Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

Oh I would not do that, because I would have to go against my conscience and do what it takes so god would not send me to hell.

What god did and decreed in those verses can never be moral in any context. If they can be then god needs to explain that.

Like I said, take it up with God, let Him explain.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Like I said, take it up with God, let Him explain.

I would if he would reveal himself to me. I am willing to have a conversation with him. He apparently is not or maybe he does not exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I would if he would reveal himself to me. I am willing to have a conversation with him. He apparently is not or maybe he does not exist.

If He exists like we say He does, and He does, you will have your chance to let Him know.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If He exists like we say He does, and He does, you will have your chance to let Him know.

Another threat. This is getting monotonous.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Another threat. This is getting monotonous.

How is that a threat?

 

[Kylie]

No. I will not answer your question with a yes or a no. Its not a yes or no question.

I don't see why. Could God have made us impervious to sin. Either he could or he couldn't. This is a yes/no question, despite your protests. I suspect you don't want to answer with a yes/no because either way puts you in an uncomfortable position.

And a circle gets you no where. In fact, I'll give you an expert opinion on your very simplistic scenario:



Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.

And you make the mistake here of aiming towards a particular outcome that you specify in advance.

If evolution was working towards some predetermined end point, then you'd have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.

And your analogy doesn't even take into account natural selection.

A better analogy would be to get the gorilla to fill one page with characters. If there are any sequences that form words, keep them. Lock those characters into place. Then get the gorilla to write again on a new sheet, but this new sheet has the kept characters already written on it, with just the spaces between those kept characters being filled with new writing. Keep going like that. You'll find quite quickly that words appear all over the paper.

I'll even do it myself, in a simplified version. I'll generate a single line of 50 random letters (using this site) and keep the ones that form words. In each line, I'll underline the letters I keep and in the next line I'll only change the non-underlined letters (copying the underlined letters down to replace those directly below them). And each time, the letters I type will be just teh randomly generated sequences of letters, starting with the first one I generate and not skipping any (so I'm not picking and choosing to favour myself).

ykjgybrredbxrrzqwspsbcfyriujvfqvirowcxmjtxnogpzibn RED

zvwfkofredmwveljobhmcglocozuyijsrdxdnbsblbxbodieng RED LOCO

qspclosrednhhlkjobluiolocowlukkmcyyifvhvaaehjjozjw RED JOB LOCO COW

snovdzsredqrkszjobabpnlocowfibhsojuzbsogxjmrvtgrzo RED JOB LOCO COW FIB

ntfchanreduoevfjobdzvrlocowfibachuazzrqfhrisimqwtj RED DUO JOB LOCO COW FIB BACH

zkgfwworeduonmrjobupddlocowfibachyzsugbpwjtsyzkvxu RED DUO JOB LOCO COW FIB BACH

I won't go on, since it will take quite a bit of space if I keep going, but given that words formed fairly quickly, you can see my point.

You see that is only due to your own presuppositional worldview that allows you to have no valid evidence for life coming from non-living matter and yet claim due to the natural world existing, it is a lot LESS extraordinary..that doesn't come from logic that comes from bias. Which is fine, we all have biases within our worldview, it just so happens that the Christian Worldview is more cohesive and coherent in terms with the reality of the universe.

Of course, we KNOW the natural world exists...

Yes you have. Life from non-living matter, information within the life form, how the universe came into being. Why the universe and earth both appear to be designed for life. How the laws of logic can exist in any universe, at any time and any where. Those are just a few that Science can't demonstrate in a naturalistic world view.

Yet you have not shown that a naturalistic explanation is impossible. All you have done is argued from incredulity, despite the fact we have found countless examples of things which were once regarded as miraculous had a naturalistic explanation, but never the reverse.

What would you do if you had to think for yourself and not depend on some atheist website to make your arguments for you?

Despite your rudeness (do it again and I'll report you), you remain incapable of responding to the issue.

Scholar usually agree that the original documents (and there is evidence of original documents)were written earlier than those complied some mere decades later. The New Testament has more documentation and earlier than any other written antiquity.

Assumption.

I didn't.

Then why did you say, "What?"

Why would there be any mention of Arthur existing at all? Do you see the problem? We have people that are writing about a non-existing Man? Why would they?

And there's your answer to your question about contemporary accounts of the non-existence of Jesus. There are none because no one at the time knew that people in the future would want to find sources from that time saying he didn't exist.

That is your choice.

It's not a choice, it's a fact. Whether you like it or not, people can refer to fictional characters in the same sentence in which they refer to real people.

This is about Christianity as a whole and it isn't an I'm right, it is Christian facts.

I prefer verifiable facts.

Look at what you have given me, nothing supported by anything other than your opinion.

Care to actually provide a SOURCE in which he demonstrates what you claim he demonstrated? You're the one who has to support your claim, don't do a half way job of it.

I love this. I ask you for a source, and you give me a name. No linked document or anything, not even a link to a list of his works. Just a name. And when I call you out on it, you turn around, try to but the burden on me and demand that I have to support my claim, when I was asking YOU to support your claim! Absolute hypocrisy!

