the paragraph form you might be used to from your other scholarly pursuits, but do the best you can.

AFter all, you are the rep for all FFXU grown ups, and I would also think you consider yourself an earthly rep of god.

So think of all that brain power behind you when you attempt to figure out these "sentences".

God, and the grown ups of FFXU will thank you, I'm sure!

lemme get this straight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> round and round we go Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pastor Don Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > butterfingers Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Carl S Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > butterfingers Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > and, back to the question Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > I love how a pretty legit question is
> > > asked
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > OP, but somehow all the "people of
> god"
> > > > avoid
> > > > > > > answering it by changing the subject
> > and
> > > > > > attacking
> > > > > > > posters herein, using such terms as
> > > F---wit
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > attacking paragraph structure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why not just have a serious
> discussion
> > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > question?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Too much for you folks?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If your god is "the way, the truth,
> the
> > > > > light",
> > > > > > > shouldn't your belief in that stand
> up
> > to
> > > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > questioning and discussion?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't seem that it can!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Weird.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I doubt you love it at all. The OP's
> > > > question
> > > > > is
> > > > > > based on both ignorance of God and
> flawed
> > > > logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You can not cling to physics and logic
> > > until
> > > > > both
> > > > > > undermine your beliefs and then throw
> > them
> > > > away.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is what the OP is doing. Only
> > > something
> > > > > > supernatural can explain how
> fundamental
> > > laws
> > > > > of
> > > > > > physics can be broken. But the OP will
> > > > dismiss
> > > > > > the explanation as a dodge. He would,
> > once
> > > > > again,
> > > > > > be wrong. God is supernatural. The
> > > > existence
> > > > > of
> > > > > > Earth as we currently know it breaks at
> > > least
> > > > > two
> > > > > > laws of physics/thermodynamics
> (something
> > > can
> > > > > not
> > > > > > come from nothing and an uncontrolled
> > > system
> > > > > will
> > > > > > always move to chaos). Believing a
> > > > complicated
> > > > > > and interdependent system like our
> > > universe,
> > > > > > galaxy, solar system, Earth and all of
> > its
> > > > > > ecosystems evolved over billions of
> years
> > > is
> > > > > like
> > > > > > believing a tornado can spend a billion
> > > years
> > > > > > ravaging a huge pile of junk and
> > eventually
> > > > > you'll
> > > > > > get a fully functioning warp engine.
> > > > > > Mathematically impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correction 'mathematically improbable.'
> Its
> > > > > unlikely our current understanding of
> time
> > > and
> > > > > space could arrive at an accurate
> > calculation
> > > > of
> > > > > those odds because 1. we dont know how
> > 'warp
> > > > > drive' is possible in the physical world.
>
> > 2.
> > > > To
> > > > > the OP's point we dont know what came
> > before
> > > > the
> > > > > 'big bang' and where it may have come
> from.
> >
> > > > You
> > > > > can call that ignorance or proof of God
> up
> > to
> > > > you,
> > > > > I dont know or care. But, given
> sufficient
> > > > time,
> > > > > any set of variables coming together into
> a
> > > > > certain arrangement at a certain time at
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > position is by definition 'possible.'
> > > > >
> > > > > You can look up at the night sky on a
> clear
> > > > night
> > > > > and see light particles/waves billions of
> > > years
> > > > > old - we are uncertain of the value of
> > 'time'
> > > > is
> > > > > in your hypothetical since we are
> uncertain
> > > > what
> > > > > came before the Big Bang and how many
> times
> > > it
> > > > may
> > > > > have occurred. In my mind none of this
> > > 'proves'
> > > > or
> > > > > 'disproves' God as a belief system.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. There is no scientific proof of
> God
> > or
> > > > no-God. However, there is sufficient
> > > scientific,
> > > > mathematical and logical proof to suppose
> > that
> > > God
> > > > exists. It is up to each individual to use
> > > their
> > > > own understanding as to what conclusions
> are
> > > > reached. Whether or not God exists is a
> > belief
> > > > system. God is not a belief system. What
> is
> > > true
> > > > and what is false is what comprises a
> belief
> > > > system. Nouns are not belief systems.
> > > >
> > > > The OP demands conclusive proof of God's
> > > existence
> > > > in his countless and repetitive threads on
> > this
> > > > subject. When it is explained to him that,
> > in
> > > the
> > > > end, belief is God is, but it's very
> > > definition,
> > > > faith in a truism that one can not
> > conclusively
> > > > prove, he twists that into proof that there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > God. It is barely worth my time to ever
> > engage
> > > in
> > > > these threads of his as name-calling and
> > > illogic
> > > > will eventually kill it, as it has all the
> > > rest.
> > >
> > > 1. The OP is a person who managed to present
> an
> > > interesting question but seems to lack the
> > > capacity to engage in any meaningful
> discussion
> > of
> > > same. One could conclude he was trolling for
> > an
> > > angry secular defense of the existence of God.
>
> > > Thus far his only contribution was the
> question
> > > contained in his original post.
> > >
> > > 2. To argue that there is scientific evidence
> > > sufficient to 'suppose' God exists is not, in
> > my
> > > view a meaningful statement. One can
> > > suppose just about anything. The best
> > > secular argument to date along these lines is
> > > Intelligent Design which, in my opinion,
> relies
> > on
> > > inference much more than deductive reasoning.
> > > Personally, I find attempts to use science to
> > > prove the existence of God a misunderstanding
> > of
> > > both.
> > >
> > > 3. "God is not a belief system." I would
> argue
> > > since God's existence cannot be in any proven
> > > outside faith the opposite is true - God
> exists
> > > only as a belief system.
> >
> >
> > Sure, all of the things you've written are "in
> > your view or what you'd argue" since it's what
> you
> > wrote. There are dozens of books about the
> > scientific case(s) for God, most written by
> > scientist.
> >
> > When you truly seek God, you will find Him.
> That
> > is when you will know He is real. I know God
> is
> > real because I know God. It's really as simple
> as
> > that.
>
> "I know god is real because I know god".
>
> So, basically a discussion about god with you
> would go thusly:
>
> YOU "I believe in god"
>
> RATIONAL, LOGICAL, WELL INTENTIONED PERSON: "Why,
> though?"
>
> YOU: "Because I believe in god"
>
> You really have no problem with that?
>
> Are you a child?


your comprehension skills are a bit lacking.

^^^^

So says the person that says things like "I know god is real because I know god" when discussing the very existence of something, and then has no idea that this is circular reasoning.

hmmm...is right!

