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.

 

Evidence for God

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1
When im refering to God, i mean the Christian God.

Either the Christian God exists, or he doesn't.

Do you know the statistical probability of a god? never mind the statistical probability that the god is the christian one. And I'm not taking into account Stephen Unwins half arsed attempt at 'The Probabaility of God' which falls flat on its face.
Why should your god be the one when there are millions of gods?
So the chances of you being correct are virtually nill to no chance in hell (pun intended).

And you expect me to believe you just because you think your right?


G




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Twice a week, every week I ask God to grant me the Lottery Jackpot,

God has not delivered,

Therefore God does not exist.

Proof.


The Lottery is what "you want". It's "your" plan, not His.
And all it is, is a mere earthly gain.
Have you ever thought that maybe it's not in God's will for you?
Maybe He has other plans for you.
I tend to believe everything happens for a reason.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by LancerJ1
When im refering to God, i mean the Christian God.

Either the Christian God exists, or he doesn't.

Do you know the statistical probability of a god? never mind the statistical probability that the god is the christian one. And I'm not taking into account Stephen Unwins half arsed attempt at 'The Probabaility of God' which falls flat on its face.
Why should your god be the one when there are millions of gods?
So the chances of you being correct are virtually nill to no chance in hell (pun intended).

And you expect me to believe you just because you think your right?


G


I dont know the statistics. Though i can guess it's not accurate. I dont see how it's possible to work out the probability of a god.

If you look at the other gods, they have little or no credibility. It would be extremely difficult to reason why pagan gods exist, but it is very easy to reason why the Christian God exists.

I dont expect you to believe just because i believe. But i do expect you to accept there are credible reasons why God does exist.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Explain to me miraculous healings by those who pray for it on others?

Miracles in the Bible still happen in this age. God is certainly not an idle God.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1

I dont know the statistics. Though i can guess it's not accurate. I dont see how it's possible to work out the probability of a god.
Not accurate because you dont believe in the outcome which states that your god is highly unlikely.


If you look at the other gods, they have little or no credibility. It would be extremely difficult to reason why pagan gods exist, but it is very easy to reason why the Christian God exists.
Why do they have little credibility? Most of these pagan gods have about as much credibility as jehovah does.
What about allah? - being a christian you wouldn't believe in allah would you? You dont believe in hindu gods or zoroastrian gods so in a sense you are about as much an atheist as I am.


I dont expect you to believe just because i believe. But i do expect you to accept there are credible reasons why God does exist.

There is no credible evidence that I can see that gives any reason for any god to exist - In fact I see more evidence that god(s) are a fabrication of the human mind. So no, I am accepting nothing and am not required to do so.


G



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I can't argue with the atheists but it's kind of silly to expect proof of God. Why would God create a universe that he would have to maintain? He would have to be controlling everything e.g creating babies in wombs in different women at the same time, contolling the weather, all the microorganisms all of our thoughts and actions, while creating new stars etc. It would be silly, hence he universe runs on its own not requiring his input just like a videogame runs on your playstation without the guy who made it needing to be in the back of your tv set.
Just like the video game has an engine with the rules and boundaries of what can be done in the game e.g. can't walk through walls , physics , how high a character can jump etc, so does the universe: laws of physics etc. So If one could ask a videogame character if it has a creator it would probably say it sees no evidence of one. God possibly has created more than one universe and the scale of that makes us(only one creation) seem irrational and selfish to demand He reveal himself to US. Think about thesize of the universe and what if there are millions of them, how important do you think you are? sorry i need sleep :p



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
There is a similar thread on BTS about proving the existence of God. As I posted there; The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel (2004) is quite convincing, scientific, logical and doesn't rely on scripture to back up it's claims. I know that will be a bonus to the atheists (not having to wade through Bible verses, "faith" arguments, etc.).
The evidence for a creator is overwhelming and is the most logical explanation that fits all the evidence. Now, whether you want to call that Creator "God", "Allah", or "Humpty Dumpty" is an entirely different thread topic but evidence for God/Creator is undeniable.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
There is a similar thread on BTS about proving the existence of God. As I posted there; The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel (2004) is quite convincing, scientific, logical and doesn't rely on scripture to back up it's claims. I know that will be a bonus to the atheists (not having to wade through Bible verses, "faith" arguments, etc.).


