FISMA wrote: » Brian, In a few other threads you have offered up some quasi sounding scientific arguments, but points I find totally lacking itself science, and have specifically challenged. In particular, refer to post #533, here. Now you're on to the Higg's Boson? :rolleyes: Just one question for you. What is your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory works properly. Concisely, science fails to offer a test by which we may prove that our memory works properly. If science fails to offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, why then do you believe it is an appropriate tool for proving or disproving the existence of God? If you disagree and believe that science does offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, please outline, and post.
evangelist wrote: » Who would like for me to really convince you that God exists, and through believing in His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior (Jesus Christ) it is possible to spend eternity with God in Heaven when you die? If there are any takers, I will post my personal spiritual testimony ... amazing!
hju6 wrote: » For you maybe, but my creator who created my reality, may not allow your creators reality into mine, So, I'm out.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Because I happen to think you are missing my intention. Rereading my original post I can see how this has arisen so let me rephrase it. My original statement went as follows - Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God. My slightly amended statement is - Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable - perhaps through observation - then that surely qualifies as evidence that God has intervened. I was suggesting that there is evidence for God. And I gave the example that if one is inclined to believe that a particular miraculous account is reliable (and here is a discussion between Craig Keener and an atheist about the reliability of modern day accounts) then this would qualify as evidence for God and for a God that intervenes. I believe that this is a valid statement. If you don't then I'm afraid you are stuck invoking Dawkin's beard.
Dublin Red Devil wrote: » If there really was a God. He's getting his ass kicked by Satan. This world is a sick, evil demonic fcked up society.
FISMA wrote: » Brian, In a few other threads you have offered up some quasi sounding scientific arguments, but points I find totally lacking itself science, and have specifically challenged. In particular, refer to post #533, here.
philologos wrote: » Ask yourself why it is a sick, evil, demonic, f-ed up society?
evangelist wrote: » By deceiving Adam & Eve, Satan won the right to have the influence he has over their descendants. Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own because he is …-- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses-- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13-- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2-- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3-- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7-- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Ephesians 4:18-- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14-- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18-- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3-- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4-- controlled (ruled) by Satan … John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Ephesians 2:2-- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14-- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18-- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5-- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9-- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7-- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24The Truth (as revealed in God's Scriptures) remains forever ... whether anyone believes it or not.
evangelist wrote: » By deceiving Adam & Eve, Satan won the right to have the influence he has over their descendants.Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own because he is …-- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses-- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13-- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2-- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3-- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7-- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Ephesians 4:18-- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14-- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18-- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3-- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4-- controlled (ruled) by Satan … John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Ephesians 2:2-- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14-- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18-- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5-- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9-- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7-- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24The Truth (as revealed in God's Scriptures) remains forever ... whether anyone believes it or not.
Masteroid wrote: » You paint a very bleak picture with words neither of God nor Jesus.Paul was an evil murderous drunk who became the head of an institution that refused to eject Hitler from its numbers. Nice.
johnny-grunge wrote: » This is in no way convincing!
Masteroid wrote: » You paint a very bleak picture with words neither of God nor Jesus. Paul was an evil murderous drunk who became the head of an institution that refused to eject Hitler from its numbers. Nice.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » Because those in control need some way to keep the rest of us down and in fear, so they invented god and the other (in all their various forms) to keep us cowering in the corner. This is the first age in which the lies are being systematically exposed for what they are.
philologos wrote: » What am I afraid of? Just curious?
Pushtrak wrote: » At a guess, dying and there being nothing afterwards. Am I wrong?
philologos wrote: » Yes, and not just because I don't subscribe to your atheistic world view. I could think of nothing worse than being in this temporal creation and not dying.
Pushtrak wrote: » What I meant more specifically is, if you knew that on death there was no afterlife, if you just found that out at a snap of the fingers, I am figuring that would be a source of fear to you.
philologos wrote: » This seems to be just evidence that atheists assume a heck of a lot of stuff about Christians.
Genuinely, if this was it, and if death comes, what of it? I'd hold the this life is utterly meaningless mantra that you do.
Things don't magically become true because I feel some way.
Feelings are irrelevant.
Pushtrak wrote: » That's the thing about people. They can make assumptions. These assumptions drive people to generally ask questions, to test these assumptions against reality. It's great. Seems my assumption wasn't far off the mark, so...
Pushtrak wrote: » True, and I can't argue the point as evidence against your position. I would say, though, that what you have posted shows your happiness is tied into what you believe, which at the very least could make critically examining contradictory evidence undesirable.
Pushtrak wrote: » Nope. That isn't true. People, generally, don't just shut off their feelings and go with evidence or entirely on reason. I would go as far as to say most, if not all people don't do so. I can't say even for myself that I'm not cognitively biased in certain ways based on feelings. I can't think of exact examples because people have blind spots on these things. It is easier to see in another than ourselves.
philologos wrote: » In what way? - If I assume atheism is correct and I die. What of it? How does that validate your assumption that Christians are afraid of death?
What isn't true?
What I said was that it doesn't matter a damn what I "feel". What matters a damn is what is true. Hence in the grand scheme of things feelings are irrelevant.
Pushtrak wrote: » There certainly are at least some Christians who are scared of death, and admit as such readily. Let's go with such people. They are scared of death. What does this mean? Their happiness is contingent on their belief. What might this cause? A lesser ability to go with an unbiased look at evidence. This is all elementary stuff, really. Again, as I say, it doesn't disprove religion, but it means that a religious person like I'm describing is less likely to evaluate evidence on its merits.
Pushtrak wrote: » An interesting thing I'd love to know the results of would be something like how religious people would react were they to find out their religion were true, except the bit about an afterlife. I wonder how their feelings towards their religion would change. Would they behave the same way? Is it a love of their deity, etc or is it a fear of death? Would be very interesting. This is the type of question that isn't likely to be critically (looked at in an unbiased way) by religionists.
Pushtrak wrote: » I quoted a very small bit. 3 words. What matters is what is true, and to get to what is true is to look and weigh up the evidence in an unbiased way.
