tdrehfal

This goes to show that the unscientific don't know anything about the theory of Intelligent Falling. This is a well-established theory that the evangelical

scientific community has supported by tons of peer-reviewd articles and evidence. Do they even know what an Intelligon particle is? I bet not. And

don't confuse Intelligent Falling with the Agravofalling hypothesis, one is a theory and the other is a hypothesis. When an Intelligon collodies with

a Materialon Falling is produced and even the geologic record supports the massive amount of Materiolons which show collision rates of up to

50km/hr based retro dating through trajectory splicing. Perhaps people should study up on this. Man, i'm just so sick of people who don't know

science!

EDIT: I just googled EST. That was some scary stuff.

I'm also not attempting to compare religion itself to cults. I realize that's how I may have come off, and it was not my intention.

Oh, I just noticed this part unless you were editing while I was taking forever to post my rambling replies yes, EST very scary but not at the time of being involved. At first it was empowering but like any untruth not of God, will eventually lose the power, the emptiness will return because it is a man made organization started with the idea of one man and developing it, refining it, and teaching his underlings to go out and get more people, somehow planting the notion that yes, it is costly for the seminar but do what you have to do to get the money to pay and then one continues to pay and pay and pay and not only with $$ but a false sense of self control. Seriously deceptive.

It's really par for the course with cults. The most successful ones seem to be those that that give the greatest sense of empowerment or purpose. I studied such things a bit when I took psychology, and it's downright scary how people can be manipulated.

What, Who are Raelians. That is one I have never heard of, ever.

I'm surprised you never heard of the Raelians, as they were all over the news a few years back. They were pretty big in Quebec a few years ago, and they claim to have 60,000 members worldwide. Here's their statement of belief from their site:

HUMAN SCIENTISTS FROM ANOTHER PLANET CREATED ALL LIFE ON EARTH USING DNA.

Traces of this epic masterpiece of creation can be found in all religious writings and traditions. It is to them that Moses, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed referred. It is now time to welcome them.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On the 13th of December 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, and asked to establish an Embassy to welcome these people back to Earth.

The extra-terrestrial human being was a little over four feet tall, had long dark hair, almond shaped eyes, olive skin, and exuded harmony and humor. Rael recently described him by saying quite simply, "If he were to walk down a street in Japan, he would not even be noticed." In other words, they look like us, and we look like them. In fact, we were created "in their image" as explained in the Bible.

He told Rael that:

"We were the ones who designed all life on earth"

"You mistook us for gods"

"We were at the origin of your main religions"

"Now that you are mature enough to understand this,we would like to enter official contact through an embassy"

They basically think Mankind's destiny is to use human cloning to seed other planets, and therefore become Gods ourselves. No, I don't understand it either.

I added the bit in my edit there because I had a similar discussion before, and an overly sensitive type read things into what I said that weren't really there. Just figured I'd head any potential problems off at the pass

This is funny.

"We were the ones who designed all life on earth" - Really? So couldn't you have done without making us DIE? What a crappy design. My God tells me

its my fault I die, but you're telling me its YOUR FAULT. So explain your crappy designs or fess up that you made a mistake.

"You mistook us for gods" - It would've been a good idea for you not to pine yourself off as Gods. The simple statement "We're not gods" would've

been sufficient. Duh.

"We were at the origin of your main religions" Really? So you're creating multiple belief systems? Only thing can be the truth at at time.

Thanks for all the chaos and confusion.

"Now that you're mature enough..."

Yeah? So why didn't you help us mature by telling us that a) you're not gods, and b) not creating a bunch of belief systems, and c) why the heck did

you abandon us in the first place? You might also wanted to have warned us about the dangers of uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons.

You know what? You're full of crap.

Maybe on your planet someone came to you and tried to peddle this crap, and you fell for it, but here on earth, we actually have something called logic.

Go Home ET.

Wait, hold on a sec and take a breath before you reply with ugly insults along with the choice of verbage. Saturn wasn't claiming that he adopted the Raeliens insanely ridiculous ( maybe drug induced the creativity of "Rael" like Hmmm Alice in Wonderland ) tale of such an experience and to actually have such a large and must say, lost, number of followers is baffling. I believe Saturn was answering my question on who are Raeliens. If your your reply is directly at him, I'd say an apology might be the mature thing to do. If your post is directed to these "Raeliens" then disregard. I would appreciate it though if you could clear it up either way with a pretty please to boot

Heh, it was directed at the "alien".

