# Atheist: Is there one idea/theroy that leaves you thinking, "Maybe there is a God"



## Thanatos

*Atheist: Is there one idea/theroy that leaves you thinking, "Maybe there is a God"*

So...is there?


----------



## Jim P

A person I knew was a so called atheist un til he was on his death bed, then he asked for a preist, so was he a atheist/


----------



## Roberson

God doesn't believe in athiests.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> So...is there?



Not really.

That said, I do think "Maybe there is a god"

Atheism isn't just "There are no gods"

It's a little more complex.   I can't prove that there are no gods any more than you can prove there is only one.

Atheism, at least for me, is the _logical default_ position.



> “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
> 
> Stephen Roberts


----------



## WTM45

I do sometimes wonder who takes care of fools and drunks.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
> 
> Stephen Roberts



I like this quote. I don't believe it, but I like it. 

With your logic is it possible for all Gods to be real then?


----------



## Israel

I understand why I dismiss all other gods.
They have never been true to their own word to the shedding of their own blood, both for, and at the hands of their own creation.
They have never shown the exceeding power of the love that would let a fool despise them, scorn them, make a joke of them, and slaughter them, just to redeem them.
Jesus is my Lord, not because of his exceeding grandeur and magnificence, which now I cannot deny, but because of the smallness he was willing to assume to get into the fortress of my heart without annihilating me outright.


----------



## pnome

Israel said:


> I understand why I dismiss all other gods.
> They have never been true to their own word to the shedding of their own blood, both for, and at the hands of their own creation.
> They have never shown the exceeding power of the love that would let a fool despise them, scorn them, make a joke of them, and slaughter them, just to redeem them.
> Jesus is my Lord, not because of his exceeding grandeur and magnificence, which now I cannot deny, but because of the smallness he was willing to assume to get into the fortress of my heart without annihilating me outright.



Your God has never done that either.  Now you know why I dismiss him.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> With your logic is it possible for all Gods to be real then?




Not sure, it seems some are mutually exclusive. 

For instance, we can't live in a universe where both Zues and the God of Abraham exist.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Your God has never done that either.  Now you know why I dismiss him.



Jesus was God. So his statements are true to us.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Not sure, it seems some are mutually exclusive.
> 
> For instance, we can't live in a universe where both Zues and the God of Abraham exist.



Why not? 

If someone had to make God, then what rules out someone (something) making multiple Gods?


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Jesus was God. So his statements are true to us.



Ramesses II was God to the Egyptians.   Does that mean Amun-Ra was true?


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Why not?
> 
> If someone had to make God, then what rules out someone (something) making multiple Gods?




There certainly is a possibility that we live in a universe where many "Gods" reign. Heck, I dunno.

But, belief in the God of Abraham includes with it the idea that there are no other gods but Him. So, if He really is God, then, by definition, there are no other gods.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I understand why I dismiss all other gods.
> They have never been true to their own word to the shedding of their own blood, both for, and at the hands of their own creation.
> They have never shown the exceeding power of the love that would let a fool despise them, scorn them, make a joke of them, and slaughter them, just to redeem them.
> Jesus is my Lord, not because of his exceeding grandeur and magnificence, which now I cannot deny, but because of the smallness he was willing to assume to get into the fortress of my heart without annihilating me outright.



You envision him as the type of God that you can admire.  Some other Christians envision him clad in golden armor, bathed in sunlight, his muscles rippling, swinging a righteous sword.

I envision a dispassionate force, existing in multiple planes and dimensions.  It doesn't have a consciousness nor a will (like anything we can define, anyway).  How do I know?  Divine inspiration: It told me.


----------



## 730waters

I have an example of an old mother who raised 14 children and she never uttered a 4 letter word that any of us ever heard. She took me to a cotton patch when I was 4 years old with the rest of the children and as you can guess we were very poor. She always stressed and brought our attention to a living GOD that made all the Universe and whom she met at an old time altar when she was very young. At 12 years of age her mother died and she relied totally upon this GOD to see her through. She stood in a chair to cook and take care of the rest of the family. She almost died when I was born back when there weren't too many medical miracles in the world, and she told me of this near death experience 2 weeks before she died at the age of 88. YES I believe there is a wonderful and awe inspiring GOD and I heard and saw the miracles that were not scientifically explainable. When my brothers and sisters and I would follow our dear mother into the field to pick the maypops that grew in the georgia red clay fields and waste places just to survive she sang the old hymns that kept many of our hearts to this day.  Many today don't know or care about true survival but once you have been there you know there is a TRUE AND LIVING GOD and I pray you all meet him one day before you depart this world. I ALWAYS knew that mother had met him that day in the alter of an old country church when she was a young girl, because she lived the life,  an example for us to see.


----------



## mtnwoman

pnome said:


> Ramesses II was God to the Egyptians.   Does that mean Amun-Ra was true?



Well which way did he go, which way did he go?


----------



## mtnwoman

730waters said:


> I have an example of an old mother who raised 14 children and she never uttered a 4 letter word that any of us ever heard. She took me to a cotton patch when I was 4 years old with the rest of the children and as you can guess we were very poor. She always stressed and brought our attention to a living GOD that made all the Universe and whom she met at an old time altar when she was very young. At 12 years of age her mother died and she relied totally upon this GOD to see her through. She stood in a chair to cook and take care of the rest of the family. She almost died when I was born back when there weren't too many medical miracles in the world, and she told me of this near death experience 2 weeks before she died at the age of 88. YES I believe there is a wonderful and awe inspiring GOD and I heard and saw the miracles that were not scientifically explainable. When my brothers and sisters and I would follow our dear mother into the field to pick the maypops that grew in the georgia red clay fields and waste places just to survive she sang the old hymns that kept many of our hearts to this day.  Many today don't know or care about true survival but once you have been there you know there is a TRUE AND LIVING GOD and I pray you all meet him one day before you depart this world. I ALWAYS knew that mother had met him that day in the alter of an old country church when she was a young girl, because she lived the life,  an example for us to see.



Very sweet!  Shall we gather at the river....


----------



## mtnwoman

pnome said:


> There certainly is a possibility that we live in a universe where many "Gods" reign. Heck, I dunno.
> 
> But, belief in the God of Abraham includes with it the idea that there are no other gods but Him. So, if He really is God, then, by definition, there are no other gods.



Well actually God says, you should have no other gods BEFORE me, not that there are no other gods. We know there are other gods, whether just in a belief system or real...but they are not above the God of Abraham, at least not to me. And He's the God I choose.


----------



## WTM45

mtnwoman said:


> Well actually God says, you should have no other gods BEFORE me, not that there are no other gods. We know there are other gods, whether just in a belief system or real...but they are not above the God of Abraham, at least not to me. And He's the God I choose.



Oh boy oh boy!
This one is ripe for the pickin' for sure!

"Load one, twenty round magazine!"
"Lock and load!"
"Ready on the left!"  Ready on the right!"
"First target, 50 meter left, "Fast Freddy!"
"Commence firing!"


----------



## pnome

mtnwoman said:


> Well actually God says, you should have no other gods BEFORE me, not that there are no other gods. We know there are other gods, whether just in a belief system or real...but they are not above the God of Abraham, at least not to me. And He's the God I choose.



Ah yes.  I forgot about that.  You've pointed that out to me before.

Looks like I was wrong Thanatos.  Maybe there are no mutually exclusive gods.


----------



## gtparts

Israel said:


> I understand why I dismiss all other gods.
> They have never been true to their own word to the shedding of their own blood, both for, and at the hands of their own creation.
> They have never shown the exceeding power of the love that would let a fool despise them, scorn them, make a joke of them, and slaughter them, just to redeem them.
> Jesus is my Lord, not because of his exceeding grandeur and magnificence, which now I cannot deny, but because of the smallness he was willing to assume to get into the fortress of my heart without annihilating me outright.



You confess that you were wooed by the perfect and surpassing love of God through Jesus. Indeed, all who have come to him, myself included, have arrived by the same mode of "transportation". The ultimate persuasion is not that of men nor of a desire to live forever. It is always a recognition of our unworthiness and God's grace.

That WOW!!! moment when it all is condensed into the simple truth, "God is.....and He loves me." Knees bend, tears flow, and pure joy fills the soul. Ain't nothin' better this side of heaven! 



pnome said:


> Your God has never done that either.  Now you know why I dismiss him.



 I have no doubt that God has done exactly that in Israel's life. It is the common experience of all Christians, to come to the end of themselves and find that they have missed it all to that point and to find out that everything we placed our trust in was deception, smoke and mirrors. The reality of what we are here for and what was intended for us from the beginning blows all that one dimensional garbage we thought was real and significant right out the back door into the weeds.
Maybe you will one day experience the Holy Spirit blowing the dust and cobwebs from your withered soul and bringing  new life, flesh and skin, to your dry bones.


----------



## Israel

pnome said:


> Your God has never done that either.  Now you know why I dismiss him.



Now you're coming out into the water.
That's good.
Jesus desires you either call him Lord or fraud, as for himself it doesn't matter which.

But for your soul's sake Lord is beneficial, and for that purpose he put on flesh, did battle in the same arena in which you now know only defeat, and won the victory in order to hand you the laurels.
Neither your assent nor dissent can add to or diminish him at all...what he has done, he has done for your sake.
Believe it and live.
Deny it and watch all you once thought good turn to dust.

To him who has, more will be given, to him who has not, even that which he thinks he has shall be taken away.


----------



## crackerdave

So far,this is one of the best "real" debates I've seen lately. Thanks! I'm learning that it can be done!
I sense Satan stopping,turning his ugly ol' head this way,and sniffing the air,like a lion.

Get thee behind me,you ol' _snake!_ Jesus beat you down over two thousand years ago,bubba!


----------



## Roberson

Pnome,you said earlier that maybe their is a God. you seem to be intent to compare the Judeo-Christian God to Zues, Odin, Allah, etc. It's really pretty simple.  IF there is a God, and that God by defintion is all-powerful, wouldn't that God have the most followers, i.e., be in "first place", numbers-wise? A true god would not be a god at all if he or she was in second or third or fifteenth place as far as adherents go. that would be a weak God, which is not compatible with being a god in the first place. I know this sounds too simple, but it doesn't have to be complicated.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> Pnome,you said earlier that maybe their is a God. you seem to be intent to compare the Judeo-Christian God to Zues, Odin, Allah, etc. It's really pretty simple.  IF there is a God, and that God by defintion is all-powerful, wouldn't that God have the most followers, i.e., be in "first place", numbers-wise? A true god would not be a god at all if he or she was in second or third or fifteenth place as far as adherents go. that would be a weak God, which is not compatible with being a god in the first place. I know this sounds too simple, but it doesn't have to be complicated.



Argument from popularity.

Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true.


----------



## pnome

Israel said:


> Now you're coming out into the water.
> That's good.
> Jesus desires you either call him Lord or fraud, as for himself it doesn't matter which.
> 
> But for your soul's sake Lord is beneficial, and for that purpose he put on flesh, did battle in the same arena in which you now know only defeat, and won the victory in order to hand you the laurels.
> Neither your assent nor dissent can add to or diminish him at all...what he has done, he has done for your sake.
> Believe it and live.
> Deny it and watch all you once thought good turn to dust.
> 
> To him who has, more will be given, to him who has not, even that which he thinks he has shall be taken away.



Yeah yeah yeah... I'm gonna burn in hades.  I've heard it before. (EDIT: Though rarely stated so eloquently. )

Just a question for you.  I know you don't know me very well, but let's just assume that outside of what you know, I'm just a regular guy.   Do you think I deserve _eternal_ punishment?  

Think about it.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> Argument from popularity.
> 
> Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true.



Maybe, but it increases the chances that something IS true, if the majority of folks believe it.


----------



## WTM45

Gatorcountry said:


> Maybe, but it increases the chances that something IS true, if the majority of folks believe it.



That's crazy talk.
Argumentum ad populum.


----------



## Roberson

WTM45 said:


> That's crazy talk.
> Argumentum ad populum.


 you hurt my feelings, wtm no, really, it's not crazy talk, it's rather self-centered  and concieted to think that you know better than the majority of humanity,who, believe it or not, believe in the Judeo-Christian God. to just dismiss billions as superstitious.


----------



## WTM45

Gatorcountry said:


> you hurt my feelings, wtm no, really, it's not crazy talk, it's rather self-centered  and concieted to think that you know better than the majority of humanity,who, believe it or not, believe in the Judeo-Christian God. to just dismiss billions as superstitious.



Wrong again.  The followers of Judeo Christianity are not the majority of the world's population.

It is crazy talk to even consider that the number of proponents of any ideal is a direct reflection of the accurateness of that ideal.
Bandwagon fallacy.


----------



## Roberson

WTM45 said:


> Wrong again.  The followers of Judeo Christianity are not the majority of the world's population.
> 
> It is crazy talk to even consider that the number of proponents of any ideal is a direct reflection of the accurateness of that ideal.
> Bandwagon fallacy.


 I beg to differ, sir. I don't just post unsupported facts. according to recent, indepent polls, Christianity leads it's closest competitor, Islam, by about a billion followers. Atheism, or non-religious, comes in third at 1.1 billion. about 33% of the pie belongs to Christians. check it out at Adherents.com.


----------



## WTM45

Gatorcountry said:


> I beg to differ, sir. I don't just post unsupported facts. according to recent, indepent polls, Christianity leads it's closest competitor, Islam, by about a billion followers. Atheism, or non-religious, comes in third at 1.1 billion. about 33% of the pie belongs to Christians. check it out at Adherents.com.



33% is far from "the majority of humanity" like you said.

A much more accurate statement would be "A majority of humanity are deists."
That's not a blanket statement supporting belief in the "Christian" God.


----------



## Roberson

WTM45 said:


> 33% is far from "the majority of humanity" like you said.
> 
> A much more accurate statement would be "A majority of humanity are deists."
> That's not a blanket statement supporting belief in the "Christian" God.


The majority of humanity are religious, and the majority of the religious are Christians.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> The majority of humanity are religious, and the majority of the religious are Christians.



Just a hypothetical here, but...

If the majority were Muslim, would you drop the Bible and pick up the Koran?


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> Just a hypothetical here, but...
> 
> If the majority were Muslim, would you drop the Bible and pick up the Koran?



hmmm....if most people were athiests, would you become a deist?


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> hmmm....if most people were athiests, would you become a deist?



Nope.


----------



## Israel

pnome said:


> Yeah yeah yeah... I'm gonna burn in hades.  I've heard it before. (EDIT: Though rarely stated so eloquently. )
> 
> Just a question for you.  I know you don't know me very well, but let's just assume that outside of what you know, I'm just a regular guy.   Do you think I deserve _eternal_ punishment?
> 
> Think about it.



I believe you will spend eternity with what is most important to you.
Right now, because of the presence of God, and all his manifold mercies...you can tolerate yourself pretty well...even think you're doing fine.
When all of what you don't even see or consider as from God are taken away, and you are left locked up with all and only what you have made of "yourself" I believe you will see you have never been very good company.
You don't even yet know your ability to "reason" is a gift.
Do I believe you deserve eternal punishment?


Jesus came to give me what I didn't deserve, I'd wholeheartedly rather share that with you.
Besides, Jesus deserves to have you, and wear you like a trophy on his heart, unlike us, who tend to behead and stuff ours mounted over the mantlepiece, he wears his and keeps them at all times alive and for bragging.
I pray you hear him rejoice over you with singing.
He will save.


----------



## WTM45

Gatorcountry said:


> The majority of humanity are religious, and the majority of the religious are Christians.



Wrong again.
Being the largest segment does not a majority make.  The majority is comprised of everything BUT Christianity.


----------



## Thanatos

Suggestion: 

Listen to "Enter Sadman" by Metallica while reading these post and you will instantaneously be converted to Christianity.


----------



## Inthegarge

pnome said:


> Yeah yeah yeah... I'm gonna burn in hades.  I've heard it before. (EDIT: Though rarely stated so eloquently. )
> 
> Just a question for you.  I know you don't know me very well, but let's just assume that outside of what you know, I'm just a regular guy.   Do you think I deserve _eternal_ punishment?
> 
> Think about it.



Well let see "... for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God ". Rom 3:23  Well, it looks like God says you are.... Do you deserve to seperated from God for all eternity ???  Since you don't want to know Him now it makes sense He won't want to have you around later....................RW


----------



## Roberson

WTM45 said:


> Wrong again.
> Being the largest segment does not a majority make.  The majority is comprised of everything BUT Christianity.



wtm, does it kill you to acknowledge that Christianity IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST RELIGION?


----------



## Roberson

Thanatos said:


> Suggestion:
> 
> Listen to "Enter Sadman" by Metallica while reading these post and you will instantaneously be converted to Christianity.




OR watch the "Creeping Death" video  on Youtube by Metallica!!


----------



## WTM45

Gatorcountry said:


> wtm, does it kill you to acknowledge that Christianity IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST RELIGION?



Not at all.

Vanilla, Chocolate, Strawberry, Cherry......


----------



## Roberson

WTM45 said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Vanilla, Chocolate, Strawberry, Cherry......



That's right. We have white Christians, black Christians, pink Christians, red Christians.........Christians of all flavors!


----------



## pnome

Israel said:


> You don't even yet know your ability to "reason" is a gift.



Interesting gift.

If all it does is earn me his eternal scorn, then it's not a gift, it's a curse and God is a malevolent trickster.


----------



## Thanatos

What I can not wrap my brain around is the idea of Atheist having faith that God does not exist. I mean, you have to have faith that you are right about Him not existing right? So, you have faith that God does not exist (you can not prove He is not there) because you don't have faith that he does exist??? What kind of logic is that?


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> What I can not wrap my brain around is the idea of Atheist having faith that God does not exist. I mean, you have to have faith that you are right about Him not existing right? So, you have faith that God does not exist (you can not prove He is not there) because you don't have faith that he does exist??? What kind of logic is that?



Do you really want an answer or was this question just rhetorical?


