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.
Except that there's no such thing as 'the atheistic worldview'.
Demonstrate to whom; to the unbeliever who demands physical evidence of non physical things and natural processes for supernatural happenings? Such a request is contrary to the nature of the properties of each. If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith. Things which are proven remove the need for faith. For that reason it's good that the Lord remains in secret from those who deny His existence until they are ready to seek Him. Repeatedly, I offer challenges to atheists to spend a year seeking God to see if He may be found, or to spend time with a couple of seasoned pastors just to ask them about the miracles they've seen. Nobody takes me up on these challenges. They prefer to remain in denial of the most important truth of the universe.You could say that, which might bring your own mental functioning into question following your admission that you are unable to demonstrate that this "presence" is anything other than a product of your imagination.
We share the disbelief in any god but one; the Creator of the universe. Atheists seem to attribute the origination of the universe to some unknown natural cause that by some unknown process violated natural law and originated matter and energy from nothingness. Ultimately, if one believes only in natural law, one comes to a conclusion that natural law could not possibly have been the first cause. Atheism can't account for the origination of anything because origination is contrary to the conservation of matter and energy.Atheism is not a position of truth, it is a lack of belief in gods.
To the man with his eyes closed, nothing can convince him that it isn't dark. The things I've experienced and others have experienced mean nothing to you because you have no reason or desire to believe. Evil won't reveal itself to you because you've already convinced yourself it doesn't exist. Goodness isn't revealed to you because you refuse to see it. Even science; that great bastion of information and misinformation about our physical world, cannot answer the simplest question of where we came from and why we are here. Nothing can originate naturally; not life, not energy, not matter, not even subatomic particles.If you have something of significance that would contradict a conclusion that gods are only characters in books, you have yet to present it.
You're asking for natural proof of a supernatural entity and tying that conclusion to logic? Sorry. That's like looking for a coin four blocks away from where it fell because the light is better there.True, but in the absence of objective evidence for any deities that people have come up with to date, it would seem to be the logical position to take.
Demonstrate to whom; to the unbeliever who demands physical evidence of non physical things and natural processes for supernatural happenings? Such a request is contrary to the nature of the properties of each. If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith. Things which are proven remove the need for faith.
For that reason it's good that the Lord remains in secret from those who deny His existence until they are ready to seek Him. Repeatedly, I offer challenges to atheists to spend a year seeking God to see if He may be found, or to spend time with a couple of seasoned pastors just to ask them about the miracles they've seen. Nobody takes me up on these challenges. They prefer to remain in denial of the most important truth of the universe.
We share the disbelief in any god but one; the Creator of the universe. Atheists seem to attribute the origination of the universe to some unknown natural cause that by some unknown process violated natural law and originated matter and energy from nothingness.
Ultimately, if one believes only in natural law, one comes to a conclusion that natural law could not possibly have been the first cause. Atheism can't account for the origination of anything because origination is contrary to the conservation of matter and energy.
To the man with his eyes closed, nothing can convince him that it isn't dark. The things I've experienced and others have experienced mean nothing to you because you have no reason or desire to believe.
Evil won't reveal itself to you because you've already convinced yourself it doesn't exist.
Goodness isn't revealed to you because you refuse to see it. Even science; that great bastion of information and misinformation about our physical world, cannot answer the simplest question of where we came from and why we are here. Nothing can originate naturally; not life, not energy, not matter, not even subatomic particles.
You're asking for natural proof of a supernatural entity and tying that conclusion to logic? Sorry. That's like looking for a coin four blocks away from where it fell because the light is better there.
Demonstrate to whom; to the unbeliever who demands physical evidence of non physical things and natural processes for supernatural happenings? Such a request is contrary to the nature of the properties of each.
If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith.
Things which are proven remove the need for faith. For that reason it's good that the Lord remains in secret from those who deny His existence until they are ready to seek Him. Repeatedly, I offer challenges to atheists to spend a year seeking God to see if He may be found, or to spend time with a couple of seasoned pastors just to ask them about the miracles they've seen. Nobody takes me up on these challenges. They prefer to remain in denial of the most important truth of the universe.
