-->
@keithprosser
You may do as you like. I was merely answering your question.
A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God
Posts
Total:
1,007
-->
@secularmerlin
I appreciate your response - i just wish I hadn't asked the question!
It's hardly an innocent question! It was designed to show up the weakness of the theistic poisition. Therefore, it was aggressive. Overly agressive? - Par for the course I'd say.So do you believe it's overtly 'aggressive' to ask a theist then to demonstrate how they go from 'some being created the universe' to "MY being created the universe, yours didn't"?
-->
@ludofl3x
I think it'd naturally follow: I don't have any reason to believe any god or gods have ever existed, and thus I believe the worldview that doesn't require gods to exist is most consistent with reality." It seems a distinction without a difference. I'm at the Dawkins 6.9 on the 7 point scale of being convinced, but that doesn't mean I am certain.
I'd say, "A presumed theistic universe is scientifically and logically indistinguishable from a presumed atheistic universe".
GOD is a human fabricated Comic Book character...nothing more...believe in one or more ? GOOD
take all of them to your GRAVE
If YOU are that STUPID to fall for some Parasite VAMPIRE vomiting his GOD and infecting your BRAIN
to accept his / her VOMIT..then YOU DROWN IN it...so IDIOTIC....go away....
-->
@disgusted
Changing your story won't help you, you claim that homosexuality is a choice
so on what auspicious date did you choose to be heterosexual? The choice is between those two so you had to have made a conscious choice to be heterosexual and that must have been an auspicious occasion surely you remember the date. The date when you rejected your homosexual tendencies?But as an aside this is hilarious:thus through heredityHomosexuals are the offspring of homosexuals. bahahahahahahaha. Do you have any idea how deep you have engulfed yourself in stupidly stupid land?
What I'm saying is that if the father is not a good example (a godly man) it can lead the son to a depraved mind too, to the third and fourth generations. This concept is expressed in Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,...
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened...
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
So, the word tells us that when people do not see fit to worship God He lets them go their own way. Their minds become depraved when they lose focus on what is good to the point that some dishonour a natural relationship in exchange for an unnatural one. They do things that are not proper in a biblical sense.
Pray for ODIN FOOLS or suffer the consequences ! kneel and beg for forgiveness ...you have sinned
against HIM for believing in the JEW - JESUS - ALLAH fake GOD inventions..what a JOKE !
-->
@ludofl3x
I can give reasoned evidence for its truth claims and I have a worldview that can make sense of origins. The atheist worldview can't. It is too inconsistent in making sense of its core beliefs, on what everything else rests.What core beliefs does atheism claim besides "the claim of anything supernatural has not met the burden of proof"?
Why the very fact that if it does not look at things through the lens of a Creator must mean it looks at proofs through naturalistic means alone. That is what we find. If someone denies God they must try to understand the universe through a mechanistic method as the most reasonable explanation for existence. That is what we find, yet how reasonable is their worldview?
You've yet to provide any reasoned evidence why the creator would be your god without referring to your own claim, and not any other god. We're at page 17. You've done this move several times, well I COULD show you something but you wouldn't believe it on its face. I COULD demonstrate this that or the other, but what good is it. I can demonstrate to you, for a fact, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that is true whether you believe it or not. Your claim seems to be because you believe it's true, it is, and that's that.
My prime motive has not been to present biblical evidence since you have told me you will not accept it (i.e., don't use the Bible as proof, thus, why should I waste my time?) but to contrast the two positions - God vs materialism in making sense of anything.
My claim all along is that you can't make sense of life's ultimate questions without first presupposing God. Atheistic belief does not make sense. First, it puts fallible humans as the measure of all things, but which contrary fallible humans is the question?
here is a purpose for life, to know and enjoy God, the reason He created us - a personal relationship in which we can enjoy His goodness and mercy. Sin, or our willingness to do our own thing, has gotten in the way. That is my Christian reasoning.Can you use REGULAR reasoning to demonstrate why anyone should believe your Christian reasoning?
What is "regular reasoning" and how does it differ from other kinds of reasoning? As a Christian, I look to God for the answers? I find the reasons in His revelation to some extent and by trying to think His thoughts after Him.
Why are Hindus wrong (without using the bible)?
