On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[possibletarian]

Call it common sense then. If you're going to say "who declares it common sense," well, I'd say "most people."

So people, not god decide what is logical would you agree ?

Because things don't simply exist without a source. To argue otherwise would be insane.

And yet you happily give your man created god an opt out on that.
So i ask again, how do you know the universe came from nothing ?

I mean according to natural laws, obviously I know they are possible through God. Are you being deliberately difficult?

No it's a serious question you are being asked, try answering from evidence and proof instead of ''I believe it to be so, so it must be so'' I realise you don't think you are doing this, but in fact you are. And who's to say what laws preceded our universe do you know what they were ?

If in fact you don't know, then simply say you don't, don't create gods to fill your gaps.

I'm not here to go tit for tat with you about specifics. If you choose to believe things that make no sense, that's your choice.

No sense if you choose to hide your head in the sand you mean, and wave away science as of the devil.

According to your standards, which don't matter. Only God's standards matter, and He has declared His creation to you very plainly, so that even the simple can deduce it. Something cannot come from nothing, and that's really all you need to know. If you need more than that, well, you're either an idiot or God has blinded you. There is no other option.

How have you determined what god's standards are ?

You deny His existence when you demand something He has already given you. You're saying "this isn't enough." It's enough. The problem isn't His, it's yours. You've created it.

Not at all, I know you have to believe this to justify your belief I simply do not believe there is proof for a god, perhaps you could show some ?

Well, a big one for me is universal salvation. People can't reconcile the existence of evil because they don't understand its purpose,

I can reconcile it very easily, I really don''t have a problem. It perfectly explained under evolution, the only reason you give harmful things people do a purpose and a spiritual meaning is because of you beliefs.

and its purpose can only be understood in light of the truth of universal salvation. Otherwise God is painted as unimaginably cruel, which just isn't true. I don't know of any religion that explains the purpose of evil adequately; only Christianity does.

Christianity explains nothing, it more easily explained via evolution, evil as such has no purpose or special meaning to me, other than it's a word used to mean harmful behaviour. I don't blame god for not stopping evil any more than than i blame superman for not stopping the 9/11 attacks. i simply do not believe there is a reason to believe either exists.

The truth can be measured when no argument is able to defeat it,

Do you really believe that to be true ? if so we could have a discussion on that alone.

and when it can be applied to history and everyday life. That doesn't mean you personally will be able to measure it, but others will.

Well if it's down to interpretation, then simply admit that call it personal truth or my truth.

Truly, if you can't even recognize the Truth when it becomes manifest, which I'm not even sure is possible, then you likely have no hope for salvation in this life.

I would probably have to be convinced there was a god to grant any type of salvation first.

The better question is, how can you call it gobbledygook if you've never heard the Truth? You probably haven't. Just because you hear the Truth doesn't mean you'll accept it.

What does accepting it mean, other than believing it because you believe it, what difference is there ?

Jesus Christ spoke the Truth and people hated Him for it, and eventually killed Him for it. The Truth is not a pleasant thing to hear, which is partly why it's so easy to recognize.

Where did you get that story from, the bible ?

I would probably measure the Truth by the fact that I ran from it as fast as I could when I first heard it. But I was brought back, because we don't choose the day of our salvation; the Lord decides when and how you get saved.

I wouldn't run from it, i just require a good reason to believe it's truth, maybe if you had done the same you wouldn't have ran from it.

Again, it IS a matter of faith. To clarify once again, we're no longer speaking of proving God's existence, but about my particular brand of faith. By the very definition it's a matter of faith.

So you can have faith in god, without having a good reason to believe there is a god ? How are you separating the two ?

See above answer. On the grounds of doctrine and common sense, mine is the only faith that can't be contradicted, as long as you want to concede that God does in fact exist for the sake of the argument(s).

Well that's what we are trying to establish, for instance if we accept that superman exists (for the sake of argument) then my anger at his none intervention on 9/11 may be justified. But who rationally would accept such an argument as a truth which some have been blinded to without first proving superman exists.

Well, we know because the Spirit of God reveals it to us, primarily. But one can also tell when one speaks by His Spirit, because it won't be contradicted by other Scriptures. Paul's epistles can't be contradicted.

Why do you believe them to be true was question, not IF you believe them to be true, we already know that. if there is no god, they are simply wholly wrong.

The world exists as it does today precisely because there hasn't been much grace given to men at present. And this is all perfectly okay and part of God's design...fortunately, things will be changing very soon.

Or because there is no god, and people just do bad stuff. No need to pollute the waters with various unprovable gods and faiths.

It's not gobbledygook, you're just repeating yourself again. The question isn't even necessarily "why would you repent to a god"; how about starting with "why would you not repent"?

People do feel sorry for what they have done, i see it every day, why i even do it myself.

Take God out of the equation, unless you happen to view yourself as morally bankrupt and don't care that that is the case. So answer that question for me, please.

I happen to view myself as human, who occasionally does things i wish i hadn't, what makes you think people don't care ?

All you seen to be able to say through these whole threads is essentially ''unless you believe what i believe then you are wrong'' you provide no reasons aside from you faith, which we have already established is no way to determine truth.
Please please tell me you have something more interesting than telling everyone how wrong they are, because you believe they are. If you choose to claim some insights from god, then justify that claim, really simple.