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Do you really want an answer or was this question just rhetorical?



Please!


----------



## gtparts

*Pnome,*

That does cause me to ponder, as an atheist, what have you done to prove He does exist? Have you exhausted the entire scope of possible tests or experiments? Have you even established a methodology, listed the variables, the parameters, reasoned out a plan to get the data that you would require for placing your trust, your very life in His control? Did He fail to turn straw into gold? Did he not show up for your high school band performance? When you rubbed the Miller Light bottle you found on the beach and made three wishes, did He let you down? From your perspective, was does "looking for God" entail?


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Please!



Ok this might get long.....


First, let me explain what I understand about "the burden of proof"

The burden of proof lies with the positive assertion.  This is the basis for our system of law.  This is why you are "innocent until proven guilty".   In a murder case, it is up to the prosecutor to prove two things:

1) that a murder was committed.
2) that the defendant committed it.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. Just as it lies with the theist who claims: "God Exists."

I don't have to prove that God does not exist.  The theist must prove that he does.  The logical default position, barring evidence, is: No. 

An example:

Positive Assertion:  I have an invisible, fire-breathing dragon named Norman living in my garage.

Do you believe me?  Are you agnostic about my dragon? Or do you simply say: "Pnome, you're full of it!"?   If I have no evidence to offer, then my claim can be dismissed.

Here is another way to look at it:

Let's take your questions and replace the word "God" with "Norman, the invisible fire-breathing dragon"



Thanatos said:


> What I can not wrap my brain around is the idea of Atheist having faith that Norman, the invisible fire-breathing dragon does not exist. I mean, you have to have faith that you are right about Norman, the invisible fire-breathing dragon not existing right? So, you have faith that Norman, the invisible fire-breathing dragon does not exist (you can not prove He is not there) because you don't have faith that he does exist??? What kind of logic is that?



Further reading on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> That does cause me to ponder, as an atheist, what have you done to prove He does exist? Have you exhausted the entire scope of possible tests or experiments? Have you even established a methodology, listed the variables, the parameters, reasoned out a plan to get the data that you would require for placing your trust, your very life in His control? Did He fail to turn straw into gold? Did he not show up for your high school band performance? When you rubbed the Miller Light bottle you found on the beach and made three wishes, did He let you down? From your perspective, was does "looking for God" entail?



A valid question I think.

I have worshiped Him.  I have praised Him.  I have pleaded with Him. I have bargained with Him.

None of these has produced any results.  Maybe they did, but God did not see fit to enlighten me to it. So...

The ball is, as far as I'm concerned, in His court.  Either he shows Himself to me in an unambiguous fashion, or I spend eternity "separated" from Him.


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> A valid question I think.
> 
> I have worshiped Him.  I have praised Him.  I have pleaded with Him. I have bargained with Him.
> 
> None of these has produced any results.  Maybe they did, but God did not see fit to enlighten me to it. So...
> 
> The ball is, as far as I'm concerned, in His court.  Either he shows Himself to me in an unambiguous fashion, or I spend eternity "separated" from Him.





This quote from you tells me a great deal. 

Tell me, what is it that you have, with which to bargain with God, that He doesn't already have? Or perhaps a better question is what did you seek from Him? For what did you plead?


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> So, by your own admission, you have never sought to determine whether there is a God?



Not so.  

You get me wrong I think GT.  I WANT god to exist.

Ok, well, not exactly your "God".  I would prefer one a little more inclined to reward works over faith.

What a comfort!  What a bright light in the dark confusion of this existence that would be!

I just will not allow myself to be swept up in what I hope to be true, at the expense of what really is true.  I want the TRUTH!  Even if I can't handle it. 

If God does exist, it is his _clear intent_ to remain hidden.  He is supposedly omnipotent, so he could easily show himself.  But he chooses not to.   He's omnipotent and hiding from me.  Why would he punish me for not seeing him? It would make no sense.

In short, I do believe in a god.  A god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him.


----------



## christianhunter

pnome said:


> There certainly is a possibility that we live in a universe where many "Gods" reign. Heck, I dunno.
> 
> But, belief in the God of Abraham includes with it the idea that there are no other gods but Him. So, if He really is God, then, by definition, there are no other gods.



 I knew it, you are a mormon!


----------



## gtparts

Don't you think it rather presumptuous to try and manipulate God to do parlor tricks for you in order for you to believe in Him when He has created not only the entire physical universe, but you also? He sent His Son to pay a debt you could never satisfy on your own. He reveals the truth of who He is in His Word. He has caused many to come on this forum to testify to what He has done for them, what He means to them, what He has already done, out of love, for you. Why do you choose to "spit in the face" of One who has done so much for you?

What I find particularly interesting is that He is our God, yours and mine. He is the only one there is, whether you confess Him or not. You WANT Him to exist? He does! But, since He is God and we are not, He has set the rules and He wants individuals to seek after Him, to give Him the glory and honor due Him. He IS God, not the guy who lives down the street. He desires to be the main focus of your life, to be allowed to shower you with everything your heart desires, consistent with His character and will.



> In short, I do believe in a god. A god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him.



Why would you want a god that was indifferent to you?  God loves you! And He loves me. And it is confirmed to me, every day, every minute, every second, every breath. God has poured out blessings upon me beyond measure, but even if He did not, He is still God and worthy of my worship and praise just because of who He is.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> Not so.
> 
> You get me wrong I think GT.  I WANT god to exist.
> 
> Ok, well, not exactly your "God".  I would prefer one a little more inclined to reward works over faith.
> 
> What a comfort!  What a bright light in the dark confusion of this existence that would be!
> 
> I just will not allow myself to be swept up in what I hope to be true, at the expense of what really is true.  I want the TRUTH!  Even if I can't handle it.
> 
> If God does exist, it is his _clear intent_ to remain hidden.  He is supposedly omnipotent, so he could easily show himself.  But he chooses not to.   He's omnipotent and hiding from me.  Why would he punish me for not seeing him? It would make no sense.
> 
> In short, I do believe in a god.  A god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him.



wow, i think I misjudged you also,old chap. O.K.,here we go...God DOES reward works, contrary to what some may say. He says "Faith without works is dead", It's just that there is nothing we can do to try to "measure up" to God's standards, since He is absolutely holy. This is where Jesus comes in. He has already done what we couldn't do, so putting your faith in Him restores man to God. If you try to get on the treadmill of trying to earn God's favor, you'll just wear yourself out. But, GOOD WORKS are the evidence of faith. If you have been changed by the gospel, you'll naturally want to do good works. Believe me, pnome, I have done all the things you said you have done,begged, pleaded, have God not "prove Himself", etc, and I still question God on senseless suffering all over the world. this is the very meaning of "Faith". You talk about God remaining hidden. On the human level, it appears that way, But God knows that if He were to show Himself, that would erase any need of true faith, since the whole world would see Him and believe, because people believe what they can physically see. Jesus, speaking to His disciples about present-day believers, said "Blessed are those who without seeing,believe", for great is thier reward. He also said "A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but none will be given, except the sign of Jonah. Just as the prophet Jonah was inside the whale for three  days, so shall the Son of Man be inside the earth for three days. Pnome, allow yourself to be "swept up" in God, and the truth will be revealed. Yes, this existence is "dark confusion",but we know who the author of confusion is. If you would not focus on the dark confusion and instead fix your eyes upon Jesus, things naturally get brighter, like a light being turned on in a dark room chasing away the darkness.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Ok this might get long.....
> 
> 
> First, let me explain what I understand about "the burden of proof"
> 
> The burden of proof lies with the positive assertion.  This is the basis for our system of law.  This is why you are "innocent until proven guilty".   In a murder case, it is up to the prosecutor to prove two things:
> 
> 1) that a murder was committed.
> 2) that the defendant committed it.
> 
> The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. Just as it lies with the theist who claims: "God Exists."
> 
> I don't have to prove that God does not exist.  The theist must prove that he does.  The logical default position, barring evidence, is: No.
> 
> An example:
> 
> Positive Assertion:  I have an invisible, fire-breathing dragon named Norman living in my garage.
> 
> Do you believe me?  Are you agnostic about my dragon? Or do you simply say: "Pnome, you're full of it!"?   If I have no evidence to offer, then my claim can be dismissed.
> 
> Here is another way to look at it:
> 
> Let's take your questions and replace the word "God" with "Norman, the invisible fire-breathing dragon"
> 
> 
> 
> Further reading on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance



Pnome you should run for office. You did a nice little song and dance around my question. Whatever your logic is above you still have to "believe" that God does not exist. You must put faith in that belief. If you did not put faith in this belief then you would not be an Atheist. You either absolutely believe he does exist, or you  absolutely believe he does not exist.


----------



## shortgo

norm is a figment of only your imagenation GOD is real in the heart of millions of BELIEVERS all over the world. if your looking for GOD to do tricks,  your out of luck. you need to  read matthew  ch. 4 1-11.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Pnome you should run for office. You did a nice little song and dance around my question. Whatever your logic is above you still have to "believe" that God does not exist. You must put faith in that belief. If you did not put faith in this belief then you would not be an Atheist. You either absolutely believe he does exist, or you  absolutely believe he does not exist.



I guess I wasn't clear enough because I think I addressed your question.

I'll try again.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding it.

I don't believe in God but I still accept that I cannot prove he does not exist.  Just like you don't believe in Norman, but you must admit that you can't prove he doesn' exist.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> He is absolutely holy.



What, exactly, is this thing you call "holy"?  What is holiness?




> Pnome, allow yourself to be "swept up" in God



No.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> Don't you think it rather presumptuous to try and manipulate God to do parlor tricks for you in order for you to believe in Him when He has created not only the entire physical universe, but you also?



Does God answer prayers?



> He desires to be the main focus of your life, to be allowed to shower you with everything your heart desires, consistent with His character and will.



I've certainly offered Him that.  He has thus far remained silent.  Like I said, I hope one day God enlightens me, but until then, I refuse to let what I hope is true cloud what is.




> Why would you want a god that was indifferent to you?



A god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him does not imply that he is indifferent towards me.    Only that he isn't wounded by my lack of faith.


----------



## Thanatos

The difference is that i admit I "believe" or i have "faith" that Norman does not exist. The same way an atheist believes or has faith God does not exist. 

Pnome let me give you another example of God's existence. Myself and a few other people on this forum are holding this dialog with you about God's existence. We are not doing it because we are bored, or have something to prove. We are talking to you about this because we love you. No, we dont love you like we love our wife or our father, but we love you as a human being. We dont know you from Adam's house cat yet we sit here and talk to you about our beliefs because we care about you. Do you know anyone who would care so much about someone they have never met?


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> Does God answer prayers?



Yes, He does, but not always in the way we might want Him to answer. Sometimes He acts in agreement with what we pray for. Sometimes, for reasons we may not understand, He answers our petitions with a simple, "No." Sometimes His "No" is accompanied with an explanation in our spirit and we see the wisdom of that response, but most often we are just left with the peace that comes from trusting Him. Finally, His "silence" is best understood as "wait", "don't be anxious", or "you will understand as things unfold". 
Faith in God is not exercised in a series of events. It is the foundation of the relationship, a continuous reliance on Him.




pnome said:


> I've certainly offered Him that.  He has thus far remained silent.  Like I said, I hope one day God enlightens me, but until then, I refuse to let what I hope is true cloud what is.



This is perhaps the most difficult part. From your perspective you choose to hang on to what you know and have, convinced, that what you know and have, is better than what might be. The interesting thing is, God only seeks to remove those things that hold you to a self centered life. Jesus simplified it to this: Love God and love others as yourself. The reality is that by clinging to what is, your vision of God is clouded. When your vision of God is no longer obscured, then the clouds that obscured your vision of the world are lifted. Your refusal, your intransigence is all that keeps you from a relationship with God.






pnome said:


> A god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him does not imply that he is indifferent towards me.    Only that he isn't wounded by my lack of faith.



Perhaps "wounded" is okay. But it seems to me that it is quite reasonable to expect a father to be disappointed in a child who has rejected Him. The greater the love, the greater the disappointment. Nevertheless, He waits patiently, like the father of the prodigal son, ready to restore the son to the family. God does not chase us down, wrestle us to the ground, and bind us to bring us home. He desires us to make that decision, to confess our wrong choices, to ask for forgiveness, and receive His grace and pardon. To the Father, pride is arrogant weakness and humility is quiet, controlled strength. The father of the prodigal was willing to allow his son to live out the life he chose, bankrupt and feeding someone elses pigs to pay his debts in a foreign land. You have the same choice.


----------



## ambush80

Thanatos said:


> The difference is that i admit I "believe" or i have "faith" that Norman does not exist. The same way an atheist believes or has faith God does not exist.
> 
> Pnome let me give you another example of God's existence. Myself and a few other people on this forum are holding this dialog with you about God's existence. We are not doing it because we are bored, or have something to prove. We are talking to you about this because we love you. No, we dont love you like we love our wife or our father, but we love you as a human being. We dont know you from Adam's house cat yet we sit here and talk to you about our beliefs because we care about you. Do you know anyone who would care so much about someone they have never met?




You believe it works.  Like people who drink Acai berry juice.  They want you to drink it too, because they believe in it's magical properties.  They only want what's best for you, too.


----------



## gtparts

ambush80 said:


> You believe it works.  Like people who drinking Acai berry juice.  They want you to drink it too, because they believe in it's magical properties.  They only want what's best for you, too.



I know it works. Thanatos does too.


As for drinking Acai berry juice:

Most are either selling it or seeking confirmation of a choice they made.....and it may have beneficial properties to go along with the placebo effect.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> The difference is that i admit I "believe" or i have "faith" that Norman does not exist. The same way an atheist believes or has faith God does not exist.



Alright then, if that's the way you think about it, then I have "faith" that your God (with a capitol G, because I want to be specific here) does not exist.



> We dont know you from Adam's house cat yet we sit here and talk to you about our beliefs because we care about you. Do you know anyone who would care so much about someone they have never met?



I could make the same argument.  I am here to save you from religion.  I view religion in much the same light that you view atheism.   I guess we're both here trying to save the world, we just disagree on the cure.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> seeking confirmation of a choice they made.....and it may have beneficial properties to go along with the placebo effect.



Interesting....


----------



## ambush80

gtparts said:


> I know it works. Thanatos does too.
> 
> 
> As for drinking Acai berry juice:
> 
> Most are either selling it or seeking confirmation of a choice they made.....and it may have beneficial properties to go along with the placebo effect.



It's a powerful thing......


----------



## crackerdave

Thanatos said:


> The difference is that i admit I "believe" or i have "faith" that Norman does not exist. The same way an atheist believes or has faith God does not exist.
> 
> Pnome let me give you another example of God's existence. Myself and a few other people on this forum are holding this dialog with you about God's existence. We are not doing it because we are bored, or have something to prove. We are talking to you about this because we love you. No, we dont love you like we love our wife or our father, but we love you as a human being. We dont know you from Adam's house cat yet we sit here and talk to you about our beliefs because we care about you. Do you know anyone who would care so much about someone they have never met?



I just _had_ to pipe up with a back-row AMEN! rat cheer.


----------



## WTM45

pnome said:


> i could make the same argument.  I am here to save you from religion.  I view religion in much the same light that you view atheism.   I guess we're both here trying to save the world, we just disagree on the cure.



Bravo, and AMEN!


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> The difference is that i admit I "believe" or i have "faith" that Norman does not exist. The same way an atheist believes or has faith God does not exist.



That's not accurate.
What you are displaying is actually a confidence that pnome can not or will not be able to provide proof of Norman's existance based on experience.  You are simply resting in that confidence.
That's not faith.  

Atheists rest assured in their confidence that deities do not exist because those deities have not provided a proof to them that is sufficient to validate claims of existance.
They stand ready, ever watching and listening for that proof.
That's not faith.

If one follows the teaching of the Bible, and believes in the God of Abraham, then they must accept that the evidence and proofs will be revealed to all who are looking for it.
And, that very same God will provide additional evidence and proofs as necessary to convince those still seeking.
Outside of that, no human can or will convince anyone of anything, even if they levitate or perform supernatural feats.

The way some "believers" in this world push their "beliefs" and "evidence" at others makes me often wonder if those "believers" do not trust their God as being up to the task?
I'm not referring to anyone here, but to those who point a crooked finger, carry on with loud bellowing voices and the judgemental stares and who hold contempt for everyone who believes differently, or not at all.


----------



## Inthegarge

In response to post 50 pnome...

So what does the defense do.....1) question the witnesses the prosecutor presents 2) provide an alternate theory and 3) defend his position on the facts.....

This has been done numerous times in a myriad of threads and your only evidence is " The theist must prove that he does". 

The fact is your only evidence so far has been to use Denial.....
You have as much if not more responsibility to give evidence that he doesn't exist.

I do admire your persistance in using circular reasoning........RW


----------



## WTM45

Inthegarge said:


> So what does the defense do.....1) question the witnesses the prosecutor presents 2) provide an alternate theory and 3) defend his position on the facts.....
> 
> This has been done numerous times in a myriad of threads and your only evidence is " The theist must prove that he does".
> 
> The fact is your only evidence so far has been to use Denial.....
> You have as much if not more responsibility to give evidence that he doesn't exist.
> 
> I do admire your persistance in using circular reasoning........RW





Talk about circular reasoning!

Circumstantial and anecdotal evidence has contributed to some convictions in a court of law.  Yes.
Even in the court of public opinion.  Yes.

But in the court of personal opinion, each individual can and does make individual judgements based on what evidence they deem is acceptable, and what stances are deemed plausible and even appropriate.

What works for you might not work for others.
Do you trust in your deity to know and be able to present to each according to their own need?


----------



## pnome

Inthegarge said:


> In response to post 50 pnome...
> 
> So what does the defense do.....1) question the witnesses the prosecutor presents 2) provide an alternate theory and 3) defend his position on the facts.....
> 
> This has been done numerous times in a myriad of threads and your only evidence is " The theist must prove that he does".
> 
> The fact is your only evidence so far has been to use Denial.....
> You have as much if not more responsibility to give evidence that he doesn't exist.
> 
> I do admire your persistance in using circular reasoning........RW



I assure you, my reasoning is not circular though the process might be iterative.