Hmm.. Shouldn't Quote and Post functions have a ; after them?! I may be mistaken about this, but can't we just return; or return(); instead of specifying 0

Yah, I forgot my semicolons. return(0) is the old-school C way of doing things. The 0 isn't really necessary, I just put it in there out of habit.

psst-I don't actually know PHP

actually i would probably put the 0 there too out of habit.

Maybe this'll make my life a bit easier:

#include<forumposting.h>


#define definition_of_law "Generalized model of natural phenomena"


int main()

{

while (hr.jr says(law==extremely_verified_theory));

{

quote(post_number_11)

post(definition_of_law)

post("No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature")

}

return(0);

}

Sorry, just had a geek moment there.

Best use of PHP I've seen!

Hmm.. Shouldn't Quote and Post functions have a ; after them?! I may be mistaken about this, but can't we just return; or return(); instead of specifying 0

First, Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. The law of gravity. Evolution is a thery, many athiests just wish it was a law.

Incorrect. Wikipedia:

"Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases."

So you see, gravity is indeed a corollary of a theory. It is a "law" as well, but this law is merely a rule of thumb, as most scientific laws are. People constantly confuse the definition of "theory" and "law" in science. They are very different from their vernacular counterparts. I recommend reading up on them.

Oh yeah, forrest, great thread.

Ok, well, practically speaking, I don't need to be so esoteric in my understanding of gravity. Here on earth, you can be assured that gravity

will be a law to me and I will never try to see if there's some kind of exception to it by jumping off a building and neither would you, unless

you're suicidial. Science can define laws, theories, and hypothesis however it wants. In the real world, however, gravity is a law, regardless

of what science defines it as. I'm not really attacking science here, just the way it is defining something. I understand that physics is very

complex and under weird conditions there can be exception to everything and that gravity is probably even hard to understand in the

esoteric sense, but that doesn't mean I can't say gravity is a law practically speaking. It's very common sense of me to say that

no matter how many times I jump, I'll fall back to the ground, Ok? This does not make me unscientific. I will, however, take the advice

about reading up on the subject matter, If I can find some good sources on the net. Science is always fascinating.

My heart is broken. Today I have learned that there is a web site, (link deleted by moderator) where people are denying the existance of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. Now, their goal is to commit an unpardonable sin, which in my view there are none, but in effect they are denying the Lord as their savior, and unless they will accept Him and learn the truth, they are not saved. Also this web site will do nothing but encourage others to do the same. Why would someone, especially who would seem selfish enough to decide what is right or wrong and that there is no God, not care about themselves enough to purposefully do whatever they can to damn themselves to Hell? Is satan that appealing? That they would deny Jesus Christ only to commit their own souls to Hell for all eternity? I am not as concerned with them trying to commit an unpardonable sin, but rather that they would purposefully deny our Lord and saviour with the intent of damning themselves. Comments please and God Bless you all. Jim ewJim

I don't think this is the unparadonable sin, but if they think it is, and then later they want to repent, they might be led to think they can't and it could

be a serious stumbling block for ever coming to the Lord.

EDIT: I just googled EST. That was some scary stuff.

I'm also not attempting to compare religion itself to cults. I realize that's how I may have come off, and it was not my intention.

Oh, I just noticed this part unless you were editing while I was taking forever to post my rambling replies yes, EST very scary but not at the time of being involved. At first it was empowering but like any untruth not of God, will eventually lose the power, the emptiness will return because it is a man made organization started with the idea of one man and developing it, refining it, and teaching his underlings to go out and get more people, somehow planting the notion that yes, it is costly for the seminar but do what you have to do to get the money to pay and then one continues to pay and pay and pay and not only with $$ but a false sense of self control. Seriously deceptive.

It's really par for the course with cults. The most successful ones seem to be those that that give the greatest sense of empowerment or purpose. I studied such things a bit when I took psychology, and it's downright scary how people can be manipulated.

What, Who are Raelians. That is one I have never heard of, ever.

I'm surprised you never heard of the Raelians, as they were all over the news a few years back. They were pretty big in Quebec a few years ago, and they claim to have 60,000 members worldwide. Here's their statement of belief from their site:

HUMAN SCIENTISTS FROM ANOTHER PLANET CREATED ALL LIFE ON EARTH USING DNA.

Traces of this epic masterpiece of creation can be found in all religious writings and traditions. It is to them that Moses, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed referred. It is now time to welcome them.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On the 13th of December 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, and asked to establish an Embassy to welcome these people back to Earth.