---

How do we determine that to be true ?


And how did you come to that conclusion ?  Other than he does not believe what you believe.
The universe from nothing argument aside. How do you know it came from nothing ?

Who says you have to determine it to be true? God doesn't save everyone in this life. Maybe you weren't meant to understand. Doesn't make it okay, but it is an answer. But to answer the question, you determine it to be true by the grace of God, and that alone. You can't receive one thing in this world unless it comes from Him.

As for Krauss, I never said I knew the particles came from nothing (if I'm understanding your language correctly). I don't know where they came from, either. But Krauss can't definitively say they came from nothing because he has no idea where they came from. He is assuming they came from nothing. They came from something alright, he just doesn't know what.

Most is a repeat, but i bolded the interesting bits.

1) well if it isn't true, then it isn't true. why would anyone NOT want to know it's true ?
2) The point is neither do you, Could they have already existed in some form ?

[MilesAbbott81]

So people, not god decide what is logical would you agree ?

No. I'd say that God gives people common sense. Everything about us is determined by God, including our ability to make sense of things.

And yet you happily give your man created god an opt out on that.
So i ask again, how do you know the universe came from nothing ?  

For one, He is not man-created, but I understand you're just being deliberately condescending. Naturally, the Creator of physics isn't subject to its laws. That's not exactly a difficult thing to comprehend.

No it's a serious question you are being asked, try answering from evidence and proof  instead of ''I believe it to be so, so it must be so'' I realise you don't think you are doing this, but in fact you are. And who's to say what laws preceded our universe do you know what they were ?

Who says there were any laws preceding our universe? What evidence do you have to suggest there were? And I tell you, if something cannot come from nothing, according to natural laws, then the source of existence must be supernatural. It still baffles me how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. And you'll cry "the burden of proof is on you!" No, it isn't. The burden of proof is on God, and He has provided it in many, many ways. Just because it isn't good enough for you doesn't mean it isn't good enough. You are not the arbiter of the standards of proof. He is, and He is very, very reasonable.

If in fact you don't know, then simply say you don't, don't create gods to fill your gaps.

I've spent plenty of time on forums getting into the nitty-gritty about things like DNA and the Higgs-Boson stuff. And one thing I'll say is that it never goes anywhere, and the people who cite these scientists as credible have a tenuous grasp on the subject matter themselves and are simply appealing to authority, which is a cheap tactic and very stupid.

Men lie about everything, including science. Take "Climategate" for instance. There have also been many hoaxes about evolution. Men are not infallible and certainly shouldn't be trusted, but people like you would much prefer to put your faith in men than God. You are receiving the due penalty for your error.

No sense if you choose to hide your head in the sand you mean, and wave away science as of the devil.

I don't wave away science as of the devil, but nice try. Science has its uses. My problem with science is that it has filled men with hubris.
People respect scientists for some reason, even though they're probably responsible for just as much death as any religion. We have virtually no understanding of things like biology, yet we think it's okay to genetically modify our food. Cancer kills millions when it's easily curable (if caught early enough) without radiation or chemotherapy, treatments which actually CAUSE cancer. The speed of light changed several times in the 20th century, along with the supposed age of the universe. Astronomy is just as big a mystery to us as anything else, yet you and others cry that you have the answers, or that your stupid and ineffective methods of determining the truth of a matter are the only valid ones. You say to hell with God because your opinion of yourself is so high that you think you don't need Him.  

How have you determined what god's standards are ?  

By the grace of God, but it's also in the Bible.

Christianity explains nothing,  it more easily explained via evolution, evil as such has no purpose or special meaning to me, other than it's a word used to mean harmful behaviour.  I don't blame god for not stopping evil any more than than i blame superman  for not stopping the 9/11 attacks. i simply do not believe there is a reason to believe either exists.

Well if you're fine with your own explanation about the purpose/nature of evil, then I won't try to change your mind.

Do you really believe that to be true ? if so we could have a discussion on that alone.

I certainly do believe it to be true. Of course, the one who is wrong won't be able to see the difference, just as you can't see the sense in what I'm saying. And that's partly why faith is required. The world will scream at you that you're wrong when you speak the Truth, because the world hates the Truth. It only matters for the one who can see it. I realize that's not a satisfactory answer to you, but if so then it was never supposed to be satisfactory to you.

Well if it's down to interpretation, then simply admit that call it personal truth or my truth.

No. The idea of subjective reality is a big problem in the world today. Moral relativism is destroying everything. To call it "my truth" would be like saying water doesn't exist. It just isn't true.

I would probably have to be convinced there was a god to grant any type of salvation first.  

What you really need is to be brought to a place where you actually want God to exist.

I wouldn't run from it, i just require a good reason to believe it's truth, maybe if you had done the same you wouldn't have ran from it.

You have no idea whether or not you'd run from it. How would you respond to someone telling you that you needed to be crucified? Assuming you believed it, you would probably run.