Let's take it from the top:

step 1) Positive proclamation: God (i.e. the God of Abraham) Exists.

step 2) My position (prior to any evidence being offered): No he does not.

step 3) You offer evidence to support your claim.

step 4) I challenge it.


If you have evidence to offer, offer it now and we will see if it stands up to cross examination.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> That's not accurate.
> What you are displaying is actually a confidence that pnome can not or will not be able to provide proof of Norman's existance based on experience.  You are simply resting in that confidence.
> That's not faith.
> 
> Atheists rest assured in their confidence that deities do not exist because those deities have not provided a proof to them that is sufficient to validate claims of existance.
> They stand ready, ever watching and listening for that proof.
> That's not faith.
> 
> If one follows the teaching of the Bible, and believes in the God of Abraham, then they must accept that the evidence and proofs will be revealed to all who are looking for it.
> And, that very same God will provide additional evidence and proofs as necessary to convince those still seeking.
> Outside of that, no human can or will convince anyone of anything, even if they levitate or perform supernatural feats.
> 
> The way some "believers" in this world push their "beliefs" and "evidence" at others makes me often wonder if those "believers" do not trust their God as being up to the task?
> I'm not referring to anyone here, but to those who point a crooked finger, carry on with loud bellowing voices and the judgemental stares and who hold contempt for everyone who believes differently, or not at all.



From the Internets: 


Main Entry: 1con·fi·dence
Pronunciation: \Ëˆkän-fÉ™-dÉ™n(t)s, -ËŒden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : a feeling or consciousness of one's powers or of reliance on one's circumstances <had perfect confidence in her ability to succeed> <met the risk with brash confidence> b : faith or belief that one will act in a right, proper, or effective way <have confidence in a leader>
2 : the quality or state of being certain : certitude <they had every confidence of success>
3 a : a relation of trust or intimacy <took his friend into his confidence> b : reliance on another's discretion <their story was told in strictest confidence> c : support especially in a legislative body <vote of confidence>
4 : a communication made in confidence : secret <accused him of betraying a confidence>

You absolutely believe there is a God, or there is no God. Because we have limited proof or lack thereof you must have faith one way or the other.


----------



## WTM45

pnome's step #4 should not be assumed by the court to be negative by default.  His challenge might be the exhibition of a deep personal desire to be proven wrong, as there would be a potentially valuable benefit for him to claim.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> From the Internets:
> 
> 
> Main Entry: 1con·fi·dence
> Pronunciation: \Ëˆkän-fÉ™-dÉ™n(t)s, -ËŒden(t)s\
> Function: noun
> Date: 14th century
> 
> 1 a : a feeling or consciousness of one's powers or of reliance on one's circumstances <had perfect confidence in her ability to succeed> <met the risk with brash confidence> b : faith or belief that one will act in a right, proper, or effective way <have confidence in a leader>
> 2 : the quality or state of being certain : certitude <they had every confidence of success>
> 3 a : a relation of trust or intimacy <took his friend into his confidence> b : reliance on another's discretion <their story was told in strictest confidence> c : support especially in a legislative body <vote of confidence>
> 4 : a communication made in confidence : secret <accused him of betraying a confidence>





We come full circle, back to the un-agreed upon definition of the concept of "faith" and its relevance to spiritual and extraordinary beliefs.
Denominations within the belief system don't even share the same definition.  Ideas outside the spiritual realm really should not even use the word, as its very definition is quite subjective.
It sure is used in many various ways, I'll agree.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> You absolutely believe there is a God, or there is no God. Because we have limited proof or lack thereof you must have faith one way or the other.



You are forgetting both indifference and Agnosticism.
Two more stances, neither requiring "faith" as defined by believers.


----------



## Inthegarge

pnome said:


> I assure you, my reasoning is not circular though the process might be iterative.
> 
> Let's take it from the top:
> 
> step 1) Positive proclamation: God (i.e. the God of Abraham) Exists.
> 
> step 2) My position (prior to any evidence being offered): No he does not.
> 
> step 3) You offer evidence to support your claim.
> 
> step 4) I challenge it.
> 
> 
> If you have evidence to offer, offer it now and we will see if it stands up to cross examination.




OK,  1)  God Exists
         2) My position (Prior to evidence being offered) Yes, 
              he does
          3) Your evidence to support your claim
          4) I challenge it

Just look around you...the mere complexity and diversity of creatures in nature. All of which reproduce their own species. No archaeological evidence to disprove this.

The Bible a book that records accurately history without  errors and has been accepted as God' Word throughout history. Even attempts to annihilate it have failed.

And the fact that I trust God as much as you trust atheism.

RW


----------



## WTM45

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY, ARGUMENT FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE....

pnome deserves a better case presentation.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> You are forgetting both indifference and Agnosticism.
> Two more stances, neither requiring "faith" as defined by believers.



If someone does not care, then they would not be on this forum in the first place, nor would they care to read all of our debating. I would tell them have a happy life and if they ever want to ask me any questions about my faith please call me. 

In ever other case you "choose" (Watch out now!) to have faith that God does not exist, or you believe he does exist. I would love you atheist guys to say, "O! There is a Christian God" But, the first step is to see that there is "A" God. Since, you must have faith in your non-belief just take it a step further and believe what is right in front of you.


----------



## pnome

Inthegarge said:


> Just look around you...the mere complexity and diversity of creatures in nature. All of which reproduce their own species. No archaeological evidence to disprove this.




Ok now we are getting somewhere.

You offer what I refer to as the Teleological argument

Complexity and diversity of species is explainable by natural selection without the need for supernatural forces.

Further, even if we take evolution out of the picture, you still have not offered any evidence to support your claim that it was the God of Abraham that created it. 



> The Bible a book that records accurately history without  errors and has been accepted as God' Word throughout history. Even attempts to annihilate it have failed.




The bible certainly does have some real historical facts in it, but it's central claims, are without support.  Just because the Bible is right about Joshua slaughtering the entire population of Jericho does not mean that there is a species of talking snake.

There you go.  You've offered evidence, and I've challenged it.  That's how debate goes.  Now, when I say something like:

Darwinian natural selection explains the presence of complex and diverse organisms.

I'm going to need to back this statement up.  And it's your turn to challenge my evidence.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Since, you must have faith in your non-belief just take it a step further and believe what is right in front of you.



I believe in laptop screens.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> If someone does not care, then they would not be on this forum in the first place, nor would they care to read all of our debating. I would tell them have a happy life and if they ever want to ask me any questions about my faith please call me.
> 
> Some may simply find entertainment within!
> 
> In ever other case you "choose" (Watch out now!) to have faith that God does not exist, or you believe he does exist. I would love you atheist guys to say, "O! There is a Christian God" But, the first step is to see that there is "A" God. Since, you must have faith in your non-belief just take it a step further and believe what is right in front of you.



Why not take your disbelief in all gods other than the God of Abraham one step further?

Your evidence and proofs leads you to your belief, which requires "faith" on your part.  That's quite OK by me!


----------



## WTM45

pnome said:


> I believe in laptop screens.



I've been let down and dissappointed by them.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> What, exactly, is this thing you call "holy"?  What is holiness? "Holiness" means perfect, entire, wanting or needing nothing for completion. It does  not mean judging others, being "Holier than thou", etc.  Really, it means being "Whole", wich we can never be , without Jesus. Putting our faith in Jesus makes us "whole", puts broken men back together in God's eyes. This is why God says in Genesis "BE YE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY". this is not a "command" to be holy, for God knows this is impossible for man. Rather, it means "You can be holy,for Jesus is holy. Quite simply, it means LOVE, not human love, with all its faults, but God's Love, which was represented for us when He clothed Himself in humanity and came and suffered the same things we do and then was killed for us,  so that we may know God. This in itself is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other "religions", in that our God doesn't ask us to sacrifice ourselves FOR HIM, rather, He sacrificed Himself FOR US. He asks us to LIVE for Him, not Die for Him.
> 
> 
> 
> pnome said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is this thing you call "holy"?  What is holiness? "Holiness" means perfect, entire, wanting or needing nothing for completion. It does  not mean judging others, being "Holier than thou", etc.  Really, it means being "Whole", wich we can never be , without Jesus. Putting our faith in Jesus makes us "whole", puts broken men back together in God's eyes. This is why God says in Genesis "BE YE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY". this is not a "command" to be holy, for God knows this is impossible for man. Rather, it means "You can be holy,for Jesus is holy. Quite simply, it means LOVE, not human love, with all its faults, but God's Love, which was represented for us when He clothed Himself in humanity and came and suffered the same things we do and then was killed for us,  so that we may know God. This in itself is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other "religions", in that our God doesn't ask us to sacrifice ourselves FOR HIM, rather, He sacrificed Himself FOR US. He asks us to LIVE for Him, not Die for Him.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. take the plunge-the water is refreshing!
Click to expand...


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Why not take your disbelief in all gods other than the God of Abraham one step further?



I already have one God. Where is yours?


----------



## Roberson

i don't know how that post ended up backward, but You get it


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> I already have one God. Where is yours?



Did I lose one?  Let me go check......


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Did I lose one?  Let me go check......



Did you ever have one?


----------



## pnome

> "Holiness" means perfect, entire, wanting or needing nothing for completion. It does not mean judging others, being "Holier than thou", etc. Really, it means being "Whole", wich we can never be , without Jesus. Putting our faith in Jesus makes us "whole", puts broken men back together in God's eyes. This is why God says in Genesis "BE YE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY". this is not a "command" to be holy, for God knows this is impossible for man. Rather, it means "You can be holy,for Jesus is holy. Quite simply, it means LOVE, not human love, with all its faults, but God's Love, which was represented for us when He clothed Himself in humanity and came and suffered the same things we do and then was killed for us, so that we may know God. This in itself is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other "religions", in that our God doesn't ask us to sacrifice ourselves FOR HIM, rather, He sacrificed Himself FOR US. He asks us to LIVE for Him, not Die for Him.



Does it mean "completeness" or does it mean "love"?? 

Those are two different things.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> I already have one God. Where is yours?



Don't have one.  Where is yours, exactly?


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Did you ever have one?



I've never created one, that's for sure.
I've been taught about and I have investigated many of the ones that are available for the choosing, yes.
I'm still in the Eric Clapton phase of my study.

Seeing proof of the existance of any, I have not.  But, I do not move to the automatic position of rejecting the possibility of the existance of any of them.  I'm not of the "de facto" Atheist camp, if that is what you are asking.

Could there be?  Maybe.  Would I believe the right amount of evidence or proof?  Maybe.
I just don't know.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> Does it mean "completeness" or does it mean "love"??
> 
> Those are two different things.



No, they are one in the same. To have true love,God's Love, is complete. We know God is holy,But the bible also says "God is Love". Not God has love, God gives love, etc, But God "IS"love, that is, God is the definition of real Love. If you study Jesus' words, You know all of his teachings are summed up in one word, "LOVE".  THIS is completeness, pnome..


----------



## shortgo

I must have missed it what is your god?


----------



## pathfinder52

mtnwoman said:


> Very sweet!  Shall we gather at the river....



Hahahahaha


----------



## jmharris23

All this talk about the existence of God, got me to thinking about the Son. 

Pnome, and others,  I for one would love to hear your thoughts on Jesus Christ.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> No, they are one in the same. To have true love,God's Love, is complete. We know God is holy,But the bible also says "God is Love". Not God has love, God gives love, etc, But God "IS"love, that is, God is the definition of real Love. If you study Jesus' words, You know all of his teachings are summed up in one word, "LOVE".  THIS is completeness, pnome..




I'm sorry but I can't make sense of this. 

You're gonna have to explain some more.


----------



## pnome

jmharris23 said:


> All this talk about the existence of God, got me to thinking about the Son.
> 
> Pnome, and others,  I for one would love to hear your thoughts on Jesus Christ.



What do you want to know?  

Do I believe that he existed? Yes.

Do I believe he preached, had a following, and was put to death by the Romans? Yes, Yes, Yes.

Do I believe he was the actual son of the almighty creator of heaven and Earth?  Obviously not.


----------



## Roberson

WTM45 said:


> I've never created one, that's for sure.
> I've been taught about and I have investigated many of the ones that are available for the choosing, yes.
> I'm still in the Eric Clapton phase of my study.
> 
> Seeing proof of the existance of any, I have not.  But, I do not move to the automatic position of rejecting the possibility of the existance of any of them.  I'm not of the "de facto" Atheist camp, if that is what you are asking.
> 
> Could there be?  Maybe.  Would I believe the right amount of evidence or proof?  Maybe.
> I just don't know.


wtm, what more "proof" do you need? is this ridiculously amazing existence not enough? for every question science can answer, there's a billion more it has no clue about! Has something ever came from nothing? Yet that's what some of you want to believe! You talk about proof!?, just like I said before, look around, man! study your conscience, how did that "evolve"? even if we are evolving, when did it stop? according to evolutionists, we have been basically the same for millions of years.You would think by now we would have evolved past petty vices like jealosy,hate,immorality,pride, war, etc. , but the truth is that it will never happen, this great super-human. what about physical charecteristics? why are they still the same? you would think by know, in this year 2010, that we would have started to develop stronger, healthier, more disease-resistant bodies, superior intellect, etc. but the fact is we seem to be de-volving as we have the highest levels of obesity, laziness, dumbness, immorality, drug-use, that we have ever seen. Did we reach the "peak" of the evolutionary mountain and start the descent? sure looks that way.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> I'm sorry but I can't make sense of this.
> 
> You're gonna have to explain some more.



There's no reason to complicate it. Love is Completeness. Completeness is Holiness. God is Holy. I hope that helps.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> wtm, what more "proof" do you need? is this ridiculously amazing existence not enough? for every question science can answer, there's a billion more it has no clue about! Has something ever came from nothing?



What proof have you offered?  All you are offering is an argument from ignorance.

Your "proof" is simply the lack of another answer.  That's not proof that your answer is the correct one.


----------



## jmharris23

pnome said:


> What do you want to know?
> 
> Do I believe that he existed? Yes.
> 
> Do I believe he preached, had a following, and was put to death by the Romans? Yes, Yes, Yes.
> 
> Do I believe he was the actual son of the almighty creator of heaven and Earth?  Obviously not.



Yes sir. That answered what I wanted to know. Thank you very much. 

I already knew the answer to # 3


----------



## mtnwoman

WTM45 said:


> Oh boy oh boy!
> This one is ripe for the pickin' for sure!
> 
> "Load one, twenty round magazine!"
> "Lock and load!"
> "Ready on the left!"  Ready on the right!"
> "First target, 50 meter left, "Fast Freddy!"
> "Commence firing!"



Ya wanna piecea me? Start pickin' and grinnin' there buddy while ya can...


----------



## mtnwoman

pnome said:


> Interesting gift.
> 
> If all it does is earn me his eternal scorn, then it's not a gift, it's a curse and God is a malevolent trickster.



No, not really, you've chosen to seperate yourself from Him and go it alone....that's a choice He's given you, free will. So are you saying no matter what you choose it's God's fault either way...alrighty then. 

If someone gives me a new BMW and I refuse the gift then I'm walking right? Who's fault is that? The gift giver? The gift giver is punishing me by making me walk? No, I chose to walk rather than receive the gift.  I can blame the gift giver all I want to, but ultimately it was my choice not to receive the gift and walk.


----------



## mtnwoman

Gatorcountry said:


> That's right. We have white Christians, black Christians, pink Christians, red Christians.........Christians of all flavors!



Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight...


----------



## WTM45

mtnwoman said:


> Ya wanna piecea me? Start pickin' and grinnin' there buddy while ya can...



Nah, it's not you I am hinting at!  I'm very respectful of the powers of a woman!  I'd lose in a second!

It was purely the subject matter within your post!  A very good subject for another thread and deep conversation!

Apparantly, no one wants to take the discussion in that direction!  I thought for sure it would become a shootout!


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> There's no reason to complicate it. Love is Completeness. Completeness is Holiness. God is Holy. I hope that helps.



Sorry, but it doesn't.

When I think of "love" the word "completeness" doesn't enter into the concept.



> love    (lÅ­v)
> n.
> 
> 1.
> 
> A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
> 2.
> 
> A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
> 3.
> 
> 1.
> 
> Sexual passion.
> 2.
> 
> Sexual intercourse.
> 3.
> 
> A love affair.
> 4.
> 
> A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
> 5.
> 
> The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
> 4.
> 
> An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
> 5.
> 
> A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
> 6.
> 
> An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
> 7.
> 
> 1.
> 
> A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
> 2.
> 
> The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
> 8.
> 
> Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
> 9.
> 
> often Love Christianity Charity.
> 10.
> 
> Sports A zero score in tennis.
> 
> v.   loved, lov·ing, loves
> 
> v.   tr.
> 
> 1.
> 
> To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
> 2.
> 
> To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
> 3.
> 
> To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.
> 4.
> 
> 1.
> 
> To embrace or caress.
> 2.
> 
> To have sexual intercourse with.
> 5.
> 
> To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
> 6.
> 
> Theology To have charity for.
> 7.
> 
> To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.
> 
> v.   intr.
> To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.
> 
> [Middle English, from Old English lufu; see leubh- in Indo-European roots.]
> 
> Synonyms: These nouns denote feelings of warm personal attachment or strong attraction to another person. Love is the most intense: marrying for love.
> Affection is a less ardent and more unvarying feeling of tender regard: parental affection.
> Devotion is earnest, affectionate dedication and implies selflessness: teachers admired for their devotion to children.
> Fondness is strong liking or affection: a fondness for small animals.
> Infatuation is foolish or extravagant attraction, often of short duration: lovers blinded to their differences by their mutual infatuation.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.




Nothing about "completeness" in there.