The extra-terrestrial human being was a little over four feet tall, had long dark hair, almond shaped eyes, olive skin, and exuded harmony and humor. Rael recently described him by saying quite simply, "If he were to walk down a street in Japan, he would not even be noticed." In other words, they look like us, and we look like them. In fact, we were created "in their image" as explained in the Bible.

He told Rael that:

"We were the ones who designed all life on earth"

"You mistook us for gods"

"We were at the origin of your main religions"

"Now that you are mature enough to understand this,we would like to enter official contact through an embassy"

They basically think Mankind's destiny is to use human cloning to seed other planets, and therefore become Gods ourselves. No, I don't understand it either.

I added the bit in my edit there because I had a similar discussion before, and an overly sensitive type read things into what I said that weren't really there. Just figured I'd head any potential problems off at the pass

This is funny.

"We were the ones who designed all life on earth" - Really? So couldn't you have done without making us DIE? What a crappy design. My God tells me

its my fault I die, but you're telling me its YOUR FAULT. So explain your crappy designs or fess up that you made a mistake.

"You mistook us for gods" - It would've been a good idea for you not to pine yourself off as Gods. The simple statement "We're not gods" would've

been sufficient. Duh.

"We were at the origin of your main religions" Really? So you're creating multiple belief systems? Only thing can be the truth at at time.

Thanks for all the chaos and confusion.

"Now that you're mature enough..."

Yeah? So why didn't you help us mature by telling us that a) you're not gods, and b) not creating a bunch of belief systems, and c) why the heck did

you abandon us in the first place? You might also wanted to have warned us about the dangers of uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons.

You know what? You're full of crap.

Maybe on your planet someone came to you and tried to peddle this crap, and you fell for it, but here on earth, we actually have something called logic.

Go Home ET.

In about 1972 when I was first studying this JEPD claptrap, I happened to pick up a journal and begin reading an article about lawyers.

The first page of the article was mostly taken up by a picture, so only had about two or three paragraphs of writing. In this writing lawyers were refered to three times, and all three times as 'lawyer' or 'lawyers.'

On page two of the article, I believe 'lawyer' was only used once, whereas 'attorney' occured 7 times. Page three had 'lawyer' twice, 'lawyers' three times, 'attorney' three times, and 'barrister' twice. On page 4 which only had 4 paragraphs, 'lawyer' 'barrister' and 'avocat' each occured once.

Further, throughout the article were interspersed several very negative jokes about lawyers.

Now by the standards of Higher Criticism, it would be absurd for Atlantic Monthly to expect us to believe this article was written by only one person! Why here we clearly have one source which new lawyers ONLY as 'lawyers.' We will call this source "L."

The source which called lawyers 'attorneys' OBVIOUSLY reflects a tradition of higher culture, and probably originated anciently at or near Boston, that hub of all that is truly cultured; and we will call this the "A" School.

The 'Barrister' reference clearly reflects a British document, which we will call "B", whereas the sole reference to 'avocat' proves that an Italian document was anciently in circulation; probably brought to these shores in the first two centuries of our era, by that Thor Whatshisname, on board the Kontiki to prove some esoteric point.

Only NOW that the LABI theory has made our studies of this article SO MUCH MORE CLEAR, can we begin to grasp the REAL meaning of the article.

Further, the negative jokes about attorneys OBVIOUSLY came from a source which seriously QUESTIONED the role of lawyers, so with tongue firmly in cheek, we will call this source Q, and be ever thankful for the great merits and scholarly insights of the Higher Critical method!

WHAT DRIVEL!!!

We could in fact say that lawyers don't really exist at all. In fact, lawyers are made up by legal assistants to start a new paradigm for mankind.

Under my conspiracy theory, the lawyers were simply edited in to the text to support the claims of these lying legal assistants to make them

look good. When we call a lawyers office whom do we deal with? most likely some lying legal assistant. The idea of 'lawyers' has been in

existence for millenia, yet I find no proof to verify these claims. We need to evaluate what 'lawyer' really means. Lawyer is simply a copy

off of the word liar, which came from the pagans to begin with. eventually it changed into lawyer as a means of justifying their lies, and they

employed legal assistants to do this. Finally we understand the copycat lawyer myth and we can put it all to rest.

Belief in the Christian God would require something that could only be ascribed to Him. So, if my pen were to float off my desk and then write out a chapter of the New Testament, that would make a believer out of me.

You know SV you had me convinced you were a real scientist until this silly floating pen post. You appear to be nothing more than one of the many atheist hacks that pass through this board. You demand proof that God exists yet if I demand of you that you prove to me that the physical universe is all that exists you will fail miserably.

You mentioned earlier your admiration and affection for your father who writes textbooks but can you prove to me that you truly love him? Of course you can

OK good, because that would be a foolish endeavor.