Yeah, and he uses the normal ID crew who still have no evidence for ID, not a thing. Jonathan Wells is who he uses to assess the theory of evolution. Wells' recent polemic about how 'darwinism is doomed' is laughable. Panda's thumb are also taking apart his new book by chapter. Misrepresentation and quote-mining are common in his writing. The science still supports ToE, no matter how much these people claim otherwise.

Strobel's book is far from an unbiased assessment of the creator argument.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
Anyone who requires proof of God's existence before they will accept Him as real will never believe until they encounter Him personally. No amount of evdence will convince them. In fact, such people don't even accept the evidence. To believe doesn't require proof...it only requires reasonable amount of evidence, and there is plenty of that which is why there are so many believers.


There are much quality in the guide to living life in the Bible. The Bible is accurate in the predictions. The Bible code and number valued words is very unique. But, that doesn't mean that it can't be created by interdimensional aliens who are so smart that they look at us like pets.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
You can be free will mind controlled with "EVERYTHING" the Bible says, but then when the aliens and paranormal activites rise like never before, you might find yourself very confused when more and more of the real truth leaks out during this multible religion conspiracy(Not just one). If you go a. and learn about the paranormal(supernatural) activities for other religions, you will find that they too have their God(really interdimensional beings supporting their fabricated religions) supernaturally react to them. The Bible suggests to avoid psychics, mediums, ways to communicate with the other dimensions. Of course, for these interdimensional aliens, that's like finding the wizard behind the curtain in "The Wizard of OZ".



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
if part of our minds are assigned to finding the last positive number, and the last negative number . . ...

when would anyone's true self ever answer the question of what are the last positive and negative numbers?


Couldn't one count on for infinity?


well, you are waiting for an "ALL KNOWING GOD" are you not?

would you settle for less?

if god HAS to be all knowing, then surely god will know the highest number, the lowest negative, the definition of phi, the definition of the golden section, the definition of a soul, the definition of god, where god is, where god was, where god shall be, how god came to be, who god is, what god does, what hell is, what heaven is, what purgitory is, . . .. . .. .

but at any rate, if you expect an all knowing god, then we can expect god's return when he has calculated the highest number. or you could take a short cut through your brain and find god there, if you could overcome your fears, and also believe that god is in you. but, in order for you to believe god is in you, well, i guess first you would have to believe god is everywhere.


so, if people do in fact have a portion of their brains which remains true to you, no matter what . .. . and you fear the unknown, then wouldn't the part that wishes to remain true to you continue to take up brain cells in your subconscious mind as it calculates all the unknowns, since people fear them and all.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Not accurate because you dont believe in the outcome which states that your god is highly unlikely.


In the big picture, the probability means nothing.


Why do they have little credibility? Most of these pagan gods have about as much credibility as jehovah does.
What about allah? - being a christian you wouldn't believe in allah would you? You dont believe in hindu gods or zoroastrian gods so in a sense you are about as much an atheist as I am.


Pagan gods have little credibility because they have only a few followers, and for many their existence is illogical. Pagan gods are only gods of objects, like the sun and moon or of emotions like love and anger. We know that the sun and moon arent really gods. The Christian God is the god of everything. He created the sun and the moon, love and anger. People are able to write books on why the Christian God exists, but not on pagan gods.

What i dont understand about Islam is why believe only some of the Bible. If they believe some parts are false, how do they know other parts they believe arent false? You can only believe all of it or none of it. To believe only parts is illogical.


There is no credible evidence that I can see that gives any reason for any god to exist - In fact I see more evidence that god(s) are a fabrication of the human mind. So no, I am accepting nothing and am not required to do so.