> com·plete    (kÉ™m-plÄ“t')
> adj.   com·plet·er, com·plet·est
> 
> 1.
> 
> Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire: a complete meal.
> 2.
> 
> Botany Having all principal parts, namely, the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistil or pistils. Used of a flower.
> 3.
> 
> Having come to an end; concluded.
> 4.
> 
> Absolute; total: "In Cairo I have seen buildings which were falling down as they were being put up, buildings whose incompletion was complete" (William H. Gass).
> 5.
> 
> 1.
> 
> Skilled; accomplished: a complete musician.
> 2.
> 
> Thorough; consummate: a complete coward.
> 6.
> 
> Football Caught in bounds by a receiver: a complete pass.
> 
> tr.v.   com·plet·ed, com·plet·ing, com·pletes
> 
> 1.
> 
> To bring to a finish or an end: She has completed her studies.
> 2.
> 
> To make whole, with all necessary elements or parts: A second child would complete their family.
> 3.
> 
> Football To throw (a forward pass) so as to be caught by a receiver.
> 
> 
> [Middle English complet, from Latin complÄ“tus, past participle of complÄ“re, to fill out : com-, intensive pref.; see com- + plÄ“re, to fill; see pelÉ™-1 in Indo-European roots.]
> com·plete'ly adv., com·plete'ness n., com·ple'tive adj.
> 
> Synonyms: These verbs mean to bring or come to a natural or proper stopping point. Complete and finish suggest the final stage in an undertaking: "Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime" (Reinhold Niebuhr). "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job" (Winston S. Churchill).
> Close applies to the ending of something ongoing or continuing: The band closed the concert with an encore.
> End emphasizes finality: We ended the meal with fruit and cheese.
> Conclude is more formal than complete and close: The author concluded the article by restating the major points.
> Terminate suggests reaching an established limit: The playing of the national anthem terminated the station's broadcast for the night.
> It also indicates the dissolution of a formal arrangement: The firm terminated my contract yesterday.
> 
> Usage Note: Complete is sometimes considered absolute like perfect or chief, which is not subject to comparison. Nonetheless, it can be qualified as more or less, for example. A majority of the Usage Panel accepts the example His book is the most complete treatment of the subject. See Usage Note at absolute.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



Nothing about Love in there.


----------



## pnome

mtnwoman said:


> No, not really, you've chosen to seperate yourself from Him and go it alone....that's a choice He's given you, free will. So are you saying no matter what you choose it's God's fault either way...alrighty then.
> 
> If someone gives me a new BMW and I refuse the gift then I'm walking right? Who's fault is that? The gift giver? The gift giver is punishing me by making me walk? No, I chose to walk rather than receive the gift.  I can blame the gift giver all I want to, but ultimately it was my choice not to receive the gift and walk.



A more apt analogy would be some one gives you a BMW, but, if you drive it, you go to jail.

Is the BMW a gift or a curse?


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> A more apt analogy would be some one gives you a BMW, but, if you drive it, you go to jail.
> 
> Is the BMW a gift or a curse?



I am glad I do not live my life through your perspective because i would be one depressed person.


----------



## ambush80

Thanatos said:


> I am glad I do not live my life through your perspective because i would be one depressed person.



Can you imagine that one might find comfort in believing that no one is pulling the strings?  No one is in control and no one is rewarding or punishing.  No one demands your obedience and no one makes an example of you.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> I am glad I do not live my life through your perspective because i would be one depressed person.



Yes, atheism is cold and hard.... like the truth often is.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Yes, atheism is cold and hard.... like the truth often is.



Indeed the truth is cold and hard, unless you speak and revel in it.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> Yes, atheism is cold and hard.... like the truth often is.


YOUR truth is cold and hard, OUR truth is amazing and wonderful. this could be your truth, also.


----------



## mtnwoman

pnome said:


> A more apt analogy would be some one gives you a BMW, but, if you drive it, you go to jail.
> 
> Is the BMW a gift or a curse?



That makes no sense at all, unless that is the attitude in which you yourself give a gift.

God gave us Christ to die for our sins so we wouldn't be lost in sin and be seperated from Him. All we have to do is take the gift....if we refuse the gift then that's our choice not to choose God.  If we 'drive' the gift we don't go to jail or somewhere else....we own the gift and the gift takes us where we need and want to go, not to jail.


----------



## mtnwoman

pnome said:


> Yes, atheism is cold and hard.... like the truth often is.



My truth isn't cold and hard.....I'm safe and warm, loved and protected.

Psalm 91:3-5 (King James Version)

 3Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. 

 4He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. 

 5Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;


----------



## Madman

pnome said:


> Yeah yeah yeah... I'm gonna burn in hades.  I've heard it before. (EDIT: Though rarely stated so eloquently. )
> 
> Just a question for you.  I know you don't know me very well, but let's just assume that outside of what you know, I'm just a regular guy.   Do you think I deserve _eternal_ punishment?
> 
> Think about it.



Have you ever told a lie?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you ever commited adultry?


----------



## pnome

Madman said:


> Have you ever told a lie?



Would be surprised if anyone could answer no here.  I have certainly told a lie.




> Have you ever stolen anything?



When I was young and stupid, I shoplifted a few things.  Nothing major.



> Have you ever commited adultry?



Nope.


If I answered yes to all three, would I deserve _eternal_ punishment?


----------



## jmharris23

pnome said:


> Would be surprised if anyone could answer no here.  I have certainly told a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was young and stupid, I shoplifted a few things.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> If I answered yes to all three, would I deserve _eternal_ punishment?




If you answered no to all three you would still deserve it

So do I. So does everyone who reads this today. 

I know this'll really make you happy. 

I want to further my questioning from yesterday on Jesus Christ. 

If you were to believe in God, would you then believe in Christ?


----------



## WTM45

pnome said:


> If I answered yes to all three, would I deserve _eternal_ punishment?





It's even much worse than that.
Humans deserve eternal punishment just for being born.
The "original sin" concept.


----------



## mtnwoman

pnome said:


> Ok, well, not exactly your "God".  I would prefer one a little more inclined to reward works over faith. *Really, like watching your children starve in the shadow of a holy cow? that kind of god? God sends food thru us, but they let the rats (reincarnated uncle albert and aunt betty) eat the food, because they wouldn't kill the rat. That's seeking reward from works.*
> 
> What a comfort!  What a bright light in the dark confusion of this existence that would be!
> 
> In short, I do believe in a god.  A god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him. *Well good luck with that one, if you don't believe in him/her/it, where would you know where to go and how to get there to reap the 'reward'?*


Even though some things you say make no sense at all, I understand them because I've been there and said/ask basically the same things you are saying/asking.

You want a god to believe in you but you don't have to believe in him....alrighty then. I'm pretty sure NO god would need 'you' to believe in them.


----------



## Madman

pnome said:


> Would be surprised if anyone could answer no here.  I have certainly told a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was young and stupid, I shoplifted a few things.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> If I answered yes to all three, would I deserve _eternal_ punishment?



Jesus says if you ever lusted after a woman then you have committed adultery.

If you are anything like me you have broken ALL the commandments.

That being said.  If there is a just and righteous God why should He let you, a lying, thief and adulterer into His perfect heaven?

It’s not for me or Israel to decide who is saved.  Salvation belongs to the Lord.

But be assured of this, I will spend eternity with my Lord, and that same assurance is available to you.


----------



## jmharris23

WTM45 said:


> It's even much worse than that.
> Humans deserve eternal punishment just for being born.
> The "original sin" concept.



Yep. Stir away brother, stir away


----------



## mtnwoman

WTM45 said:


> It's even much worse than that.
> Humans deserve eternal punishment just for being born.
> The "original sin" concept.



We have all sinned and God cannot look upon sin, but if we are covered under the blood, just like the Jews in captivity to Egypt, were covered by the blood of the lamb on their doorposts, then death 'passes over' us.

Do you think you have to teach a 12mo baby how to lie? No if you ask them if they broke such and such, they say no. We didn't have to teach them that, they were born into a sinful world and they automatically know how and when to lie.  They aren't smart enough to know....'well you're the only one here, you did do it'....they lie before they even have any reasoning.


----------



## pnome

jmharris23 said:


> If you answered no to all three you would still deserve it
> 
> So do I. So does everyone who reads this today.
> 
> I know this'll really make you happy.




Reminds me of a quote by Ayn Rand:



> Do you think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. *There’s no way to rule innocent men*. The only power the government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes *impossible for men to live without breaking laws*.






> I want to further my questioning from yesterday on Jesus Christ.
> 
> If you were to believe in God, would you then believe in Christ?



Belief in "a god" is a long way from belief in "The God of Abraham and the Bible"

So, if you are asking "If you were to believe in my God, would you then believe in Christ?"

The answer is:  I would have to.  Since he is, by definition AFAIK, your God.


----------



## ambush80

mtnwoman said:


> We have all sinned and God cannot look upon sin, but if we are covered under the blood, just like the Jews in captivity to Egypt, were covered by the blood of the lamb on their doorposts, then death 'passes over' us.
> 
> Do you think you have to teach a 12mo baby how to lie? No if you ask them if they broke such and such, they say no. We didn't have to teach them that, they were born into a sinful world and they automatically know how and when to lie.  They aren't smart enough to know....'well you're the only one here, you did do it'....they lie before they even have any reasoning.




Lying isn't a sin unless you mean "Bearing false witness against your neighbor" in which case you might want to review what that might mean here:  http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment09.htm

Otherwise, you can rely on the discernment super powers of a pastor or rely on your own to figure out what that means.

Sin is defined as a transgression of a divine law.  What if there is no divine law?  Then you have to consider each behavior on a case by case basis.  Lying about breaking a such and such might be bad but lying about Jews hidden in your attic during WW II might be good.


----------



## Crubear

I always found two arguements compelling

1) If there were no God and you buy evolution as the only process for life to develop, then why/how did we get such a great diversity in Fish/Plants/Animals? After all, there only need to be so many different types of plants to eat, and things to eat the plants, and things to eat the plant eaters. Why a platypus, an avacado, or a sailfish?

2) If the diversity of life gives you reason to believe in God, then decide how you feel about Jesus.
a) Was he a good man?
b) Was he an honest man?
c) Was he sane?

If you answered yes to all three, then consider that when Jesus was asked if he was the Son of God, he said "Yes".


----------



## ambush80

Crubear said:


> I always found two arguements compelling
> 
> 1) If there were no God and you buy evolution as the only process for life to develop, then why/how did we get such a great diversity in Fish/Plants/Animals? After all, there only need to be so many different types of plants to eat, and things to eat the plants, and things to eat the plant eaters. Why a platypus, an avacado, or a sailfish?
> 
> 2) If the diversity of life gives you reason to believe in God, then decide how you feel about Jesus.
> a) Was he a good man?
> b) Was he an honest man?
> c) Was he sane?
> 
> If you answered yes to all three, then consider that when Jesus was asked if he was the Son of God, he said "Yes".



Does this necessarily point to a God, specifically the God of the Bible?   I don't think it does.

I just thought of something.  If Jesus was a man, but sinless, could he be considered a true man?  That's like calling a horse a zebra without the stripes.   Seems like the sin part is pretty important to what makes us human.  If he wasn't REALLY human, then what's the big deal about pointing out that he was?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Does this necessarily point to a God, specifically the God of the Bible?   I don't think it does.
> 
> I just thought of something.  If Jesus was a man, but sinless, could he be considered a true man?  That's like calling a horse a zebra without the stripes.   Seems like the sin part is pretty important to what makes us human.  If he wasn't REALLY human, then what's the big deal about pointing out that he was?



Remember, although all we may ever remember of "being a man" has involved our rebellion and sin, we who believe in Christ see him as God's normal man.
Man filled with the Holy Ghost, man alive in the spirit, man abiding in his Father...all God ever had the desire for man to be.
Jesus has come to call us back to union with the Father through him...and one is either found in Adam or Messiah.
The last Adam, the second man, is heavenly.
There is a way for the sons of the first man to be born again into the second man. For that, he must disown all of the inheritance of the first, which includes the curse for sin, to receive the blessings upon the head of the second.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Remember, although all we may ever remember of "being a man" has involved our rebellion and sin, we who believe in Christ see him as God's normal man.
> Man filled with the Holy Ghost, man alive in the spirit, man abiding in his Father...all God ever had the desire for man to be.
> Jesus has come to call us back to union with the Father through him...and one is either found in Adam or Messiah.
> The last Adam, the second man, is heavenly.
> There is a way for the sons of the first man to be born again into the second man. For that, he must disown all of the inheritance of the first, which includes the curse for sin, to receive the blessings upon the head of the second.



Sounds very mystical.


----------



## Lead Poison

pnome said:


> Would be surprised if anyone could answer no here.  I have certainly told a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was young and stupid, I shoplifted a few things.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> If I answered yes to all three, would I deserve _eternal_ punishment?



pnone, even if one answers "no," they still deserve eternal separation....unless, they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.


----------



## Israel

pnome said:


> Interesting gift.
> 
> If all it does is earn me his eternal scorn, then it's not a gift, it's a curse and God is a malevolent trickster.



It doesn't have to.
It's all about where you place it.
If your own reasoning is your god, if that is what you purpose to follow...then he will let you discover where that will take you...away from him. 
I am not saying that must be your permanent estate...many men have discovered the end of their reason is precisely the beginning of their relationship with God.
Now here's a wonderful thing they have also learned...in seeing ultimately that all their own reasoning led them farther and farther away from the wisdom of God...and their ultimate despair at their own reason's ability to show them anything of truth...and there, at that place, discovered Christ in that despair, they have also learned that even that which appeared to take them away from God...only led right back to him. 
I know how it sounds absurd, but he causes ALL THINGS to work together for the good for those that love him and are the called according to his purpose.
I can't make you believe in the one who makes absolutely everything right...even what looks all wrong.
But that's who he is...that's what he does.
He's the beginning and the end.
I just pray you get your beginning in him at the end of everything of yourself.
He is not far from you at all, as near as your heart and lips.
pnome, you were made to inherit EVERYTHING.
Nothing less than everything will ever make you content.
You were made for ALL LOVE.
To know ALL PATIENCE.
TO have all of your FATHER'S ATTENTION.
To be filled with ALL the FULLNESS of God...

I pray you don't lie to yourself and say, it's ok...I'll settle for what I got...It'll cost you all to gain it all...all of your own, to gain all of HIS OWN.
Your own, as my own...is fading fast.
All of his own can never fade, tarnish, rot or rust.
Go for it.
Believe.
Betray yourself, be true to Christ.
And then be amazed.
You're right...this God isn't the one that asks for sundays and wednesdays, not prayer facing east five times a day...not some calculated portion of your income...not become a "christian" even...he's the one that says "LAY IT ALL DOWN..."
Empty yourself...that he may fill you.
Lose a little nothing, your own life...to gain all there is....his life.
He asks all so he can give all.
None of us can serve two masters.
You're right, either it's all fake...Jesus, his words, his disciples, his works, his resurrection, his power, his goodness, his wisdom...or it's not.
Fraud or Lord.

Make a call.



And you know...in your heart, you already have...


----------



## Roberson

Pnome, it seems like everybody loves to hear their own voice. But there is nothing me or anyone else here can say to convince you Of the Lord. Therefore, I beseech you, dare you, even, to read the words of Jesus and the New Testament authors,  and pray for God to reveal Himself, and see what happens.


----------



## Thanatos

Gatorcountry said:


> Pnome, it seems like everybody loves to hear their own voice. But there is nothing me or anyone else here can say to convince you Of the Lord. Therefore, I beseech you, dare you, even, to read the words of Jesus and the New Testament authors,  and pray for God to reveal Himself, and see what happens.



Agreed. But, read it objectively and let your natural thought conquer you and don't let your prejudice take over.


----------



## Diogenes

Before this reduced, as usual, into the standard bully-pulpit lectures,  Thanatos summed it up handily, early on: “What I can not wrap my brain around is the idea of Atheist having faith that God does not exist. I mean, you have to have faith that you are right about Him not existing right? “

The OP was simply asked: “Is there one idea/theroy that leaves you thinking, "Maybe there is a God"

Um, if I may?  No.  Not a single one.  

Even a rudimentary understanding of nature, physics, and the interplay of the various forces around us rules out the existence of an ‘intelligent’ invisible force.   

Certainly there are ‘invisible forces.’  Things we do not see because our sensory organs are tragically limited, to the point that even our pets hear and smell better than we do, many birds have more acute eyesight, and even snails have a better developed sense of touch.  (Still feel like you were  modeled after perfection?)  

And certainly there are things like gamma rays, and gravity, and ultra-violet radiation that are invisible to us, but which exist just the same.  

But there isn’t a single shred of evidence, or even a suggestion that any of these forces, visible or invisible, displays a single attribute of purposeful intelligence. 

Now, the definition of a ‘God’ hinges upon the proposition that an invisible and intelligent force is acting in a manner that can be determined in some way.  All manner of odd and specious arguments have been offered over the centuries to ‘prove’ that the things we don’t yet know are the sole work of these invisible and intelligent forces.  But not a single one of these ‘arguments’ has amounted to anything other than an appeal to emotion and wishful thinking.  None of the ‘Gods’ have ever appeared.

In the historic pantheon of ‘Gods’ that have been offered to the masses, complete with temples, pyramids, mosques, cathedrals, wars, purges, sacrifices, tithes, and demands that ‘faith’ must prevail over truth, only one thing has ever happened – The knowledge of men progressed, and the ‘Gods’ that previously existed to explain the lack of knowledge were quietly retired.  Amen Ra isn’t on the table anymore, you’ll notice, and even the most rabid of the ‘believers’ that are left are non-believers in the sense that they have somehow deduced a personal version of  ‘God’ that they refuse through endless, stubborn and strained rationalizations to have disproven, while still rejecting all others.   

A quick look at the pictures from the Hubble Telescope reveals the obvious – we are very, very small, and the universe is very, very large.  Space is well named.  What is going on all around us is unimaginably huge, and is so huge and complicated that we can’t really comprehend it from our small perch on the eastern fringe of an unfashionable and hardly noticed galaxy.  That is hardly surprising.

