Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He keeps asserting things as if God's existence is already proven, but every time I ask "Why do you think that?" he goes back to ignoring me.Reasons, of course...
I don’t believe the universe needs a creator nor that if it did, that creator must have an arbitrary set of traits found within the universe. This isn’t “rational” just because you say it is.there is evidence, just not proof. So in order to have a universe that contains intelligence, and love, whatever created the universe has to contain it. Can you prove a multiverse has love? or intelligence? I can prove God does. I can say that the reason He created us was in order to have something to love. A multiverse creating something by love with intelligence is irrational. What universe or parallel universe is intelligent, and has emotion? That is the characteristics of a person. So if you believe the multiverse was intelligent and loving, then at that point I say that your view is the same as theism. In other words you at that point are a theist, because you are describing God.
so you don't believe a multiverse created the known existing universe? If the multiverse did not create the known universe, where did it come from? As far as the rest of this. So you say that experts believe in abiogenesis, do you have any peer reviews proving so, by authorities in the field? You say they exist, lets examine them. After all you are claiming that the majority of scientists believe in abiogenesis, which is an appeal to the majority itself. AKA the bandwagon fallacy. So you can't say that something is science without proving it so. As far as I know all science is based on observation, without observation you can't have hypothesis about the observation. So are you saying that there are tests done that actually observe abiogenesis (spontanious generation has been disproven for 100 years). So you are saying that something is created from nothing? And that the majority of scientists believe this? Without ever seeing it done, and in fact disproving spontaneous generation hundreds of years ago?I don’t believe the universe needs a creator nor that if it did, that creator must have an arbitrary set of traits found within the universe. This isn’t “rational” just because you say it is.
But we’re clearly not going to get anywhere with this. There’s something a lot more interesting I’d like to pursue, so I’ll ask again. You dismiss certain aspects of science that are widely accepted by experts in those fields (evolution and abiogenesis, for example) and yet you accept the existence of things like ghosts and demons, which have much less support by experts or scientific evidence. It appears that you do not take science very seriously.
So here’s the question: how do you come to believe the things you believe? By what standard do you determine what is likely to be true vs false?
I do not know where the universe came from, nor whether it even needed to have come from anywhere at all. This question isn’t settled in science and as far as I can tell, it can’t be settled at all. So I’m highly skeptical of anyone who claims to have the answer.so you don't believe a multiverse created the known existing universe? If the multiverse did not create the known universe, where did it come from? As far as the rest of this. So you say that experts believe in abiogenesis, do you have any peer reviews proving so, by authorities in the field? You say they exist, lets examine them. After all you are claiming that the majority of scientists believe in abiogenesis, which is an appeal to the majority itself. AKA the bandwagon fallacy. So you can't say that something is science without proving it so. As far as I know all science is based on observation, without observation you can't have hypothesis about the observation. So are you saying that there are tests done that actually observe abiogenesis (spontanious generation has been disproven for 100 years). So you are saying that something is created from nothing? And that the majority of scientists believe this? Without ever seeing it done, and in fact disproving spontaneous generation hundreds of years ago?
