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.
So it would be recognizable and functionable --- in short, so it would be an apple.
God wants us to be child-like (not child-ish, but child-like).
I disagree --- on the contrary, it strengthens it. Walking by sight requires evidence --- but walking by faith requires only belief. Therefore a child can walk by faith, w/o having to know all that mumbo-jumbo science beforehand; and God wants us to be child-like (not child-ish, but child-like).
This is what happens when we get off the subject.I thought we were referring to you creating an apple in your hand. Are you claiming there is no mass or energy in the universe today?
Interesting. Would the Creator have mass/energy?You wouldn't have to measure the amount of mass/energy before the Creation Event --- it would be zero.
My guess is "no" --- none detectable by current technology, anyway.Interesting. Would the Creator have mass/energy?
It's a complete and utter lack of understanding on your part. You wouldn't possibly consider that your "challenge" is anything less than a perfect pearl of wisdom that will "pwn" any of your adversaries. I'm here to tell you that it's nothing of the sort.Not it's not --- it's cheap rhetoric and diversion tactics on your part. I'd prefer you not say anything if you don't have an answer, or need more clarification.
Wrong again. If the mechanism is something explainable, I could simply explain it to my friend and get him to believe it that way. Sure, it wouldn't be proof, but it would be great evidence of the event's plausibility.The mechanism makes no difference --- whether it was omnipotence, or something else, has nothing to do with this challenge.
I'm not asking you to do the proving. I'm using you as a resource when I do the proving. Is that not allowed? After all, one premise of your question is that seeing is believing. Why else would I bother proving your magic to my friend?And I've been down that road before, haven't I?
- It's your job to try and convince your friend - not mine.
- Even if I stood in front of your friend and ex nihiloed 100 zillion more apples, would that convince him I ex nihiloed the apple that is in your hand?
You're disagreeing with me for disagreement's sake. The normal procedure following such a sudden, mysterious death is an autopsy. I'd probably be under investigation myself, being around you when you died. I'd be more interested in finding out for myself what had happened, and after I did, I'd tell my friend.Assuming you even had the authority to do so, and assuming you're friend would wait around, and assuming the apple would stay fresh, not get stolen in the meantime, not get accidentally eaten, etc. You're trying to complicate this on purpose, in my opinion.
Amusing, yet annoying.Again, no it doesn't.
FSM only knows why I bother with you. I find that you often ignore my posts, presumably because you have no answer for them, and hide behind your claims that I'm using cheap rhetoric without specifying exactly where such incidences occurred. For crying out loud, you can't even get the difference between your and you're right. I'm not deliberately trying to make you suffer; I'm just showing you what's wrong with your question. If you find yourself suffering in the defense of your own thread, I think the fault is your own.At this point, Gaara, I'm not really interested in your replies anymore. You're questions are boring, have nothing to do with this thread, cheap rhetoric, and I'm getting the impression that you're just trying to make me suffer for asking this. I'm going to put you on what I call "virtual ignore" for the rest of this thread.
Have a nice day ---
My guess is "no" --- none detectable by current technology, anyway.
It'll be "yes" when you guys can build a machine that can do this ---So your answer is "yes," then?
--- and even then, it'll have to show that He is physical mass/energy. Until then, I'll go with the fact that He is what He says He is --- Spirit.2 Kings 6:17 said:And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
Perhaps Jesus should have used a machine on these guysIt'll be "yes" when you guys can build a machine that can do this ---
Originally Posted by 2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
That's the point --- He doesn't need one.Perhaps Jesus should have used a machine on these guys
That's the point --- He doesn't need one.
My God didn't need to perform any chores as an atonement for accidentally killing someone.And Heracles didn't need a machine to clean out the Augean stables in one day.
What makes your heroic myths any less mythological than anyone else's?
My God didn't need to perform any chores as an atonement for accidentally killing someone.
Not hardly. When He deliberately kills someone, it's for a good reason.No, your God performs chores as atonement for deliberately killing someone.
Nah. Most times He just allowed "heathens" to spank His people into obedience.Not hardly. When He deliberately kills someone, it's for a good reason.
Not hardly. When He deliberately kills someone, it's for a good reason.
My God didn't need to perform any chores as an atonement for accidentally killing someone.
They'll be resurrected to have it explained to them --- something your science can't do.The people He kills would tend to disagree.
They'll be resurrected to have it explained to them --- something your science can't do.
Either way, you will --- as a spectator, or as a participant.
Hope I am here to see that
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?