I believe in god because it says so in the bible.

Ok, why do you believe in the bible?

Because god says so.

more logic for ya Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe in god because it says so in the bible.
>
> Ok, why do you believe in the bible?
>
> Because god says so.


One can not prove the Bible with the Bible. As simple as that seems, it isn't obvious to the truly stupid.

any of ye holy folk want to opine on the posts above:

1. The one trying to figure out why is that god, the almighty, and endlessly loving...why does he make it so hard to see him? That only if you can hugely suspend all logic if you want to see him? If he really wants to save people, wouldn't he want to make sure there was NO DOUBT that he existed? Why the charade?

2. Wouldn't it be weird as hell if hitler, or some other such figure was in heaven, by virtue of atoning for his "sins" on his deathbed? And so, you wouldn't be able to ask him..."hey, man...just what were you thinking killing all those people" because heaven is a place of unbounded happiness, and clearly that kind of question would make heaven hitler unhappy...so, what happens? Do they worry about the millions killed? Because that would make someone unhappy as well... I mean, to be honest with you, I'd be pissed that hitler was up there, but would god come to me and say...hey, young lamb of mine...yu can't be pissed that hitler is here, because this is heaven and you're supposed to be happy, so, I'm gonna sprinkle some happy dust on you, and everything will be A-OK. Weird, huh?

I'd love one of you holy all knowers to give an explanation for these things...in English, please!!!

This stinks...I guess once you peel away all the god guys' dodges...you know, things like:

You don't form good paragraphs, you only use sentences, therefore I'm not going to discuss anything of substance, or
I believe in god, because I believe in god, therefore, I believe in god, or
You are a godless a&&hole, you should go to church and you'd understand, or
You are an a&&hole, no explanation needed other than you ask questions about god...

Once they run out that kind of bull&hit, they can't really enter into a legit discussion.

But, I'd really love a god guy (or two...or all of them!) to weigh in on the two questions above...

It would also be great if the didn't resort to name calling and all the other "dodges" they use.

Just good, honest dialogue, in plain english. No religious mumbo jumbo.

Maybe too much to ask.

We'll see!

food for thought for ye lambs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> any of ye holy folk want to opine on the posts
> above:
>
> 1. The one trying to figure out why is that god,
> the almighty, and endlessly loving...why does he
> make it so hard to see him? That only if you can
> hugely suspend all logic if you want to see him?
> If he really wants to save people, wouldn't he
> want to make sure there was NO DOUBT that he
> existed? Why the charade?
>
> 2. Wouldn't it be weird as hell if hitler, or some
> other such figure was in heaven, by virtue of
> atoning for his "sins" on his deathbed? And so,
> you wouldn't be able to ask him..."hey, man...just
> what were you thinking killing all those people"
> because heaven is a place of unbounded happiness,
> and clearly that kind of question would make
> heaven hitler unhappy...so, what happens? Do they
> worry about the millions killed? Because that
> would make someone unhappy as well... I mean, to
> be honest with you, I'd be pissed that hitler was
> up there, but would god come to me and say...hey,
> young lamb of mine...yu can't be pissed that
> hitler is here, because this is heaven and you're
> supposed to be happy, so, I'm gonna sprinkle some
> happy dust on you, and everything will be A-OK.
> Weird, huh?
>
> I'd love one of you holy all knowers to give an
> explanation for these things...in English,
> please!!!


Ok, so you are writing in paragraphs now - progress. I wouldnt say you are more coherent but certainly its easier to read. You have many questions and are clearly energized by the topic! Religious dogma is filled with Stone Age fables and contradictory ideas. Whales swallowing people, people living hundreds of years, walking on water - the whole megillah.

Personally, I have no answer for why people insist on 'believing' these parables. Clearly the suspension of common sense is some kind of rite of passage in these cases. I know people with faith that believe it all and many who take these as stories and nothing more. Its frustrating when people believing fantastic tales try to influence government and laws based on these superstitions - that is where they lose me.

Anyway thanks for the paragraphs.

Got that right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> more logic for ya Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I believe in god because it says so in the
> bible.
> >
> > Ok, why do you believe in the bible?
> >
> > Because god says so.
>
>
> One can not prove the Bible with the Bible. As
> simple as that seems, it isn't obvious to the
> truly stupid.

You should look up and understand the word 'Tautology' it is particularly useful in the kind of critique you are making.

Pastor Don Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> food for thought for ye lambs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > any of ye holy folk want to opine on the posts
> > above:
> >
> > 1. The one trying to figure out why is that
> god,
> > the almighty, and endlessly loving...why does
> he
> > make it so hard to see him? That only if you
> can
> > hugely suspend all logic if you want to see
> him?
> > If he really wants to save people, wouldn't he
> > want to make sure there was NO DOUBT that he
> > existed? Why the charade?
> >
> > 2. Wouldn't it be weird as hell if hitler, or
> some
> > other such figure was in heaven, by virtue of
> > atoning for his "sins" on his deathbed? And so,
> > you wouldn't be able to ask him..."hey,
> man...just
> > what were you thinking killing all those
> people"
> > because heaven is a place of unbounded
> happiness,
> > and clearly that kind of question would make
> > heaven hitler unhappy...so, what happens? Do
> they
> > worry about the millions killed? Because that
> > would make someone unhappy as well... I mean,
> to
> > be honest with you, I'd be pissed that hitler
> was
> > up there, but would god come to me and
> say...hey,
> > young lamb of mine...yu can't be pissed that
> > hitler is here, because this is heaven and
> you're
> > supposed to be happy, so, I'm gonna sprinkle
> some
> > happy dust on you, and everything will be A-OK.
> > Weird, huh?
> >
> > I'd love one of you holy all knowers to give an
> > explanation for these things...in English,
> > please!!!
>
>
> Ok, so you are writing in paragraphs now -
> progress. I wouldnt say you are more coherent but
> certainly its easier to read. You have many
> questions and are clearly energized by the topic!
> Religious dogma is filled with Stone Age fables
> and contradictory ideas. Whales swallowing
> people, people living hundreds of years, walking
> on water - the whole megillah.
>
> Personally, I have no answer for why people insist
> on 'believing' these parables. Clearly the
> suspension of common sense is some kind of rite of
> passage in these cases. I know people with faith
> that believe it all and many who take these as
> stories and nothing more. Its frustrating when
> people believing fantastic tales try to influence
> government and laws based on these superstitions -
> that is where they lose me.
>
> Anyway thanks for the paragraphs.