But how do you think it could imply a designer? (Especially when Creation is only supposed to be a few thousand years old according to the Bible.)

If the universe sort of just 'came into being' fully formed very quickly it would imply a designer, regardless of what dates you believe in.

Further proof.

YOU see it. Give it up.....

What proof? If you shed whatever is causing such a combative attitude and quick to "disprove" Creation, you will eventually find your proof, your evidence with an open mind and willing desire for truth along with investigating facts. There are facts in the Bible that scientists have supported. Many think science and the Bible are at odds. This notion causes some to reject the Bible without truly investigating.

Skeptics and atheists who are aware of the latest breakthroughs in science are now being forced to reconsider doubts about the Bible. And many of today's most prominent scientists are for the first time considering, literally, the probability of the God of the Bible. For the first time ever, the explosion of knowledge provides enough information to understand scientific ideas written over 2000 years ago. Insights that only the Creator of the universe could have known.

Of course news affecting beliefs about God travel slow. Even with importance stressed on new findings. Evolutionists are determined to provide proof by using Scripture as a contradiction that causes doubt and closed perspective. So, where is the proof that we are creatures who share the same emotions, physical attributes, many commonalities, that we are here because of physics and the explosion of atoms and particles that could remotely just suddenly design how our bodies have organs that all need each other, how cells reproduce more human beings in this thing called life?

So, the world is billions of years old and there are archeologists still discovering fossils and the bones of creatures that at one time walked the earth. How does that disprove Creation and an Intelligent Designer called God?

The Bible stands alone -confirmed over centuries by millions of scholars. Scientific insights show: Accuracy, Inspiration from God - recorded accurately long before known by Man. There is proof in the Scriptures...i.e. God's delivery of his people by dramatic, miraculous events using ordinary people (Exodus).

God's law defined (Leviticus, Deuteronomy) God's judgement exemplified. (Exodus, Numbers). God's prophecy of the Savior to come. ( ALL BOOKS).

Most of what I have written is from a resource by Ralph O. Muncaster "The Bible - Scientific Insights" There is so much more I've just traversed over some of the facts. But, as you feel it necessary to see the world scientifically, others are open to the evidence of miracles and healings and that there truly is a supernatural higher power. That power is God.

Peace

OK good, because that would be a foolish endeavor.

But how do you think it could imply a designer? (Especially when Creation is only supposed to be a few thousand years old according to the Bible.)

This a myth. Though I do not believe in a young earth (as I will get to), people teach the earth is only a few thousand years old based on bad interpretation. They take the geneologies of the Bible, add them up, and viola, 6,000 years ago man came into being. Unfortunately for them, in Hebraic thought, genealogies are not chronologically ordered. A good example is that the Genealogy in Matthew leaves out many generations, all in order to prove a point. Thus, there are many 6 day creationists that teach the world was created 100,000 years ago, billions of years ago, etc.

As for the article, then the universe is older. Dating the age of the universe isn't an exact science, as you have to measure the rate at which the universe is supposedly expanding (through observation of stars, galaxies, etc). What this would show, however, is that soon after the Big Bang, we have a planet (possibly with life). This is consistent with our own fossil record which also shows massive explosions in evolution - rapid evolution. This is something materialists have yet to explain.

Thank you for this non-emotional sceientific reply.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/olde...t_030710-1.html

The age of the universe is said to be 12-15 billion years old. What would happen if we discovered a 15 billion year old rock on earth? Dates seem

to become irrelevant at that point and you're left with the entire universe coming into existance at once. Guess people would have to revise the

age of the universe again and that does appear to be a function of time so far.

You need to learn to grasp what 1,000,000,000 years is like. It's easy to those that understand....

Maybe you'll see that rocks cool much, much, much, much, much faster than you have in your head, that maybe you could be wrong about something, that a certain percentage of the population has a better understanding of ANYTHING compared to you. That is humble. That is the apex of humility......

That's why THEY ARE 4.6 Billion years old.

Things tend to fall into place after that.....

If you should harp on us about anything it should be that the Anthropological Argument is more sound than "God-did-it" in that it allows FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING. How defeatist can you be? You seem determined to keep us in ignorance. I wish I had something better to say, I truly do, but if I feel convicted of anything, it's this.....

For instance:

Christians seem to think that it's "God's will, WILL be done" and say "God's will be done" for short, when the two have two very distinct definitions......

