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.

 

The Bible is not the word of god

page: 19
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   
So, by your logic, God never acts in a manner that obeys the laws of physics, just through miracles?




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Actually, I can't say that he work's any miracles at all! Haven't seen any.

[EDIT]

"According to many religions, a miracle is an intervention by God in the universe. One must keep in mind that in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and in other faiths people have substantially different definitions of the word miracle. Even within a specific religion there is often more than one usage of the term.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle"



[edit on 24-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:45 AM
link   
The point is you stated that you have been asking God for a sign for 20 odd years and say you've seen nothing, thus you are discounting the possibility that ANY of the vast array of actions that have occurred in that time have been signs from God. Why?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Because nothing I've seen isn't unquestionably of god. This include's my birth. Your birth. Life itself. The universe itself. The sun comming up the next day. A storm brewing next week. Etc etc etc. Nothing I've seen, heard, felt, etc. has been unquestionably of god.

What would you consider a miracle? Just curious, because alot of religion's including people within the same religion have their own definition's for what constitute's a miracle. And on that same note, which religion is right? Which god is right? They all say the same thing. We got the one true god, follow us. They all also say that their god say's other's will stray etc etc. So, why's your god right and Zeus isn't? Why's your god right and not the tiki tiki volcano god? They all claim to be the right one and they all pretty much say that no other god is real right? So... who IS the right one?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
If that's the reason why, then you have drawn a very narrow conclusion from a very broad array of circumstances. Your citing reasons that prove it is possible there have been no signs given by God that you have witnessed, not reasons that prove there have DEFINITELY been no signs from God that you have witnessed. You need to reassess your logic.

As far as the rest of your post goes, where is the relevance to my point?



[edit on 24/2/06 by mytym]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   
The relevence is, which god am I to attribute a so called miracle too? Without knowing who the one true god is I can't quiet exactly attribute a so called miracle to that one particular god now can I? Without knowing which god that miracle is to be attributed too and what that god's action's is defined as a miracle, then nothing I see can be attributed to any one particular god's miracles as there's way too many god's on this planet claiming to be the one true god.




Your citing reasons that prove it is possible there have been no signs given by God that you have witnessed, not reasons that prove there have DEFINITELY been no signs from God that you have witnessed. You need to reassess your logic.


So... be gullible and consider most everything as a sign of god? Where's my logic flawed? As I've yet to experience these so called miracle's you seem so fond of, I fail to see where I'm going wrong here.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Allow me to demonstrate:
Your conclusion that God has given you no signs in 20 years suggests it is not possible to fathom that any of the events that have happened in that time could be attributied to God in ANY way.

However the proof that you base this conclusion on merely suggests that it is POSSIBLE that God played no part in these events.

Your a making an ABSOLUTE statement based only on your theory, not on any factual evidence. You're jumping to the conclusion that your theory is the ONLY one that can be drawn from this evidence, and ignoring all of the other possible conclusions, one being that God DID play a part in these events.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Whoa wait a sec buddy...

My evidence is through reason and observational proofs. Isn't this along similar line's as IDT? If your going to knock down my approach well then you might as well say IDT as no basis either.

Hell, I'm not even making a theory. I'm just stating that there has been no unquestionable evidence that anything in my life was directed by your god and your god alone.

The problem still persist's however over which god should I be attributing these so called 'miracles' too. You claim your's is the one true god, well so do the muslims, jew's, indians, etc etc etc. So which god is the one true god I should be attributing miracles too? How would you define a miracle once the one true god is known? Are you sure the one true god isn't something no one on this planet hasn't even concieved yet? Are you even sure there even is a god?

Our first angle of attack: Discover who's god really is the one true god.

Your first problem is, everyone claim's that their god is the one true god and or god's. They all have the same objectionable 'evidence' for this claim. Prove to me beyond any undeniable doubt that your god is the one true god I should be attributing anything in my life too.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Again, you've gone off on another tangent.

Why do you think that you need undeniable proof that any of these events are signs from God, merely to accept the POSSIBILITY that they are?

Possibilities don't require proof, especially not undeniable proof, all that is required is that these possibilities are not disproven, which I'm pretty sure you don't have proof of.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Possible by who's god?