Wait a sec...god being difficult to "see" is a parable?

The concept of Hitler in heaven is a parable?

Why do I get the idea you're not even reading my sentences, or paragraphs, or whatever?

Oh, I know, because I ask two questions that are not based on parables at all, but you say, ah, I don't really believe in parables, therefore, no need to answer your questions.

Another dodge I'm gonna have to remember!

The old..."who believes in parables anyway"! gambit.

Wow.

Tautology Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Got that right Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > more logic for ya Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I believe in god because it says so in the
> > bible.
> > >
> > > Ok, why do you believe in the bible?
> > >
> > > Because god says so.
> >
> >
> > One can not prove the Bible with the Bible. As
> > simple as that seems, it isn't obvious to the
> > truly stupid.
>
> You should look up and understand the word
> 'Tautology' it is particularly useful in the kind
> of critique you are making.

You should look up and understand the words 'circular reasoning' it is particularly useful in the kind of defense of bull&hit that you are trying to make.

Oh, paragraph expert guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pastor Don Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > food for thought for ye lambs Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > any of ye holy folk want to opine on the
> posts
> > > above:
> > >
> > > 1. The one trying to figure out why is that
> > god,
> > > the almighty, and endlessly loving...why does
> > he
> > > make it so hard to see him? That only if you
> > can
> > > hugely suspend all logic if you want to see
> > him?
> > > If he really wants to save people, wouldn't
> he
> > > want to make sure there was NO DOUBT that he
> > > existed? Why the charade?
> > >
> > > 2. Wouldn't it be weird as hell if hitler, or
> > some
> > > other such figure was in heaven, by virtue of
> > > atoning for his "sins" on his deathbed? And
> so,
> > > you wouldn't be able to ask him..."hey,
> > man...just
> > > what were you thinking killing all those
> > people"
> > > because heaven is a place of unbounded
> > happiness,
> > > and clearly that kind of question would make
> > > heaven hitler unhappy...so, what happens? Do
> > they
> > > worry about the millions killed? Because that
> > > would make someone unhappy as well... I mean,
> > to
> > > be honest with you, I'd be pissed that hitler
> > was
> > > up there, but would god come to me and
> > say...hey,
> > > young lamb of mine...yu can't be pissed that
> > > hitler is here, because this is heaven and
> > you're
> > > supposed to be happy, so, I'm gonna sprinkle
> > some
> > > happy dust on you, and everything will be
> A-OK.
> > > Weird, huh?
> > >
> > > I'd love one of you holy all knowers to give
> an
> > > explanation for these things...in English,
> > > please!!!
> >
> >
> > Ok, so you are writing in paragraphs now -
> > progress. I wouldnt say you are more coherent
> but
> > certainly its easier to read. You have many
> > questions and are clearly energized by the
> topic!
> > Religious dogma is filled with Stone Age fables
> > and contradictory ideas. Whales swallowing
> > people, people living hundreds of years,
> walking
> > on water - the whole megillah.
> >
> > Personally, I have no answer for why people
> insist
> > on 'believing' these parables. Clearly the
> > suspension of common sense is some kind of rite
> of
> > passage in these cases. I know people with
> faith
> > that believe it all and many who take these as
> > stories and nothing more. Its frustrating when
> > people believing fantastic tales try to
> influence
> > government and laws based on these superstitions
> -
> > that is where they lose me.
> >
> > Anyway thanks for the paragraphs.
>
>
> Wait a sec...god being difficult to "see" is a
> parable?
>
> The concept of Hitler in heaven is a parable?
>
> Why do I get the idea you're not even reading my
> sentences, or paragraphs, or whatever?
>
> Oh, I know, because I ask two questions that are
> not based on parables at all, but you say, ah, I
> don't really believe in parables, therefore, no
> need to answer your questions.
>
> Another dodge I'm gonna have to remember!
>
> The old..."who believes in parables anyway"!
> gambit.
>
> Wow.


You stupid fuckstick. You're arguing with a guy who is on your side. What a dense faggot you've turned out to be. That's what blind hate, coupled with an IQ of 32 will do to you.

I should also mention one of the other common dodges used...

The "air or superiority" or "condescension" dodge...

Used nicely above...kinda like, "hey, little fella...good to see you are using paragraphs now! You are clearly energized by the topic..."

But you should know...this particular dodge comes off much better IF YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN!

Whether it was sentences, or paragraphs.

But nonetheless, this dodge is often times used to avoid discussing the topic.

Nice try, though. Read the paragraph first before you "dodge". More effective that way.

no dog in this fight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, paragraph expert guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pastor Don Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > food for thought for ye lambs Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > any of ye holy folk want to opine on the
> > posts
> > > > above:
> > > >
> > > > 1. The one trying to figure out why is that
> > > god,
> > > > the almighty, and endlessly loving...why
> does
> > > he
> > > > make it so hard to see him? That only if
> you
> > > can
> > > > hugely suspend all logic if you want to see
> > > him?
> > > > If he really wants to save people, wouldn't
> > he
> > > > want to make sure there was NO DOUBT that
> he
> > > > existed? Why the charade?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Wouldn't it be weird as hell if hitler,
> or
> > > some
> > > > other such figure was in heaven, by virtue
> of
> > > > atoning for his "sins" on his deathbed? And
> > so,
> > > > you wouldn't be able to ask him..."hey,
> > > man...just
> > > > what were you thinking killing all those
> > > people"
> > > > because heaven is a place of unbounded
> > > happiness,
> > > > and clearly that kind of question would
> make
> > > > heaven hitler unhappy...so, what happens?
> Do
> > > they
> > > > worry about the millions killed? Because
> that
> > > > would make someone unhappy as well... I
> mean,
> > > to
> > > > be honest with you, I'd be pissed that
> hitler
> > > was
> > > > up there, but would god come to me and
> > > say...hey,
> > > > young lamb of mine...yu can't be pissed
> that
> > > > hitler is here, because this is heaven and
> > > you're
> > > > supposed to be happy, so, I'm gonna
> sprinkle
> > > some
> > > > happy dust on you, and everything will be
> > A-OK.
> > > > Weird, huh?
> > > >
> > > > I'd love one of you holy all knowers to
> give
> > an
> > > > explanation for these things...in English,
> > > > please!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, so you are writing in paragraphs now -
> > > progress. I wouldnt say you are more
> coherent
> > but
> > > certainly its easier to read. You have many
> > > questions and are clearly energized by the
> > topic!
> > > Religious dogma is filled with Stone Age
> fables
> > > and contradictory ideas. Whales swallowing
> > > people, people living hundreds of years,
> > walking
> > > on water - the whole megillah.
> > >
> > > Personally, I have no answer for why people
> > insist
> > > on 'believing' these parables. Clearly the
> > > suspension of common sense is some kind of
> rite
> > of
> > > passage in these cases. I know people with
> > faith
> > > that believe it all and many who take these
> as
> > > stories and nothing more. Its frustrating
> when
> > > people believing fantastic tales try to
> > influence
> > > government and laws based on these
> superstitions
> > -
> > > that is where they lose me.
> > >
> > > Anyway thanks for the paragraphs.
> >
> >
> > Wait a sec...god being difficult to "see" is a
> > parable?
> >
> > The concept of Hitler in heaven is a parable?
> >
> > Why do I get the idea you're not even reading
> my
> > sentences, or paragraphs, or whatever?
> >
> > Oh, I know, because I ask two questions that
> are
> > not based on parables at all, but you say, ah,
> I
> > don't really believe in parables, therefore, no
> > need to answer your questions.
> >
> > Another dodge I'm gonna have to remember!
> >
> > The old..."who believes in parables anyway"!
> > gambit.
> >
> > Wow.
>
>
> You stupid fuckstick. You're arguing with a guy
> who is on your side. What a dense faggot you've
> turned out to be. That's what blind hate, coupled
> with an IQ of 32 will do to you.