We’re trying to figure it out.  And we’re making some remarkable progress.  But that progress also hinges on a single proposition – that there is no ‘intelligent being’ hiding out there directing traffic, creating and choreographing the universe whimsically, and looking at you, personally.  That is an absurd contention, and no ‘faith’ is involved in saying so.

We don’t know everything.  We can’t.  Our tiny little Solar System alone is so unimaginably huge that we can hardly fit the dynamics of it into our brains.  That does not leap from the possible to the certain, as too many wish to do – it means only that we are tiny.  Viewed from space, that huge tree next to you is hardly more than a weed in the scale of this planet alone.  Reduced to the scale of a playing marble, our planet would be smoother than a ball bearing.  Our majestic mountains and inspiring canyons are only relative to ourselves, and amount to nothing at all even on a planetary scale, let alone the scale of the Solar System, the Galaxy, or the thousands of other galaxies we’ve been able to identify.  

So, um, no.  I don’t need to have any ‘faith’ that an invisible, creating, directing, omnipotent, all-seeing, all-knowing, and somehow judgmental force is behind my personal existence.   All reason, logic, observation, progress, and rational thought suggests otherwise.  There are thousands upon thousands of reasons to reject the idea of a ‘God,’ and not a single reason to embrace such a thought.

Oddly enough, I was raised to be a believer, and was immersed in the same ritualistic nonsense and thundering condemnation I too often see here – so take heart – you too can escape the heavy yoke of peer pressure and heavy-handed control, and learn to see, think, and speak for yourself . . .


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> Lying isn't a sin unless you mean "Bearing false witness against your neighbor" in which case you might want to review what that might mean here:  http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment09.htm
> 
> Otherwise, you can rely on the discernment super powers of a pastor or rely on your own to figure out what that means.
> 
> Sin is defined as a transgression of a divine law.  What if there is no divine law?  Then you have to consider each behavior on a case by case basis.  Lying about breaking a such and such might be bad but lying about Jews hidden in your attic during WW II might be good.



I can grasp that, but I was responding to the original sin post and talking about babies being born into sin.....they don't learn how to sin they are born into it, that was my point.

an adult could reason to whether to lie or not about Jews hiding in the attic to save their life, which has nothing to do with the original sin post.


----------



## Thanatos

Diogenes said:


> Before this reduced, as usual, into the standard bully-pulpit lectures,  Thanatos summed it up handily, early on: “What I can not wrap my brain around is the idea of Atheist having faith that God does not exist. I mean, you have to have faith that you are right about Him not existing right? “
> 
> The OP was simply asked: “Is there one idea/theroy that leaves you thinking, "Maybe there is a God"
> 
> Um, if I may?  No.  Not a single one.
> 
> Even a rudimentary understanding of nature, physics, and the interplay of the various forces around us rules out the existence of an ‘intelligent’ invisible force.
> 
> Certainly there are ‘invisible forces.’  Things we do not see because our sensory organs are tragically limited, to the point that even our pets hear and smell better than we do, many birds have more acute eyesight, and even snails have a better developed sense of touch.  (Still feel like you were  modeled after perfection?)
> 
> And certainly there are things like gamma rays, and gravity, and ultra-violet radiation that are invisible to us, but which exist just the same.
> 
> But there isn’t a single shred of evidence, or even a suggestion that any of these forces, visible or invisible, displays a single attribute of purposeful intelligence.
> 
> Now, the definition of a ‘God’ hinges upon the proposition that an invisible and intelligent force is acting in a manner that can be determined in some way.  All manner of odd and specious arguments have been offered over the centuries to ‘prove’ that the things we don’t yet know are the sole work of these invisible and intelligent forces.  But not a single one of these ‘arguments’ has amounted to anything other than an appeal to emotion and wishful thinking.  None of the ‘Gods’ have ever appeared.
> 
> In the historic pantheon of ‘Gods’ that have been offered to the masses, complete with temples, pyramids, mosques, cathedrals, wars, purges, sacrifices, tithes, and demands that ‘faith’ must prevail over truth, only one thing has ever happened – The knowledge of men progressed, and the ‘Gods’ that previously existed to explain the lack of knowledge were quietly retired.  Amen Ra isn’t on the table anymore, you’ll notice, and even the most rabid of the ‘believers’ that are left are non-believers in the sense that they have somehow deduced a personal version of  ‘God’ that they refuse through endless, stubborn and strained rationalizations to have disproven, while still rejecting all others.
> 
> A quick look at the pictures from the Hubble Telescope reveals the obvious – we are very, very small, and the universe is very, very large.  Space is well named.  What is going on all around us is unimaginably huge, and is so huge and complicated that we can’t really comprehend it from our small perch on the eastern fringe of an unfashionable and hardly noticed galaxy.  That is hardly surprising.
> 
> We’re trying to figure it out.  And we’re making some remarkable progress.  But that progress also hinges on a single proposition – that there is no ‘intelligent being’ hiding out there directing traffic, creating and choreographing the universe whimsically, and looking at you, personally.  That is an absurd contention, and no ‘faith’ is involved in saying so.
> 
> We don’t know everything.  We can’t.  Our tiny little Solar System alone is so unimaginably huge that we can hardly fit the dynamics of it into our brains.  That does not leap from the possible to the certain, as too many wish to do – it means only that we are tiny.  Viewed from space, that huge tree next to you is hardly more than a weed in the scale of this planet alone.  Reduced to the scale of a playing marble, our planet would be smoother than a ball bearing.  Our majestic mountains and inspiring canyons are only relative to ourselves, and amount to nothing at all even on a planetary scale, let alone the scale of the Solar System, the Galaxy, or the thousands of other galaxies we’ve been able to identify.
> 
> So, um, no.  I don’t need to have any ‘faith’ that an invisible, creating, directing, omnipotent, all-seeing, all-knowing, and somehow judgmental force is behind my personal existence.   All reason, logic, observation, progress, and rational thought suggests otherwise.  There are thousands upon thousands of reasons to reject the idea of a ‘God,’ and not a single reason to embrace such a thought.
> 
> Oddly enough, I was raised to be a believer, and was immersed in the same ritualistic nonsense and thundering condemnation I too often see here – so take heart – you too can escape the heavy yoke of peer pressure and heavy-handed control, and learn to see, think, and speak for yourself . . .



Yawn...is the sermon over yet?

Again, what you see as evidence against a God existing is the exact reasons God does exist in my humble opinion. 

I have stated this opinion before, but I will restate it here. When humans try to put God in a box of our simple perception and experience we will fail to see him. You and I will be on this earth for a trillionth of a nanosecond relative to God's "time" in existence, and here you are telling Him he does not exist. HA! HAHAAHAAA!


----------



## ambush80

mtnwoman said:


> I can grasp that, but I was responding to the original sin post and talking about babies being born into sin.....they don't learn how to sin they are born into it, that was my point.
> 
> an adult could reason to whether to lie or not about Jews hiding in the attic to save their life, which has nothing to do with the original sin post.



Sin is a useful concept to a point.



Thanatos said:


> Yawn...is the sermon over yet?
> 
> Again, what you see as evidence against a God existing is the exact reasons God does exist in my humble opinion.
> 
> I have stated this opinion before, but I will restate it here. When humans try to put God in a box of our simple perception and experience we will fail to see him. You and I will be on this earth for a trillionth of a nanosecond relative to God's "time" in existence, and here you are telling Him he does not exist. HA! HAHAAHAAA!



If all it takes for one to believe in magic is something that one doesn't understand, why, then, one is like a caveman cowering from the lightning.


----------



## Thanatos

ambush80 said:


> If all it takes for one to believe in magic is something that one doesn't understand, why, then, one is like a caveman cowering from the lightning.



If all it takes is to shield your brain from rational objective thinking, why, then, you must be Ambush80 and his atheist minions.


----------



## ambush80

Thanatos said:


> If all it takes is to shield your brain from rational objective thinking, why, then, you must be Ambush80 and his atheist minions.



How does one's awe at the Universe lead to "there must be a magic super being" qualify as rational and objective?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

they won't admit it....but the Origin of Life issue probably eats at most of them.   

like it did Anthony Flew


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

pnome said:


> Do I believe he was the actual son of the almighty creator of heaven and Earth?  Obviously not.



so, that means you believe He was a liar.


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> they won't admit it....but the Origin of Life issue probably eats at most of them.
> 
> like it did Anthony Flew



As much as any question where the answer is "I don't know"


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> so, that means you believe He was a liar.



No so.

A lie implies intent to deceive.   I have no evidence to suggest that Jesus was a liar.  

What I do know, is that he made some extraordinary claims.  For which, there is, outside of the bible, little evidence.   Thus we can rightfully disregard those claims.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

If His claims were true, then He God's son...

If His claims were false, then He was a liar.  

Or, He was a lunatic...


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Or, He was a lunatic...



The most likely scenario.


----------



## Madman

Thanatos said:


> If all it takes is to shield your brain from rational objective thinking, why, then, you must be Ambush80 and his atheist minions.



Thanatos,

That shield has been removed time and time again.   Each time the truth pours in and it is simply ignored.  It brings to mind Pilate’s response to Christ in John 18:37-38.  

37  Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Even though the answer was standing right in front of him Pilate asked the most profound question, maybe the most important question ever asked;     

38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”

The agnostic group that argues on this forum "is without excuse".  Plenty of evidence has been provided for a creator/designer.    Several times, some of them have admitted that they do not have a clue how certain things have happened or come into being, and some admit the appearance of a creator/designer, yet the desire to follow their father is over whelming.


----------



## pnome

Madman said:


> Thanatos,
> 
> That shield has been removed time and time again.   Each time the truth pours in and it is simply ignored.  It brings to mind Pilate’s response to Christ in John 18:37-38.
> 
> 37  Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
> 
> Even though the answer was standing right in front of him Pilate asked the most profound question, maybe the most important question ever asked;
> 
> 38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”
> 
> The agnostic group that argues on this forum "is without excuse".  Plenty of evidence has been provided for a creator/designer.    Several times, some of them have admitted that they do not have a clue how certain things have happened or come into being, and some admit the appearance of a creator/designer, yet the desire to follow their father is over whelming.




You've offered 0 evidence.  All you offer is the lack of an answer.  That is not evidence and it never will be.

If your God created all of this then bring him to me and have him give me a demonstration.   _That_ would be evidence.  Otherwise, quit referring to your arguments from ignorance as "evidence".

I notice you didn't offer an answer for Pilate.  So let me ask:  What is truth?


----------



## Madman

pnome said:


> You've offered 0 evidence.  All you offer is the lack of an answer.  That is not evidence and it never will be.



Pnome,

If you walked out your front door and found a pen oak leaf, a maple leaf, a leaf from a sweat gum tree, and leaf from a sycamore tree lined up in a perfectly straight line, from the door to the mailbox, each leaf was turned perpendicular to the axis of direction and exactly 4.787 inches on centert and this pattern repeated itself all the way from the door to the mailbox.

Would you believe they fell from the trees that way (chance) or would you believe someone placed them there?


----------



## pnome

Madman said:


> Pnome,
> 
> If you walked out your front door and found a pen oak leaf, a maple leaf, a leaf from a sweat gum tree, and leaf from a sycamore tree lined up in a perfectly straight line, from the door to the mailbox, each leaf was turned perpendicular to the axis of direction and exactly 4.787 inches on center.
> 
> Would you believe they fell from the trees that way (chance) or would you believe someone placed them there?



Occam's razor would certainly point to a person doing it.  

My turn..

Go put sand, ash and pebbles into a glass and shake it up.  The pebbles always go to the bottom, next the sand, and finally, after a while, the ash settles on top.

How does this happen?  How does this ordered arrangement of the contents of the glass always occur  no matter how many times you shake the glass? 

Is it chance?  Did God do it?  Or was there a natural force at work that creates order from chaos?


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> Occam's razor would certainly point to a person doing it.
> 
> My turn..
> 
> Go put sand, ash and pebbles into a glass and shake it up.  The pebbles always go to the bottom, next the sand, and finally, after a while, the ash settles on top.
> 
> How does this happen?  How does this ordered arrangement of the contents of the glass always occur  no matter how many times you shake the glass?
> 
> Is it chance?  Did God do it?  Or was there a natural force at work that creates order from chaos?



I think the point is that  everyone would agree a force was at work. You, pnome, attribute the force to a natural force that has no intelligence or motive,..........it just IS. Others see the same thing and conclude that a force that just IS and has no motive, no intelligence can not account for order out of chaos.  Another example might be a dock with slips, all organized, each slip having a boat moored. When a hurricane (natural force, no intelligence, no motive, no sentience) comes along, it leaves no order in its wake, only chaos and destruction. What you call a natural force is NOT natural at all. The rules that govern such ordered activity are not the result of random, unconsidered happenings. ie. math is not a coincidence, chemistry, is not a coincidence, physics is not a coincidence. That only leaves the case for a creator, an intelligence that either set it all in motion according to his rules with sufficient force to be self-sustaining or a creator that IS and continues to sustain the physical systems he has created.

Now, that won't get you to the God of Abraham, but it might give insight into how an intelligent individual as some on this forum seem to be, can come to understand, that on a very fundamental level, there must be a god. Hope that helps you grasp why many are dissatisfied with the "natural force" argument.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> Another example might be a dock with slips, all organized, each slip having a boat moored. When a hurricane (natural force, no intelligence, no motive, no sentience) comes along, it leaves no order in its wake, only chaos and destruction.



Hurricanes are interesting things.  How can you get such order from chaos?  Such a nice cyclone pattern?  Was it designed?  Or is it a product of nature?



> What you call a natural force is NOT natural at all. The rules that govern such ordered activity are not the result of random, unconsidered happenings. ie. math is not a coincidence, chemistry, is not a coincidence, physics is not a coincidence. *That only leaves the case for a creator, an intelligence* that either set it all in motion according to his rules with sufficient force to be self-sustaining or a creator that IS and continues to sustain the physical systems he has created.




Argument from a lack of imagination.

If we're just going to speculate...

One other possible explanation that you may not have even imagined:
http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/index.php/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes)

No intelligence involved.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> The most likely scenario.



Come on, pnome, you and I both know Jesus is no lunatic, He exhibited none of the flaws associated with being crazy.  As far as there being no proof of His miracles outside the Bible, keep in mind that even those most oppposed to Jesus NEVER denied His miracles. Don't you think that someone,if they had proof, would have uncovered Jesus as a fake? But, in over 2,000 years, it has never been done. The Pharisees saw His miracles and hated Him for it, but they never called Him a fake. They killed Him because He was stealing their thunder, and they were jealous. Even Josephus, speaking of Jesus, acknowledges His miracles and calls Him the Christ.


----------



## Michael F. Gray

Having read the posts in this column readied my weary mind for the coming weekend. The one thing I'm certain of is I am THANKFUL I'm a washed in the BLOOD, Born again Beliver in the GOSPEl of Jesus CHRIST the only begotten SON of Almighty God the Father. It was he who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..no man cometh to the Father but by me." Sure does seem like a lot are trying to slip in Heaven's door by some other so called "entrance". 
Have  a BLESSED weekend, Worship the Lord in a Church of HIS choice.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

and He's done miracles ever since....

The medical 'gods' told me that something was going to take me out in 94....100% sure....and that was 16 years ago.   Maybe they'll be right when I'm 95!   

Once you've met Him, He becomes a primary basic belief like believing in the past....that there are others around us....etc.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> Come on, pnome, you and I both know Jesus is no lunatic, He exhibited none of the flaws associated with being crazy.



None except for the delusions of grandeur.




> Even Josephus, speaking of Jesus, acknowledges His miracles and calls Him the Christ.




Ok, after all that you've posited one possible source for evidence of Jesus' miracles outside of the bible.  Let's examine it.  Josephus makes two mentions of Jesus:

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3



> Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.



Of course, that is the translation done by a Christian scholar.  Here is the translation done by a Muslim one:



> At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders



A slightly more conservative tone, wouldn't you agree?

Basically, my point here is that Josephus wasn't an eye-witness to any miracles and is simply reporting what he has been told.  Likely by Jesus' followers.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1



> But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.



Interesting that the NT never makes a mention of Jesus having a brother named James.  But Josephus does.


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> Hurricanes are interesting things.  How can you get such order from chaos?  Such a nice cyclone pattern?  Was it designed?  Or is it a product of nature?



Now, pnome, you know I was focused on the dock and the boats. But, since you focused on the 'cane, it is apparent to me that it has chaotic characteristics blended with elements of organization in a short-lived meteorological phenomenon. That it occur is natural. That the phenomenon occurs at all is the result of the laws that governs the physical world, that originate from a creator. However, the end result of a 'cane is chaos, not order. 






pnome said:


> Argument from a lack of imagination.
> 
> If we're just going to speculate...
> 
> One other possible explanation that you may not have even imagined:
> http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/index.php/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes)
> 
> No intelligence involved.



The example you give is theoretical....and quite imaginative, like your teapot in Switzerland is an imaginative argument. But even in your example, there is the issue of such ordered complexity originating from out of chaos and randomness. No matter how you try to cerebrally concoct an explanation without a god, design is the hallmark of intelligence. You cannot separate intelligence from design and you cannot separate design from nature, ie. honeycomb, a chicken egg, the human respiratory system, just to name a few. The answer, "There is a creator.", explains all that is known and all that is unknown. According to Occam, it is the simplest answer to all the questions. What other single answer explains all questions? 

Back to your "cosmological natural selection" theory, even it is the result of intelligent design, the product of Lee Smolin's mind.

No matter where you take this, God will be there asking, "Will you give me credit for what I have done or will you contend that it is by your own doing that you can even conceive of where you now stand?"

Pick up a copy of A Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel and give it a read.


----------



## Madman

pnome said:


> quit referring to your arguments from ignorance as "evidence".