]We share the disbelief in any god but one; the Creator of the universe. Atheists seem to attribute the origination of the universe to some unknown natural cause that by some unknown process violated natural law and originated matter and energy from nothingness. Ultimately, if one believes only in natural law, one comes to a conclusion that natural law could not possibly have been the first cause. Atheism can't account for the origination of anything because origination is contrary to the conservation of matter and energy.
To the man with his eyes closed, nothing can convince him that it isn't dark. The things I've experienced and others have experienced mean nothing to you because you have no reason or desire to believe.
Evil won't reveal itself to you because you've already convinced yourself it doesn't exist.
Goodness isn't revealed to you because you refuse to see it.
Even science; that great bastion of information and misinformation about our physical world, cannot answer the simplest question of where we came from and why we are here.
Nothing can originate naturally; not life, not energy, not matter, not even subatomic particles.
This is your admission that you are unable to demonstrate that this supernatural "presence" is anything other than a product of your imagination.You're asking for natural proof of a supernatural entity and tying that conclusion to logic? Sorry. That's like looking for a coin four blocks away from where it fell because the light is better there.
Wow! You really DON'T understand anything about the Scriptures, do you? I'll give you a hint. The Holy Spirit didn't come until after Jesus ascended into Heaven. There's a thing called the New Covenant. Look it up.So what you're saying is that Jesus's apostles (especially Thomas) and all the witnesses to his miracles were doomed to hell because they were given evidence that Jesus was real?
However, they were never saved. Satan believes in God, so believing doesn't make you a Christian. You must be born again. If you are, then you receive the Holy Spirit. If you receive the Holy Spirit you can't later deny the existence of the Holy Spirit unless you're lying to yourself either about being saved or about being an atheist. The atheists I converse say they have never seen any evidence of God. If that is the case, they were never Christians. It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life.Perhaps because the vast majority of Atheists were once religious, and once believed in the God you are advocating for, until they examined their beliefs and discovered there's no evidence to back them up.
You've managed to find some very poor pastors then. I've never seen one lose a debate to an unknowing, unbelieving atheist.The few times I've spoken with a pastor about religious issues I've wound up leaving them stumped on certain issues. I've never heard one give a convincing argument.
Come back when you have a better understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. To simplify:That's not correct. While we don't know exactly what caused the universe to come into existence, I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue it violated natural laws, nor came from nothingness.
Bunk!And again, that's only if you're assuming things poofed into existence out of nothing, which again is a strawman.
[COLOR="DarkRed]"]How could it? If there is no God then there is no good or evil, only what is beneficial or maladaptive. If you have food and I'm hungry, natural selection would indicate that I should take it from you. There can be no right or wrong in the action. You can't have it both ways. If there is no ultimate accountability for our actions, then there is no good or evil; only what is.[/COLOR]That being said, I think evil does exist, even in the abstract.
If there is no God, there is no good and no evil. You're seeing things that do not exist. The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer share the same earth in the end, so what difference is there between them? How can you call someone evil when he is just demonstrating greater fitness to survive? You seem to want it both ways. Is this a world ruled by natural law and animal instincts or not?Well, that you're clearly wrong about... I also see plenty of good in the world.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but science doesn't have the answers. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possible ascertain the correct answer if that answer points to the divine intervention of a supernatural entity.As for Science, just because we don't know exactly how life originated on our planet doesn't mean belief in a supernatural creator is in any way justified.
YOU don't know. We know because the Creator of the universe told us exactly how He created the universe in six days.The honest position to take is to say we don't yet know,
God created man in His image. We did not get the opportunity to return the favor.it is not honest however to make up a supernatural creator
Not on this planet.As for your assertions, new life is created every day,
It's not my fault if you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. I have plenty of evidence of the existence of God. For me to show you conclusive proof I'd have to introduce you to God. I'm not into homicide. You'll either find God before you die or wish you'd found Him afterward. Only you can decide which you will choose.So if you have no evidence to back up your beliefs, how can you justify believing them?