Then you are blinded by your stuborness. Your mind is so bent on finding reasons why not to believe. Instead, find reasons why you could believe. The main reason why people dont want to accept Jesus is they dont want to surrender their lives to him. It is because of our selfish nature. People think they will no longer be free. But the fact is they will be more free then ever before.

Explain miraculous healings on those who it is prayed for?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
if part of our minds are assigned to finding the last positive number, and the last negative number . . ...

when would anyone's true self ever answer the question of what are the last positive and negative numbers?


Couldn't one count on for infinity?


well, you are waiting for an "ALL KNOWING GOD" are you not?

would you settle for less?

if god HAS to be all knowing, then surely god will know the highest number, the lowest negative, the definition of phi, the definition of the golden section, the definition of a soul, the definition of god, where god is, where god was, where god shall be, how god came to be, who god is, what god does, what hell is, what heaven is, what purgitory is, . . .. . .. .

but at any rate, if you expect an all knowing god, then we can expect god's return when he has calculated the highest number. or you could take a short cut through your brain and find god there, if you could overcome your fears, and also believe that god is in you. but, in order for you to believe god is in you, well, i guess first you would have to believe god is everywhere.


so, if people do in fact have a portion of their brains which remains true to you, no matter what . .. . and you fear the unknown, then wouldn't the part that wishes to remain true to you continue to take up brain cells in your subconscious mind as it calculates all the unknowns, since people fear them and all.


Maybe the answer is beyond human understanding. Maybe there isnt a highest number. If numbers go on for ever, and God is all knowing, then if God doesnt know the highest number it doesnt mean he isnt all knowing but it's because there isnt a highest number to know about.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Melatonin,
When Wells pointed out that the main "icons of evolution" were either false or misleading and then went on to show the evidence that they have been manufactured or manipulated, how is that "laughable"?

The Miller experiments in which amino acids were produced in a laboratory were produced under conditions that were not consistent with early earth atmosphere. If he had used early earth atmosphere you would not get amino acids but even if you get "organic molecules" they would be formaldehyde and cyanide-not exactly conducive to producing life.

Darwins Tree of Life is not supported by the physical evidence found in fossils. The Cambrian explosion gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today. Although there were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms prior to the Cambrian, there is no evidence to support Darwin's theory of a long history of gradual divergence.

Haeckel's embryos have been exposed as faked since 1860 but are still being used in textbooks on evolutionary biology. No agenda there, eh?

Panda's Thumb is saying that similarity due to common ancestry is due to common ancestry which is circular reasoning.

Archaeopteryx was a bird-not part bird, part reptile. The fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years LATER in the fossil record. The missing link is still missing.

Allan Sandage, cosmologist, was an atheist his whole life until his background in science opened his eyes to the truth that none of the various theories advanced by scientists for how the first living cell could have been naturalistically generated (random chance, seeding from space, etc.) can withstand scientific scrutiny. Many self-respecting scientists are jumping off Darwin's bandwagon unafraid of where the results of their scientific experiements may lead them.

To date, not one of the brilliant minds on this planet has been able to argue against the kalam cosmological argument that was started in the 4th century and was refined in the 11th-12th century.

Calling something "laughable" is not debunking it.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Melatonin,
When Wells pointed out that the main "icons of evolution" were either false or misleading and then went on to show the evidence that they have been manufactured or manipulated, how is that "laughable"?


Wells is full of poop, sorry.


The Miller experiments in which amino acids were produced in a laboratory were produced under conditions that were not consistent with early earth atmosphere. If he had used early earth atmosphere you would not get amino acids but even if you get "organic molecules" they would be formaldehyde and cyanide-not exactly conducive to producing life.


and other experiments in a variety of atmospheric conditions have shown that organic molecules form like Miller's original experiment.


Darwins Tree of Life is not supported by the physical evidence found in fossils. The Cambrian explosion gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today. Although there were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms prior to the Cambrian, there is no evidence to support Darwin's theory of a long history of gradual divergence.