It could be summed up using the Example Christians portray of Hitler, as a metaphor really, of what the words convey and what is really dispensed as, for truth: Actual Meaning, taking a look at Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf." Keep in mind I have little respect for this book, it caves to intuition to such an extreme, I find there is nothing to be proud of:

To quote:

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated."

"For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other."

[...]

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Why don't you see this?!

It's because it's self-deteating. Please stop pretending, and do something....

I love you people.

Uhh.. I don't know where the anger and adolph hitler references came from what was supposed to be a science discussion. What am I supposed to do

here? Oh yes, I see it, Adolph Hitler was the true model Christian and every christian is just like hitler and christanity is evil, evil evil... I can see the "light"

now... Keep your emotional anger or whatever out of it and keep science in the discussion and stay on topic here then. This is rediculous. Don't talk about

the apex of humility while exploding into some kind of emotional rage, please.

OK good, because that would be a foolish endeavor.

But how do you think it could imply a designer? (Especially when Creation is only supposed to be a few thousand years old according to the Bible.)

If the universe sort of just 'came into being' fully formed very quickly it would imply a designer, regardless of what dates you believe in.

He's trying to disprove all of modern cosmology with the date of a rock.

It's pretty cool though.

I am not

It's more like trying to suggest that the things cosmology observed could've had a designer.

"You said that it would be evil for God to require faith in Him and then stated that there's no way to prove He exists and you don't think seeing is believing,

so: If God appeared to you, you wouldn't believe, right?

Saying its evil to require faith is something we would just have to agree to disagree on. I don't see how its evil to require faith.

That's the idea. See, if I saw God face to face, I might believe that I'm really speaking to God, but then I'd have to beg the question, "How do I know that you are truly God and not just a dream or a delution of my own making?" If God responded "You Fool! Look at me, I'm freaking God and I'm right here in front of you! Believe in me or I'll throw you in hell." I could only respond "I only know that you claim to be God. The fact that you want be to believe in what I don't really know or or might reasonably not believe to be true is proof in itself that you are not God, but rather a dream or something worse."

If you settle on disagreeing with me on this point then you are throwing away the only point that I'm trying to convince you of. Expecting faith without proof is not Godly, it's irrational. Especially when it's being expected by men who claim to speak for God. You probably appeal to the emotion that you have been spoken to by God in some way through some feeling you've experienced before too. Look at your life and what appealing to emotions has gotten you. When you were young and felt like you should just rip a woman's clothes off and have sex with her right where she's standing, was it ever proof or even so much as evidence to you that you should do so? How much worse then is the appeal to your emotions when you consider someone you once thought you loved, or who you know loved you, but in the end love failed to be a guide as to what was really true or meant to be. Appeals to emotions and feelings are about as flawed as a gambling addict's appeal to superstition. This is why the appeal to logic is the only moral guide there is.

Logic and knowledge are great but they are not Wisdom.

You say there is no acceptable proof to you. Then you want proof.

If you're married you can only take it by faith that your wife loves you. There's no scientific proof for that sort of thing, and if seeing

her actions isn't believing, then what are you left with?

Love is not an emotion or a product of emotion. Love is something real, but it requires trust. Faith is trusting and relying upon someone or something.

You just described extreme lust with some emotions thrown in, what does that have to do with love?

Emotions are a product of genuine love, but you can still show love without emotions, or even when feeling a negative emotion.

My argument isn't that you shouldn't believe in anything, it's that you shouldn't act in ways that are wrongful if what you believe isn't true. In other words, you shouldn't base your morals on what you believe but rather on what you know. If seeing your wife love you is not proof of her loving you then what's wrong with having scepticizm in that? You have to ask yourself where things are going in any relationship, because if she leaves you, then you have to be ready to make due on your own. At the same time your actions will depend on her to a degree, but you don't need to rely on her or anyone to be telling you the truth at all times in order to be moral towards them. Jealousy, as it has been claimed that God can have, is an evil form of scepticizm, where your degree of scepticism loses its sense of rationality and you begin to make further assumptions without proof and act on them.