You claim others argue from ignorance!!!

here is one of your Quotes:: "Whatever. I don't know anything about Islam."  -Why bother trying to convince..... #107 

This was your retraction AFTER You used what you thought was an argument from Islam.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> No matter where you take this, God will be there asking, "Will you give me credit for what I have done or will you contend that it is by your own doing that you can even conceive of where you now stand?"



You're right about that.  Because God only exists in the places where we don't know the answers yet.   His realm gets smaller every day.


----------



## pnome

Madman said:


> You claim others argue from ignorance!!!
> 
> here is one of your Quotes:: "Whatever. I don't know anything about Islam."  -Why bother trying to convince..... #107
> 
> This was your retraction AFTER You used what you thought was an argument from Islam.



You misunderstand the term "Argument from ignorance"

And you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.  Go back and read it again.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

pnome said:


> His realm gets smaller every day.



How do you quantify that?    Seems like religion is still alive and well in America....as supported by polls both in this forum and by Gallop.


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> How do you quantify that?



There was once a time when people thought lightning was God getting angry.   Now we know better.

If God is simply your default answer when you don't know the answer, then when you find out the answer, your God gets smaller. 

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

pnome said:


> There was once a time when people thought lightning was God getting angry.   Now we know better.



It's not??????   


Jesus is way beyond just being my answer for the unknown.  He has shown himself real to me over and over....I can count on Him when I need help.  When I called on Him, He met me right then.   It wasn't a hope-so, He let me know right on the spot that He was there...and heard me.   He filled me with His Holy Spirit years ago too...something you only read about in the Bible, but to someone who has been filled it's as real as God gets....unexplainable...but the evidence is there for those who witness it.  It's something that no one will ever take from me.   I'm sure you'd agree that if there is a god out there, then He can make Himself known to a person without ever becoming visible or being audible??   He did.  He did that for me...and millions of others....many of whom are on this forum.   It's a personal experience with a God that cares....He just asks that someone come to Him in sincerity.

I'm sure there are many "christians" out there who are merely 'just in case' 'hope so' christians...people who look around them and see how awesome life is and it causes a belief in a god....so they choose Jesus since He's as good a choice as any.   I'm not that way....He's personal to me.  I've met Him...just like Saul did on the road to Damascus.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

I've always believed, too, that science is just how we figure out how God does stuff.        doesn't make Him smaller IMO...

Not sure who said it but I read once that...

"a little knowledge leads you away from God; much knowledge brings you back"


----------



## ambush80

gtparts said:


> Now, pnome, you know I was focused on the dock and the boats. But, since you focused on the 'cane, it is apparent to me that it has chaotic characteristics blended with elements of organization in a short-lived meteorological phenomenon. That it occur is natural. That the phenomenon occurs at all is the result of the laws that governs the physical world, that originate from a creator. However, the end result of a 'cane is chaos, not order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The example you give is theoretical....and quite imaginative, like your teapot in Switzerland is an imaginative argument. But even in your example, there is the issue of such ordered complexity originating from out of chaos and randomness. No matter how you try to cerebrally concoct an explanation without a god, design is the hallmark of intelligence. You cannot separate intelligence from design and you cannot separate design from nature, ie. honeycomb, a chicken egg, the human respiratory system, just to name a few. The answer, "There is a creator.", explains all that is known and all that is unknown. According to Occam, it is the simplest answer to all the questions. What other single answer explains all questions?
> 
> Back to your "cosmological natural selection" theory, even it is the result of intelligent design, the product of Lee Smolin's mind.
> 
> No matter where you take this, God will be there asking, "Will you give me credit for what I have done or will you contend that it is by your own doing that you can even conceive of where you now stand?"
> 
> Pick up a copy of A Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel and give it a read.



Not all cells in a honeycomb are perfect. Some people are born with respiratory systems out of whack or positioned outside of their body.    Sometimes cows are born with two heads.  Hardly a perfect system.  Is it because of original sin?


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> None except for the delusions of grandeur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, after all that you've posited one possible source for evidence of Jesus' miracles outside of the bible.  Let's examine it.  Josephus makes two mentions of Jesus:
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that is the translation done by a Christian scholar.  Here is the translation done by a Muslim one:
> You would actually trust a MUSLIM to translate a HEBREW author?!?!
> 
> 
> A slightly more conservative tone, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Basically, my point here is that Josephus wasn't an eye-witness to any miracles and is simply reporting what he has been told.  Likely by Jesus' followers.
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the NT never makes a mention of Jesus having a brother named James.  But Josephus does.


  Nonsense, pnome, not only does the Bible mention several times James being the brother of Christ, (Acts 12:17, Gal. 1:19), But it is widely known among us that James, the brother of Jesus, not the disciple, was the author of the book of James.        And about that translation, would you actually trust a MUSLIM to truthfully translate a HEBREW author!?!?


----------



## Madman

pnome,

The very "language" that your DNA has encoded into it is the evidence for which you beg!!!

Agnostics in the scientific community are falling like flies.  They have not yet turned to Christ but the KNOW there is a designer.

The deeper we reach into the structure of cells and the human gnome the more we see evidence of an author and designer.

To paraphrase, "Why do you kick against the goads"?

The man who claims there is no designer and therefore no god lives in the dark ages of alchemy, piltdown man, global warming, and monkeys with typewriters. 



Peace my happy pagan friend.


----------



## gtparts

ambush80 said:


> Not all cells in a honeycomb are perfect. Some people are born with respiratory systems out of whack or positioned outside of their body.    Sometimes cows are born with two heads.  Hardly a perfect system.  Is it because of original sin?



Who said A80 was slow? Not me. You answered your own question. Congrats!


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> Nonsense, pnome, not only does the Bible mention several times James being the brother of Christ, (Acts 12:17, Gal. 1:19), But it is widely known among us that James, the brother of Jesus, not the disciple, was the author of the book of James.        And about that translation, would you actually trust a MUSLIM to truthfully translate a HEBREW author!?!?



Yes I would trust the translation more than I would a Christian translating the same words.  

Pardon me on the James stuff.  Your Bible-fu is stronger than mine.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> Yes I would trust the translation more than I would a Christian translating the same words.
> 
> Pardon me on the James stuff.  Your Bible-fu is stronger than mine.



Yes I would trust the translation more than I would a Christian translating the same words.  
Why?  (and what is Bible-fu?)


----------



## pnome

Madman said:


> pnome,
> 
> The very "language" that your DNA has encoded into it is the evidence for which you beg!!!
> 
> Agnostics in the scientific community are falling like flies.  They have not yet turned to Christ but the KNOW there is a designer.
> 
> The deeper we reach into the structure of cells and the human gnome the more we see evidence of an author and designer.



Even if I were to accept that the DNA molecule was designed, that does not imply that the designer also created the Universe.



> The man who claims there is no designer and therefore no god lives in the dark ages of alchemy, piltdown man, global warming, and monkeys with typewriters.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace my happy pagan friend.



What?  This is a complete non-sequiter.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> Yes I would trust the translation more than I would a Christian translating the same words.
> Why?  (and what is Bible-fu?)




Because a Christian is biased as to the subject.  If Josephus really had said something like "his followers claim he is the Christ"  a Christian translator would be tempted to alter that to read "he is the Christ"

Bible-fu:  Like Kung-fu but with a Bible.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> Because a Christian is biased as to the subject.  If Josephus really had said something like "his followers claim his is the Christ"  a Christian translator would be tempted to alter that to read "he is the Christ"
> 
> Bible-fu:  Like Kung-fu but with a Bible.



Amazing . do you honestly think that a Muslim would not be biased towards a Jewish Author? They hate Jews even more than they hate us. And who ever said that the Works of Flavius Josephus was translated by Christians? The English translation is the most authenticated and used by historians, not the Muslim translation.   Bible-fu is pretty funny,though.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> Amazing . do you honestly think that a Muslim would not be biased towards a Jewish Author? They hate Jews even more than they hate us. And who ever said that the Works of Flavius Josephus was translated by Christians? The English translation is the most authenticated and used by historians, not the Muslim translation.   Bible-fu is pretty funny,though.



No, I am saying he wouldn't be biased when translating a Jewish author writing about a Christian prophet.


----------



## Roberson

pnome said:


> No, I am saying he wouldn't be biased when translating a Jewish author writing about a Christian prophet.



pnome, that's crazy. Muslims hate both Jews and Christians, and it is more than probable that a muslim translator would omit, on purpose, parts of Josephus' works concerning Jesus that are contrary to their own religion.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> If your God created all of this then bring him to me and have him give me a demonstration.



You are living in it dude.



ambush80 said:


> How does one's awe at the Universe lead to "there must be a magic super being" qualify as rational and objective?



I wanted to answer this question, but GT beat me to it.


----------



## pnome

Gatorcountry said:


> pnome, that's crazy. Muslims hate both Jews and Christians, and it is more than probable that a muslim translator would omit, on purpose, parts of Josephus' works concerning Jesus that are contrary to their own religion.



It doesn't matter which translation you use.

Would you believe me if I told you Xerxes I of Persia was a god just because he is mentioned as such in a greek history of the Persian wars.?


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> You are living in it dude.


----------



## Madman

pnome said:


> Occam's razor would certainly point to a person doing it.



So the information in your DNA points to intelligence.  There is the evidence you requested.

As for your rock, ash, sand.  The matter is simply following the laws of physics, that God put in place.

Order out of chaos,  say that 10 times out loud.  

Some people are truly educated beyond their intelligence.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


>



Does that face mean you are looking up in the heavens realizing your false perceptions and truths?


----------



## pnome

*sigh* Ok I give up. 

I think this post makes 50 posts in this thread for me.  I think I've said all I can and I don't think the debate has really gone anywhere.

To go back to the original point of this thread one last time:

I will not be convinced by any sort of a priori argument.

And we can just leave it at that.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> *sigh* Ok I give up.
> 
> I think this post makes 50 posts in this thread for me.  I think I've said all I can and I don't think the debate has really gone anywhere.
> 
> To go back to the original point of this thread one last time:
> 
> I will not be convinced by any sort of a priori argument.
> 
> And we can just leave it at that.



Sigh...I will be praying for you man.


----------



## BeenHuntn

Madman said:


> Peace my happy pagan friend.



pnome, is a pagan???  

i woulda never guessed by lookin at his avatar...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Irreducible complexity has to be another 'thorn in the side' of an atheist.   

When did the knee only have three ligaments?  or two?

What were the last 5 steps added to the blood clotting cascade?    

food for thought.....

I, too, wonder why we all continue to debate on here!   lol    99% are set in our ways.    Is it that 1% we're trying persuade?


----------



## serving1Lord

If I believe in Jesus Christ and in doing so, gain eternal life and inherit all of heaven, I have gained everything. If I believe in Jesus and He is not who He says He is, I am wrong and have lost nothing.


----------



## WTM45

serving1Lord said:


> If I believe in Jesus Christ and in doing so, gain eternal life and inherit all of heaven, I have gained everything. If I believe in Jesus and He is not who He says He is, I am wrong and have lost nothing.



Another vote for Pascal's Wager.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Another vote for Pascal's Wager.



Come, join the light side. WTM45, He is your father! 

(Star Wars reference if you didn't get it.)


----------



## WTM45




----------



## pnome

serving1Lord said:


> If I believe in Jesus Christ and in doing so, gain eternal life and inherit all of heaven, I have gained everything. If I believe in Jesus and He is not who He says He is, I am wrong and have lost nothing.



OK, one last post in this thread.

Your avatar is awesome!  

Where did you get it?  I want to see the full sized version.

EDIT:Your new avatar is less awesome.


----------



## Israel

pnome said:


> OK, one last post in this thread.
> 
> Your avatar is awesome!
> 
> Where did you get it?  I want to see the full sized version.



Fractals and Mandelbrot equations.
The tree growing up, the lightning..."coming down".

Is God really demonstrated in an infinitely repeatable pattern?
What is His numerical significance?
I believe One.


----------



## ambush80

BANDERSNATCH said:


> How do you quantify that?    Seems like religion is still alive and well in America....as supported by polls both in this forum and by Gallop.



It takes a while for information that front line science gathers to trickle down to the mainstream. Still, I imagine there might be people in present day Western civilizations that doubt that atoms exist, but, thankfully they will probably die off soon. 



gtparts said:


> Who said A80 was slow? Not me. You answered your own question. Congrats!





Thanatos said:


> I wanted to answer this question, but GT beat me to it.



You really think that it's a reasonable and intelligent position to believe in a place called the Garden of Eden where all the honeycombs are perfect and there is no asthma?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

ambush80 said:


> It takes a while for information that front line science gathers to trickle down to the mainstream. Still, I imagine there might be people in present day Western civilizations that doubt that atoms exist, but, thankfully they will probably die off soon.



I read the latest greatest 'front lines' scientific findings every day and it only adds to my belief in God.  

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm

Every day this site presents the latest information showing why we can't trust science's biased flip-flopping findings.


----------



## jbowes89

Gatorcountry said:


> Maybe, but it increases the chances that something IS true, if the majority of folks believe it.



LOL, uh...no.


----------



## jbowes89

Thanatos said:


> Yawn...is the sermon over yet?
> 
> Again, what you see as evidence against a God existing is the exact reasons God does exist in my humble opinion.
> 
> I have stated this opinion before, but I will restate it here. When humans try to put God in a box of our simple perception and experience we will fail to see him. You and I will be on this earth for a trillionth of a nanosecond relative to God's "time" in existence, and here you are telling Him he does not exist. HA! HAHAAHAAA!



WOW, you sound like a babbling fool.


----------



## Israel

I am thinking that killing two turkeys with one blast could be, but I am not sure Aquinas covered that.
I've always been fond of the double portion promises.


----------



## Diogenes

My goodness.  This is still going on?  

So far, I’m pleased to report, the answer is still no – not a single thought, theory, proof, or proposition exists to compel one to believe that there might, just might, possibly be a God.  None.

Fact is, just the opposite just occurred, for those who pay attention – (and this one must have quite a few tenured astrophysicists running for cover and adding up their retirement savings) – recent observations from several advanced platforms, added together, seem to have just tossed the old theory of ‘dark matter’ into a cocked hat.  Remember all that matter out there in the universe that they couldn’t find before, which was necessary to make things work the way they appear to work in practice, and so was explained away by the (oddly God-like) theory of the existence of some sort of mysterious and invisible ‘dark matter’?  OOPS.

Turns out, it looks like all that matter it is there after all.  And so yet another quasi-religion, based on faith in the invisible rather than the somewhat more rational reliance on waiting until all the evidence is in, bites the dust.  And this one is pretty huge if these fellas have their data correctly aligned, because it expands the known universe by about 90%.

That is a pretty big, what with the thought that we use the 10% we can see as the current definition of infinity.  Infinity just got a whole lot bigger.  

The fundamental problem with faith of any kind, I think I’ve already pointed out, is that it is the antithesis of proof.  More proof keeps rolling in, as it has always done, and more ‘faiths’ keep falling by the side of the road of progress, as they have also always done . . .

Carry on.  I’m sure that someone will find something in Revelation that predicted this.  The ravings of a madman who was exiled to a barren island has always seemed to me to be an appropriate closing chapter anyway . . .


----------



## crackerdave

Now I remember why I put Dio,the "raving madman," on my ignore list.


----------



## GAdeadEye

I never seen anything to convince me that any God exsit, But I have see many things to convince me that there is not.

For centuries people have used gods to explain things they could not understand and two thousand years ago they thought they where seeing miracles until science came along to show the truth.


----------



## Thanatos

jbowes89 said:


> WOW, you sound like a babbling fool.



Yea, i know the sound of logical reasoning sounds so bad to some people. It is hard for some people to understand...especially ones who think only in their tiny human perspective.


----------



## Thanatos

GAdeadEye said:


> I never seen anything to convince me that any God exsit, But I have see many things to convince me that there is not.
> 
> For centuries people have used gods to explain things they could not understand and two thousand years ago they thought they where seeing miracles until science came along to show the truth.



I believe that if we were all robots doing our "creators" will without question, that some would find a way to become sentient beings and complain about the lack of freewill.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Yea, i know the sound of logical reasoning sounds so bad to some people. It is hard for some people to understand...especially ones who think only in their tiny human perspective.



Um.

Well...   First off, you are no "babbling fool".  But don't be mistaken in thinking that your reasoning is logical.  It is not.  That's what I've been trying to tell you in this thread.

The logical default, to any proposition, barring evidence, is "no" not "maybe" and certainly not "yes"  

You have no evidence to offer to support the claim that: "The God of Abraham exists" and so, logically, you should deny that claim.  

But instead, you make an "argument from ignorance" (logical fallacy) that since there is no other explanation, yours must therefor be the correct one.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Um.
> 
> Well...   First off, you are no "babbling fool".  But don't be mistaken in thinking that your reasoning is logical.  It is not.  That's what I've been trying to tell you in this thread.
> 
> The logical default, to any proposition, barring evidence, is "no" not "maybe" and certainly not "yes"
> 
> You have no evidence to offer to support the claim that: "The God of Abraham exists" and so, logically, you should deny that claim.
> 
> But instead, you make an "argument from ignorance" (logical fallacy) that since there is no other explanation, yours must therefor be the correct one.



The line that we are both on is that of "evidence". You head one way and I head the other. You perceive this amazing universe as a scientific process that some how just happened right? I perceive the universe as a scientific process that is so amazing that I believe a creator created the scientific process of how and when we evolved. The evidence to support my logic is there. But, people skew what they perceive with human emotion and ignorance and justify what they do not understand.


----------



## WTM45

Had you never been exposed to the Bible would you then have evidence?
Think about it.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> The line that we are both on is that of "evidence". You head one way and I head the other. You perceive this amazing universe as a scientific process that some how just happened right? *I perceive the universe as a scientific process that is so amazing that I believe a creator created the scientific process of how and when we evolved. *The evidence to support my logic is there. But, people skew what they perceive with human emotion and ignorance and justify what they do not understand.



This is an argument from personal incredulity. (a type of argument from ignorance). 