Wasn't really that sudden, it was over the space of about 50 million years, and as you state, not all phyla developed during that period.

There is a lot of evidence supporting common descent. You just prefer to read people like Wells, who will misrepresent and omit real evidence.

Here's a starter for you...

www.talkorigins.org...


Haeckel's embryos have been exposed as faked since 1860 but are still being used in textbooks on evolutionary biology. No agenda there, eh?


The theory of evolution isn't dependent on Haekel's recapituation theory and pictures any more than it is based on Piltdown man. Science has the ability to correct itself, it was scientists themselves who corrected these errors and embryo's do show similarities within major groups.

If text-books still present Haeckel's stuff as valid, that is the fault of the publishers, not the theory of evolution.


Panda's Thumb is saying that similarity due to common ancestry is due to common ancestry which is circular reasoning.


Similarity is due to descent with modification. I think the Well's argument you are trying to raise here is that homology is defined as similarity due to CA, therefore a tautology. Here's your answer...


Homology is not defined as similarity due to common ancestry and then used as evidence for common ancestry. Rather, the evidence for common ancestry comes from the patterns of similarity of many traits. These similarities show that organisms group naturally into a nested hierarchy. For example, that ladybugs and scarabs are both types of beetle is based on various common traits such as hardened front wings; beetles, flies, and grasshoppers are types of insect; insects, scorpions, and centipedes are types of arthropod. Such grouping does not depend on any assumptions about origins and in fact was first codified by Linnaeus, a creationist. A grouping suggested by many common traits is evidence of common ancestry. This is true no matter what you choose to call the traits. The homology label gets added after the evidence for common ancestry is already in.

www.talkorigins.org...



Archaeopteryx was a bird-not part bird, part reptile. The fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years LATER in the fossil record. The missing link is still missing.


Did Archeopterix have a beak? It has both bird-like features and dinosaur-like features i.e. it is an archetypal transitional. Although, it is suggested to not be a direct ancestor of modern-birds. A good example of Well's poopiness.

'The missing link is still missing', OK. What about all the other transitionals we do have? It doesn't matter how many 'missing links' we do find. like the find this year of Tiktaalik, we open another two gaps for you to moan about.


Allan Sandage, cosmologist, was an atheist his whole life until his background in science opened his eyes to the truth that none of the various theories advanced by scientists for how the first living cell could have been naturalistically generated (random chance, seeding from space, etc.) can withstand scientific scrutiny. Many self-respecting scientists are jumping off Darwin's bandwagon unafraid of where the results of their scientific experiements may lead them.


It wouldn't be solely random chance, it would be due to physical and chemical laws, which are not random.

There are no scientific experiments that have falsified or cast real doubt on the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is an open question, hypotheses exist, but evidence is lacking. You can place your omnipotent being of choice there if you like. What happens when we do find an answer, science has a pesky habit of doing that you know? And just for reference, abiogenesis is distinct from ToE, it is a chemical problem, not biological.

There are few respectable biologists who actually ride 'Darwin's bandwagon'. Science has moved on a bit since Darwin's day, the current theory is a tad more developed and is one of the most successful in science. More self-respecting biologists actually accept the validity of the theory than do not - we will wait patiently whilst the ID crew perform their research programme...well, actually start it...they seem a bit stuck at the hypothesis stage.

Whilst we wait, evolutionary theory will be the basis of many a paper and successfully produce predictions that scientists can use to examine the natural world.


To date, not one of the brilliant minds on this planet has been able to argue against the kalam cosmological argument that was started in the 4th century and was refined in the 11th-12th century.


Because it is an unfalsifiable argument. We need a cause, Ummm, OK. Why is it therefore your omnipotent being of choice? If all things need a cause, what caused god. If one complex thing does not require a cause, why not the universe itself?

It's all philosophy, you'll fall on the side reflecting your pre-exisiting bias, I'll say 'don't know' and will wait for evidence.