However, they were never saved. Satan believes in God, so believing doesn't make you a Christian. You must be born again. If you are, then you receive the Holy Spirit. If you receive the Holy Spirit you can't later deny the existence of the Holy Spirit unless you're lying to yourself either about being saved or about being an atheist. The atheists I converse say they have never seen any evidence of God. If that is the case, they were never Christians. It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life.
Bunk!
If you think that matter/energy is eternal the second LoT proves you're wrong.
If the universe is not eternal, either it had a beginning or it doesn't exist. Since we're here, it had a beginning. The problem is that all that matter had to come from somewhere, and there wasn't any somewhere. It didn't just pop into existence (quantum theory), it wasn't excreted from the black hole of some parallel universe (black hole theory) and it didn't appear because of cosmic fluctuations in nothingness (dark matter theory). There are NO viable theories of origination and none of you guys seem to have the integrity to admit it.
You've managed to find some very poor pastors then. I've never seen one lose a debate to an unknowing, unbelieving atheist.
If there is no God, there is no good and no evil.
The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer share the same earth in the end, so what difference is there between them? How can you call someone evil when he is just demonstrating greater fitness to survive? You seem to want it both ways. Is this a world ruled by natural law and animal instincts or not?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but science doesn't have the answers. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possible ascertain the correct answer if that answer points to the divine intervention of a supernatural entity.
YOU don't know. We know because the Creator of the universe told us exactly how He created the universe in six days.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. I have plenty of evidence of the existence of God. For me to show you conclusive proof I'd have to introduce you to God. I'm not into homicide. You'll either find God before you die or wish you'd found Him afterward. Only you can decide which you will choose.
Whether anyone's world view is reasonable or logical usually depends on whether you share that world view. From the stand point of Christianity; knowing that God not only exists but that his presence is evidenced everywhere in the world around us, I could say the atheism is such a denial of the obvious that it could constitute a failure of clear mental functioning. From the standpoint of a naturalists who believes only what can be seen or proven in the physical world, atheism not only makes sense but is the logical conclusion. The bigger question is whether atheism is right, or if it requires a constant denial of anything that contra-indicates its conclusions. In my personal experience, having seen and experienced things that naturalists and atheists refuse to believe exists, I see it as an intentional blinder that shields one from the horrible reality that all actions have a consequence and that one day we will face the consequence of our actions.
IOW: Without God we wouldn´t have a problem that only God can help us to escape.Stop right there. Face the consequences of our actions? Really? In Christianity? One need only believe and the eternal consequences of sin are removed. A rapist and murderer who repents on his deathbed will not face the consequences of his crimes in heaven. He will be forgiven, "made pure", or whatever metaphor you wish to invoke. What consequences will he face in the hereafter for rape and murder? None. He has been "forgiven", not by the people he should have sought forgiveness from - his victims - but by God. I wonder where you get this idea that the Christian religion is about facing consequences. It seems more like it's about avoiding the consequences.
What? Where is that scripture?If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith. Things which are proven remove the need for faith.
I love this notion that you can't be saved unless you have faith.
If a fireman required that you inappropriately fondle his ego before he saved you, he'd be fired.
A deity does the same thing, and we're supposed to play along? If someone comes along saying they'll save me and can do so - then why not just do it? Instead, we have this exploitative rigmarole rich with the stink of emotional blackmail.
Wow! You really DON'T understand anything about the Scriptures, do you? I'll give you a hint. The Holy Spirit didn't come until after Jesus ascended into Heaven. There's a thing called the New Covenant. Look it up.
However, they were never saved. Satan believes in God, so believing doesn't make you a Christian. You must be born again. If you are, then you receive the Holy Spirit. If you receive the Holy Spirit you can't later deny the existence of the Holy Spirit unless you're lying to yourself either about being saved or about being an atheist. The atheists I converse say they have never seen any evidence of God. If that is the case, they were never Christians. It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life.
You've managed to find some very poor pastors then. I've never seen one lose a debate to an unknowing, unbelieving atheist.