You keep avoiding that.

[EDIT] Actually... while we're at it. Do you accept the possibility that your god doesn't even exist? Since you seem to be taking a liking to preaching possibilities to me right now.


[edit on 24-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I do accept that possibility. You still haven't answered my question, which unlike yours, is completely relevant to this discussion.

Your question about who's God am I talking about has as much relevance as me asking you the score in the AFL match played last night. However, I will answer you. I'm referring to the God YOU were referring to when you tried so many times in the last 20 odd years to ask for a sign. You're asking me to answer questions, only you can know the answers to, aren't you? How do I know what God you were referring to?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Myt, learn to use the edit function before lecturing others on why they shouldn't believe in God



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Well, technically it could be any god who choose's to answer. But as of yet none has definitivley given me such an answer. If I chose to play the gullibility wild card and say lightning is from god, then perhaps, through gullibility I could say that's an act of god. However, I chose to require abit more proof beyond the realm of gullibility and blind faith.

But honestly, does it matter what god and or god's I test for? You never spoke of any other god but your own. In light of that fact, everything I posed before you was very relevent to this subject. And on that note, if you truely accept the possibility that your god doesn't even exist, then how are you able to continue to attribute very explainable event's as to being his work? There's abit of an error in that logic.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Quit playing games, Produkt. Which god is real is irrelevant to the question posed to you.

Demonstration...

You ask god for proof, you wait twenty years. Who defines what proof constitutes? Are you saying that your definition supercedes the definition of the entity you are attempting to address? So it is not proof unless you yourself are satisfied with the answer?

I am wagering this is what you meant by your definition of proof. As such, you are looking specifically for a narrow band of possible events which would be unequivocally this entity's doing. Who is to say proof was not supplied, just not proof that would satisfy YOU?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
An all knowing god would know exactly what kind of sign's I would need to believe and have faith in such a god. Now either he's not all knowing or he doesn't exist.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Any god doesn't have to give you the proof you want, it isn't required for me to provide proof I am real, I am sure you accept I am not just a programmed script.

Just because it did not supply you with proof which YOU desired does not make it logical to state it doesn't exist.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
So then we can just claim that anything exist's without any logical thought put behind it?

Right ok then... You all have no choice but to accept that an intelligent toaster oven live's in the center of the earth and is the true cause for all earthquake's. You dare refute that and I will be left with no other choice but to slap you with your bible.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Don't be an idiot. You can't claim something exists either. Proof is a subjective thing, each individual defining what is sufficient for themselves.

It is just as nonsensical to claim something exists with a lack of evidence as it is to claim it DOESN'T.

It is not logical to claim God doesn't exist because YOU did not get your proof. It is the same sort of nonsense to say "There is no such thing as a hundred dollar bill" if you've never had one before. I am not declaring god to exist, as that would be presumptuous of me... just as it is ILLOGICAL and NONSENSE of you to declare it doesn't exist because YOU did not receive what YOU demanded.

My beliefs are seperate from logic, sometimes the two coincide, many times they do not.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Addressing the title of this thread, 'The Bible is not the word of God'.
Obviously correct. I agree.
By the way, is the god of the old testement the same as the god of the new testament?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
An all knowing god would know exactly what kind of sign's I would need to believe and have faith in such a god. Now either he's not all knowing or he doesn't exist.

A more likely possibility is that He/She is neither omniscient or omnipotent and no longer exists in this timeline as a god


I agree that the Bible is not the word of God. It was inspired by collectives of angels (at best) and then hashed, rehashed, and slashed by religious leaders and emperors over the centuries -- adding their own theological influence and spin. It is fragmented and incomplete. If it were truly the Word of The One True God, then we would all be of that paradigm. No contest. The power to create billions of galaxies equates to far greater miracles than anything the angel prophets have been able to manifest in any traditional religion.

The First Coming has yet to occur. That is why things are so confusing with the world's religions. Traditional scripture was inspired only by semi-divine spirits in Group Entities, not by The Original Creator.



[edit on 24-2-2006 by Paul_Richard]




top topics



 
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join