On that note you do have an odd argument to workout for yourself as a christian it seems. Do you believe that God can be selfish or overzealous or prideful? Take your pick of these words to argue against, because i find that if God requires your faith then he is showing all of these immoral values about himself. It should be assumed that any true God is greater and more perfect than anything that's immaginable correct? Under that assumption then, questions regarding God's limitations should be simple to answer: "Can God create a rock that's so heavy he can't lift it?" No, he can't because gravity is just to simple a thing for him to control and there's no point at which it would be out of his control to lift (or alter the velocity) of the rock in question. So then could God form a realm where he wouldn't be able to go? Possibly, I don't really know how his powers work, but it would be considerably possible that he has the ability to lock something away where he could never go. I'm sure even God enjoys a little life-like videogame once in a while and some skills like that might give him the chance to build a few area maps to have fun with. Back to where I was going with this; In the question "Could God do anything that is immoral?" I should think similarly, "If he could, then he's imperfect, and if he's imperfect to the point where I could imagine something better(at least in terms of morality), then I have no respect for him as a God and would accept a life of eternal suffering from him if it meant standing by that fact that he is immoral. So essentially if God is evil, then I just don't care. I refuse to give an evil God the satisfaction of my will and service to him. But then If God is perfect, and he must be so, then he would be altruistic and moraly pure.

Therefore, if I can imagine a more moral God than yours then the god you are proposing is not worth my belief in him. If you can agree with that then try to understand that a more moral God than the one you are proposing would be a God who does not require faith or worship towards him because such expectations are merely selfish, narcissistic, and irrational.

If God designed you for a loving relationship with Him then as I pointed out to you that relationship would require faith, because love does.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/olde...t_030710-1.html

The age of the universe is said to be 12-15 billion years old. What would happen if we discovered a 15 billion year old rock on earth? Dates seem

to become irrelevant at that point and you're left with the entire universe coming into existance at once. Guess people would have to revise the

age of the universe again and that does appear to be a function of time so far.

Tdehrfal, I think your question can be divided into two:

(1) What would it take for you to believe in a god.

Better examples of irreducible complexity. Better indications that humans have some kind of intrinsic, designed purpose, etc.

(2) What would it take for you to believe in the Christian god.

What God did for Moses would work for me. Some kind of very vivid, unmistakable "real" vision.

No. My question is for seekers in the Faith V Science forum. God is the Christian God, but I don't need to force it on anyone.

God will reveal himself if asked. It may take many years of this 'asking' but God is not an idiot. He does not work according

to our timeline. My question is simply there to get the agnostic/atheist to ASK GOD.

Well, at least it does sound like you're open to God then. That's a good thing. Most people here just won't accept anything at all it seems.

You think that you are saving me with a belief, but I think that I am saving you from doing evil, with logic.

For example, I parsed out what I wanted.

I liked what he said there.

I see what you mean, I'll fix it. And thanks.

You said that it would be evil for God to require faith in Him and then stated that there's no way to prove He exists and you don't think seeing is believing,

so: If God appeared to you, you wouldn't believe, right?

Saying its evil to require faith is something we would just have to agree to disagree on. I don't see how its evil to require faith.

If you're married you can only take it by faith that your wife loves you. There's no scientific proof for that sort of thing, and if seeing

her actions isn't believing, then what are you left with?

What would be acceptable evidence of God to the atheist/agnostics posting here? I'm curious as to what you would find an acceptable 'proof beyond

a reasonable doubt' as to God's existence?

Just as there is no way to prove God doesn't exist, there is also no way to prove that God does exist. At least, not with the tools that we have availabe to us. I don't think seeing is believing, and feelings are not a kind of proof either. I think, fundamentally speaking, that this is why and real God would be immoral to expect faith. Believing is not an act of morality, and act of morality is acting on what you know. That doesn't include acting on what you refuse to admit that you don't know either. Be honest with yourself and ask the honest question, if this is God, then for what moral purpose could he possibly expect anyones faith? It's just senseless and immoral on his part. What's more, look at how much real responcibility you are avoiding by trying to cling to such a simple answer to such a big question. You beleive and therefore not only do you justify yourself to spend little time questioning your belief, but you also spend time doing things you think are good only because your simple answer tells you they are good. Look for God yourself in facts, not your feelings. even if you can't find god in that way, at least you really tried and spent your time learning, rather than wasting your time accepting the simple answers and changing nothing of what mankind knows.

Just imaagine this scenario for a second please. God is face to face with a man of his creation. The man tells God, "I want to believe that you are God, and I enjoy your company, but how can I possibly trust for sure that you are God, when all of this could actually be an illution or a delution that only reflects what i want to see? I mean no disrespect, but I must place you as an equal, unless proven otherwise, even if that is not possible."

In that scenario, many portions of the old testament and a few different sects of Christianity would like you to think that an honest God's response to this would be fire and brimstone. But if that were truly an honest and reasonable God, the very sort of God that would have made such a brilliantly logical and reasonable universe as this, then wouldn't his response more likely be "hmm, well, when you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. I'm glad that you question your own senses as you are not the one who made them and you know already that they are not yet perfect in every way. You are questioning me, but in reality it's yourself that you are questioning and that is very wise for any being as youthful and curious as yourself to consider... of course you never know if I haven't made it this way because I want yo to question yourself as openly and as clarly as you are for eternity. Your openminded scepticism is admirable, go ahead and keep it up old chum."