Come back when you have a better understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. To simplify:
1; Sumpin don't come from nuthin'
2; Don't nothing last forever. Ever'thing's tearing up.
3; When it's colder'n anything, nuthin' happens.
The universe couldn't come into existence from nothingness, so it had to be eternal.
The universe can't be eternal so it had to have a beginning.
Before the universe existed there was no energy and no heat, which means absolute zero. At absolute zero activity ceases.
Most atheist lie about these laws and pretend that they are not, in fact, laws at all. This is because they don't want to admit the fact that origination is a natural impossibility. All "scientific" theories of origination share the same commonality; they are disproved by the very laws naturalists claim are absolute.
Bunk!
If you think that matter/energy is eternal the second LoT proves you're wrong.
If the universe is not eternal, either it had a beginning or it doesn't exist. Since we're here, it had a beginning. The problem is that all that matter had to come from somewhere, and there wasn't any somewhere.
It didn't just pop into existence (quantum theory), it wasn't excreted from the black hole of some parallel universe (black hole theory) and it didn't appear because of cosmic fluctuations in nothingness (dark matter theory). There are NO viable theories of origination and none of you guys seem to have the integrity to admit it.
How could it? If there is no God then there is no good or evil, only what is beneficial or maladaptive. If you have food and I'm hungry, natural selection would indicate that I should take it from you. There can be no right or wrong in the action. You can't have it both ways. If there is no ultimate accountability for our actions, then there is no good or evil; only what is.
If there is no God, there is no good and no evil. You're seeing things that do not exist. The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer share the same earth in the end, so what difference is there between them? How can you call someone evil when he is just demonstrating greater fitness to survive? You seem to want it both ways. Is this a world ruled by natural law and animal instincts or not?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but science doesn't have the answers. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possible ascertain the correct answer if that answer points to the divine intervention of a supernatural entity.
YOU don't know. We know because the Creator of the universe told us exactly how He created the universe in six days.
God created man in His image. We did not get the opportunity to return the favor.
Not on this planet.
Life comes only from life. It has never been created from non living material; not once; not ever.
Selective breeding does not create life, it continues life.
Subatomic particles don't pop in and out of existence, they bond and unbond with other subatomic particles because they're too small for gravity to have any real impact on them. Sometimes we see them, sometimes we don't.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. I have plenty of evidence of the existence of God.
For me to show you conclusive proof I'd have to introduce you to God. I'm not into homicide. You'll either find God before you die or wish you'd found Him afterward. Only you can decide which you will choose.
It's quite obscene, isn't it? And it's all sold to the faithful as "love."
So, this thread isn't the debate thread, it's somewhere else? Sorry, me confused.
So, this thread isn't the debate thread, it's somewhere else? Sorry, me confused.
The apostles co-existed with Jesus. They were the original members of the church. You weren't there at the time. You must have faith. No faith, no salvation.And how is that applicable to faith being a requirement for salvation?
Please provide Scriptural evidence for your assertion. Try Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"That being said, your assertion that faith is a requirement for salvation isn't true based on the scriptures.
Losing one's faith isn't the same as saying that God doesn't exist after experiencing the Holy Spirit. Many call themselves Christians, but if they haven't received the Holy Spirit they were never saved. If they say they knew God but now deny Him they are lying; either in the knowing or in the denying.There are plenty of former Christians who truly believed, and even spent time in the ministry who later rejected their beliefs after looking into them.
How could the Holy Spirit not exist if one has already received the Holy Spirit?If you are wrong, and the holy spirit doesn't exist then nobody is really a Christian as you define it, including yourself.
What matters is how CHRIST defines Christian, not man. Unless you are born again you will never see the kingdom of Heaven.However if you go with the more standard definition of Christian,
You didn't get the analogy. I said "It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life." It doesn't matter how many people have been skiing before, if you haven't you're lying.Lastly, the problem with your ski instructor analogy is that you can prove skis exist,
When you speak of God, you capitalize it; not only as a reference to the deity, but also because it's used as a proper noun.A good place to start is ask how you can attribute something like Samuel 15:3 to a perfectly good and supremely moral god.