Well that's what we are trying to establish, for instance if we accept that superman exists (for the sake of argument) then my anger at his none intervention on 9/11 may be justified. But who rationally would accept such an argument as a truth which some have been blinded to without  first proving superman exists.

Your equating God with superman is the kind of condescension that typifies the arrogant people on forums such as these. No wonder you've been blinded.

People do feel sorry for what they have done, i see it every day, why i even do it myself.

Again with the presumption and arrogance! That's not repentance. That's regret, or feeling bad. While repentance wouldn't be complete without that, it's not even close to the whole package. How about restitution? How about confession? How about turning from ever behaving that way again? All necessary to be repentant, and that's why it's impossible to do without God's grace.

I happen to view myself as human, who occasionally does things i wish i hadn't, what makes you think people don't care ?

Many people don't care about the evil things they've done. Some thrive on it, actually. And you know what? You don't really care. If you really cared, you'd be repentant, and if you were repentant, that would mean you knew God, which you obviously don't. You don't care because you're evil. And that's the Truth.

I've not responded to several of your points, because it's clear to me that certain things just aren't getting through to you and I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam. I'm also having a little bit of trouble understanding precisely what you're asking because your writing is sometimes incoherent.

[possibletarian]

No. I'd say that God gives people common sense. Everything about us is determined by God, including our ability to make sense of things.

That's the question though, how do you know that ? So far as I can tell you are simply making declarations of what you believe to be true, you could just as easily be from any religion, creed, or school of thought.

For one, He is not man-created, but I understand you're just being deliberately condescending.

Again this is nothing more than a statement of men, how do you determine if it's any more than that? I'm not trying to be condescending, just asking how you have come to the determination that your statement is true, what your source for that is, and why you believe it.

Naturally, the Creator of physics isn't subject to its laws. That's not exactly a difficult thing to comprehend.

We have yet to determine a creator, how is it anything more than simply a statement of men if we have no means at all to test it.

Who says there were any laws preceding our universe?

I have no idea if there were any laws preceding our universe, that's the point, neither do you.

What evidence do you have to suggest there were?

I'm just suggesting it as one of along list of possibilities, really i have no evidence whatsoever, I'm happy to say i don't know.

And I tell you, if something cannot come from nothing, according to natural laws, then the source of existence must be supernatural.

We have yet to show that anything came from nothing, you have no idea if there was an anything or not before the universe any more than I do. It's certainly counter intuitive to think something can come from nothing but we have yet to establish there was ever a nothing, if nothing is even a plausible concept. The pre universe may have been very different and not like our universe at all, who knows ?

It still baffles me how this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

It still baffles me why religionist of all types insist that there was nothing, when they could not possibly have knowledge of that

And you'll cry "the burden of proof is on you!"

Actually no, i long since gave up that battle cry, all these years and I've never seen a religionist produce anything convincing.

No, it isn't. The burden of proof is on God, and He has provided it in many, many ways.

Can you name a few which you can show evidence are from a god, any type of god will do to make it easy for you.

Just because it isn't good enough for you doesn't mean it isn't good enough. You are not the arbiter of the standards of proof. He is, and He is very, very reasonable.

Well show me what convinced you, and why it convinced you then maybe we can understand.

I've spent plenty of time on forums getting into the nitty-gritty about things like DNA and the Higgs-Boson stuff. And one thing I'll say is that it never goes anywhere, and the people who cite these scientists as credible have a tenuous grasp on the subject matter themselves and are simply appealing to authority, which is a cheap tactic and very stupid.

Yes we get that you discard science because it does not agree with you, the thing is though it's very reliable i use it every day in fact writing to you I'm using scientific principles which work great. The Higgs-Boson was something that was predicted, it no longer exists in our universe but science suspected that it must have existed in the first few seconds of the big bang, they ran a test and were proved correct.

If you claim that these scientist have a very tenuous grasp on the subject matter, can you show me some 'true godly science' that is provable ?
Preferably from good accredited institutions.

Men lie about everything, including science. Take "Climategate" for instance. There have also been many hoaxes about evolution. Men are not infallible and certainly shouldn't be trusted,

They lie about gods too, including yours, which brings me back to the bible, also written by men, why do you quote it as truth ?

but people like you would much prefer to put your faith in men than God. You are receiving the due penalty for your error.

I would like to know the truth yes of course, I don't find anything but mythology in religions though, and yes till you can show me there is a god why put your trust in myth ?

I don't wave away science as of the devil, but nice try. Science has its uses. My problem with science is that it has filled men with hubris.
People respect scientists for some reason, even though they're probably responsible for just as much death as any religion.

Oh the products of science are responsible for many deaths of that there is no doubt at all, but science itself is not evil or good, it is simply a trusty methodology to come to a conclusion, that's a bit like saying maths is and responsible for death because someone was able to calculate a trajectory for an artillery piece, and just like religionist the good or bad is done by people. The difference with religion is you get people claiming the authority of a deity as a reason to go kill people. science does not do that.

We have virtually no understanding of things like biology,

What would you consider a good understanding, and why ?

yet we think it's okay to genetically modify our food.