Your last sentence is spot on!  For you.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Had you never been exposed to the Bible would you then have evidence?
> Think about it.



If I had the evidence, but no Bible...it would have led me down a different path. Maybe a different religion, or no religion at all.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> This is an argument from personal incredulity. (a type of argument from ignorance).
> 
> Your last sentence is spot on!  For you.



The difference between you and I is that I KNOW the last sentence is talking about me. My ignorance leads me to my God though...


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> My ignorance leads me to my God though...



I think that's my point.

Argument from ignorance, not very logical.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> I think that's my point.
> 
> Argument from ignorance, not very logical.



Do i have a deductive argument? No I do not. (That is where faith comes in)

There is a pattern to this universe. In my ignorant perspective there is a logical order that every thing falls into, and I will not dismiss it because my mind can not grasp it all.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> If I had the evidence, but no Bible...it would have led me down a different path. Maybe a different religion, or no religion at all.



Interesting.
So the God of Abraham would not simply stand out clearly as the creator of all without having heard of the Bible or without having access to the stories of the Bible?
Hmmmmm......


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Do i have a deductive argument? No I do not. (That is where faith comes in)
> 
> There is a pattern to this universe. In my ignorant perspective there is a logical order that every thing falls into, and I will not dismiss it because my mind can not grasp it all.



That's fine.  Suit yourself.  Just don't call it "logical"

BTW:  Nice bird in the avatar!


----------



## crackerdave

There'll be many,many good,logical folks screaming in h e l l one day. I won't be there.I won't gloat.I won't say "I told you so." I'll be very sad because I couldn't change their hard hearts.Only God can do that.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> That's fine.  Suit yourself.  Just don't call it "logical"
> 
> BTW:  Nice bird in the avatar!



Nice double in your avatar! 

I am wrong to some degree by saying that it is logical to believe in God. But, I see evidence of his existence every where (the turkey woods is a good one). I stand by the facts of science that lead me to the to believe in my Creator. Note that it is also illogical to claim there is no God because there is no proof of his non-existence either.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Interesting.
> So the God of Abraham would not simply stand out clearly as the creator of all without having heard of the Bible or without having access to the stories of the Bible?
> Hmmmmm......



That is why The Great Commission is so important to Christianity. If you read God's word and you "choose" not to believe what you just read then that is His will and your destiny.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Note that it is also illogical to claim there is no God because there is no proof of his non-existence either.



That is correct.

As illogical as it would be to claim that Vishnu does not exist.  After all, you can't prove he doesn't.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> That is correct.
> 
> As illogical as it would be to claim that Vishnu does not exist.  After all, you can't prove he doesn't.



The purpose of this thread was to see if there was any evidence that could be provided to believe in a God...any God.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> The purpose of this thread was to see if there was any evidence that could be provided to believe in a God...any God.



Then why capitalize it?  "God" refers to one particular god: The God of Abraham.

That said, I do believe in a god then.  I believe in a god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Then why capitalize it?  "God" refers to one particular god: The God of Abraham.
> 
> That said, I do believe in a god then.  I believe in a god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him.



O Pnome! What are we going to do with you.

Btw, happy Easter!


----------



## Flatbow

Even before I was a Christian I knew there was a God.
Just the fact that our world....even our own bodies are so complex in design, made me realize that all this could not _just happen_.
To deny there is no God would be like saying that a tornado passed through a junk yard and after it passed by a whole yard full of automoblies were setting there all assembled and ready to drive.  The first 2 chapters of the  book of Romans explains that man does see the evidence of God, but denies it.


----------



## ambush80

Flatbow said:


> Even before I was a Christian I knew there was a God.
> Just the fact that our world....even our own bodies are so complex in design, made me realize that all this could not _just happen_.
> To deny there is no God would be like saying that a tornado passed through a junk yard and after it passed by a whole yard full of automoblies were setting there all assembled and ready to drive.  The first 2 chapters of the  book of Romans explains that man does see the evidence of God, but denies it.



Remember back in grade school when they told you that atoms were like styrofoam balls connected by wooden dowels?  Later you understood atoms to be much more complicated than the "stick and ball" models.   That's how dissimilar the "tornado in the junkyard analogy" is to how things actually happened.


----------



## Thanatos

ambush80 said:


> Remember back in grade school when they told you that atoms were like styrofoam balls connected by wooden dowels?  Later you understood atoms to be much more complicated than the "stick and ball" models.   That's how dissimilar the "tornado in the junkyard analogy" is to how things actually happened.



The best analogy I saw came from _The Privileged Planet_. The author (NASA Scientist) says that for Earth to exist WHEN and WHERE would be like taking a universe creating machine which had a million dials on it, and the million dials would have a million settings on each dial, then there would be one setting out of all the different combination of settings that would place us here and now. 

I do not like the junkyard/airplane analogy either because it does not go far enough to describe the odds of our creation. It does not take into account the WHEN aspect of our creation.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> The best analogy I saw came from _The Privileged Planet_. The author (NASA Scientist) says that for Earth to exist WHEN and WHERE would be like taking a universe creating machine which had a million dials on it, and the million dials would have a million settings on each dial, then there would be one setting out of all the different combination of settings that would place us here and now.



All you are saying here is:  "If things had been different, they would have been different"

It's a truism.  In order for us to be here to observe the universe, the universe had to turn out the way it did.  Regardless of the "how" (be it designed, evolved, chance, etc...)

Exit question:  Could God create a universe that was dissimilar to our own, yet still have humans in it?


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> All you are saying here is:  "If things had been different, they would have been different"
> 
> It's a truism.  In order for us to be here to observe the universe, the universe had to turn out the way it did.  Regardless of the "how" (be it designed, evolved, chance, etc...)
> 
> Exit question:  Could God create a universe that was dissimilar to our own, yet still have humans in it?



That truism statement is the biggest crock of bull. Is the statement true? Yes, but talk about sticking your head in the sand.

Answer to your exit question: In my humble opinion i believe God created other universes that exist (maybe with different laws of physics and relativity) that humans could exist in. If God had one universe to be omnipotent over he would be very bored. Hehe


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Answer to your exit question: In my humble opinion i believe God created other universes that exist (maybe with different laws of physics and relativity) that humans could exist in. If God had one universe to be omnipotent over he would be very bored. Hehe



So, maybe our universe isn't so finely tuned for human existence as you first thought.  Since you allow that it's possible for it to be tuned in other ways and still have humans.


----------



## Madman

pnome said:


> Exit question:  Could God create a universe that was dissimilar to our own, yet still have humans in it?



I would like to answer the exit question.

NO!


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I would like to answer the exit question.
> 
> NO!



I guess he can't make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it either.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> So, maybe our universe isn't so finely tuned for human existence as you first thought.  Since you allow that it's possible for it to be tuned in other ways and still have humans.



I did not say our universe. I said there were other universes that could have different laws of science that would allow another sentient being to exist. I worded my answer like that so you would not confuse the two.


----------



## GAdeadEye

On Saturday I had 2 members of the church behind my house knock on my door asking me if I was willing to join them in easter celerbration, I told them I was not interested. They then siad I have to understand that Jesus has died for my sins and he made the ultimate sacrafice and so I asked them a question of my own about that.

I asked them how did he make the ultimate sacrafice, I said if he is the son of God then is death really a big deal for him, If somebody told me I could die today and still make it home for dinner I would not consider death a sacrafice, I would be alot more reckless if I knew I could just be resurected when I die. He was the son of God and has his place in heaven so why would he even fear death if I was him I would be looking forward to it so I can get home to dad. I asked them to explain it to me, They had no answer and the look on their faces was blank, said have a nice day and walked away. 

I'm sure they will be back


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> I did not say our universe. I said there were other universes that could have different laws of science that would allow another sentient being to exist. I worded my answer like that so you would not confuse the two.



And I did not say sentient beings, I said humans.


----------



## Thanatos

GAdeadEye said:


> On Saturday I had 2 members of the church behind my house knock on my door asking me if I was willing to join them in easter celerbration, I told them I was not interested. They then siad I have to understand that Jesus has died for my sins and he made the ultimate sacrafice and so I asked them a question of my own about that.
> 
> I asked them how did he make the ultimate sacrafice, I said if he is the son of God then is death really a big deal for him, If somebody told me I could die today and still make it home for dinner I would not consider death a sacrafice, I would be alot more reckless if I knew I could just be resurected when I die. He was the son of God and has his place in heaven so why would he even fear death if I was him I would be looking forward to it so I can get home to dad. I asked them to explain it to me, They had no answer and the look on their faces was blank, said have a nice day and walked away.
> 
> I'm sure they will be back



When they figure out your argument is as good as your spelling they will be back. 

Jesus lived and died as a man. There is verse right before Jesus died where he said, "Father why have you forsaken me?" At this moment God could not look at Jesus and they became separated because at that moment Jesus took all of humanity's sin on his shoulders and died spiritually and physically. You and I will never know the type of pain Jesus suffered while fulfilling God's will.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> And I did not say sentient beings, I said humans.



Sure, in another universe God created laws of science that would let human beings live in a different environment. Your helping me prove my point that God knows no bounds... worldly or universally. But, as the laws of science dictate to us in our universe a planet needs to be almost exactly like ours to sustain life for any period of time so they may become complex enough to even comprehended this conversation.


----------



## GAdeadEye

> When they figure out your argument is as good as your spelling they will be back.



Sorry that I suffered from Dyslexia for most of my childhood and poor spelling is a side effect of that, feel free to make fun of my disorder if you find it Necessary I'm sure your god will look the other way.

I just don't care if Jesus had suffered,if he ever even exsisted I blame him for the millions of people that have died and suffered in the name of God, more than any other cause, and he must be proud. God is the biggest and most profitable  business  in the world, they make millions and yet they sell nothing. The entire thing reminds me of a Star Trek episode I seen years ago, People have visited a planet and they left a book behind, the book was about mobsters and gangs and when they returned they found that the people on this planet where living by that book and killing each other in the streets. Good thing the author of the bible was not a mobster.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> Sure, in another universe God created laws of science that would let human beings live in a different environment. Your helping me prove my point that *God knows no bounds*... worldly or universally. But, as the laws of science dictate to us in our universe a planet needs to be almost exactly like ours to sustain life for any period of time so they may become complex enough to even comprehended this conversation.



God is only bound by your imagination.  

Let me try to explain the flaw I see in your thinking, in a different way.

Imagine we're playing hold em' poker and I shuffle the cards up and deal.   I deal you pocket rockets, AA.  
And I deal myself KK.  The flop comes AKA and I move all in, and you call.  Turn and river are blanks, and the damage is done.  You take all my money.

Thinking back on the hand, for you to win the money, I _had to_ shuffle that deck in exactly the right way.  The first card _had to be_ an ace, the second a king, the third had to be another ace and the fourth another king.  And so on.  The odds against all that happening are pretty high. (not cosmically high of course, but this is just an example) 

The deal was still at random.


----------



## BeenHuntn

GAdeadEye said:


> Sorry that I suffered from Dyslexia for most of my childhood and poor spelling is a side effect of that, feel free to make fun of my disorder if you find it Necessary I'm sure your god will look the other way.
> 
> I just don't care if Jesus had suffered,if he ever even exsisted I blame him for the millions of people that have died and suffered in the name of God, more than any other cause, and he must be proud. God is the biggest and most profitable  business  in the world, they make millions and yet they sell nothing. The entire thing reminds me of a Star Trek episode I seen years ago, People have visited a planet and they left a book behind, the book was about mobsters and gangs and when they returned they found that the people on this planet where living by that book and killing each other in the streets. Good thing the author of the bible was not a mobster.



you do not understand God or true Christianity. the God of the Bible condemns people who run around killing others and makes it clear, they are not His children. He also condemns the selling of the Gospel for money. satan has deceived the world into beleiving that that what evil religion is seen on this earth or in the name of God is Christianity but its not. get yourself a King James New Testament and read it. you will see the evil in this world in the name of God is the work of satan, not God. you will learn about Christ and who He is and why He died for His children. don't associate evil religion with Christ. He hates false religion more than anyone... but if you dont read the Bible you will never find out the truth.


----------



## Thanatos

GAdeadEye said:


> Sorry that I suffered from Dyslexia for most of my childhood and poor spelling is a side effect of that, feel free to make fun of my disorder if you find it Necessary I'm sure your god will look the other way.
> 
> I just don't care if Jesus had suffered,if he ever even exsisted I blame him for the millions of people that have died and suffered in the name of God, more than any other cause, and he must be proud. God is the biggest and most profitable  business  in the world, they make millions and yet they sell nothing. The entire thing reminds me of a Star Trek episode I seen years ago, People have visited a planet and they left a book behind, the book was about mobsters and gangs and when they returned they found that the people on this planet where living by that book and killing each other in the streets. Good thing the author of the bible was not a mobster.



You spelled existed wrong.


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> God is only bound by your imagination.
> 
> Let me try to explain the flaw I see in your thinking, in a different way.
> 
> Imagine we're playing hold em' poker and I shuffle the cards up and deal.   I deal you pocket rockets, AA.
> And I deal myself KK.  The flop comes AKA and I move all in, and you call.  Turn and river are blanks, and the damage is done.  You take all my money.
> 
> Thinking back on the hand, for you to win the money, I _had to_ shuffle that deck in exactly the right way.  The first card _had to be_ an ace, the second a king, the third had to be another ace and the fourth another king.  And so on.  The odds against all that happening are pretty high. (not cosmically high of course, but this is just an example)
> 
> The deal was still at random.



I understand that if the all the combination's were not right then we would not be here having this debate, but how far will we go to discount the facts of being alive on such a majestic planet, in a perfect little pocket not only in our solar system, but in our galaxy.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> I understand that if the all the combination's were not right then we would not be here having this debate, but how far will we go to discount the facts of being alive on such a majestic planet, in a perfect little pocket not only in our solar system, but in our galaxy.



I'm not discounting them.  We couldn't exist anywhere else.  Things _had to_ turn out the way they did.  Because that's how they turned out.


----------



## jbowes89

Thanatos said:


> Yea, i know the sound of logical reasoning sounds so bad to some people. It is hard for some people to understand...especially ones who think only in their tiny human perspective.



'Logical Reasoning'
Right, keep beating that horse.
'human perspective' 
Uh, what? Are we NOT humans? oh nooes!


----------



## jbowes89

Flatbow said:


> Even before I was a Christian I knew there was a God.
> Just the fact that our world....even our own bodies are so complex in design, made me realize that all this could not _just happen_.
> To deny there is no God would be like saying that a tornado passed through a junk yard and after it passed by a whole yard full of automoblies were setting there all assembled and ready to drive.  The first 2 chapters of the  book of Romans explains that man does see the evidence of God, but denies it.


----------



## WTM45

BeenHuntn said:


> you do not understand God or true Christianity. the God of the Bible condemns people who run around killing others and makes it clear, they are not His children. He also condemns the selling of the Gospel for money. satan has deceived the world into beleiving that that what evil religion is seen on this earth or in the name of God is Christianity but its not. get yourself a King James New Testament and read it. you will see the evil in this world in the name of God is the work of satan, not God. you will learn about Christ and who He is and why He died for His children. don't associate evil religion with Christ. He hates false religion more than anyone... but if you dont read the Bible you will never find out the truth.



If you really looked into factual history, you would see that the very religious belief system AND BOOK/VERSION you espouse ARRIVED to you through some very bloody, heinous and manipulated history.

There is no denying that fact.


----------



## Thanatos

jbowes89 said:


> 'Logical Reasoning'
> Right, keep beating that horse.
> 'human perspective'
> Uh, what? Are we NOT humans? oh nooes!



As humans we question every thing through our limited knowledge and shroud that with our emotions. We can not help having this limited perception, because that is who we are. If you put these limitations on God you are only hurting yourself and your ability to conceive what the truth is. 

It is logical for me to believe there is a creator of our universe. It is quasi-illogical for me to believe in Christianity. But, that is where _faith_ in the Trinity comes in.


----------



## Madman

GAdeadEye said:


> I asked them how did he make the ultimate sacrafice, I said if he is the son of God then is death really a big deal for him, If somebody told me I could die today and still make it home for dinner I would not consider death a sacrafice, I would be alot more reckless if I knew I could just be resurected when I die. He was the son of God and has his place in heaven so why would he even fear death if I was him I would be looking forward to it so I can get home to dad. I asked them to explain it to me, They had no answer and the look on their faces was blank, said have a nice day and walked away.



Hopefully they will come back and have some answers to your questions.  You had thought about that question ahead of time and they were unprepared.

I have thought about that question and may have some insight.

1)	God was willing to leave the perfection of heaven and live in this swill (comparatively speaking) to give you and me the opportunity to spend eternity with Him.

2)	He took on the unbelievable pain and burden of bearing the sins of ALL humanity.   It would be impossible for a human to withstand that.

3)	As to why God had to do this himself.  Please let me provide the following analogy.

Let’s say you and your wife were driving to the store one evening and ran into the side of my truck.  This is a special truck, my father gave it to me in his will and it has great sentimental value to me.  We get out and look at the damage.  We agree the damage is done and I decide to forgive you.  I say “GAdeadeye, I forgive you for hitting my truck, but give me $1,000.00 so I can get it fixed.

Is asking for money after I have forgiven you true forgiveness?  No it’s not!  God said when He forgives our sins he will remember them no more in Jer. 31:34.  If I forgive you can I ask for a monetary Payment?  No because a debt that has been forgiven no longer exist. 

I have forgiven you but can I turn to your wife and say GAdeadeye hit my truck so I need you to give me $1,000.00?  Is that true forgiveness?  No, all I have done is transfer the debt to your wife, who was not involved in the original offense.

The problem is that I have to have my truck fixed.  So who is going to fix it?  If I truly forgive you who pays to fix the truck?  It has to be one of the ones involved.

I have forgiven you so the debt no longer exists for you.  
I cannot transfer the debt to your wife she had no part.  
The only one left is me.  If I truly forgive you and you accept my forgiveness then I have to incur the debt.  