I gave you what you asked for.

No you didn't. I asked for a source that backed up your claim. You gave me a name. Not even a link. You didn't give me what I asked you for.

If you are curious, look it up.

Like I said, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

What would that verifiable evidence would that be?

Very little. That's why I doubt it. I generally doubt positions that produce very little verifiable evidence.

And nothing.

So you don't find it interesting how a culture can so quickly become convinced of the existence of a mythological figure known as John Frum? You don't see any parallels with what we're talking about here?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Despite your rudeness (do it again and I'll report you), you remain incapable of responding to the issue.

Go for it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You say you've done the 'work.' What, pray tell, equates to work in your overtly "book-less world"?

Moreover, since you hedge on providing an explanation of your epistemological praxis and refuse to either be accountable for your position or to buttress your position with a bibliographic LIST of sources (books), then NO ONE here need take your challenges seriously nor feel any obligation to 'fill you in.' If you're not accountable to us, then we're also not accountable ......... to you.

Sure it makes sense. You know very well what I'm talking about. Stop feigning ignorance. You're an ex-Christian for goodness sake!

In my mind, to 'challenge' people's beliefs is to not only question them, but to actually and fully engage their beliefs on their terms.................and through that, overcome them.

Instead, what you're doing here is nothing but stone-walling, and this is essentially what you've been doing ever since you showed up several months ago. Don't deny it; just concede that you intend to be a troll and much of what you're doing here isn't legitimate or compatible with the intentions of a true seeker or an actual inquirer. You're not a seeker----you're a "Kahn"!

If you want to talk about something then fine, if not then fine as well. But blabbering on and on about another's credentials when you don't know what they are makes you look ridiculous. Again, I am not making you talk to me at all, that is your choice.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

How is that a threat?

Then please explain what you meant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you want to talk about something then fine, if not then fine as well. But blabbering on and on about another's credentials when you don't know what they are makes you look ridiculous. Again, I am not making you talk to me at all, that is your choice.

More stonewalling by you, I see. Ok. Fine. Have it your way.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

More stonewalling by you, I see. Ok. Fine. Have it your way.

When was the last time you actually engaged me in discussion about a topic instead of talking about my credentials?

What do you want to talk about?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then please explain what you meant.

You claim that God is immoral, you claim He won't reveal Himself and He needs to explain Himself. I was simply stating that you will have a chance to tell Him all that and if He so desires He will "explain" Himself.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You claim that God is immoral, you claim He won't reveal Himself and He needs to explain Himself. I was simply stating that you will have a chance to tell Him all that and if He so desires He will "explain" Himself.

When, where?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see why. Could God have made us impervious to sin. Either he could or he couldn't. This is a yes/no question, despite your protests. I suspect you don't want to answer with a yes/no because either way puts you in an uncomfortable position.

God can't create gods. There is one God and He was not created.

And you make the mistake here of aiming towards a particular outcome that you specify in advance.

If evolution was working towards some predetermined end point, then you'd have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.

And your analogy doesn't even take into account natural selection.

A better analogy would be to get the gorilla to fill one page with characters. If there are any sequences that form words, keep them. Lock those characters into place. Then get the gorilla to write again on a new sheet, but this new sheet has the kept characters already written on it, with just the spaces between those kept characters being filled with new writing. Keep going like that. You'll find quite quickly that words appear all over the paper.

I'll even do it myself, in a simplified version. I'll generate a single line of 50 random letters (using this site) and keep the ones that form words. In each line, I'll underline the letters I keep and in the next line I'll only change the non-underlined letters (copying the underlined letters down to replace those directly below them). And each time, the letters I type will be just teh randomly generated sequences of letters, starting with the first one I generate and not skipping any (so I'm not picking and choosing to favour myself).

ykjgybrredbxrrzqwspsbcfyriujvfqvirowcxmjtxnogpzibn RED

zvwfkofredmwveljobhmcglocozuyijsrdxdnbsblbxbodieng RED LOCO

qspclosrednhhlkjobluiolocowlukkmcyyifvhvaaehjjozjw RED JOB LOCO COW

snovdzsredqrkszjobabpnlocowfibhsojuzbsogxjmrvtgrzo RED JOB LOCO COW FIB

ntfchanreduoevfjobdzvrlocowfibachuazzrqfhrisimqwtj RED DUO JOB LOCO COW FIB BACH

zkgfwworeduonmrjobupddlocowfibachyzsugbpwjtsyzkvxu RED DUO JOB LOCO COW FIB BACH

I won't go on, since it will take quite a bit of space if I keep going, but given that words formed fairly quickly, you can see my point.

You missed the fact that this is not my personal opinion or analogy but one of an expert. Robert Shapiro,
Robert Shapiro
Born November 28, 1935
New York City, United States
Died June 15, 2011 (aged 75) [1]
Nationality American
Alma mater City College of New York (BS), Harvard University (PhD)
Known for Work on origin of life
Awards Trotter Prize (2004) with Paul Davies [1]
Scientific career
Fields Chemistry
Institutions University of Cambridge, New York University
Doctoral advisor Robert B. Woodward
He as you see spent his career in the study of origins of life. He totally understands Chemistry and what challenges there are to finding an answer, I mean of course being an unbeliever, he wouldn't consider God. However, he knew that Science wasn't close to discovering how life could arise from non-living materials.