Which has been done very successfully

Cancer kills millions when it's easily curable (if caught early enough) without radiation or chemotherapy,

which does happen, people even have regression. but like you say you have to catch it early enough. science has helped greatly in this, unfortunately your god (or any other deity) has failed to give us a good way of doing this, so any benefit is down to the science that finds it not wishful thinking. I think you are making my point here not yours.

treatments which actually CAUSE cancer.

So you are saying they do more harm overall than good, do you have any evidence for that ?

The speed of light changed several times in the 20th century,

Certainly they think it's possible it isn't a constant, that's the beauty of science as new evidence emerges treatments, cures get much better people live longer and are healthier, no thanks to holy texts though.

here' a good article https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-...stant.html

along with the supposed age of the universe. Astronomy is just as big a mystery to us as anything else,

Well astronomy isn't a mystery, the universe may well be, but again science ah given us more information about the universe than anything in scripture

yet you and others cry that you have the answers

Actually I've repeatedly said there is much I don't know, as will most scientists

or that your stupid and ineffective methods of determining the truth of a matter are the only valid ones.

They are reliable in everyday life and trustworthy yes.

You say to hell with God because your opinion of yourself is so high that you think you don't need Him.

I never tell beings I have no reason to believe exist to go to hell, i assume though that if such a being existed he would know what would convince me.  

By the grace of God, but it's also in the Bible.

Which you believe why ?

Well if you're fine with your own explanation about the purpose/nature of evil, then I won't try to change your mind.

Well do you have another that's more evident ?

I certainly do believe it to be true. Of course, the one who is wrong won't be able to see the difference,

Isn't that just a variation on I'm right you are wrong, but without any reason to declare it so ?

just as you can't see the sense in what I'm saying. And that's partly why faith is required.

So just believing without proof is a good thing, even needed , but how do you then distinguish that from no god at all ?

The world will scream at you that you're wrong when you speak the Truth, because the world hates the Truth. It only matters for the one who can see it. I realize that's not a satisfactory answer to you, but if so then it was never supposed to be satisfactory to you.

Again all religionists say the same, along with conspiracy theorists and cults, how are we to tell the difference ?

No. The idea of subjective reality is a big problem in the world today. Moral relativism is destroying everything. To call it "my truth" would be like saying water doesn't exist. It just isn't true.

Great, now we are getting somewhere I'm so glad you agree, so you will be happy to answer the question I've been asking the last few posts .. how do you determine that what you believe to be true, is actually true ? If you say 'partly faith' then lets be clear that faith can get you to literally any idea, crackpot or otherwise, hell it may even be true, but you would need something significantly better than faith at determining that truth.

What you really need is to be brought to a place where you actually want God to exist.

I'm not even sure what that means, I don't want to be deluded just out of a phycological need to have something exists.. do you ?

You have no idea whether or not you'd run from it.

well i was actually responding to you telling us atheists ran from it !!

How would you respond to someone telling you that you needed to be crucified? Assuming you believed it, you would probably run.

Of course, but i wouldn't run from the truth of something i would still like to know if it was true or not, even if i later lied to save my own skin.

Your equating God with superman is the kind of condescension that typifies the arrogant people on forums such as these. No wonder you've been blinded.

I wasn't equating god with anything, just that saying that IF a certain proposition is true, does not make what what follows true. For example i might say 'IF Allah exists, then Islam is true'. that does not make Islam true, it would have to be true on it's own merits. The same with god, pre-supposing a god does not make what follows true, first we have to establish a god.

Again with the presumption and arrogance! That's not repentance. That's regret, or feeling bad. While repentance wouldn't be complete without that,

Well okay we agree, lets start with that

it's not even close to the whole package. How about restitution? How about confession? How about turning from ever behaving that way again?

Yup done all that, what makes you think people don't ?

All necessary to be repentant, and that's why it's impossible to do without God's grace.

And yet i see it every day without god.
You have to remember that the concept of sin as it is commonly understood is almost an exclusively religious concept.

Many people don't care about the evil things they've done. Some thrive on it, actually. And you know what?

Oh some do, thrive on it, reading an article about a bishop just today. Truth is people do care, they care a lot. Maybe you just live in a rough neighbourhood.

You don't really care. If you really cared,

I care very much about the wrongs i do people, have you any evidence otherwise ?

you'd be repentant, and if you were repentant, that would mean you knew God, which you obviously don't. You don't care because you're evil. And that's the Truth.

Again yes i do wrong, but so do you.

I've not responded to several of your points, because it's clear to me that certain things just aren't getting through to you and I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam. I'm also having a little bit of trouble understanding precisely what you're asking because your writing is sometimes incoherent.

Well you wouldn't need to repeat yourself if you had a convincing argument now would you ?
I do understand you are a believer and that as part of that you have 'faith' or belief that certain things are simply true no matter whether you can show proof or not.

If I've written something incoherent, then please ask me to clarify the questions or bits you don't understand, i would hate you to give it just because of lack of understanding either on my part, or yours.

Lets start then perhaps with something really simple, why do you believe the bible to be a good measure of god's revelation to you (if indeed you do) ? then we will go on from there.