How it effects me is irrelevant, I could be destitute or I could be Bill Gates, the point is that I have forgiven you and because I forgave you I am willing to incur the debt. 

So when we sin who do we sin against?       God.   

Who forgives?            God.   

Who pays?                God.

That is why we need God, in the form of his Son Jesus Christ.  We sinned, if we are willing to accept His offer of forgiveness through His son we are covered and the debt is paid, if not we have to attempt to do it on our own which is impossible.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> I guess he can't make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it either.



It is an illogical question and since God is the designer of logic it is a Non-question.


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


> If you really looked into factual history, you would see that the very religious belief system AND BOOK/VERSION you espouse ARRIVED to you through some very bloody, heinous and manipulated history.
> 
> There is no denying that fact.




Yep!  Once again the Bible is correct!  "The heart of man is evil." 

Thanks for agreeing.  It is irrelevant “how” it got here.  The fact is that it “is” here and if the God of Creation who chose to use that vehicle to reveal Himself to His creation is followed this life will be better and so will eternity.


----------



## Thanatos

Madman said:


> Yep!  Once again the Bible is correct!  "The heart of man is evil."
> 
> Thanks for agreeing.  It is irrelevant “how” it got here.  The fact is that it “is” here and if the God of Creation who chose to use that vehicle to reveal Himself to His creation is followed this life will be better and so will eternity.



Ditto


----------



## Madman

gtparts said:


> That does cause me to ponder, as an atheist, what have you done to prove He does exist? Have you exhausted the entire scope of possible tests or experiments? Have you even established a methodology, listed the variables, the parameters, reasoned out a plan to get the data that you would require for placing your trust, your very life in His control? Did He fail to turn straw into gold? Did he not show up for your high school band performance? When you rubbed the Miller Light bottle you found on the beach and made three wishes, did He let you down? From your perspective, was does "looking for God" entail?



GT, 

With pnome this is not beating a dead horse, it has been beaten so many times the horse is gone. He is now "kicking at the goads."

He argues there is no evidence yet when the evidence is presented he chooses to say that the evidence does not point to a creator.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> It is irrelevant “how” it got here.



I disagree.
That critical path progression is what leads many to disbelieve in it completely.


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


> I disagree.
> That critical path progression is what leads many to disbelieve in it completely.



Then we will disagree. 

I am not sure what "critical path progression" is but I will assume it is the history that Bible has passed through.

The fact is that it has remained pretty much unaltered since the earliest manuscripts we find.

If some choose to disbelieve and walk away because it has been misused by others for their purposes and benfit, then so be it, but lest they be considered a hypocrite they need to trash their firearms, cars and other items that have followed the same path of misuse.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> I disagree.
> That critical path progression is what leads many to disbelieve in it completely.



I actually agree with you...for other reasons of coarse.


----------



## Diogenes

Ladies and gentlemen – when we have this assertion on the table –“  . . . God is the designer of logic . . .,” well, we have a problem.  

From the standpoint of actual logic, it might be time to take a breath, and take a short lesson – thus far this thread has skipped rather merrily over so many logical fallacies, and actually embraced them as truth, that it is difficult to decide where to begin . . . 

Let’s start with the last one, and work backwards, shall we?  God designed logic.  Nice.  Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).  God has not been demonstrated, so appealing to this authority as the premise is self-negating.  Illogical, and indefensible.

We’ve tried out nearly all of the standard fallacies here, from ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ (after this, therefore because of this), to the odder variant ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ (with this, therefore because of this), visited briefly with the ‘argumentum ad odium’ (argument from hatred), stood strongly by the side of ‘ignoratio elenchi’ (ignorance of the issue) and hatched that further into the ‘argumentum ad ignoratiam’ (argument from ignorance), as evidenced here:        

Madman: “It is irrelevant “how” it got here. The fact is that it “is” here and if the God of Creation who chose to use that vehicle to reveal Himself to His creation is followed this life will be better and so will eternity.”    

Indeed.  It is ‘irrelevant.’   In a ‘post hoc’ sort of way . . .  RighteeO.  It is enough to know ‘that’ your child has tuberculosis – the ‘how’ or ‘why’ is irrelevant . . . Nice thinking, there.   So as to avoid torturing you all further  with the Latin:  We have affirmed the consequent, argued from weak analogy, employed artful equivocation, denied the antecedent, presented false dilemmas, employed the ‘ad homonym,’ framed guilt with explanation, employed straw-men, tortured the ‘light’s better here’ phenomenon to ridiculous lengths, placed the questionable premise as the primary, and even gone so far as to try out the old ‘ pugio tuus est interfector tuus’ nonsense ( your own dagger is your killer).  

Unfortunately, not a single bit of actual logic has penetrated the landscape here.  

Logic, you see, is the process which aims to root out such odd methods of thinking.  A logical fallacy, such as those pointed out above, is defined as a failure in reasoning that makes an argument invalid.  So, in logic, without launching into an entire dissertation, one proposes that If A, Then B, and one must then demonstrate that assertion to be true.  Not a terribly difficult challenge, for the most part.  For instance, If A (I hit a baseball into the air with a bat), Then B (it comes back down an inch away from the infielder’s glove, provided that the infielder is playing for Philadelphia).  

So, let’s try this out – ‘IF one believes in the God I propose to be the Only True God, THEN one will be rewarded Eternally in Heaven’.  IF A, Then B.  But there are some problems here – logically – One cannot demonstrate the actual existence of any God whatsoever, so the premise is automatically false, and one cannot demonstrate the existence of any form of Eternity or of any form of Heaven, so even working recursively the conclusion is false.  In logical terms, the statement itself is meaningless, and refers only to itself both in premise and conclusion. 

OOPS.  So, once again, I’m pretty sure that convincing anyone, especially through the use of strained and poorly employed ‘logic’ that some sort of God might exist is going to take some better work than you guys seem to be willing to do.  Please don’t waste our time by pretending to have even a shred of ‘logic’ to back your opinions – you don’t.  Honest.

(Aside: “Now I remember why I put Dio,the "raving madman," on my ignore list.”  Um?   Dave?  Seems like your list isn’t working.  It is pretty easy – like so many other words you are certainly familiar with, it starts with the letters – I. G. N. O. R. . . .   So push the button or don’t friend, but don’t try to play us with some odd condescension while you are clearly still reading and responding.  Stand up or step out.  If you lack the intellect or the stomach for a healthy disagreement then say so – pretending to stand aside while still taking unfair and uninformed pot-shots is simply dishonest. I’ll stand by my words, and back them with something other than smug convictions and high-horse decrees.  Got Milk?)


----------



## Thanatos

Diogenes said:


> Ladies and gentlemen – when we have this assertion on the table –“  . . . God is the designer of logic . . .,” well, we have a problem.
> 
> From the standpoint of actual logic, it might be time to take a breath, and take a short lesson – thus far this thread has skipped rather merrily over so many logical fallacies, and actually embraced them as truth, that it is difficult to decide where to begin . . .
> 
> Let’s start with the last one, and work backwards, shall we?  God designed logic.  Nice.  Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).  God has not been demonstrated, so appealing to this authority as the premise is self-negating.  Illogical, and indefensible.
> 
> We’ve tried out nearly all of the standard fallacies here, from ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ (after this, therefore because of this), to the odder variant ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ (with this, therefore because of this), visited briefly with the ‘argumentum ad odium’ (argument from hatred), stood strongly by the side of ‘ignoratio elenchi’ (ignorance of the issue) and hatched that further into the ‘argumentum ad ignoratiam’ (argument from ignorance), as evidenced here:
> 
> Madman: “It is irrelevant “how” it got here. The fact is that it “is” here and if the God of Creation who chose to use that vehicle to reveal Himself to His creation is followed this life will be better and so will eternity.”
> 
> Indeed.  It is ‘irrelevant.’   In a ‘post hoc’ sort of way . . .  RighteeO.  It is enough to know ‘that’ your child has tuberculosis – the ‘how’ or ‘why’ is irrelevant . . . Nice thinking, there.   So as to avoid torturing you all further  with the Latin:  We have affirmed the consequent, argued from weak analogy, employed artful equivocation, denied the antecedent, presented false dilemmas, employed the ‘ad homonym,’ framed guilt with explanation, employed straw-men, tortured the ‘light’s better here’ phenomenon to ridiculous lengths, placed the questionable premise as the primary, and even gone so far as to try out the old ‘ pugio tuus est interfector tuus’ nonsense ( your own dagger is your killer).
> 
> Unfortunately, not a single bit of actual logic has penetrated the landscape here.
> 
> Logic, you see, is the process which aims to root out such odd methods of thinking.  A logical fallacy, such as those pointed out above, is defined as a failure in reasoning that makes an argument invalid.  So, in logic, without launching into an entire dissertation, one proposes that If A, Then B, and one must then demonstrate that assertion to be true.  Not a terribly difficult challenge, for the most part.  For instance, If A (I hit a baseball into the air with a bat), Then B (it comes back down an inch away from the infielder’s glove, provided that the infielder is playing for Philadelphia).
> 
> So, let’s try this out – ‘IF one believes in the God I propose to be the Only True God, THEN one will be rewarded Eternally in Heaven’.  IF A, Then B.  But there are some problems here – logically – One cannot demonstrate the actual existence of any God whatsoever, so the premise is automatically false, and one cannot demonstrate the existence of any form of Eternity or of any form of Heaven, so even working recursively the conclusion is false.  In logical terms, the statement itself is meaningless, and refers only to itself both in premise and conclusion.
> 
> OOPS.  So, once again, I’m pretty sure that convincing anyone, especially through the use of strained and poorly employed ‘logic’ that some sort of God might exist is going to take some better work than you guys seem to be willing to do.  Please don’t waste our time by pretending to have even a shred of ‘logic’ to back your opinions – you don’t.  Honest.
> 
> (Aside: “Now I remember why I put Dio,the "raving madman," on my ignore list.”  Um?   Dave?  Seems like your list isn’t working.  It is pretty easy – like so many other words you are certainly familiar with, it starts with the letters – I. G. N. O. R. . . .   So push the button or don’t friend, but don’t try to play us with some odd condescension while you are clearly still reading and responding.  Stand up or step out.  If you lack the intellect or the stomach for a healthy disagreement then say so – pretending to stand aside while still taking unfair and uninformed pot-shots is simply dishonest. I’ll stand by my words, and back them with something other than smug convictions and high-horse decrees.  Got Milk?)



What is wrong with my logic here? 

"It is logical for me to believe there is a creator of our universe. It is quasi-illogical for me to believe in Christianity. But, that is where faith in the Trinity comes in."

PLEEAASEE write shorter post. My small brain can not take all of your knowledge at once Dio


----------



## Madman

Diogenes said:


> Ladies and gentlemen – when we have this assertion on the table –“  . . . God is the designer of logic . . .,” well, we have a problem.
> 
> From the standpoint of actual logic, it might be time to take a breath, and take a short lesson – thus far this thread has skipped rather merrily over so many logical fallacies, and actually embraced them as truth, that it is difficult to decide where to begin . . .
> 
> Let’s start with the last one, and work backwards, shall we?  God designed logic.  Nice.  Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).  God has not been demonstrated, so appealing to this authority as the premise is self-negating.  Illogical, and indefensible.
> 
> We’ve tried out nearly all of the standard fallacies here, from ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ (after this, therefore because of this), to the odder variant ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ (with this, therefore because of this), visited briefly with the ‘argumentum ad odium’ (argument from hatred), stood strongly by the side of ‘ignoratio elenchi’ (ignorance of the issue) and hatched that further into the ‘argumentum ad ignoratiam’ (argument from ignorance), as evidenced here:
> 
> Madman: “It is irrelevant “how” it got here. The fact is that it “is” here and if the God of Creation who chose to use that vehicle to reveal Himself to His creation is followed this life will be better and so will eternity.”
> 
> Indeed.  It is ‘irrelevant.’   In a ‘post hoc’ sort of way . . .  RighteeO.  It is enough to know ‘that’ your child has tuberculosis – the ‘how’ or ‘why’ is irrelevant . . . Nice thinking, there.   So as to avoid torturing you all further  with the Latin:  We have affirmed the consequent, argued from weak analogy, employed artful equivocation, denied the antecedent, presented false dilemmas, employed the ‘ad homonym,’ framed guilt with explanation, employed straw-men, tortured the ‘light’s better here’ phenomenon to ridiculous lengths, placed the questionable premise as the primary, and even gone so far as to try out the old ‘ pugio tuus est interfector tuus’ nonsense ( your own dagger is your killer).
> 
> Unfortunately, not a single bit of actual logic has penetrated the landscape here.
> 
> Logic, you see, is the process which aims to root out such odd methods of thinking.  A logical fallacy, such as those pointed out above, is defined as a failure in reasoning that makes an argument invalid.  So, in logic, without launching into an entire dissertation, one proposes that If A, Then B, and one must then demonstrate that assertion to be true.  Not a terribly difficult challenge, for the most part.  For instance, If A (I hit a baseball into the air with a bat), Then B (it comes back down an inch away from the infielder’s glove, provided that the infielder is playing for Philadelphia).
> 
> So, let’s try this out – ‘IF one believes in the God I propose to be the Only True God, THEN one will be rewarded Eternally in Heaven’.  IF A, Then B.  But there are some problems here – logically – One cannot demonstrate the actual existence of any God whatsoever, so the premise is automatically false, and one cannot demonstrate the existence of any form of Eternity or of any form of Heaven, so even working recursively the conclusion is false.  In logical terms, the statement itself is meaningless, and refers only to itself both in premise and conclusion.
> 
> OOPS.  So, once again, I’m pretty sure that convincing anyone, especially through the use of strained and poorly employed ‘logic’ that some sort of God might exist is going to take some better work than you guys seem to be willing to do.  Please don’t waste our time by pretending to have even a shred of ‘logic’ to back your opinions – you don’t.  Honest.
> 
> (Aside: “Now I remember why I put Dio,the "raving madman," on my ignore list.”  Um?   Dave?  Seems like your list isn’t working.  It is pretty easy – like so many other words you are certainly familiar with, it starts with the letters – I. G. N. O. R. . . .   So push the button or don’t friend, but don’t try to play us with some odd condescension while you are clearly still reading and responding.  Stand up or step out.  If you lack the intellect or the stomach for a healthy disagreement then say so – pretending to stand aside while still taking unfair and uninformed pot-shots is simply dishonest. I’ll stand by my words, and back them with something other than smug convictions and high-horse decrees.  Got Milk?)



This reminds me of some speach notes I once saw.
At one highlighted spot was written "Weak point, speak louder"

Here I would also add "And longer"


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

I have not been part of this discussion....but today when I read the title of the thread, it made me want to ask you guys....

Did any atheist admit to an idea/theory/evidence that leaves them thinking, "Maybe...."????

There's three pages of responses...and some of the posts are lengthy.   I'd appreciate a summation from someone in-the-know.


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> There's three pages of responses...and some of the posts are lengthy.   I'd appreciate a summation from someone in-the-know.



Let's see here...

251 responses so far.  +1 for this one.  62 of which are mine, 63 now.  

The shocking result:  No one has convinced anyone of anything.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

pnome said:


> The shocking result:  No one has convinced anyone of anything.



I detect sarcasm!


----------



## Thanatos

pnome said:


> Let's see here...
> 
> 251 responses so far.  +1 for this one.  62 of which are mine, 63 now.
> 
> The shocking result:  No one has convinced anyone of anything.



While sarcastic it is true. 

The more we debate the topic the further we entrench ourselves in our own beliefs and opinions.   

To sum it up their are basically two views to this topic. (Pnome correct me if I am wrong)  One side sees that the creation of this universe as an equation of probability. As improbable as our existence is...given enough "time" the right conditions would exist to spawn humans. People who believe in a creator see how incredibly unlikely our existence is and believe that a superior being is the more likely answer than it just accidentally happening.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> To sum it up their are basically two views to this topic. (Pnome correct me if I am wrong)  One side sees that the creation of this universe as an equation of probability. As improbable as our existence is...given enough "time" the right conditions would exist to spawn humans. People who believe in a creator see how incredibly unlikely our existence is and believe that a superior being is the more likely answer than it just accidentally happening.



No, there is one side who sees that the idea of a Creator God presents more questions than it answers, and another side who is wrong.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Actually, I don't think this thread was trying to change anyone's mind....it was just asking if an atheist would admit to something that ate at them...

I'm surprised that none have confessed to something that made them wonder....


----------



## Thanatos

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Actually, I don't think this thread was trying to change anyone's mind....it was just asking if an atheist would admit to something that ate at them...
> 
> I'm surprised that none have confessed to something that made them wonder....



I was hoping through the debate process it might change someone's mind.


----------



## pnome

Thanatos said:


> I was hoping through the debate process it might change someone's mind.



Yeah, I was hoping the same thing. 

Made a poll about it a few months ago:
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=407752

You'll notice a lot of the responses say things like;

"No!  You've only made my faith stronger!"

Which is perhaps true.  But what I actually hope for is that someone who just lurks this forum, not posting, just reading, might one day read my posts and say to themselves;

"Hmm, he's got a point there.  Maybe this religion stuff isn't all it's cracked up to be..."


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

that was my hope, too!!    that someone would be lurking and read some posts and think...

"Wow, I didn't realize life, even the simplest life, was complex beyond reason!   Maybe 'god' does explain the Origin of Life....since science has no answer!"


----------



## earl

And then there is the side of us true whacko s . I don't know for sure , but I believe the way I do because it works for me.


----------



## ambush80

BANDERSNATCH said:


> that was my hope, too!!    that someone would be lurking and read some posts and think...
> 
> "Wow, I didn't realize life, even the simplest life, was complex beyond reason!   Maybe 'god' does explain the Origin of Life....since science has no answer!"



'God' does explain the origin of life, in the same way that 'He' explained lightning to the Neanderthals.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

'He' still explains lightning....we just figured out how He did it.


----------