I know exactly who I'm "arguing with".

Do you know the guy?

Nice anger. Jesus. Do you love god, as well?

What is wrong with you?

And maybe if you read the post, you'd have some context in order to understand.

Clearly, though, reading the post has little to do with the argument you and "he" will make...

Which is kinda weird.

But you sure are angry.

Do you have a job? Spouse? Family?

Man, that has to be a weird place to be.

You should control your emotions/anger/name calling a little better.

Oh, and read the post(s) so you know what is going on.

angry guy!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And maybe if you read the post, you'd have some
> context in order to understand.
>
> Clearly, though, reading the post has little to do
> with the argument you and "he" will make...
>
> Which is kinda weird.
>
> But you sure are angry.
>
> Do you have a job? Spouse? Family?
>
> Man, that has to be a weird place to be.
>
> You should control your emotions/anger/name
> calling a little better.
>
> Oh, and read the post(s) so you know what is going
> on.


 
Attachments:

Thanks for the graphic support.

If it's so shitty, as you claim, why read it?

Certainly, a good number of viewers and posters might disagree with you.

Do I need to add this to the list of dodges?

The old, "hey, man...I'm too cool and interesting to talk about this garbage...even though i believe it and it is a fundamental life belief. But I will comment on how boring it is"?

I'll come up with a better name. Dodge 101.

Now...here we are.

A good number of dodges later, some guy with a cool vomiting computer graphic, some name calling, some paragraph complimenting, some words looked up...and I still would love some good dialogue on those two questions above...you know, the "why does god make it so difficult to see him" and, "what would happen if hitler were in heaven" questions.

They've been asked TWICE above, each time in varying levels of detail.

Maybe go back and read the posts, each of them, and see if they are thought provoking at all. They should be.

Or, you can simply resort to the various dodges available to you. Hey! Teach me a new one!

Man...the lengths some "scholars" will go to to avoid discussing some basic questions!

dodge dodge doge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the graphic support.
>
> If it's so shitty, as you claim, why read it?
>
> Certainly, a good number of viewers and posters
> might disagree with you.
>
> Do I need to add this to the list of dodges?
>
> The old, "hey, man...I'm too cool and interesting
> to talk about this garbage...even though i believe
> it and it is a fundamental life belief. But I will
> comment on how boring it is"?
>
> I'll come up with a better name. Dodge 101.


Since I don't read anything other than your first sentence, I don't waste much time on your shitty thread. I read lots of different threads. This is just one of them. Usually don't comment on useless troll threads like this, but your trolling is so fucking lame that I felt sorry for you and thought you'd like to know.

Perhaps an oversized meme will help your low-IQ ass understand. Guess that's why we have picture books for little kids and retards. And I doubt you're a little kid, so.....

  
Attachments:

no dog in this fight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, paragraph expert guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pastor Don Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > food for thought for ye lambs Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > any of ye holy folk want to opine on the
> > posts
> > > > above:
> > > >
> > > > 1. The one trying to figure out why is that
> > > god,
> > > > the almighty, and endlessly loving...why
> does
> > > he
> > > > make it so hard to see him? That only if
> you
> > > can
> > > > hugely suspend all logic if you want to see
> > > him?
> > > > If he really wants to save people, wouldn't
> > he
> > > > want to make sure there was NO DOUBT that
> he
> > > > existed? Why the charade?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Wouldn't it be weird as hell if hitler,
> or
> > > some
> > > > other such figure was in heaven, by virtue
> of
> > > > atoning for his "sins" on his deathbed? And
> > so,
> > > > you wouldn't be able to ask him..."hey,
> > > man...just
> > > > what were you thinking killing all those
> > > people"
> > > > because heaven is a place of unbounded
> > > happiness,
> > > > and clearly that kind of question would
> make
> > > > heaven hitler unhappy...so, what happens?
> Do
> > > they
> > > > worry about the millions killed? Because
> that
> > > > would make someone unhappy as well... I
> mean,
> > > to
> > > > be honest with you, I'd be pissed that
> hitler
> > > was
> > > > up there, but would god come to me and
> > > say...hey,
> > > > young lamb of mine...yu can't be pissed
> that
> > > > hitler is here, because this is heaven and
> > > you're
> > > > supposed to be happy, so, I'm gonna
> sprinkle
> > > some
> > > > happy dust on you, and everything will be
> > A-OK.
> > > > Weird, huh?
> > > >
> > > > I'd love one of you holy all knowers to
> give
> > an
> > > > explanation for these things...in English,
> > > > please!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, so you are writing in paragraphs now -
> > > progress. I wouldnt say you are more
> coherent
> > but
> > > certainly its easier to read. You have many
> > > questions and are clearly energized by the
> > topic!
> > > Religious dogma is filled with Stone Age
> fables
> > > and contradictory ideas. Whales swallowing
> > > people, people living hundreds of years,
> > walking
> > > on water - the whole megillah.
> > >
> > > Personally, I have no answer for why people
> > insist
> > > on 'believing' these parables. Clearly the
> > > suspension of common sense is some kind of
> rite
> > of
> > > passage in these cases. I know people with
> > faith
> > > that believe it all and many who take these
> as
> > > stories and nothing more. Its frustrating
> when
> > > people believing fantastic tales try to
> > influence
> > > government and laws based on these
> superstitions
> > -
> > > that is where they lose me.
> > >
> > > Anyway thanks for the paragraphs.
> >
> >
> > Wait a sec...god being difficult to "see" is a
> > parable?
> >
> > The concept of Hitler in heaven is a parable?
> >
> > Why do I get the idea you're not even reading
> my
> > sentences, or paragraphs, or whatever?
> >
> > Oh, I know, because I ask two questions that
> are
> > not based on parables at all, but you say, ah,
> I
> > don't really believe in parables, therefore, no
> > need to answer your questions.
> >
> > Another dodge I'm gonna have to remember!
> >
> > The old..."who believes in parables anyway"!
> > gambit.
> >
> > Wow.
>
>
> You stupid fuckstick. You're arguing with a guy
> who is on your side. What a dense faggot you've
> turned out to be. That's what blind hate, coupled
> with an IQ of 32 will do to you.