[GrandizerII]

MilesAbbott, again, your faith is not a reliable means to knowledge. You can have your faith, but you can't use that to argue that you know anything and you can't, if you really did care to have an honest discussion with atheists, presuppose the truth of statements that we naturally do not agree with. If you want to talk about God existing, God hating sin, us being sinners, and so on, you have to reason your way to these statements when discoursing with atheists; you can't just simply assert them as true.

[possibletarian]

MilesAbbott, again, your faith is not a reliable means to knowledge. You can have your faith, but you can't use that to argue that you know anything and you can't, if you really did care to have an honest discussion with atheists, presuppose the truth of statements that we naturally do not agree with. If you want to talk about God existing, God hating sin, us being sinners, and so on, you have to reason your way to these statements when discoursing with atheists; you can't just simply assert them as true.

^This

---

 Great post. Also really like the name.  

Although you are running rings around what's his name, he'll never admit. it   The dude doesn't even understand the most basic thing about logic; IE In itself, logic is insufficient to prove anything.   Truth may  be claimed from a logical inference, IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

Great job, but I lack your patience. Reading this thread has only reinforced my decision not to engage with apologists. I'm weak, I would end up saying some very unkind things and get myself banned.


PS: As it turns out,  it is beginning to look as if something can indeed come from nothing.   Physicists been aware of this for sometime .   The claim  nothing can come from nothing  may no longer be made because it is "self evident".  Christianity is antithetical to science because it rejects any science which contradicts dogma.

The clip below  features Lawrence Krauss, an actual scientist, explaining how something can come from nothing.v. This is meant to perhaps give you some ammo, not in anyway  to patronise or  criticise you.

Lawrence Krauss has a large Wiki entry (yes he may have been naughty, but that does not change his basic credentials)

Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born 1954) is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and a former professor at Yale University and Case Western Reserve University. He founded ASU's Origins Project to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and served as its director until July 2018.[2] In response to allegations about sexual misconduct by Krauss, ASU conducted an investigation. Having determined that Krauss had violated university policy, they removed him from his position.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

Thanks there

Yes i saw a BBC documentary on this subject, not sure i understood it all but i think the gist of it is that what we call nothing does not really mean 'no thing at all'' for want of a better explanation. That there is no real reason to believe that there was ever 'no thing at all' .

And thanks for you kind comments

[Astreja]

You all need to repent, or even as those on whom the Tower of Siloam fell, you will likewise perish.

No, I think I'll commit the Unforgivable Sin instead, and in the infinitely unlikely event I ever come face-to-face with your imaginary fiend, I'll tell it that I did it because of you.

Accordingly, Miles, fuck you and fuck the Holy Spirit too.

[fredd bear]

Thanks for that.

Really wasn't aware that kind of coarse language was permitted here. I'll keep it in mimd

Oh, I heartily concur with your sentiment

[Belacqua]

The clip below  features Lawrence Krauss, an actual scientist, explaining how something can come from nothing.v. This is meant to perhaps give you some ammo, not in anyway  to patronise or  criticise you.

Lawrence Krauss has a large Wiki entry (yes he may have been naughty, but that does not change his basic credentials)

Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born 1954) is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and a former professor at Yale University and Case Western Reserve University. He founded ASU's Origins Project to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and served as its director until July 2018.[2] In response to allegations about sexual misconduct by Krauss, ASU conducted an investigation. Having determined that Krauss had violated university policy, they removed him from his position.[3][4]

I read Krauss' book a few years ago. I'm afraid that the title oversells it. 

The real case he makes is why, given the laws of nature as they are, the universe persists in existence. 

This doesn't say why there is something rather than nothing, because he begins with the laws of nature as givens. Thus, there was something (laws of nature) in order to make the next something (the universe). 

In effect, he doesn't say it's turtles all the way down, but he does begin with the turtle he finds convenient and works up from there. Science can't explain where the laws of nature come from. And he recognizes this, late in the book.

It's an interesting book, but a more honest title would be something like "The Current State of Cosmology, 2013: Why The Universe Isn't Likely to Go Away." 

But I don't know if he's to blame for the title. We live in a capitalist world, publishers need to make money, and authors don't always get to choose their own title. My publisher refused my own cool title in favor of something that would be found easily on Amazon.

[MilesAbbott81]

That's the question though, how do you know that ?  So far as I can tell you are simply making declarations of what you believe to be true, you could just as easily be from any religion, creed, or school of thought.

This is a cop-out. It's the rough equivalent of saying "I know you are but what am I?"

"How do you know that?" you constantly ask.

Do you believe in the existence of dark matter? If so, why? Because scientists say it exists? Aren't you just making a declaration, repeating something you don't really understand and have never observed, saying it's true because men have said it's so (when men are proven liars, no less)? Aren't you putting your faith in men concerning this thing, then?

How about Pluto? Have you ever bothered to observe it in a telescope yourself? The same concept applies. You're trusting declarations other people say are so. I am obviously not saying that neither of these things exist. That's not at all my point.

I say I can see the inherent design in the beauty of nature, how the indescribably complex patterns and processes that exist are surely evidence that it was all designed by a Being Whose intelligence so far exceeds our own that it's literally incomprehensible. These things are observable. It's evidence. It just isn't good enough for you for some reason. Could be a multitude of reasons why, I'm not claiming to know. But I do know that the idea of God threatens our flesh. We like to be in control, we don't like the idea that this reality is under His total and perfect control, and we love our sins, so we resist Him tooth and nail, despite reality screaming in our face.

