God is GOOD and I will defend Him. A Challenge for Atheists

page: 22
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 
A person can read the Bible and get ideas that can lead to inspired thoughts. I am not denying that. There are instructive proverbs and rebukes of misdeeds. There is a place in the New Testament that says something like that. Revelation has a place that says to worship Him who created Heaven and Earth and all the things in them. I believe the Creator was good and made a good world. I believe God wanted to have a people who followed Him and so God lead these people who would be lead, along a path to eventually make a larger people who would be the light of the world. Right now, I believe the leadership is in the hands of Jesus who takes those from all the world, those who would follow him. The O.T. tells of how the people became a bit troublesome and demanded to have a king. God relented and gave them a king. We have the same sort of thing today but it is a kingship of a global type, and he stands where he does because the people are not able to properly understand God. Now once this kingdom is established, it is our duty to recognize him as such and to declare him Lord, and too late to go back and say, We changed our minds and want to be directly under God. Following God today means following the King he has set before us,




posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



Man learns by doing. No other method will work. If God does it for us, we will not learn.


I agree, men learns by doing, never once has God come into the equation; you just claim to have revealed knowledge; and your only source is the bible;

And why would God choose civilisation in the desert to desseminate the word of the Lord? Why not China 2000 years ago? They could read and write, and already had a vast civilisation.

And what about the tribes who still don't know about Jesus and the bible? Many are doing just fine without.

Also, your God has created a planet where many die, many come extinct. So at the moment; the only input God has had is natural disaster.

I'm done, you'll use any passage to defend your pre-concieved notions of God. Again, it's confirmation bias at work.
edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

I agree, men learns by doing, never once has God come into the equation; you just claim to have revealed knowledge; and your only source is the bible;


This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to begin with. We would have no idea that God might possibly exist if the idea that he did exist didn't come first.

Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false? I guess you would quote some famous philosopher to back it up, but that to would still be just man's opinion and could never be supported by any kind of facts other than theory?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

I agree, men learns by doing, never once has God come into the equation; you just claim to have revealed knowledge; and your only source is the bible;


This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to begin with. We would have no idea that God might possibly exist if the idea that he did exist didn't come first.

Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false? I guess you would quote some famous philosopher to back it up, but that to would still be just man's opinion and could never be supported by any kind of facts other than theory?



This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to begin with


Incorrect; your statement relies on the assumption of causation, and of a deity being the cause. That's fallacious.


Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false?


Argument from ignorance - The good old "“You can’t prove a negative.” fallacy.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

Incorrect; your statement relies on the assumption of causation, and of a deity being the cause. That's fallacious.


Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false?


Argument from ignorance - The good old "“You can’t prove a negative.” fallacy.


Like I said, your evidence is no different than others. You rely on the words of man which could never be proven. Or should I take this as fact since it's posted on Wikipedia? Moreover, who really believes this other than atheist?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

Incorrect; your statement relies on the assumption of causation, and of a deity being the cause. That's fallacious.


Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false?


Argument from ignorance - The good old "“You can’t prove a negative.” fallacy.


Like I said, your evidence is no different than others. You rely on the words of man which could never be proven. Or should I take this as fact since it's posted on Wikipedia? Moreover, who really believes this other than atheist?


I take it for granted, that you must be familiar with the formally defined differences between 'subjective' and 'objective' positions, and that you actually operate WITH such differences in mind.

And while you (via epistemologically) arguments eventually can claim, that neither 'subjective' nor 'objective' claims can be ultimately validated (i.e. compared to an 'absolute reality' as a measure-tape), you'll end up with the same distinctions, as you started with (subjective vs. objective) considering the available actual knowledge you can refer to, even as a temporary measure-tape.

Abrahamic theists often tend to forget or ignore, that religion and its method(s) results in myriads of 'answers', so the religionists STILL have diverging, and self-contradictory positions. It's not only a question of religion vs. science. It's also a question of religion vs. religion, i.e. we are back to subjective claims.

Whereas the objective method leads to uniform answers, suitable across individual evaluations.

So even if you go the long way of epistemology and conclude, that there is no absolute reality to rely on, every single human being (and everything else) relate to what appears to be a 'relative reality' of outmost importance. You HAVE to relate to gravity, even if it conceptually and in an abstract sense possibly is a 'lower' level of existence.

But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general (non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.

Quote: ["Moreover, who really believes this other than atheist?"]

You could, for the fun of it, try to DISPROVE the flying spaghetti monster, who REALLY is very, very good.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 



Like I said, your evidence is no different than others.


I never offered any evidence.


You rely on the words of man which could never be proven.


Like biblical scripture?


Or should I take this as fact since it's posted on Wikipedia? Moreover, who really believes this other than atheist?


A scientist.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Well said. Augustine says it well:

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

And this is a great point you make. We cannot simply know by the words on a page. Those words must be living. In other words, they must demonstrate what they say. The very first three verses of the Bible say that God created. So what, right? Well, they also say how He created? Big deal, right? Well, they also say precisely what Einstein says about physics, that Time, Space, Matter and Energy are responsible. Our own sense of things would also say that information is in abundance in the universe. So, we need to demonstrate that God uses all of what we can observe in His process.