Yea Im afraid it appears he is likely mentally disabled in some way. Gotta admire his spirit though...

Man...

Why are you so angry?

If you "don't care" so much, that's certainly a weird way of showing it. Like. say you're driving down the street, and you see a guy wearing brown cordoroys...if you didn't care, would you stick your head out the window and start calling him names, and such, like "hey, a&&hole with the brown cordoroys, nobody cares what you are wearing you a&&Hole, including me, you jackrabbit!" As a matter of fact, it's almost like you turn around in traffic to track him down to tell him how much you don't care.

If you don't care, move on.

There are many, many threads here on FFXU that I don't care about.

I certainly don't take a second to write and add graphics to show just how much "I don't care".

And stop with the anger and name calling and IQ stuff. You don't know me.

It's nearly impossible for you have any ideas about me.

Move on. Show us you "don't care".

Pastor Don Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no dog in this fight Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh, paragraph expert guy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pastor Don Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > food for thought for ye lambs Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > any of ye holy folk want to opine on the
> > > posts
> > > > > above:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The one trying to figure out why is
> that
> > > > god,
> > > > > the almighty, and endlessly loving...why
> > does
> > > > he
> > > > > make it so hard to see him? That only if
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > hugely suspend all logic if you want to
> see
> > > > him?
> > > > > If he really wants to save people,
> wouldn't
> > > he
> > > > > want to make sure there was NO DOUBT that
> > he
> > > > > existed? Why the charade?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Wouldn't it be weird as hell if
> hitler,
> > or
> > > > some
> > > > > other such figure was in heaven, by
> virtue
> > of
> > > > > atoning for his "sins" on his deathbed?
> And
> > > so,
> > > > > you wouldn't be able to ask him..."hey,
> > > > man...just
> > > > > what were you thinking killing all those
> > > > people"
> > > > > because heaven is a place of unbounded
> > > > happiness,
> > > > > and clearly that kind of question would
> > make
> > > > > heaven hitler unhappy...so, what happens?
> > Do
> > > > they
> > > > > worry about the millions killed? Because
> > that
> > > > > would make someone unhappy as well... I
> > mean,
> > > > to
> > > > > be honest with you, I'd be pissed that
> > hitler
> > > > was
> > > > > up there, but would god come to me and
> > > > say...hey,
> > > > > young lamb of mine...yu can't be pissed
> > that
> > > > > hitler is here, because this is heaven
> and
> > > > you're
> > > > > supposed to be happy, so, I'm gonna
> > sprinkle
> > > > some
> > > > > happy dust on you, and everything will be
> > > A-OK.
> > > > > Weird, huh?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd love one of you holy all knowers to
> > give
> > > an
> > > > > explanation for these things...in
> English,
> > > > > please!!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so you are writing in paragraphs now -
> > > > progress. I wouldnt say you are more
> > coherent
> > > but
> > > > certainly its easier to read. You have
> many
> > > > questions and are clearly energized by the
> > > topic!
> > > > Religious dogma is filled with Stone Age
> > fables
> > > > and contradictory ideas. Whales swallowing
> > > > people, people living hundreds of years,
> > > walking
> > > > on water - the whole megillah.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I have no answer for why people
> > > insist
> > > > on 'believing' these parables. Clearly the
> > > > suspension of common sense is some kind of
> > rite
> > > of
> > > > passage in these cases. I know people with
> > > faith
> > > > that believe it all and many who take these
> > as
> > > > stories and nothing more. Its frustrating
> > when
> > > > people believing fantastic tales try to
> > > influence
> > > > government and laws based on these
> > superstitions
> > > -
> > > > that is where they lose me.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway thanks for the paragraphs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Wait a sec...god being difficult to "see" is
> a
> > > parable?
> > >
> > > The concept of Hitler in heaven is a parable?
> > >
> > > Why do I get the idea you're not even reading
> > my
> > > sentences, or paragraphs, or whatever?
> > >
> > > Oh, I know, because I ask two questions that
> > are
> > > not based on parables at all, but you say,
> ah,
> > I
> > > don't really believe in parables, therefore,
> no
> > > need to answer your questions.
> > >
> > > Another dodge I'm gonna have to remember!
> > >
> > > The old..."who believes in parables anyway"!
> > > gambit.
> > >
> > > Wow.
> >
> >
> > You stupid fuckstick. You're arguing with a
> guy
> > who is on your side. What a dense faggot
> you've
> > turned out to be. That's what blind hate,
> coupled
> > with an IQ of 32 will do to you.
>
>
> Yea Im afraid it appears he is likely mentally
> disabled in some way. Gotta admire his spirit
> though...


Pastor Don:

Are you a real pastor, with a real church and everything?

If so, I'd love to be one of your sheep.

You certainly seem like a kind, thoughtful, caring and smart person!

You know, a real good representative of jezus!

Yeah,,,basically some guy calling himself a "pastor" agrees with somebody calling an anonymous poster a fa**ot and fu**stick...and claiming the poster has an IQ of 32.

Wow.

And religious folk have a hard time understanding why normal folk have a problem with organized religion.

Keep up the good work, pastor don! Make jezus proud!