Maybe you've not been blinded. Maybe you're just stubborn, like most agnostics and atheists. Whatever the case, you're in a very bad place when you can't see or refuse to acknowledge reality. And that goes for anyone in your shoes.

Again this is nothing more than a statement of men, how do you determine if it's any more than that?  I'm not trying to be condescending, just asking how you have come to the determination that your statement is true, what your source for that is, and why you believe it.

Well, you may not have been trying to be condescending, but it appears you're unable to control yourself. Calling God man-made is a statement of your belief that anyone who believes in God is being stupid because "there's no proof."

We have yet to determine a creator, how is it anything more than simply a statement of men if we have no means at all to test it.

Again, instead of addressing what I actually wrote, you say "I know you are but what am I?"

I have no idea if there were any laws preceding our universe, that's the point, neither do you.

That's not the point. The point is that you're throwing out assumptions that are essentially faith statements. True, you're not speaking definitively, but I could also point to the existence of flying pigs as a possibility too. It's just stupid. The concept of God is not stupid.

I'm just suggesting it as one of along list of possibilities, really i have no evidence whatsoever, I'm happy to say i don't know.

Similar to my last response: yeah, you are happy to say you don't know. Maybe because it makes you appear to have humility, or maybe it's because it makes you happy that your "ignorance" absolves you of not giving your Creator the respect and attention He deserves. When it's all about you, the flesh is quite happy indeed. You are not absolved.

We have yet to show that anything came from nothing, you have no idea if there was an anything or not before the universe any more than I do.  It's certainly counter intuitive to think something can come from nothing but we have yet to establish there was ever a nothing, if nothing is even a plausible concept. The pre universe may have been very different and not like our universe at all, who knows ?

Of course I know that the universe came from nothing. It says so in Genesis, and I know the words of that book are true because God has proven His existence to me more times than I can count.

That doesn't mean my faith is unnecessary. The reason we need faith isn't because it's difficult to believe in God or that He is Jesus Christ. The problem is that it's difficult to believe that He's on our side. Being an agnostic or an atheist isn't a problem of faith. You're basically in special-ed. God has made you an idiot, at least concerning His existence. Why do you think you're in the minority? Most people believe in God because it's common sense. The fact that you don't isn't because you're part of some intellectual elite so far ahead of the curve that you've figured out some kind of esoteric knowledge.

It still baffles me why religionist of all types insist that there was nothing, when they could not possibly have knowledge of that

I know you are, but what am I?

Actually no, i long since gave up that battle cry, all these years and I've never seen a religionist produce anything convincing.

Actually, all you've been doing is putting the burden of proof on me. Wow!

Can you name a few which you can show evidence are from a god, any type of god will do to make it easy for you.

Burden of proof on me right here. I know you are but what...you get the idea.

Well show me what convinced you, and why it convinced you then maybe we can understand.

Already accomplished, several times.

Yes we get that you discard science because it does not agree with you, the thing is though it's very reliable i use it every day in fact writing to you I'm using scientific principles which work great. The Higgs-Boson was something that was predicted, it no longer exists in our universe but science suspected that it must have existed in the first few seconds of the big bang, they ran a test and were proved correct.

If you claim that these scientist have a very tenuous grasp on the subject matter, can you show me some 'true godly science' that is provable ?
Preferably from good accredited institutions.

I never said that I discard science. I simply look at the problems inherent in the theories it provides, even the results. Who can say radiometric dating is worth anything at all, when it is consistently ridiculously wrong? Who can cite the Big Bang as plausible when entropy is taken into account, or of course our favorite "something from nothing" conundrum? Evolution is so absurd it's almost as dumb as something from nothing, so astronomically unlikely that it would be unbelievable that people believe such things absent the hand of God at work.

And I wasn't saying that the scientists have a tenuous grasp on the subject matter. I'm saying you have a tenuous grasp on it, and others here like you, who parrot what they hear and think sounds really smart. I'm not even saying that the scientists aren't experts; they may be unparalleled geniuses concerning their fields, but their genius is like an ant's to a human's when compared to God.

My problem isn't with their expertise, it's that they think they've figured enough things out to make declarations like Krauss does when he says something from nothing is actually plausible when he really has absolutely zero grounds for making such a statement. To declare that the existence of God is unlikely while simultaneous making such a preposterous statement is proof right there that men of his ilk aren't people to be trusted on important matters such as these.

They lie about gods too, including yours, which brings me back to the bible, also written by men, why do you quote it as truth ?

Yes, they lie, but the Spirit of God doesn't, and when the Spirit is with you, you know that the words in the Bible are true. There are plenty of other reasons, but that's the only one that matters.

I would like to know the truth yes of course, I don't find anything but mythology in religions though, and yes till you can show me there is a god why put your trust in myth ?

 

No, you'd like to know the truth on your terms. Your standards of proof are unreasonable.