Please for yourown sake and for the sake of others around you be sceptical of yourself first and foremost, including the part of you that thinks God is talking to you in many ways and at all times. This debate hasn't been an honest discussion as it should have always been, but rather, it's turned into a fight over different teams nd who feels they won each argument. You are the only one who can effect your own thinking or let your own thinking be directed y other people. Think for yourself on this one and give up this idea that what people believe matters so much in reality. It really doesn't matter in the least

Tdfehrel, you've completely overlooked what I'm saying. The muslim isn't acceptable for killing based on what he believes. My point is that neither is the christian. Both are killing for causes which they KNOW nothing about. The matrix is only a relevant metaphor because it expresses the ablility to understand that even what we observe can bear questioning. A true God knows this and therefore it makes sense why a true God would not present himself to you or I AND for that reason he would also not require or will any faith from you. Especially not some silly inconsistant faith that comes out of a book and is only understandable through subjective interpretation. In the case of the atheist, he or she has no more proof that there is no God, but look at the difference in thier logic from yours. You or a muslim might say, "belief is everything, I better go kill and save everyone around me from their lives after they die and so that God will love me for it." Whereas an atheist might say, "let me ponder the concepts of what can be proven as right or wrong without the appeal to another authority." Then that atheist will go and research philosophy and ethics and thus fall upon the concepts of deontological justification vs causationist justifications of morality. Then, from the strict standpoint of logic and reason the atheist develops his or her philosophies of right and wrong with what can be proven as the most critical and skeptical standpoints. The atheist doesn't need god or the threat of punnishment to know what good and evil are, and to do good for its own sake. More importantly he or she refuses to accept the appeal to authority in deciding what is right and wrong. In essense the atheist is in a better moral standing for this reason than the muslim or the christian, because the atheist is working towards universal proof of a right or wrong, not just accepting the appeal to the unproven authority of a pastor or book. In the same way there's nothing stopping you from being a philosophical theist in the same way. It's the fact that you are a christian that hinders you from learning the truth for yourself, or at least, it gives you the excuse to avoid finding truth for yourself.

I never said an atheist needs God to know right from wrong. They do need Christ to be acceptable in God's sight, though.

God says a sense of right and wrong is already written on people's hearts. People know right from wrong.

I never said a Christian should be killing people, unless it's simply self defense, and even then, try to show mercy. We should avoid killing unless

absolutely necessary.

What I was saying is that your beliefs shape what you do. Your beliefs and/or worldview shape how you behave.

At least then agree that what Jesus taught is good in the philosphical sense. I find no fault with Christ's teachings. There isn't any.

What's wrong with what He said? The only thing people object to is that He also claimed, and rightfully so, that He was God.

Even unbelievers refer to Christ as a 'good moral teacher'. Rarely do I ever hear anyone say they would object to loving

their neighbor as theirselves and doing good even to those who hate you. Mercy triumphs over judgement.

Why is it that people seem to think Christianity involves checking your brains at the door? Being a Christian somehow automatically places

me in the 'idiot' category, yet noone seems to be saying that about muslims or buddhists or hindus. But Christians? What idiots we are...

If you can respect the beliefs of others, than respect mine. I didn't call you a stupid atheist, did I?

No. Simply Open-minded about the existence of God.

The important question is, how can we stop at God? Do you understand that making a definition thrust it into the imagination?

What about the Breh that create Gods? What about the Derj that create Breh? What about the Monquis that create Derj? It can keep going and make perfect sense using your logic, it just takes a couple definitions.....

That to me is open-minded to the point my brain falls out.

Belief in God is not infinite causal regression.

What would be acceptable evidence of God to the atheist/agnostics posting here? I'm curious as to what you would find an acceptable 'proof beyond

a reasonable doubt' as to God's existence?

Just as there is no way to prove God doesn't exist, there is also no way to prove that God does exist. At least, not with the tools that we have availabe to us. I don't think seeing is believing, and feelings are not a kind of proof either. I think, fundamentally speaking, that this is why and real God would be immoral to expect faith. Believing is not an act of morality, and act of morality is acting on what you know. That doesn't include acting on what you refuse to admit that you don't know either. Be honest with yourself and ask the honest question, if this is God, then for what moral purpose could he possibly expect anyones faith? It's just senseless and immoral on his part. What's more, look at how much real responcibility you are avoiding by trying to cling to such a simple answer to such a big question. You beleive and therefore not only do you justify yourself to spend little time questioning your belief, but you also spend time doing things you think are good only because your simple answer tells you they are good. Look for God yourself in facts, not your feelings. even if you can't find god in that way, at least you really tried and spent your time learning, rather than wasting your time accepting the simple answers and changing nothing of what mankind knows.