To answer every religion would be endless and I'm not going down that rabbit hole. It has been such a long time since I looked into Hinduism but the simple answer is that their worldview is not consistent with reality. Like all worldviews except the biblical one, it is reductionistic or contradictory and what one Christian author (Nancy Pearcey) claims is self-referentially absurd or self-refuting to what we experience and to common sense. They can't live consistently with that worldview. (I know as soon as I say that they are contrary the atheist lists hundreds of apparent contradictions but so often they do not understand either the paradoxical language [i.e., lose your life to gain it] or reasonable explanation to the point of contention. I have found often that the verse is either taken out of context or there is a reasonable explanation that has been overlooked).
There are far, far more people on earth today, and even more from the past, who'd never heard of Jesus, don't care about him, from lands he never mentions. Strange way to create stuff to believe in you for your glory, isn't it?
And they have the same problem that every unbeliever has, they don't want to know God. They desire something different. They want to call what is and what is not, and God interferes with their supposed freedom of choice.
-->
@ludofl3x
In your worldview how do you explain evil and injustice?People do bad things, that's just how some people are. How you explain it: God planned it and is okay with it happening,
No, He is never okay with it yet He allows evil for a purpose and a time. God has given humanity over to their sin, to find out that they don't have the solutions, they can't live consistently good lives without God.
Many people understand that they will be judged for sin, for their wrongful actions. Why even Hinduism believes in karma, what goes around comes around. The problem with every world religion but one is that they are works related or merited. They rely on what the person does to achieve their salvation. That is why Christianity is different. Christianity relies on the work of another for how we can be holy and good before a perfectly righteous God once we have sinned. That is the question.
he's going to make sure those folks burn in some hell someplace well after, for example, they murder your wife. Doesn't that make you feel much better?
They choose their destiny. What is hell? I believe it is a separation from the love and goodness of God for eternity. You get what you want. You refuse to acknowledge God or acknowledge His mercy so He gives you over to your own desires, per Romans 1:18 onwards.
Will you accept what is reasonable?Will it be regular reasonable, or Christian reasonable? You keep asking this then never presenting anything. I'm still waiting on any answer to the core question: how do you prove any other deity false without referring to yours by default?
Crafty distinction - "regular" as opposed to "Christian" reasoning suggesting that Christian reasoning is different (and inferior) to regular reasoning.
First, prove He does not exist. You know you can't do that, so you employ doubt as to His existence.I don't claim something that I can't prove exists, exists. You do. Your job is to prove it's there to me. That's how burden of proof works, but you know that and continue to ignore it. I employ the same doubt about your god that you do about every other god, it should be easy to understand. "Making a universe out of his word" = magic.
My job is to prove it is reasonable as opposed to other worldviews.
If you reveal your worldview I will try to contrast the differences between the two. I notice your profile gives no clue. It is easier that way. You don't have to explain yourself but can have free roam to criticize others.
I believe that at one time you once professed Christ for you have some familiarity with the Bible.
You can start any topic you like and I'll participate as warranted, I've said that several times. One more time for you now: without referring to your own religion, can you prove, or make a reasonable case, that any other god of your choosing definitely does not exist and never has? The alternative is can you prove that a creator of the universe has to be the god you worship without referring to the claim itself (the bible) but this has already proven too difficult.
Why would I use your subjective authorities to prove God? I see the Bible as the authority, so why would I bow to a lesser authority?
(For your benefit I use the word if)
If the Bible is what it claims to be 1) there is no greater authority of appeal, 2) what exists will reasonably reflect what this God says.
Thus, the OT was written before the NT. It reveals it is mainly a relationship with God and Israel in which a covenant is established with these people and God. These people continually fail to live up to their side of the covenant. God sends prophets and teachers to warn them of the curses of disobedience they agreed to. They fail to heed His warning that is written down in the OT. Thus, the NT is largely about the judgment God promised them, and it centers on the destruction of their worship system that happened in AD 70. This is a very reasonably proven fact. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in AD 70, as warned would happen with their disobedience. Thus, His word conforms to history or what we would expect to find.
So, that is just one evidence I use.
-->
@PGA2.0
So what was the date you chose to be heterosexual, the new story waffle that I'm responding to is simply you trying to avoid the question. When did you choose to be heterosexual?
-->
@PGA2.0
If the Bible is what it claims to be 1) there is no greater authority of appeal, 2) what exists will reasonably reflect what this God says.
I wonder if you find it as bizarre and inexplicable that I don't accept the authority of the bible as I find it bizarre and inexplicable that you do!
-->
@PGA2.0
My job is to prove it is reasonable as opposed to other worldviews.