And, still here we are...another round of name calling, IQ bashing, and no real discussion of 1. why does god play hide and seek? and 2. what would happen if hitler made it heaven...

no dodges here.

Yep, religion seems pretty legit!

god needs to speak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, still here we are...another round of name
> calling, IQ bashing, and no real discussion of 1.
> why does god play hide and seek? and 2. what would
> happen if hitler made it heaven...
>
> no dodges here.
>
> Yep, religion seems pretty legit!


If people need the crutch of religion to lead a happy productive life then I don't have a problem with it. If religion keeps one a mean and nasty person, I don't see the point.

So how do you define mean and nasty without religion? Religion exists among other reasons to provide the basis for moral designations such as good and evil. Without religion such concepts are simply another way of waying what is in the interests of the speaker and what is not.

The problem is, religion is pervasive. Watch Christopher Hitchens.

I'm not saying the world's problems and assholes that cause them will go away without religion, but so many people want a "pass" or expect a pat on the back because the identify themselves as religious.

Just look as this thread...all the name calling, IQ bashing, etc, all because most religious people aren't used to being asked deep and sincere questions.

All it takes in the US to avoid ANY tax scrutiny is to identify as a religious institution. Heck...associations and charities have reporting requireements that require much more detail than "non-profit" churches...

And"churches" include those "seed faith" deals, where they're like...sned us $1,000...it'll grow and you'll reap the benefit!!!

Meanwhile, the "pastor" (Pastor Don?) buys a gulfstream jet and lives in a $5 million "parsonage"...

Not to mention the child abuse BS...if the catholic church were ANY OTHER INSTITUTION, it would be shut down...

To show how brainwashed those people are...some 80% of those church's people believe the child abuse scandal was "handled properly" yet 40% believe it is still going on!!! How on earth is that even close to being handled properly??

Could you imagine if all that stuff happened at Penn State?

They would probably shut the whole state down!

All in the name of a "wonderful, caring god"...

It's dangerous and EVIL.

make no mistake and make no more allowances for these creeps.

angry don't care guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man...
>
> Why are you so angry?
>
> If you "don't care" so much, that's certainly a
> weird way of showing it. Like. say you're driving
> down the street, and you see a guy wearing brown
> cordoroys...if you didn't care, would you stick
> your head out the window and start calling him
> names, and such, like "hey, a&&hole with the brown
> cordoroys, nobody cares what you are wearing you
> a&&Hole, including me, you jackrabbit!" As a
> matter of fact, it's almost like you turn around
> in traffic to track him down to tell him how much
> you don't care.
>
> If you don't care, move on.
>
> There are many, many threads here on FFXU that I
> don't care about.
>
> I certainly don't take a second to write and add
> graphics to show just how much "I don't care".
>
> And stop with the anger and name calling and IQ
> stuff. You don't know me.
>
> It's nearly impossible for you have any ideas
> about me.
>
> Move on. Show us you "don't care".


It appears there is unanimous agreement that you are a lameass fuckstick. Perhaps you should look into why that is.

dose of reality for ya Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is, religion is pervasive. Watch
> Christopher Hitchens.
>
> I'm not saying the world's problems and assholes
> that cause them will go away without religion, but
> so many people want a "pass" or expect a pat on
> the back because the identify themselves as
> religious.
>
> Just look as this thread...all the name calling,
> IQ bashing, etc, all because most religious people
> aren't used to being asked deep and sincere
> questions.
>
> All it takes in the US to avoid ANY tax scrutiny
> is to identify as a religious institution.
> Heck...associations and charities have reporting
> requireements that require much more detail than
> "non-profit" churches...
>
> And"churches" include those "seed faith" deals,
> where they're like...sned us $1,000...it'll grow
> and you'll reap the benefit!!!
>
> Meanwhile, the "pastor" (Pastor Don?) buys a
> gulfstream jet and lives in a $5 million
> "parsonage"...
>
> Not to mention the child abuse BS...if the
> catholic church were ANY OTHER INSTITUTION, it
> would be shut down...
>
> To show how brainwashed those people are...some
> 80% of those church's people believe the child
> abuse scandal was "handled properly" yet 40%
> believe it is still going on!!! How on earth is
> that even close to being handled properly??
>
> Could you imagine if all that stuff happened at
> Penn State?
>
> They would probably shut the whole state down!
>
> All in the name of a "wonderful, caring god"...
>
> It's dangerous and EVIL.
>
> make no mistake and make no more allowances for
> these creeps.


Oh look, the low-IQ douche bag is trying to be nice his supporter now that someone pointed out to his retarded ass that he was arguing with someone who pretty much agreed with him. What a fucking moron.

How do "morals" come from religion?

They don't. They're all based on rational self interest.

Do you think a pack of wild dogs refers to the bible for their "morals"?

No. They've all figured out via evolution how to get along as a pack.

And don't think for a second we don't have tons of similarities...there's fighting with other packs...there's fighting over territories...but there's also protection of the pack...procreation...etc.

If you look at the ten commandments...the basis for "morals" you might argue...

AT least 4 of them are to remember "how great I (god) am'''. Like, "You shall have no other gods before me" and, "You shall make no idols" and, You shall not take the name of the lord in vain" and "keep holy the sabbath day"...

So, those aren't really needed to get along with other people. They sound more like they are for some egotistical guy to feel important.

Beauties like "You shall not murder' and "You shall not steal" fall in the "NO SHIT' category, as in, you really need to be told not to do that? And if it wasn't in the bible, does that mean you'd run around doing it? Then, you're not really very moral, are you?

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"...again, no shit. Seems more like common sense...you want to get along with your neighbor? Then don't tell fucking lies about him! Pretty easy.

"You shall not covet"...so...this is like "thought police". This basically says, if you want something that your neighbor has...even if you don't act on it...you are a sinner. This is pretty stupid. Our whole economic system is based on this. I want a house...car...hot wife...or, I want to be a good athlete like that guy...all of things we aspire to, are basically because we "covet" a lifestyle...or skill...or something. SO we work towards it.

the other couple are about honoring your mother and father, and not banging your neighbors wife.

Pretty much common sense if you want to be a "good neighbor" or "good son/daughter".

So, without the bible, we'd have no morals, huh?

Think about it.

Pretty silly, right?

Probably the only morals we wouldn't have are the 4 dealing with soothing this guy that claims to be "almighty"...who sure seems to have a fragile ego...