Just imaagine this scenario for a second please. God is face to face with a man of his creation. The man tells God, "I want to believe that you are God, and I enjoy your company, but how can I possibly trust for sure that you are God, when all of this could actually be an illution or a delution that only reflects what i want to see? I mean no disrespect, but I must place you as an equal, unless proven otherwise, even if that is not possible."

In that scenario, many portions of the old testament and a few different sects of Christianity would like you to think that an honest God's response to this would be fire and brimstone. But if that were truly an honest and reasonable God, the very sort of God that would have made such a brilliantly logical and reasonable universe as this, then wouldn't his response more likely be "hmm, well, when you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. I'm glad that you question your own senses as you are not the one who made them and you know already that they are not yet perfect in every way. You are questioning me, but in reality it's yourself that you are questioning and that is very wise for any being as youthful and curious as yourself to consider... of course you never know if I haven't made it this way because I want yo to question yourself as openly and as clarly as you are for eternity. Your openminded scepticism is admirable, go ahead and keep it up old chum."

Please for yourown sake and for the sake of others around you be sceptical of yourself first and foremost, including the part of you that thinks God is talking to you in many ways and at all times. This debate hasn't been an honest discussion as it should have always been, but rather, it's turned into a fight over different teams nd who feels they won each argument. You are the only one who can effect your own thinking or let your own thinking be directed y other people. Think for yourself on this one and give up this idea that what people believe matters so much in reality. It really doesn't matter in the least

Of course. What people believe doesn't matter. The Muslim that blows something up because he think's he's guaranteed entrance into heaven isn't affecting

reality in the least.

And I can have enough faith to believe that we're not living in "The Matrix", which is basically what you seemed to describe.

The truth you speak of can only be experienced by "personal revelation", and St. Paul knew this all too well.

http://christian-thinktank.com/

This is a great website if you're seriously seeking... It answers a lot of the kind of questions you have. Check it out.

You must realize that in the spirit realm, there are many entities that could 'appear' as God. However, if you are really open to belief, I would suggest

that you pray daily asking God to reveal himself to you... I can assure you it will do you no harm. Please understand that it's my job as a Christian

to help you "get in touch" with God. Im not doing this out of pride, arrogance or anything else. I certainly don't want to see you perish.

I know tdrehfal, and I truly appreciate the concern. It's heartfelt.

I just wish it wasn't coupled with an unchanging, conservative mindset unable to adjust to changes in knowledge.

Truth, by definition, is unchanging and as you would say 'conservative'... I can't just ignore truth anymore than you can just

ignore Newton's laws.

The original topic of this thread was "What would be acceptable proof"... If every proof is relegated to Confirmation Bias, then you're saying there is NO ACCEPTABLE PROOF to you...

That's a very good point, but not on this issue. I see you might undestand confirmation bias.

If I SEE God and he talks to me candidly, I'd have a hard time ascribing it to confirmation bias. Again, if I see God like I see you, and He's tangible, and we speak and do anything, I'll have a very hard time convincing myself that I just wanted to see that....

If I see Him, I'd be a believer and would want others to believe following it.

Something tells me he won't hit me up on that challenge. Floatingaxe, who speaks for God, told me he doesn't play games.

You must realize that in the spirit realm, there are many entities that could 'appear' as God. However, if you are really open to belief, I would suggest

that you pray daily asking God to reveal himself to you... I can assure you it will do you no harm. Please understand that it's my job as a Christian

to help you "get in touch" with God. Im not doing this out of pride, arrogance or anything else. I certainly don't want to see you perish.

Why not just keep asking? It can't hurt you, can it?

YES, it can very much so. Confirmation Bias. If I'm expecting God to talk to me or show me a sign, it could be that a very natural event with very narrow chances of happening could come about in front of me and instead of explaining it away in the natural terms it ask for, I just simply say God Did It because "I'm looking" and I've hurt myself. I've kept myself from finding out the natural truth of the matter.

Please, study confirmation bias, for everyone's sake. It should be mandatory in schools.

The original topic of this thread was "What would be acceptable proof"... If every proof is relegated to Confirmation Bias, then you're saying there is NO ACCEPTABLE PROOF to you...