This is incorrect. Each position stands on its own merits. Even if all other worldviews are completely unreasonable yours would still be only as reasonable as it is.
-->
@PGA2.0
You don't know anything that your god has said.2) what exists will reasonably reflect what this God says.
-->
@PGA2.0
it centers on the destruction of their worship system that happened in AD 70. This is a very reasonably proven fact.
So is the idea is that God tired of the Jews' continual disobedience and broke with them, creating a new covenant with gentiles instead?
Certainly the Romans dealt harshly with the Jewish rebellion, but empires have put down countless rebellions and routinely destroy institutions that opposed them.
-->
@PGA2.0
My job is to prove it is reasonable as opposed to other worldviews.If you reveal your worldview I will try to contrast the differences between the two. I notice your profile gives no clue. It is easier that way. You don't have to explain yourself but can have free roam to criticize others.
Let me make this super, duper simple for you. First, I've said a hundred times now, I'm an atheist, but second, that isn't the topic. You want to ask me if being an atheist makes sense? Start a topic and I'll participate as warranted. I will boil the core question which you've avoided for 18 pages down again, and you can answer yes or no.
I GRANT THAT SOMETHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Some thinking agent, some superpower, DECIDED to create the universe. THIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?
Everything else is a distraction. The question of why the universe is here. The demand that "Well YOU can't make a universe, can you? Therefore it was god!" My worldview. Immigration rants. Big bang cosmology. Homosexuals. The origins of existence (AGAIN THIS IS GRANTED!). Who can make sense of what. Problem of suffering. "The big questions." Scholarly writings about an ancient text. All of it is irrelevant. In every instance so far, you seem to answer this question with "well, I presume he's there, and then some stuff makes sense!" Do you understand that every faithful person on earth would say that exact same thing, with the exact same certainty, and you would tell them they're wrong? Why are they wrong? You answer "I could tell you but I'm not going down THAT rabbit hole again. It's too easy! I just know that their gods don't comport with reality." I will resubmit my counter.
Let's say for a moment that I'm a believer in the Roman pantheon.This pantheon contains multiple gods, all of whom have certain jobs and departments, and none of whom seem to really care what I do every day, and sometimes whatever gods are up to, it causes bad things to happen here on earth. Stuff like wildfires, or earthquakes, or lightning striking a person, or droughts or floods. Gods just do what gods do, and sometimes, people are collateral damage. This view comports demonstrably with reality (natural phenomena / non-interventionist gods / wars / free will / diaspora of moral views). It predates Christianity and it comes from a culture whose gods allowed them to conquer most of the known world, for centuries, so they must have been right! When I die, I will be dead and the gods will continue their godly melodrama unseen, which means that calamities and prosperity will both happen on earth in equal measures but completely irrelevant to them.
Why am I wrong?
I'm willing to engage with you on any number of topics, even though I have a very strong suspicion you're not interested in honest discussion, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But stay on THIS topic in here.
-->
@secularmerlin
Jeez, where were you like 16 pages ago?!? I've been trying to make that point this whole time, he keeps ignoring it. Maybe I'm a poor communicator.
-->
@ludofl3x
I GRANT THAT SOMETHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE.
False.
Physical//energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.
Occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.
Within that finite Universe set we have oscillations between one phase//state of existence and others.
Ex . o O ( ) O o . o O ( ) O o . o O ( ) exemplifies a simplistic expansion-contraction scenario, that exists eternally.
Within a finite,eternally existent Universe, we have time periods and all time periods have beginnings and endings, but Observed Time{ /\/\/ }, like physical//energy is eternally existent.
At best we can concieve of a time, when only Gravitational Space ( ) and Dark Energy Space )( existed. However even in these "heat death of Universe's scenario the Observed Time occupied space still exists as a the maximal long wave{ i.e. very flat and least energetic } photon
Ex _____ or ----------- or as |
What my explorations add to that scenario is that on each side of the flat photon heat death scenario is Gravitational and Dark Energy Space.
O|O > i.e. sphericals on each side of flat photon{ | } defined by gravity and dark energy, vectorial tori
OOOOOOOOOOO > sphericals defined gravity and dark energy vectorial tori
-------------------------- > flat photon
OOOOOOOOOOO > sphericals defined by gravity and dark energy, vectorial tori
See LINK for great circle spphericals, that, I believe each great circle is a great vectorial torus tube.