Please stop spamming this.I wanted to repost this one too:
The night before last I had a vision I was in heaven. Every cell in my body was shouting in praise over being in a glorified state in heaven. I have never in my life felt like I did that short period. I would sell everything I had to experience ten more seconds. I emailed everyone I knew, and posted it on every social media I had just to declare what I saw. All I can say, is heaven is well worth it. It's definitely not sitting on clouds with a harp. There was lots of light. No darkness, and it felt so incredible. I had to journal my experience so I would not forget. One of my relatives said when he was in his twenties he had a friend who had a similar vision. I would literally sell all my earthly possessions to bring my family there. It was amazing, it wasn't just a place it affected my whole being. I felt it on a cellular level, it was incredible. I prayed I could have another dream of heaven last night, but I did not get one. Some day I will see it again, all I can say is that if an eye is keeping you from heaven, gouge it out and cast it from you, or if your hand is causing you not to go to heaven, cut it off and cast it from you. What will a man give in exchange for his soul? What if a man gained the entire world, but lost his soul? If I said to you I will give you a million dollars for one eye, would you do it? How about 500 million for both eyes? Yet God says that we are to count one of our eyes as less valuable than our soul. Strive to enter the narrow gate, for many there are that go the broad way to destruction, few there are that find the straight and narrow path to heaven. What do you call someone who has stolen a paperclip? Or a pencil? They are called thieves. Have you ever lied? What do you call someone who has lied? A liar. Have you ever looked at a woman or man with Lust? The Bible calls that adultery. So that is just three of the ten commandments. On judgement day will you be guilty or innocent? Guilty. So at this point a way of salvation becomes important. The abounded and you died under the weight of the Law of God. Now once you have been killed to the Law, you can be brought to life by the grace of God. Repent of your unbelief, cast it from you just like gouging out an eye or chopping off a hand. And turn in believe to Jesus. Believe in Him and you shall have the free gift of eternal life, and one day you will experience the complete bliss of heaven. It's not about going to church, going to church does not make you a christian. It's about a personal relationship with Christ. Have you ever had prayers to God not answered? The Bible says the prayer of the lawless is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9. God answers the prayers of His children. Satan can give you the world and it's riches. But like I said, I would sell everything I had of earthly goods to experience just a few more seconds of eternal bliss. Every cell of my body was shouting in praise, finally a glorified state, no more sore knees, no more wrinkled skin, no more hurt feet. A body that does not age! A body that is like the angels. The Bible says our glorified body will be like the angels. That means that just as angels can manifest in this dimension at will, so will ours be able to. The Bible says those who Follow Jesus will be raptured up, at any given time. It could be today. We will have a wedding feast with God for seven years, while the earth goes through tribulation, and judgement from God, hail, sickness, famine, plagues, and angelic destroyer angels. At the end of that, The Bible says we will be given a thousand years of God's kingdom on earth (a millenial reign), isreal will be given the entire land grant of 3/4 of the middle east. Jersusalem will have a new temple, and the church will rule and reign the gentile nations on earth from the new jerusalem. A planet like object in the atmosphere, either in this dimenstion or multidimensional. It will be cubed. And from there we will rule and reign on earth. Jesus himself will then sit on the throne of david, and fulfill the messiahship the Jews have waited thousands of years for. Those nations that persecuted Israel, will be under her in the millenium. They will be of the gentile nations. Then after that thousand years, satan will be released again (from his captivity), to tempt the children of the millenium, who did not know what temptation was, to fulfill their free will to follow God or not. Then there will be the battle of armaggedon. Then after the battle, God will call us to our eternal place in heaven.
View attachment 255526
yes, I understand that you do not feel the need to have reason to believe that the universe may not have needed to come from anywhere at all. After all, you are a believer in spontaneous generation, and it's off shoots, like abiogenesis, so a universe spontaneously generating makes perfect sense to you. But rationally it's troubling that you don't have any mental reservations about it.I do not know where the universe came from, nor whether it even needed to have come from anywhere at all. This question isn’t settled in science and as far as I can tell, it can’t be settled at all. So I’m highly skeptical of anyone who claims to have the answer.
So, are you going to answer my question? By what criteria do you determine what’s true or false?
it's an argument for God's existence, so it is actually on topic. It is an argument for the existence of God when one provides evidence for heaven. I think it is important to mention, i have been praying for visions. So this was an answer to prayer. Hell too has evidence, I have hundreds of testimonies of people who have died and came back to life, saying they were burning. A doctor wrote a book and documented 200 cases.Please stop spamming this.
Yep, and I have a book that says Jesus died, rose again, and talked to over 500 people.it's an argument for God's existence, so it is actually on topic. It is an argument for the existence of God when one provides evidence for heaven. Hell too has evidence, I have hundreds of testimonies of people who have died and came back to life, saying they were burning. A doctor wrote a book and documented 200 cases.
it's an argument for God's existence, so it is actually on topic. It is an argument for the existence of God when one provides evidence for heaven.
No one with any sense of what logic means will see this as an argument for a god's existence (because dreams are not reality). Quite the opposite. It's actually helping to show actual people that apologists struggle to find anything that constitutes good evidence. I'm specifically telling you that what you're posting is actually hurting your cause, if your cause is to be active in soul winning.
In my years here I've seen this type of apologetic over and over. The response from these apologists is always indignant and dismissive, and they never change how they argue, despite being informed of the harm they're doing.
I just posted it again for the third or fourth time, a few posts ago. Feel free to comment. I welcome all to comment. Many of you guys are ignored, true. But I still do reply to posts as I see them, if they are polite that is, and not off topic.He keeps asserting things as if God's existence is already proven, but every time I ask "Why do you think that?" he goes back to ignoring me.