In the beginning (TIME), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy and wisdom and knowledge and enlightenment and the separation of darkness from light; good from evil). Light is multilateral.

By our own definition, God is three persons. He is the father (most often called the light). He is the Logos (Son or word of God). Plato and many others referred to logos as a story telling, reason, intelligence, and so on. Wikipedia the word and you find that early philosophy claimed that this word could not be defined because of what it actually means to our reality. Then you have the Holy Spirit (Consciousness).

Now, put it all together. The first three verses of the Bible give you Time, Space, Matter and Energy. Accident? No. The odds are impossible.

Add to this the fact that light is both a particle and a wave. The particle is carried by the wave. Jesus is referred to as the Logos, the prime mover of creation to form. LOGOS. The story teller who divides good from evil and sets the laws in order. This word covers a large area by definition. These are not our definitions, the belong to antiquity. If light is both a particle and a wave, and the wave carries the particle to form, then we see that Christ is the LOGOS / Word /Wave.

Put the trinity of creation together. Energy / Force / Information (Consciousness) and you now have a working definition of physics that answers the question of how energy becomes matter.

This is just the beginning of the Bible.

This is not merely theory, this is history revealing man's theory over time to match what was always there in the mirror.

Go one further.

God is one entity with three persons of creation. Father (Substance and Energy) / Son (creative force) / Holy Spirit (Consciousness)

Man is one entity with three persons of creation. We are Body (Substance) / Soul (Creative force) and Spirit (consciousness). We are God's image. We are in God's image. Again, the Bible states as much. Science is blind to the consciousness part and the prime mover behind it all.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;

This is not theory. This is history developing its own independent version called science and then looking back at the original written version. This is called verification of theory.


Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

I agree, men learns by doing, never once has God come into the equation; you just claim to have revealed knowledge; and your only source is the bible;


This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to begin with. We would have no idea that God might possibly exist if the idea that he did exist didn't come first.

Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false? I guess you would quote some famous philosopher to back it up, but that to would still be just man's opinion and could never be supported by any kind of facts other than theory?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 




But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general (non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.


Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory. Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.


"God is good" is a statement that relies on the ASSUMPTION that a deity exists; if you can't prove whether a deity exists; then you can't describe human characteristicss of the deity; you are simply word conjuring.

Even as a Pantheist; you could not extract human emotions from nature; or the creator of nature.
edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil
 




But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general (non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.


Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory. Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.



You have said: It's true, because it's true. That science doesn't include 'god' in it's equations doesn't imply, that 'god' is a freestanding scientific concept. Science doesn't include Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster either.

It's still postulates.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil
 




But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general (non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.


Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory. Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.



You have said: It's true, because it's true. That science doesn't include 'god' in it's equations doesn't imply, that 'god' is a freestanding scientific concept. Science doesn't include Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster either.

It's still postulates.


Where are the claims of Zeus and Thor? Where are there books that are read by billions of people. The Spaghetti monster gives us no indication of the physics he uses to create the universe. I say true to God because He makes the claims and then we back them up with our science. That's verification. God is good. He only requires that you bring your pride to equality with your fellow man in love of others. God is one of the others.

We have filled up pages with how God is good. Where are all the threads from Thor and Zeus? Where are all the people defending Him. ATS is filled with pages of people standing up in honor of God as well as those wishing to steal, kill and destroy His message, just as He says would happen in His word. Israel is a nation again, just as He said would happen from the pages of His word. They are hated of all the nations around Her, just as God has said. There is a world Government of tyranny forming, just as God predicted. They are hell bent on destroying God's kingdom, as stated in the Bible. You see, I provide you a good word here.

These are all verification of God's word. And, as God predicts, the lost of this generation will fall under a delusion and believe the lie of secular humanism. 1948 is your key date for this to begin. Read your history.

Thessalonians 2:

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

edit on 10-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


ppl shouldnt believe in the trendiest religion.

god is not always good, Sodom and Gomorrah, just to name one example.

bible prophecies are so vague, you can pick lots of places in time where they could fit.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil
 




But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general (non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.


Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory. Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.



You have said: It's true, because it's true. That science doesn't include 'god' in it's equations doesn't imply, that 'god' is a freestanding scientific concept. Science doesn't include Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster either.

It's still postulates.


Awareness is needed for perspective to be broadened. Science refuses the awareness of consciousness in the universe. It assumes some happy accident or chemical reaction. No, the obvious conclusion is design and engineering at the nano level of complexity. It's in your face with proof and verification. Nothing implied. Nature proclaims God's goodness. No postulates here other than perfect reasoning and good old common sense. Even science uses common sense.

All scientists will reluctantly acknowledge one truth: No conceivable experiment can confirm all our theories. This places science in a position of faith. In physics, no instrument can be made small enough to actually do accurate testing. Parallel universes are too distant, yet we know they are there based on the work of countless researchers. Dead ends against common sense regarding them.

"the utter strangeness of a world that the human intellect was not designed for... physicists have had no choice but to rewire themselves. Where intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathematics." We've gone "out of the range of experience." Leonard Susskind

As Huxley said, "Science is nothing more than trained and organized common sense."