The photon, I believe is associated with 10 great circles of the 5-fold icosahedron See LIINK
However, these 10 also associated with the 4-fold cubo-octahedron. See LINK
And the cubo-octahedron{ VE } is not a structural system, as is the icosahedron ergo the VE is transformable and will collapse inward as a seemingly flat 2D . See LINK
If you can see the flat triangle set, then conceptually place a spherical set of great circles on each side of each triangular set. O|O
Or as
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
--------------------------------------------------
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Or see LINK
-->
@ludofl3x
Part 2: Universe Has No Purpose i.e. only humans apply a purpose to Uni-V-erse
See infolded flat cubo-octahedron{ VE } again and take note that, there is twice as many triangles in the central set of triangles and keep in mind that these scenarios are all spherical or circular triangles, even tho some this specific graphic is Euclidean and that this scenario is difficult to describle without computer animatison to verify their validity.
1} so we have the ultra-high number of flattened, VE's 25 great circles as circular triangles, not Euclidean as presented in above link,
2} consider that set and the surrounding set of triangles ---all bounded by sphericals on each side--- to be an ultra-high number of infoldings i.e. ultra-high number of sphericals that are closely BONDED together each other yet maintaining individual integrity,
3} that, since each icosahedral set of 31 contains 10 that define{ See LINK } a 4-fold cubo-octahedron, we see those 10 as being more closely associated to the 4 great circles//planes that actually defined the cubo-octahedron{ vector equlibrium }, ergo these 10 are more associated to those four than the other 19, 5-fold great circle//planes,
4} consider that, as the ultra-high number of infolded VE, unfold, and that each BONDED set contain VE that also unfold within each icosahedral spherical i.e. we have expansion of central set and then each 5-fold spherical has expanding set, so on and so on.
The question that always occurs for me, is which current set of infoldings{ twisting-in } or out-foldings{ untwisting } would be our current state of observed Universe expansion?
The flat photon, as ultra-macro set of flatten VE, would be associated with contraction of Universe, not expansion{ heat death } that we observe.
Set 1} Expand set See Link generally speaking
........OOO........
....OOOOOO...
.......OOO........
Set 2} .........................OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Set 2} Contracted set ------------------------------------------ scenario
Set 2}.........................OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The new thought for me, is that, set 2{ Space infolding } is what we would be in now i.e. entropic{ heat death } Universe scenario, is expanding linearly as the longer and ultra-long-wave photon, and that,
when Space is out-folding we have Set 1 and in that scenario the linear flat photon is actually contracting inward to create the next WOW! { big bang } scenario that may occur rapidly synergetically and the resultant is to induce slower entropic expansion towards entropic heat death.
Secnario 2}
....................................OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
entropic heat death > ------------------------------------ linear expansion as flat photon via contraction of Observed Time or Space
...................................OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Scenario 1 }
Volumetric unfolding........OOO........
Volumetric unfolding....OOOOOO....
Volumetric unfolding........OOO.......
The volumetric rapidly contracts to create the big bang WOW! I dunno.
Cool, cool, coolcoolcool.
Somewhat related question, how does the "ignore' feature work on this board? I see block user, but...
-->
@mustardness
I GRANT THAT SOMETHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE.False.
FOR THE SAKE OF THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.
IT'S SORT OF A "WHAT IF" HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO.
-->
@ludofl3x
My worldview says I am a creation of God, made in His image and likeness, thus I can make sense of my existence. I have a reason for being here!Right, it SAYS that. You don't arrive at that conclusion, you conclude it without demonstrating it's true in any way.
You do not want me to show you the evidence. How many times now have you said to prove God and not use the Bible, which claims to be His very word, hundreds if not thousands of times.
That's the point of the topic. You like the idea so you presuppose it's correct, you don't follow logic to it.
I can show it is reasonable and logical. Is it reasonable and logical that from reasoning and logical being comes other reasoning and logical beings?
And you presuppose yours by your starting point - so what? But once I presuppose God I find evidence from creation (what He made). I find what He discloses corresponds to reality, to what I see and understand. I find if I want to understand why I am here, why I exist, He is necessary. Other than that I am caught in an infinite regress of ideas and who is right and what is true? I question why what you believe is true. I question how you arrive at the truth from a relative, subjective viewpoint. I question what is necessary for you to know what is needed. I am willing to compare and contrast our two different worldviews. I challenge you to come out from behind your mask. Are you an atheist? If so we will start the comparison from these two starting points.