You demonstrate that you neither know nor understand.And hey, just because we don't believe doesn't mean we don't know.
I bet none of them were carried out by the Southern Baptist Convention. The results you get depend on the questions you ask. Many atheists are quite familiar with specific verses taken entirely out of context with the sole intent of putting the Scriptures in a bad light.There's been a number of studies done recently that show the most biblically literate demographic are the Atheists.
Yes, they are. I changed the wording because every self-indignant atheist has at least a few different wordings in his quiver at all times. I've even lifted definitions from an "internet scientist's" own posts and true to form he said I was wrong. Then he posted different phraseology that said exactly the same thing.Those are not the laws of Thermodynamics.
Sorry, but it does. If the universe is constantly degrading it can't be eternal. If it isn't eternal it had a beginning and will have an end. If it had a beginning, then before that beginning it didn't exist. Internet scientists all have their own definitions for the LoT and most of them refuse to admit that there is any such thing as laws, but they don't believe in anything else so why would they believe in science?Who says the universe came into existence from nothingness apart from Christians? Science sure doesn't.
Right, and before that beginning nothing existed. I know you've been listening to lies about origination, but try to follow here.We do know the universe had a beginning due to the evidence around us.
Previously explained. Increasing entropy means the universe is winding down, which means that the matter within cannot be eternal.How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics even apply to that?
WRONG!!!The Second Law states the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
Geat! Now show how ANY theory of origination can demonstrate and origination of matter and energy without violating the first LoT.You are correct that the universe had a beginning.
I provided the laws of physics as well as the only viable explanation for origination; a supernatural Creator outside of the laws of physics. There is not a single "scientific" theory of origination that doesn't violate one or more of these immutable laws.If you can demonstrate that rather than just assert it, then we'll be happy to accept your demonstration.
God DEFINES good and evil. If we are no more than evolved animals, then it is no more wrong for the strong to take from the weak then for the fittest of the animal kingdom to survive.How is the existence of God required for the existence of good or evil?
Yes, we all have the knowledge of good and evil. I wonder what fruit that came from?We all generally have the same definition of what good means, and what evil means,
How would it? How would one know good from evil without a conscience? Why would one impose rules onto himself that deprive him of luxuries or pleasures he has not earned if there is not greater order influencing his behavior? Is a snake evil because it kills a mouse? Was Dahmer evil because he killed and ate his victims? What is the difference, other than the assigned value of human life?Again, the existence of god is irrelevant to the existence of good or evil. It would exist with, or without him.
You missed the boat and fell into the swirling prop wash.The funny thing is, what you're criticizing here is exactly in line with Christian Theology. The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer are both sinners in god's eyes and worthy of hell. All that matters is if they believe in Jesus and accept him as their saviour, how good or evil they are is completely irrelevant.
Nor is that evidence that the supernatural is Not real; nor can it validate or invalidate the supernatural. Science cannot account for man's spirit; only an electromagnetic field generated by the central nervous system. Science cannot validate or invalidate angels or demons. It cannot address communication of the Holy Spirit. It can't explain why the disciples of Jesus would rather be tortured and killed than to recant a story that was not considered possible either then or now.And you are right that science can not study the supernatural, I think any scientist could agree upon that. However, that is not evidence that the supernatural is a real thing or that we should even consider it as a plausible explanation.
Your statement is not true. The notion that 40 authors over 1500 years conspired to write a book filled with fulfilled prophesy and knowledge unknown for many years is preposterous. The Bible states that each star is unique; something man didn't know until the invention of the telescope. It also says:No he didn't. Ancient people came up with a myth and wrote it down. God didn't write your holy book, men did.
Louis Pasteur already did.Can you prove that?
Abiogenesis is not possible. Man has never even come close. Even if we could produce a single protein in an oxygen devoid environment, chilarity shows that the random assembly of the 200 left handed proteins needed to make up the simplest living thing is science fiction, not science.And remember, just because we've never directly observed it happening doesn't mean it's not possible.
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?