Proof in the existance of God

[nicholas]

Fovezer,

I thought for a while there you were gone. Thanks for replying. Regarding the big bang, the stars and planets should be slowing down or at least going the same speed. Our science has shown that some of the stars are actually speeding up. which would disprove the big bang.

In your answer regarding a creator, I assume that you believe there is no beginning to time or an end. Is this correct of me to assume.

Again, do you beleive man has reason?

Thanks,

Nicholas

[Ovedya]

Okay. Where did societies

[nicholas]

Again, there really is no such thing as an atheist, for an atheist can never know that there is no God. If he did, then he would have to be God.

GM this is good, you should read St Aslem's arguement on just this, it is hard to read but VERY GOOD. Its kinda got some tongue twisting to it but if you stay with it it is good.

How about this for a belief. I don't believe in athiest's. In my mind they just don't exist.

Nicholas

[Ovedya]

Again, there really is no such thing as an atheist, for an atheist can never know that there is no God. If he did, then he would have to be God.

GM this is good, you should read St Aslem's arguement on just this, it is hard to read but VERY GOOD. Its kinda got some tongue twisting to it but if you stay with it it is good.

How about this for a belief. I don't believe in athiest's. In my mind they just don't exist.

Nicholas

Ever read Molino's Spiritual Guide? Talk about tongue twisting! I'll have to look into your reference. Thanks.

[artsylady]

Foveser:

I spent two years debating athiests and finally gave up because they finally admitted that they did not WANT to believe in God. If you don't WANT to believe something, you simply will not see evidence for it, and you'll fight all logic that might support it.

Can I ask you, were you once a Christian?

And why do you fight so hard against something you say does not even exist?

[artsylady]

Again, there really is no such thing as an atheist, for an atheist can never know that there is no God. If he did, then he would have to be God.

That's right. Pure logic. You CAN'T prove a negative.

Okay, one more question since we're on the topic of morality.

Is it moral to kill baby girls? For humans to eat each other? It is in some countries? What's your opinion?

[Ovedya]

Again, there really is no such thing as an atheist, for an atheist can never know that there is no God. If he did, then he would have to be God.

That's right. Pure logic. You CAN'T prove a negative.

Okay, one more question since we're on the topic of morality.

Is it moral to kill baby girls? For humans to eat each other? It is in some countries? What's your opinion?

I think morality is a static. Yes, these things are immoral; whether the people that commit these acts of immorality are aware of it or not. Paul wrote that people have branded their conscience as with an iron. This is a willful act of people taking the God-given sense by which people discern right and wrong, and branding it - searing it, so that they can no longer have that discernment.

[artsylady]

Nicolas:

your words in a later post, Good job, I am proud of you,you are learning from me. I feel like a proud parent of an honor student. I hope you keep this up.

Nicholas

Are you joking or are you really that arrogant? I hope you're joking.

I think just about everybody knows the difference between an athiest and an agnostic.

[Ovedya]

When I was in college I had a psych professor ask the class if stealing was wrong. Most said yes. Then he gave us a hypothetical that went something like this:

A man has a wife who is suffering from a deadly disease. She needs a certain drug to keep her alive, but the family is too poor to afford this drug. So one night the husband goes out and sits in his car and waits for the local drug store to close. When the drug store closes, just before they druggist is about to close the door, the man walks up and sticks a knife in his back, and demands him to go back into the store and get this drug. The man leaves the scene of the crime with the life-saving drug needed to keep his dear wife alive.

The question to the class was, "Was this man wrong for stealing the srug to keep his wife alive."

A lot of the class had second doubts after hearing the story. But the truth of the matter is that it was still morally wrong to hold up the druggist for this drug needed to keep the man's wife alive. Morality is not subject to our own interpretation of it; neither is it subject to being bent because of a certain situation. What if the drug store was a small family business? What if the druggist, as a result of his being held up, had to close the store? What if the druggist had to install an expensive security system in order to avoid being held up again, and as a result had to increase his prices, driving more people away or preventing others from being able to get the drugs that they need to survive?

Your thoughts.

[artsylady]

Good post. I think personally that morality is no more relative than truth is. In other words, neither are.

I believe that C.S. Lewis turned from athiesm to Christianity while writing and philosphising on the subject of moralism.