You’re not listening to me at all and you’re not answering my questions. I withhold belief entirely when it comes to questions of nature that aren’t answerable by science. I dabble in philosophical speculation, but that’s all it is. Your insistent misrepresentation of my position leads me to believe you’re not equipped to deal with it, and your stubborn refusal to answer my questions shows you’re not equipped for that either.yes, I understand that you do not feel the need to have reason to believe that the universe may not have needed to come from anywhere at all. After all, you are a believer in spontaneous generation, and it's off shoots, like abiogenesis, so a universe spontaneously generating makes perfect sense to you. But rationally it's troubling that you don't have any mental reservations about it.
note that when the resurrection happened it was documented in the gospels, then when it mentioned over 500 witnesses, that was a separate book of the Bible. So it was confirmation of sorts. They were separate books written by separate authors.Yep, and I have a book that says Jesus died, rose again, and talked to over 500 people.
You say you believe in science and don't believe anything that can't be proven by science, yet science does not prove a single fact. And furthermore, a multiverse is not proven by science either. So you have faith in a multiverse, and assume that science proves it, when you cannot quote a single paper proving so. If a multiverse is your best answer, an answer that you originally said was hypothetical. Then I presume that my evidence for God stands. Unless you wish to add to your argument. I do not see any refutation to the evidence given by me. Unless you wish to rephrase something. I do listen and I do answer your questions, but I can only answer them so many times. Eventually you have to consider what I said, and take it to heart. If I am misrepresenting your position, please quote from my posts and prove so. I do not honor accusations without any proof. And seeing you cannot prove a single scientific fact, I doubt you can prove I am misrepresenting your posts. If I am, it is because I can only read what is said, I cannot read your heart behind the post. I only see what is typed. So If I reply to something that is wrong, perhaps you typed your viewpoint in a wrong manner? It's just food for thought.You’re not listening to me at all and you’re not answering my questions. I withhold belief entirely when it comes to questions of nature that aren’t answerable by science. I dabble in philosophical speculation, but that’s all it is. Your insistent misrepresentation of my position leads me to believe you’re not equipped to deal with it, and your stubborn refusal to answer my questions shows you’re not equipped for that either.
You are unable to defend your position without attacking a strawman of someone else’s, and I think that says it all.
You don’t have evidence for God. You have favorite attacks against favorite strawmen and you mistakenly label that “evidence.” It isn’t. That’s why I’ve been trying to get you to describe your epistemological process rather than having you guess at mine. But you’re not cooperating, presumably because that would expose egregious flaws in your reasoning.You say you believe in science and don't believe anything that can't be proven by science, yet science does not prove a single fact. And furthermore, a multiverse is not proven by science either. So you have faith in a multiverse, and assume that science proves it, when you cannot quote a single paper proving so. If a multiverse is your best answer, an answer that you originally said was hypothetical. Then I presume that my evidence for God stands. Unless you wish to add to your argument. I do not see any refutation to the evidence given by me. Unless you wish to rephrase something. I do listen and I do answer your questions, but I can only answer them so many times. Eventually you have to consider what I said, and take it to heart. If I am misrepresenting your position, please quote from my posts and prove so. I do not honor accusations without any proof. And seeing you cannot prove a single scientific fact, I doubt you can prove I am misrepresenting your posts. If I am, it is because I can only read what is said, I cannot read your heart behind the post. I only see what is typed. So If I reply to something that is wrong, perhaps you typed your viewpoint in a wrong manner? It's just food for thought.
I have provided my evidence over and over again, and any one reading this thread can easily find it. If that is all, then I will politely bow out, thank you again for the debate.You don’t have evidence for God. You have favorite attacks against favorite strawmen and you mistakenly label that “evidence.” It isn’t. That’s why I’ve been trying to get you to describe your epistemological process rather than having you guess at mine. But you’re not cooperating, presumably because that would expose egregious flaws in your reasoning.
Sure, I trust our readers to see who’s been reasonable. Cheers.I have provided my evidence over and over again, and any one reading this thread can easily find it. If that is all, then I will politely bow out, thank you again for the debate.
and I welcome that. I have nothing to hide. Take care.Sure, I trust our readers to see who’s been reasonable. Cheers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?