Oh the products of science are responsible for many deaths of that there is no doubt at all, but science itself is not evil or good, it is simply a trusty methodology to come to a conclusion, that's a bit like saying maths is and responsible for death because someone was able to calculate a trajectory for an artillery piece, and just like religionist the good or bad is done by people.  The difference with religion is you get people claiming the authority of a deity as a reason to go kill people. science does not do that.

Science has become a god in its own right, and probably billions have died on its altar. People claim science as an authority all the time. You do it below, claiming that the genetic modification of food has been done successfully. That's not true. We have no idea what the effects of genetic modification of food are, although they seem to at the very least point quite directly to causing cancer. Then the pesticides, again a product of science, are used to grow that genetically modified food, polluting the soil, the water, and the food product itself, which also causes cancer and plenty of other nasty health issues according to heaps of research. It's a monstrosity, and you call it successful? See, science does kill people. It's killing you right now, because you've put your trust in its soundness, literally eating its products to sustain your life. It's not sustaining your life, it's ending it.  

What would you consider a good understanding, and why ?

I would consider understanding how to cure diseases a good understanding, because what good is biological knowledge otherwise, beyond the ability to perform surgery and the like? Can we cure AIDS? No, we can't cure viruses yet, despite vast resources thrown into it. Cancer remains a mystery to doctors, who insist that chemotherapy and radiation are decent treatments.

Want to know how to cure cancer? Well you could probably start by looking at certain practices in Germany that have 90+% efficacy rates. But that's really unnecessary. Water fasting cures cancer, dandelion root powder cures it, heat treatments cure it. Changes in diet are also very effective, particularly in preventing remission. Radiation and chemotherapy are just ways that corrupt men earn money, that's all, and yet people put their trust in them and appeal to their supposed authority in arguments. It's all foolishness.

You're welcome to do this research on your own; it's not my job to do it for you.

which does happen, people even have regression. but like you say you have to catch it early enough. science has helped greatly in this, unfortunately your god (or any other deity) has failed to give us a good way of doing this, so any benefit is down to the science that finds it not wishful thinking. I think you are making my point here not yours.

See above...it was the Lord who pointed me to this kind of research. Just because He hasn't given it to everyone doesn't mean He has withheld it from everyone.

So you are saying they do more harm overall than good, do you have any evidence for that ?

Other than the fact that radiation and chemotherapy are barbaric treatments? Yes, there is plenty of evidence out there pointing to both of these treatments as causing cancer (or simply being ineffective), which makes them infinitely worse than treatments that don't cause cancer.

Certainly they think it's possible it isn't a constant, that's the beauty of science as new evidence emerges treatments, cures get much better people live longer and are healthier, no thanks to holy texts though.

here' a good article https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-...stant.html

I'm not talking about the possibility of it not being constant. I'm talking about the speed literally changing in the official sense multiple times during the 20th century. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where I heard that, but I recall it being a reliable source. It's something that has been covered up somewhat. Even so, some scientists will insist that it IS a constant, while others disagree. Hardly reliable.
 

Well astronomy isn't a mystery, the universe may well be, but again science ah given us more information about the universe than anything in scripture

The book of Job says the Lord hung the Earth on nothing, and that book might be 4000 years old, long before astronomy had ever figured that out. The Bible says all we need to know about astronomy, really.

And I'd say if astronomers can't agree on the speed of light, then they shouldn't have any sort of consensus as to the age of the universe. Their assumptions are just that. Assumptions.

They are reliable  in everyday life  and trustworthy yes.

I think I've written enough in this post to at least give you pause about that.

I never tell beings I have no reason to believe exist to go to hell, i assume though that if such a being existed he would know what would convince me.

You may not say the words, but you say it alright.

Which you believe why ?

Because it makes sense.  

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:21)

Well do you have another that's more evident ?

More evident? Yes and no. But I know that evil exists to punish and chasten us when we behave wickedly. That's why bad things happen. As the Scriptures say:

"Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight." (Proverbs 26:2)

Isn't that just a variation on I'm right you are wrong, but without any reason to declare it so ?

No, it's not that at all. I'm saying you can't see that you're wrong because God hasn't given you to see it. Just because you can't see that you're wrong doesn't mean others can't. And just because others might agree with you doesn't mean you're right, it simply means that God hasn't given them to see it, either.

Actually, now that I think about it, it does sort of come down to I'm right and you're wrong, because that's about all I can say to someone in your position. You won't see reason because reason has been hidden from you. But perhaps others reading this will be given to see your foolishness.

Again all religionists say the same, along with conspiracy theorists and cults, how are we to tell the difference ?

While I can understand why you say this, it doesn't mean that it's a valid excuse. Yes, plenty of people come along screaming that they have the Truth, and that you have to take it on faith. But they'll almost certainly behave and speak foolishly when push comes to shove, and easily identifiable as fraudulent (unless God has given you over to the fraud).

But you can't make a fool of me, because you can't make a fool out of God. You will only make yourself the fool, as you have done.

Great, now we are getting somewhere I'm so glad you agree, so you will be happy to answer the question I've been asking the last few posts .. how do you determine that what you believe to be true, is actually true ?  If you say 'partly faith' then lets be clear that faith can get you to literally any idea, crackpot or otherwise, hell it may even be true, but you would need something significantly better than faith at determining that truth.

