It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

page: 72
36
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: TheChrome

You can look at the prophecy in the bible, and know that God exists and has predicted the outcome of the planet. The prophecy contained in the bible is accurate, and provable by history.


Ok, I'll challenge that. List the Prophesies that you are talking about along with the Historical proof of them being completed. Also list the ones not complete. Please make the list in order too for simplicity.

I'll do the same and we can compare.

Agree????


This is not a simple thing to list. But for simplicity, I will start with the book of Daniel (written circa 536 B.C.) when Babylon was the predominate power.

The prophecy is as follows: "I looked up , and there before me was a ram with two horns" (Daniel 8:3)

"Suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west...I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering it's two horns." (Daniel 8:5-7)

"the goat became very great, but at at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in it's place four prominent horns grew up" (Daniel 8:8)

The kings of Media and Persia were the ones who overthrew Babylon. That is why they were depicted by a ram with two horns.
en.wikipedia.org...

Greece overthrew the Medes and the Persians, led by Alexander the Great (The goat with a prominent horn), but Alexander died early and his kingdom was divided into four parts, lead by his generals Ptolomy, Seleucid, Attilad, Antigonid. (The four prominent horns that grew up)
en.wikipedia.org...

Explanation by the bible:
"The two horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia" (Daniel 8:20)
"The shaggy goat is the king of Greece." (Daniel 8:21)

The two successive powers after Babylon, were named specifically by the bible.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

so someone gives a prophecy, then says its has come true because that same author defines what the visions mean?

That's not proof - that is self justification!

moreover the current thinking is that the visions were actually written in the 2nd century BCE and also here - it's no great problem to have visions of something that has already happened!!


edit on 10-8-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Add link to Daniel 8



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Ya thats what I thought your statement was untrue...

that and you can't admit you are wrong that points to the delusional state I mentioned and proof of it...

because it was no fact that proved their reason for disbelief...

So because they have no facts they can't even be atheist because atheist use facts...

I don't like the way atheists play the game they in fact can't even prove to themselves they are right...

Lol

now did I lie when I said atheists are delusional?

Or is that a fact?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

because it was no fact that proved their reason for disbelief...

So because they have no facts they can't even be atheist because atheist use facts...

I don't like the way atheists play the game they in fact can't even prove to themselves they are right...

Lol

now did I lie when I said atheists are delusional?

Or is that a fact?



Yes, you lied.

It is a fact that there is no evidence proving the existence of god(s).



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Some pretty damned good reasoning I'd say.


Ha ha!



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: TheChrome

so someone gives a prophecy, then says its has come true because that same author defines what the visions mean?

That's not proof - that is self justification!

moreover the current thinking is that the visions were actually written in the 2nd century BCE and also here - it's no great problem to have visions of something that has already happened!!



so someone makes a scientific conclusion, then says its true because that same scientist defines what the conclusion means?

That's not proof - that is self justification!
It's no great problem to have conclusion of something that has already been explained in the bible!!



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: TheChrome

so someone gives a prophecy, then says its has come true because that same author defines what the visions mean?

That's not proof - that is self justification!

moreover the current thinking is that the visions were actually written in the 2nd century BCE and also here - it's no great problem to have visions of something that has already happened!!



so someone makes a scientific conclusion, then says its true because that same scientist defines what the conclusion means?


no - and even if they did then the fact that they are wrong doesn't stop you from being wrong as well.


That's not proof - that is self justification!
It's no great problem to have conclusion of something that has already been explained in the bible!!



huh?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Barcs I think I now what the problem is, you need to do a few more years of research and meditation like this guy.




Antony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50
years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81
years of age, he began to express a belief
that some intelligence must have been
at work in the creation of life. Why the
change? A study of DNA. When asked if
his new line of thought might prove unpopular
among scientists, Flew reportedly
answered: “That’s too bad. My whole
life has been guided by the principle
. . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever it
leads.”


Source - Associated Press Newswires, “Famous
Atheist Now Believes in God,” by
Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.


Give it few more years you will learn.

edit on 10-8-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Some people just take a lot longer to mature.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Show me where...

I think you are lying again, it's ok to lie to yourself...so you figure it's ok to do it to me too?

First stop lying to yourself...
edit on 10-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

and since his work is un-peer-reviewable it remains his belief and not "proof".....just like all tht rest.......

moreover his god wasn't a christian god - it was Aristotle's......good luck with that.....



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

you said either you were lying, or it is a fact.

It is not a fact, so I accept your own assessment that you are lying.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Grimpachi

educated people are individuals who are well learned and therefore must agree and know what pigeon logic is?

that being believers do not know the rules...

Or in other words that atheist means more intelligent and of course always right...

this indeed backs up what I said previously...



I see you came up with that yourself. If at some point and time you learn how to look up things you just may make a valid point in these threads.

BTW "chess with pigeons" and "pigeon logic" mean different things.

Posting the pic and naming the pigeon kirk is the same as saying:

Trying to debate with you is like playing chess with pigeons.







so tell me why did you remove Pigeon logic < human logic? To just pigeon logic...


I changed it in order to simplify it because I thought it would only confuse you.

I see that doing so still didn't help you.


Seems I just can't explain things at a level you can understand without going into extreme detail. I don't think it is worth it.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Oh so now it's something else...

I thought it was that I had evidence which proves the existence of God...

Or is this another delusion?

It was it you lying?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think you are foolish because what you said is exactly why I said what I did and once again you proved what I said to be true you see how I always use facts and your own statements against you?

That's because you are not near as smart as you assume...

this too portrays your delusional state I spoke of and is evidence of it...
edit on 10-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
More odds




The calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears.


One mathematician once said, "I know evolution is false, because the math just can't support it, no matter how hard I want it too. I don't believe in God either, we got here some other way, that's all I know."

Of coarse this person is referring to abiogenesis as part of the greater concept of how we got here.

edit on 10-8-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
More odds




The calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears.


One mathematician once said, "I know evolution is false, because the math just can't support it, no matter how hard I want it too. I don't believe in God either, we got here some other way, that's all I know."


Being a Mathematician doesn't make you correct.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




It is funny because you don't get it.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

It's funny because I don't care what your little mind uses to delight in to demean me...

It's as insignificant as all your other offerings...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Collateral

Math is not biased either


I like how atheists are willing to play these impossible odds, but won't consider a creator, faith in crazy long shot odds, statistically considered impossible not just once, but in the double digits in every field from cosmology to abiogenesis.

With these odds your faith is science is very strong. Just like my faith in a God as a Creator is very strong.




top topics



 
36
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join