Hey OP, will you at least admit that niggers are the missing link between chimps and humans. Can we not all agree on that at least?

it's not me, it's you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> angry don't care guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Man...
> >
> > Why are you so angry?
> >
> > If you "don't care" so much, that's certainly a
> > weird way of showing it. Like. say you're
> driving
> > down the street, and you see a guy wearing
> brown
> > cordoroys...if you didn't care, would you stick
> > your head out the window and start calling him
> > names, and such, like "hey, a&&hole with the
> brown
> > cordoroys, nobody cares what you are wearing
> you
> > a&&Hole, including me, you jackrabbit!" As a
> > matter of fact, it's almost like you turn
> around
> > in traffic to track him down to tell him how
> much
> > you don't care.
> >
> > If you don't care, move on.
> >
> > There are many, many threads here on FFXU that
> I
> > don't care about.
> >
> > I certainly don't take a second to write and
> add
> > graphics to show just how much "I don't care".
> >
> > And stop with the anger and name calling and IQ
> > stuff. You don't know me.
> >
> > It's nearly impossible for you have any ideas
> > about me.
> >
> > Move on. Show us you "don't care".
>
>
> It appears there is unanimous agreement that you
> are a lameass fuckstick. Perhaps you should look
> into why that is.

Still keeping yourself busy showing how much you don't care, huh?

And I love it how you just appointed yourself spokesperson for all of FFXU, and knower of all opinions.

Must be hard work for someone who doesn't care!

I'd hate to see what you do care about!

serious question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey OP, will you at least admit that niggers are
> the missing link between chimps and humans. Can
> we not all agree on that at least?


If you actually took the time to learn about evolution you would know that human and chimps have a common ancestor. That is far different than humans being descended from chimps.

Here is a question for you.

Did Noah bring a pair of black on the Ark with two of every animal or was he smart enough to know they were human?

Not me...the OP.

I don't dignify such garbage with a response, other than to disclaim any association with it.

I was raised Catholic, but I grew tired on being molested.

Why are Catholic priests so darned horny?

Ex Catholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was raised Catholic, but I grew tired on being
> molested.
>
> Why are Catholic priests so darned horny?

I know I posted this joke on this forum before, but it is too good.


Q: How do you get a nun pregnant?

A: Dress her up like an altar boy.

This all kind of fizzled out as soon as the oP started with all the anger and name calling. Too bad because the original questions were interesting. I appreciate many of the well thought out sincere answers and I have to re-assert one sentence paragraphs are simply not worth reading unless they are numbered or at least bulleted. I havent read the latest but I get the gist - Religion is hypocritical and unscientific. Those positions are valid yet do not extinguish the value of faith..

Pastor Don Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This all kind of fizzled out as soon as the oP
> started with all the anger and name calling. Too
> bad because the original questions were
> interesting. I appreciate many of the well
> thought out sincere answers and I have to
> re-assert one sentence paragraphs are simply not
> worth reading unless they are numbered or at least
> bulleted. I havent read the latest but I get the
> gist - Religion is hypocritical and unscientific.
> Those positions are valid yet do not extinguish
> the value of faith..

Dude, I am the OP and not once will you find anger and name calling in any of my posts.

Typical of many god folk, you may have that problem of making stuff up out of thin air.

I do know for certain you never really attempted to answer any of my questions or engage in any serious dialogue regarding some of my points.

You seemed more concerned with my paragraph structure (or lack thereof) and inexplicably, conflated my questions regarding current beliefs and an interesting hypothetical with "parables"

All of this may just be more examples of "dodges".

And you might even possibly know you're dodging, you've been doing it, and getting away with it, for so long.

Kind of sad.

Are you really a pastor?

Donny, this might be an interesting exercise for you, as you seem to be some self anointed sentence and paragraph structure expert, but take my post above, without changing the content, and put into paragraphs.

Is it really that hard for you to read?

It is mainly a list of stand alone thoughts, with questions interspersed.

Better than the "walls of text" that so often find their way onto FFXU.

But really...are you that flummoxed by it?

Kind of follows the bible structure in some ways.

Again, not interested in reading your unstructured prose. Have a great night friend.

So, let me get this straight, Donny...you claim not to read my "prose", yet somehow, you make counter-arguments...weak and misguided, but counter-arguments nonetheless.

Then, you accuse me of being angry and resorting to name calling.

All this without reading my prose?

Wow...what other stuff can you make up out of thin air? Oh, maybe your whole belief in a deity?

Are you a real pastor?

So, keep not reading my prose, and we'll chat again tomorrow. I'll give you more stuff not to read.

I told you, I read the first sentence, sometimes I scan a few others but no, not since your initial post (maybe one post after) have I read all the single lines you list. I did answer your initial post in thoughtful detail. From what I can glean thereafter it seems you may be unwilling or unable to grasp what I have to offer. You seem unsatisfied with almost any reply but I cannot say for sure as I dont read your complete posts.

Have a peaceful evening friend.

I didn't read what you just wrote.

It just looks like a long line of text.

Maybe try breaking it up a little better.

And, you're making a mighty big assumption/presumption with this "friend" business, but clearly you seem OK making assumptions and presumptions.

Keep not reading what I write.

So, going on 3 days now, over 300 views and 100 posts, and I see maybe one honest attempt at discussing the 4 or 5 serious questions or topics that have been posted herein.

The vast majority of the responses have been the "F*** you's", the "you are a low IQ ass-hat" and "I can't read your posts because you use sentences instead of paragraphs"...and then, a few "you have to believe in order to believe. Then you'll believe, and then you'll be a believer" religious type mumbo jumbo answers.

I have no idea who the respondents are, so it would make no sense for me to call them names, attack their IQ's, etc.

But, as I suspected, no matter how much someone "claims" to believe, they will always start the shimmy-shake dodge when you ask them certain questions about their belief that they just have no real answer for.

The dodge can come in many forms, as witnessed herein.

If you created a world full of suffering and evil, would you want your victims to know where to find you? The existence of pleasure does not nullify evil as a truly omnipotent diety could make a world that is only good. So either god is not omnipotent or god is evil.. the most logical explanation for an evil diety creating a few good things is to string his victims along long enough to inflict more suffering.

Kinda goes along with a post natural disaster TV interview...think hurricae or tornado or forest fire...

Some redneck family gets "spared" and everyone is all like, "thank god for saving us...it's a miracle! Without god's grace, we would have been doomed!"

Meanwhile...what about the 100 or so people that died, including infants, etc?