Of course, we KNOW the natural world exists...

Begging the question fallacy.

Yet you have not shown that a naturalistic explanation is impossible. All you have done is argued from incredulity, despite the fact we have found countless examples of things which were once regarded as miraculous had a naturalistic explanation, but never the reverse.

Which is your bias showing. Incredulity, is not the description I would use. The reverse is very much discovered. The more we discover, the more is found that supports Intelligence.

Despite your rudeness (do it again and I'll report you), you remain incapable of responding to the issue.

You have been rude from the very first post I responded to and to many others on this board.

Assumption.

Totally false. These are things that are part of the Christian worldview, that you are totally unaware of it seems.

Then why did you say, "What?"

I don't have a clue, I don't even remember what this is about.

And there's your answer to your question about contemporary accounts of the non-existence of Jesus. There are none because no one at the time knew that people in the future would want to find sources from that time saying he didn't exist.

You forget there are contemporary accounts of the EXISTENCE of Jesus.

It's not a choice, it's a fact. Whether you like it or not, people can refer to fictional characters in the same sentence in which they refer to real people.

Your choice.

I prefer verifiable facts.

No you don't, you don't care about verifiable facts unless it is from someone else. You don't need facts for your position.

I love this. I ask you for a source, and you give me a name. No linked document or anything, not even a link to a list of his works. Just a name. And when I call you out on it, you turn around, try to but the burden on me and demand that I have to support my claim, when I was asking YOU to support your claim! Absolute hypocrisy!

Frum...remember?

No you didn't. I asked for a source that backed up your claim. You gave me a name. Not even a link. You didn't give me what I asked you for.

I gave you what you asked for.

Like I said, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I gave you the quote you picked out something from it that was non-related to our discussion, so if you are curious look it up.



[/quote]Very little. That's why I doubt it. I generally doubt positions that produce very little verifiable evidence.[/Quote]False. You only doubt what you don't already believe to be true, even if it isn't true what you believe.

So you don't find it interesting how a culture can so quickly become convinced of the existence of a mythological figure known as John Frum? You don't see any parallels with what we're talking about here?

No, I see one your trying to make without considering the culture, the people and the way people of the time behaved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When, where?

Well, if He chooses to before you die, or when you face the tribulation, or when you die.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When was the last time you actually engaged me in discussion about a topic instead of talking about my credentials?

What do you want to talk about?

I've already indicated several times what I want to talk about, and each time I ask about it, you resist.

So................................I'll just pray you'll be blessed in some way in the near future, truly I will.

'Nuff said. But maybe stop with the 'Sub-commander' psychological routine.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I've already indicated several times what I want to talk about, and each time I ask about it, you resist.

So................................I'll just pray you'll be blessed in some way in the near future, truly I will.

'Nuff said. But maybe stop with the 'Sub-commander' psychological routine.

No, it is because when I give my beliefs and reasons for those beliefs you don't want to discuss them, you want to discuss something else that is not relevant to everyday life and how we come to our beliefs.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So it has been a little over two months since I asked Christians to pray to god to tell them what to tell me that would convince me he exists. I appreciate the few Christians that did pray for me. The only three conclusions I can come to are:

1. God does not exist.
2. God does not want me to know he exists at this time.
3. God does not want me to know him through this method.

If 1 or 2 is correct then I can't know at this time.

If 3 is correct, then I need to know what method he requires. It also brings up the question why would he be so picky?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So it has been a little over two months since I asked Christians to pray to god to tell them what to tell me that would convince me he exists. I appreciate the few Christians that did pray for me. The only three conclusions I can come to are:

1. God does not exist.
2. God does not want me to know he exists at this time.
3. God does not want me to know him through this method.

If 1 or 2 is correct then I can't know at this time.

or:
1. God exists.
2. God wants you to sincerely want to know that He exists but you have issues with God that won't allow you to reconcile His existence.
3. God will utilize people in the aid of furthering your acceptance of Him but for us to ask God specifically to tell us what would be the break open moment for you to accept His existence is not usually how it works. Even some of us that have had people in our own family who were not believers who had to have that moment outside of what we had prayed. All we can do is pray that you will have that moment where God reveals Himself either by an action or some other point of revelation that brings you to Him. My greatest hope for you Clizby is that you understand the sheer importance of your decision and that you get right with God sooner than later.

 

[miknik5]

So it has been a little over two months since I asked Christians to pray to god to tell them what to tell me that would convince me he exists. I appreciate the few Christians that did pray for me. The only three conclusions I can come to are:

1. God does not exist.
2. God does not want me to know he exists at this time.
3. God does not want me to know him through this method.

If 1 or 2 is correct then I can't know at this time.

If 3 is correct, then I need to know what method he requires. It also brings up the question why would he be so picky?

The method HE designed from the beginning.

It actually brings up the question why do you make HIM biased?