The Truth will become manifest in the great and terrible Day of the Lord. When and how that happens is up to God. Either you will live in that day, or you will die. Maybe you'll never be given the chance to hear the Truth, at least in the way you need to hear it in order to be saved. He doesn't give everyone that privilege, at least not in this life.

I'm not even sure what that means, I don't want to be deluded just out of a phycological need to have something exists.. do you ?  

Obviously, from my perspective I'm not speaking of delusion, but Truth. Until you recognize that you need God and want Him, then you must continue to suffer and destroy yourself until you do. That's just how it works.

Of course, but i wouldn't run from the truth of something i would still like to know if it was true or not, even if i later lied to save my own skin.

Well, we'll see about that, but it appears to me that you're already running away, otherwise you'd be more open to what I have to say. Seems to me you're interested only in proving yourself justified in your agnosticism.

Your equating God with superman is the kind of condescension that typifies the arrogant people on forums such as these. No wonder you've been blinded.

Yes, you were equating God with superman in the same way atheists commonly equate Him with the tooth fairy and unicorns. Again, if you're not being deliberately condescending you're unable to control your condescension. It's infected your spirit.

Yup done all that, what makes you think people don't ?

You're lying. If not deliberately to me, then you're lying to yourself. There are wrongs you've committed for which you've not properly atoned. There are things you could do about your past that you are ignoring or have become blissfully unaware of. Perhaps you think you've been sincere but have not been in reality. As the Scriptures say, you actually can't know your heart until God reveals it to you:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

And yet i see it every day without god.

No, you think you see it every day without God.

You have to remember that the concept of sin as it is commonly understood is almost an exclusively religious concept.

Not really. All sense of morality comes from God; He gave us all consciences. The Law merely expresses it in written form, along with a few specific things our consciences don't tell us, such as keeping the Sabbath. Many argue that we would have no moral conception at all without the Law, upon which practically all Western culture is founded (Judeo-Christian principles). Looking at certain places in history makes me wonder if that's true, actually. Consider the barbarity of the Aztecs. Monstrous, monstrous behavior.

Oh some do, thrive on it, reading an article about a bishop just today.  Truth is people do care, they care a lot. Maybe you just live in a rough neighbourhood.

Don't think that mentioning bishops has any bearing on me. The Catholic Church, and in fact all of nominal Christendom, is antiChrist.

I care very much about the wrongs i do people,  have you any evidence otherwise ?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Will you care enough when the Lord puts you to the test? Time will tell.

Again yes i do wrong, but so do you.

Doing wrong isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about practicing sin, refusing to repent. I do not practice sin, by the grace of God. I may do wrong, but not willfully, and when I do wrong the Lord makes me aware of it so that I may repent, which means not committing that wrong again. There is an enormous difference between that kind of life and the life of one who is unrepentant, not that I am boasting. I wouldn't stand a chance in my own power.  

Well you wouldn't need to repeat yourself if you had a convincing argument now would you ?  
I do understand you are a believer and that as part of that you have 'faith' or belief that certain things are simply true no matter whether you can show proof or not.

If I've written something incoherent, then please ask me to clarify the questions or bits you don't understand, i would hate you to give it just because of lack of understanding either on my part, or yours.

Lets start then perhaps with something really simple, why do you believe the bible to be a good measure of god's revelation to you  (if indeed you do) ? then we will go on from there.

Perhaps incoherent is the wrong word. Poorly worded so that what you're asking is somewhat difficult to discern, at least precisely. I don't believe I've missed anything of import, you'll let me know if I have I'm sure.

It's not that I believe the Bible to be a good measure of God's revelation to me, it's that I believe it to be the Word of God. I believe this because the Scriptures can't be broken. You can try, but you won't succeed if one is interpreting them by the Spirit of God and not in their own power (the carnal mind).

You can make the Scriptures say anything, that's true. But if you interpret Them according to your own power, you will open yourself up to contradiction. If by the Spirit of God, then They are impossible to break.

---

MilesAbbott, again, your faith is not a reliable means to knowledge. You can have your faith, but you can't use that to argue that you know anything and you can't, if you really did care to have an honest discussion with atheists, presuppose the truth of statements that we naturally do not agree with. If you want to talk about God existing, God hating sin, us being sinners, and so on, you have to reason your way to these statements when discoursing with atheists; you can't just simply assert them as true.

I've never said my faith is a reliable means to knowledge. Faith has very little to do with knowledge.

What I'm saying is that all the evidence you need is before your eyes. There is no way to look at our clearly designed world and say it is the result of anything but God. I'm not saying that it's merely wrong to not see, I'm saying it's impossible to not see. If you really can't see it, then God has done the impossible and hidden it from you, and that's because of sin:

"For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness." (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Your being an atheist has nothing to do with you having an opinion or belief of your own. Your atheism is the judgment of God upon you for your wickedness. That's the essence of my argument, really. You'll either read those arguments, which I've written down in greater detail elsewhere, and heed my words, or you'll continue to march headlong into destruction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is this the part where you pop out of the closet and yell "boo!" ?