Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 31, 2016 at 5:25 pm (This post was last modified: July 31, 2016 at 5:26 pm by Esquilax.)
(July 31, 2016 at 1:56 am)snowtracks Wrote: Perhaps 100 years ago the logic would be circular, but discoveries in science have validated the Bible which said it first.
1. Universe has constant laws of physics - “I have established the covenant of day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” .
2. Universe is expanding - He created the heavens and stretched them out.” and ‘stretching out the heavens like a tent’ - the Hebrew verb form here indicates a continual or ongoing stretching.
3. Universe is decaying - In Romans 8 it’s state that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay.
4. Universe had a beginning - “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.
What sciences says:
1. Astronomers have look back into time within 200,000 years of the big bang event and have seen no change in the physical laws, and other sciences have not detected any changes.
2. Hubble discovered this shortly after General Relativity published.
3. 2’nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
4. The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand.
Assume you're right. How do you get from "the bible got these four things right," all the way to "therefore, everything in it is correct"?
You are aware I can tell you four true things in a row, and that doesn't make my fifth statement automatically true, yes? Nor any of my subsequent or intervening statements?
In fact, if you can read an entire series of books and come out with only four true things... chances are you're reading particularly far out fiction, man.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 31, 2016 at 8:48 pm
LOL, look at how close Joe Smith came to providing precisely the proof the topic requires !!!
Right there, in his magic hat:
the gold plates !!!
Let independent people look in the hat with the magic seer stones and if they all translate out the same passages of the Book of Mormon from the gold plates unbeknownst to each other we would have a fucking winner.
I also note having the seer stones malfunctioning when Old Horny Joe translated out the Book of Abraham is a HUGE impediment to believing anything Joe said/wrote/revealed/prophesied.
The whole idea of a 'magic' stone is, it's ALWAYS going to work. That the magic stone had a blue screen of death and Joe didn't notice is just a fucking disaster for his credibility.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
August 20, 2016 at 5:37 pm
(August 20, 2016 at 1:22 pm)snowtracks Wrote:
(August 2, 2016 at 7:08 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: "Magic? How does that work?"
"It's magic."
"Wut?"
"Shazam!"
"Huh?"
"I don't get it you're supposed to turn into a mushroom now."
""
Since the universe is not illusionary, it can’t result from magic.
Well then, the question you got to ask yourself is, whither god? If there is no magic to create the universe, god doesn't exist because there is no magic for to allow god's existence.
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
August 20, 2016 at 6:52 pm
(August 20, 2016 at 5:37 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:
(August 20, 2016 at 1:22 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Since the universe is not illusionary, it can’t result from magic.
Well then, the question you got to ask yourself is, whither god? If there is no magic to create the universe, god doesn't exist because there is no magic for to allow god's existence.
There is no more magic God pro-creating the infinite universes than there is in us being able to self express and say "I am"
There is however a bit more power.
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
August 21, 2016 at 12:17 am
(August 20, 2016 at 1:22 pm)snowtracks Wrote:
(August 2, 2016 at 7:08 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: "Magic? How does that work?"
"It's magic."
"Wut?"
"Shazam!"
"Huh?"
"I don't get it you're supposed to turn into a mushroom now."
""
Since the universe is not illusionary, it can’t result from magic.
What do you consider the god "speaking the universe into existence", then?
That sure sounds like a magical incantation to me.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
August 21, 2016 at 12:41 am
(August 21, 2016 at 12:17 am)Simon Moon Wrote:
(August 20, 2016 at 1:22 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Since the universe is not illusionary, it can’t result from magic.
What do you consider the god "speaking the universe into existence", then?
That sure sounds like a magical incantation to me.
That "sounds" like a self expression in a pr-extant medium which creates form by the regular movement of that medium. Like this:
And this:
It's called acoustic cavitation and it's obviously repeatable in the lab.
It creates vacuum/void spaces. Like the universe is a vacuum/void space.
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
August 21, 2016 at 12:48 am
(August 21, 2016 at 12:42 am)Maelstrom Wrote:
(August 20, 2016 at 1:22 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Since the universe is not illusionary, it can’t result from magic.
There is more than one definition of "magic".
No special "rabbit out of the hat" pleading is needed what so ever to explain how God pro-creates the infinite universes into being.
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
![[Image: Confused.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=fun.resplace.net%2FEmoticons%2FConfused%2FConfused.gif)
"