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
It is obvious you are young. Hold your stand against God. You will need years of struggle in life to gain perspective. Life has a funny way of leading us toward truth. If you broaden yourself out toward helping others and seeing them as equals, truth embraces you at every turn.

Sodom and Gomorrah would make the streets of Syria look like Disney. God is a just judge. We all expect justice when we are wronged by others. Sodom was a place of ultimate pride where no justice existed. Hedonism was the rule. They were given over to everything that we stand against with our understanding of freedom and justice; truth and liberty. I am not speaking to the lifestyle that was evident in the story. I am speaking of where this self love leads. Lawlessness is what it is. Put it in perspective as you begin to see our rights disappear in America. As we walk away from faith, tyranny steps in to steal, kill and destroy. Justice is necessary if men are to live free. Sodom was an example to all of us.


Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


ppl shouldnt believe in the trendiest religion.

god is not always good, Sodom and Gomorrah, just to name one example.

bible prophecies are so vague, you can pick lots of places in time where they could fit.
edit on 10-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

I never offered any evidence.



That's the problem with atheist, they never bring anything to the table that is believable, or can even be supported by anything. Don't you realize that it's take faith to believe the way you do?

And what is faith? Take your pick, either way, there is no way around this fact.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. dictionary.reference.com...

So you see, your belief is really no different than mine, you believe what you believe without proof, but people who believe in God you say aren't allowed to do so. How logical is that?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 



That's the problem with atheist, they never bring anything to the table that is believable, or can even be supported by anything.


The atheist isn't making the positive claim. Never once have i declared there is no God.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.


Don't you realize that it's take faith to believe the way you do?


Again, i'm not making a positive claim despite having a lack of evidence; that doesn't require any faith. I disbelieve that goblins, wizards and unicorns exist; that doesn't take faith. It doesn't take faith to disbelieve there's a teapot factory on Pluto.

I'm being honest based on the knowledge humans currently have regarding the unknown; nothing.

I'm not making a leap of faith; i'm not jumping to conclusions and i'm not making positive claims and criticising my fellow man for being skeptical of my extraordinary claims.


And what is faith? Take your pick, either way, there is no way around this fact.


Faith has many connotations.


1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.


Faith to a person or cause (e.g Your mother, or the scientific method) This kind of faith is justified, there is reason to have faith.


2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.


A scientific hypothesis relies on having data, information, and it can be testable. Having faith is perhaps reasoned by sound mathematic formula etc.

You missed this definition:


Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof


The religious type of faith based on 0 evidence. Blind faith that is preached as a virtue.
edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 



That's the problem with atheist, they never bring anything to the table that is believable, or can even be supported by anything.


The atheist isn't making the positive claim. Never once have i declared there is no God.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.


Don't you realize that it's take faith to believe the way you do?


Again, i'm not making a positive claim despite having a lack of evidence; that doesn't require any faith. I disbelieve that goblins, wizards and unicorns exist; that doesn't take faith. It doesn't take faith to disbelieve there's a teapot factory on Pluto.

I'm being honest based on the knowledge humans currently have regarding the unknown; nothing.

I'm not making a leap of faith; i'm not jumping to conclusions and i'm not making positive claims and criticising my fellow man for being skeptical of my extraordinary claims.


And what is faith? Take your pick, either way, there is no way around this fact.


Faith has many connotations.


1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.


Faith to a person or cause (e.g Your mother, or the scientific method) This kind of faith is justified, there is reason to have faith.


2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.


A scientific hypothesis relies on having data, information, and it can be testable. Having faith is perhaps reasoned by sound mathematic formula etc.

You missed this definition:


Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof


The religious type of faith based on 0 evidence. Blind faith that is preached as a virtue.
edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)


Wow, I guess you really don't believe anything. If you don't have faith or belief in anything then nothing you say could ever be right or proven as fact. In other words, sounds to me like your the one with all the fairy tales. Let's be real here, over 90% of world's population believes in some form of God. Do you really think that the little group you belong to will ever over throw such an idea without anything to back it up other than you saying it's false? Trying to do so is a fallacy within itself.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 



Wow, I guess you really don't believe anything


No, Atheism does not equate to nihilism.


Let's be real here, over 90% of world's population believes in some form of God. Do you really think that the little group you belong to will ever over throw such an idea without anything to back it up other than you saying it's false? Trying to do so is a fallacy within itself.


Argumentum ad populum; Fallacious.
edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 



Let's be real here, over 90% of world's population believes in some form of God. Do you really think that the little group you belong to will ever over throw such an idea without anything to back it up other than you saying it's false? Trying to do so is a fallacy within itself.


Argumentum ad populum; Fallacious.
edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)


Come on now, So I guess now your saying that 90% of the world's population suffers from sort of mass delusion, while you and the tiny group of atheist are the smartest on the planet, yeah right. That's like me going into McDonald's and saying these are the nastiest burgers ever created, just because I might think so doesn't mean the world will stop eating them. I'll just get laughed at by the masses.
edit on 10-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join