Calling something "laughable" is not debunking it.


Read the article I was actually referring to. It's on worldnetdaily, IIRC

[edit on 5-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Why do they have little credibility? Most of these pagan gods have about as much credibility as jehovah does.
What about allah? - being a christian you wouldn't believe in allah would you? You dont believe in hindu gods or zoroastrian gods so in a sense you are about as much an atheist as I am.


Pagan gods have little credibility because they have only a few followers, and for many their existence is illogical. Pagan gods are only gods of objects, like the sun and moon or of emotions like love and anger. We know that the sun and moon arent really gods. The Christian God is the god of everything. He created the sun and the moon, love and anger. People are able to write books on why the Christian God exists, but not on pagan gods.

Whether thay have few followers or not shouldnt detract from the fact they believe in their god just as much as you believe in yours. The existence of your god to me is illogical and the wasn't Jehovah a storm god before he ascended in status? People are only able to write about jehovah because the early church persecuted and stole pagan and other religion systems.


What i dont understand about Islam is why believe only some of the Bible. If they believe some parts are false, how do they know other parts they believe arent false? You can only believe all of it or none of it. To believe only parts is illogical.

So Judaism is illogical? You know the main religion that christians were and borrowed from. You dont see Jews reading from the NT do you. Also I believe parts of the bible and not others - do you believe absolutely everything in it?



There is no credible evidence that I can see that gives any reason for any god to exist - In fact I see more evidence that god(s) are a fabrication of the human mind. So no, I am accepting nothing and am not required to do so.


Then you are blinded by your stuborness. Your mind is so bent on finding reasons why not to believe. Instead, find reasons why you could believe. The main reason why people dont want to accept Jesus is they dont want to surrender their lives to him. It is because of our selfish nature. People think they will no longer be free. But the fact is they will be more free then ever before.

Explain miraculous healings on those who it is prayed for?


Tell you what I will completely give over my life and believe wholeheartedly in jesus, god, the whole shebang if you GIVE UP ALL of your religious beliefs on jesus and god and become an Atheist.

Its a fair enough trade - you want me to change then I want you to change. If you CANT do it then WHY THE FECK should I???????


Hmmmm Deja Vu , I've already wrote that last phrase today! Hmmmm and it wasn't you.
Oh I forgot to add that there is no evidence what so ever between healings and prayer. Tell me this - why do you pray to an allknowing god?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Whether thay have few followers or not shouldnt detract from the fact they believe in their god just as much as you believe in yours. The existence of your god to me is illogical and the wasn't Jehovah a storm god before he ascended in status? People are only able to write about jehovah because the early church persecuted and stole pagan and other religion systems.


Why is the existence of the Christian God illogical?

Christianity existed before the Bible was written.


So Judaism is illogical? You know the main religion that christians were and borrowed from. You dont see Jews reading from the NT do you. Also I believe parts of the bible and not others - do you believe absolutely everything in it?


Yes. Christianity branches off from Judaism. The first Christians were Jews. I dont think Judaism is quite as illogical as others because there is a big gap between the OT and NT and they do believe in the same God. If God is real, which i believe, then i can absolutely know that everything in the Bible is true.

What parts of the bible do you believe?


Tell you what I will completely give over my life and believe wholeheartedly in jesus, god, the whole shebang if you GIVE UP ALL of your religious beliefs on jesus and god and become an Atheist.


It's impossible for me to not believe in God, when i already know he exists.


Its a fair enough trade - you want me to change then I want you to change. If you CANT do it then WHY THE FECK should I???????


Because you might just be wrong, and then your going to be in a bit of a poo. I have nothing to lose. It's a win-win situation for me. If im wrong, then ive still lived a satisfying life knowing ive made a difference with the time i have been given, and if im right, then awsome. If you are right, then you have nothing to worry about, if you are wrong then you will spend a very long time wishing you listened to me and others like me.