Then, it's all like, god works in mysterious ways, and maybe he needed a few more angels...

God works in mysterious ways?

Or, happenstance works in mysterious ways, and dumb rednecks are more than happy to call that "god".

Too many rabbit holes. Too many crazy ivans. This thread, like all like this, was lost before the first post.

AntiGodist homosexual OP: Why is A?
Godist straight response: Because of B
AntiGodist homosexual OP: I don't like that answer, but what about C?

Examples of said rabbit holes and crazy ivans-

Example 1
AntiGodist homosexual OP: how can happen?
Godist straight person: God is not bound by .
AntiGodist homosexual OP: That's a dodge. But what about Hitler?

Example 2
Deist agnostic: There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God.
Godist straight person: Actually, there are dozens of books supporting just that, most written by scientists.
Deist agnostic: Scientific books by scientist can't be trusted, what do they know?

And they wonder why no one posts in these threads after a day or two.

Oh yeah...I forgot about those "dodges"

1. The old "NOBODY cares what you are posting"...the "I am now the spokesperson for the entire FFXU" claim to authority

2. The old "I don't care what you are posting at all"...says the guy that keeps reading and keeps posting how much he, and nobody else, cares. Kinda like the guy that will make a u-turn and cut across 5 lanes of traffic to yell at someone "nobody cares what you are wearing today!"

3. The old..."no one posts in these threads after a day or two" says the guy who posts on a 3 day old thread. Kinda like that old comedian quote "nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded".

4. And then, your post, Mr/Mrs upside down question mark person...the old "complete and utter nonsense post as an answer to any previous post".

In other words...just what in the hell are you talking about?

Just trying to explain to Pastor Don why this thread petered out friend. No need to go into one of your frothing rants.

god shur is mysterious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kinda goes along with a post natural disaster TV
> interview...think hurricae or tornado or forest
> fire...
>
> Some redneck family gets "spared" and everyone is
> all like, "thank god for saving us...it's a
> miracle! Without god's grace, we would have been
> doomed!"
>
> Meanwhile...what about the 100 or so people that
> died, including infants, etc?
>
> Then, it's all like, god works in mysterious ways,
> and maybe he needed a few more angels...
>
> God works in mysterious ways?
>
> Or, happenstance works in mysterious ways, and
> dumb rednecks are more than happy to call that
> "god".

The starting point needs to be what kind of god you believe in.

God the Big Picture Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> god shur is mysterious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kinda goes along with a post natural disaster
> TV
> > interview...think hurricae or tornado or forest
> > fire...
> >
> > Some redneck family gets "spared" and everyone
> is
> > all like, "thank god for saving us...it's a
> > miracle! Without god's grace, we would have
> been
> > doomed!"
> >
> > Meanwhile...what about the 100 or so people
> that
> > died, including infants, etc?
> >
> > Then, it's all like, god works in mysterious
> ways,
> > and maybe he needed a few more angels...
> >
> > God works in mysterious ways?
> >
> > Or, happenstance works in mysterious ways, and
> > dumb rednecks are more than happy to call that
> > "god".
>
> The starting point needs to be what kind of god
> you believe in.

So, what do you believe?

That there is more than one "god" to choose from?

Is there in fact, a "god" that is truly the maker of heaven and earth, and one that maintains a heaven and hell for the afterlife of humans?

Honestly, when I see a statement like "what kind of god you believe in" that would suggest to me that you feel that "gods" are merely a figment of an individual's imagination.

If not, if they are truly in fact "real", doesn't the idea that there are multiple gods to choose from suggest they are not real, because central to many gods is the claim they are the one and only god?

I'd be interested to know what you believe about the existence of god(s).

OK, a question or two tho Wrote:
\
> If not, if they are truly in fact "real", doesn't
> the idea that there are multiple gods to choose
> from suggest they are not real, because central to
> many gods is the claim they are the one and only
> god?
>
> I'd be interested to know what you believe about
> the existence of god(s).


The biggest difference between the Christian and an atheist is the atheist believes in one less god.

God lover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, an argument often heard for the existence of
> god is "something can't come from nothing", which
> I guess means, something, or somebody had to start
> the whole thing that became our universe.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. How do we know what "nothing" is? Since it is
> nothing, it has never been seen or experienced.
>
> 2. If in fact something can't come from nothing,
> well...where did god come from? Certainly couldn't
> have come from nothing...so, how does this
> argument prove god started it all...that would
> mean he came from...nothing.
>
> Oh, wow!
>
> Makes my head hurt!
>
> It is OK to say..."I don't know". It is NOT ok to
> say..."I don't know...therefore, god!"
>
> OK, go!
>
> And remember, no name calling! Dear sweet jezus
> wouldn't like that, plus, it makes no sense to
> call an anonymous person names.


Demands no name calling then refers to Jesus Christ as 'Dear sweet jezus.'


Cannot get respect if you refuse to give it.


You are deeply disrespectful of the very people you seek answers from.


You could start fresh by apologizing.






_

And, the old..."I'm deeply offended, therefore, I won't answer any questions" dodge.

An oldie but a goody!

Man...you should see the names they called me!

I call him jezus...works for me. If you believe, then you are a believer.

Try calling him jezus, maybe it will work for you as well.

I didnt say I was offended - I am not.

What I said was you were deeply disrespectful of 'God Guys' who are Christian.

Ohmigod!

Another dodge!

The old..let's slice and dice and mince the S*** outta words and meaning and intent until they have no meaning whatsoever!

OK...so, instead of saying, And the old..."I'm deeply offended, therefore, I won't answer any questions" dodge, perhaps I should have labeled it "I feel deeply DISRESPECTED, therefore, I won't answer any questions" dodge.

Or, maybe it is the "You were deeply disrespectful of 'God Guys' who are christian, therefore, on their behalf, I won't answer any questions" dodge.

Whatever.

You made the point that someone was "disrespectful", and it is not a stretch of logic to conclude that if someone was "disrespected", they would feel offended.

And so, OK...you're not going to include yourself in the "god guys" group...then how can you speak on their behalf?

Why not just deal with yourself?

Or did you feel offended...I mean, disrespected.

Jesus. What a load of semantic mumbo jumbo.

Just another dodge.

Jesus this guy is easy to troll...

Right back atcha

Is there any way a goat fucking faggot can get into heaven?
Attachments:

The important question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there any way a goat fucking faggot can get
> into heaven?

No, especially since he is a dirty Muslim
Attachments:

havin fun all around Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right back atcha