Hmmmm Deja Vu , I've already wrote that last phrase today! Hmmmm and it wasn't you.
Oh I forgot to add that there is no evidence what so ever between healings and prayer. Tell me this - why do you pray to an allknowing god?


eh?

Not evidence as in something you can reproduce at will. If you dont consider someone praying for someone to get better from a life time illness and then they do, nothing much else is going to convince you. In my friends church, some people went for a mission trip to somewhere in Africa. There was this crippled lady who was confined to a wheel chair. The group prayed for her healing and she was able to get out of her wheel chair and walk.

If it takes an angel of the Lord to appear at the end of your bed for you to believe, then i pray so much that this is what he will do.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by shihulud
Whether thay have few followers or not shouldnt detract from the fact they believe in their god just as much as you believe in yours. The existence of your god to me is illogical and the wasn't Jehovah a storm god before he ascended in status? People are only able to write about jehovah because the early church persecuted and stole pagan and other religion systems.


Why is the existence of the Christian God illogical?

Omnipotence,Omnipresence,Omniscience,benevolence, universal creator to mutter but a few


Christianity existed before the Bible was written.
LOL So moses was a christian?????


Yes. Christianity branches off from Judaism. The first Christians were Jews. I dont think Judaism is quite as illogical as others because there is a big gap between the OT and NT and they do believe in the same God. If God is real, which i believe, then i can absolutely know that everything in the Bible is true

What parts of the bible do you believe?
So if anyone doesnt agree with what you believe then they are illogical because of YOUR logic. So its true that man was made from clay/mud/muck/dirt i.e Non carbon????????
I believe some of the historical data in the bible like the names of cities and kings etc you know the sane stuff (and some of it is even wrong)



Tell you what I will completely give over my life and believe wholeheartedly in jesus, god, the whole shebang if you GIVE UP ALL of your religious beliefs on jesus and god and become an Atheist.


It's impossible for me to not believe in God, when i already know he exists.

You dont KNOW that god exists . You BELIEVE that god exists (two entirely different things) You cannot know the unknown.


Its a fair enough trade - you want me to change then I want you to change. If you CANT do it then WHY THE FECK should I???????


Because you might just be wrong, and then your going to be in a bit of a poo. I have nothing to lose. It's a win-win situation for me. If im wrong, then ive still lived a satisfying life knowing ive made a difference with the time i have been given, and if im right, then awsome. If you are right, then you have nothing to worry about, if you are wrong then you will spend a very long time wishing you listened to me and others like me. Yes I might be wrong (very very highly unlikely though) but as I said Why should I look for god when I dont believe? Which god do you worship? Define your god



Hmmmm Deja Vu , I've already wrote that last phrase today! Hmmmm and it wasn't you.
Oh I forgot to add that there is no evidence what so ever between healings and prayer. Tell me this - why do you pray to an allknowing god?


eh?

Not evidence as in something you can reproduce at will. If you dont consider someone praying for someone to get better from a life time illness and then they do, nothing much else is going to convince you. In my friends church, some people went for a mission trip to somewhere in Africa. There was this crippled lady who was confined to a wheel chair. The group prayed for her healing and she was able to get out of her wheel chair and walk.

Coincidental nothing more.


If it takes an angel of the Lord to appear at the end of your bed for you to believe, then i pray so much that this is what he will do.
I wouldnt mind seeing that as well.



G



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1
Explain to me miraculous healings by those who pray for it on others?

Miracles in the Bible still happen in this age. God is certainly not an idle God.


where are these miracles?

can i get some records of them, and then some evidence that shows that the suppossed miracles are beyond a shadow of a doubt miracles?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
God needs a program to convert those who are more sceptically minded and actually use the ability to ponder effectivly. The program would come complete with miracles that can't be explained away and real hardcore proof like the sky's turning to flames and angels walking up to people when they are at work or in a crowded parking lot with lots witness, and the angels can't just say they're angels they will have to have some form of physical proof like maybe a scepter that can do anything or something.




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join