I've asked you to, and you can't prove that your god is the right god and someone else's religion is wrong. It was before you got all distracted with your politics stuff. What exactly IS your specific reason for being here, the one god has told you? Is it this one:
The question is what would be reasonable to someone who rejects God? You want me to play by your rules. Why would I want to do that?
My worldview explains that I am here because God chose to create humanity for His pleasure and glory. There is a reason. With random chance happenstance, there is none.It doesn't EXPLAIN that. It asserts that.
There is an explanation involved besides it being a logical assessment. Without reasoning Being there is no reason for the universe. It just is. There is no reason why the universe is sustained. It just is. There is no reason for the uniformity of nature. It just is. Now you can live inconsistently with what is.
I have presented a thread with a discussion of the evidence many times before. I have also questioned why what you and others believe is true.
And "his pleasure and glory" creates a number of problems. First of all, it doesn't sound as noble as I think you hope your existence would demand.
Are you in awe of the magnitude and magnificence of the universe compared to your tiny self? That would be evidence of His glory, of what He is capable of creating with such ease that there is no difficulty in creating it. And why did He create it?
He created it for us, that we could be capable of a relationship with Him, of enjoying Him as He enjoys what He has made. The problem is that sin mars His creation.
-->
@PGA2.0
I've said I'm an atheist like fifty times now, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand. You are lost.I GRANT THAT SOMETHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Some thinking agent, some superpower, DECIDED to create the universe. THIS QUESTION IS FRAMED THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREATOR. The only feature we can KNOW it has is the ability to create a universe, because a universe is here. Please pay attention, because here is the question: Can you support with evidence that the god you so happen to worship IS THAT CREATOR?
-->
@ludofl3x
Your reason is essentially "as a toy," which is not much more appealing than 'no PURPOSE required' or 'imbue your own PURPOSE.' (emphasis to keep the distinction between purpose and 'reason' which you tend to conflate).
It is not my purpose I am discussing. I am discussing whether or not the universe has a purpose to it, whether it shows purpose behind it.
How can you have a purpose without reason?
Second of all, if you're created for his pleasure and glory, why's he always so mad at all of his creations? Again, you might say free will, but then you're taking away any 'plan'.
How do you take away free will (not that I believe our wills are free) by having a plan?
He is angry at the sin and injustice we practice on a daily basis.
You can only reach back as far as the Big Bang. You don't know how life can come from the non-living, yet you live as though it can.I presume based on this, you must have incontrovertible proof of stuff that happened before the big bang, or how how life came from non life. It can't be from the bible, because that asserts that it happened, it doesn't explain how it happened. It simply says 'by magic.' There is no functional difference between "god did it by his holy word" and "by saying googityboogityboo."
Common sense tells me that something can't create itself. It would have to exist before it could create, so self-creation is self-refuting. It is an absurd idea. So, if something started to exist my common sense tells me there must be a cause or agency for it.
If the universe had a beginning then it is logical to assume it had a cause because the alternative is self-creation.
As for how life can come from the non-living is beyond me. Explain it if you can. All I ever see is life coming from
the living
And again, I hate to keep harping on this for you, but the topic removes the big bang cosmology inasmuch as it GRANTS A CREATING AGENT.
How does that remove God from using that vehicle (not that this is the necessary vehicle He used, but there is good evidence for the theory)?
The topic agrees that there's something before the big bang, something that created the universe. Your answer to "why would that be Jesus" is still pending.
Since you see something before the Big Bang what do you believe this to be?
I trust the Bible as true because it is reasonable to believe. Prophecy is one confirmation I use to demonstrate this because history verifies prophecy to a reasonable degree. I keep trying to find out why other worldviews are reasonable to believe. Sure, a person can still believe something that is unreasonable; that is their choice.
Why are your mind and senses reliable when it comes to origins? Who made you God? You have already stated you don't know. It is the blind leading the blind with your worldview.Mind and senses are all we have that are demonstrable, repeatable and reliable. "When it comes to origins" is an immaterial add on to that sentence, we can derive what little we can from our studies, and appealing to magic doesn't advance the ball.
We understand the process through our mindfulness, yes. The question is why do we find what we find if the universe is a product of blind, random chance happenstance? Why is there uniformity of nature in such a universe?
How do you not appeal to magic? "Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, something exploded out of nothing...Abracadabra!"
What does the universe materialize from, or does it just pop into existence from nothing? Please answer this.
You're still at "a creator," not "god of the bible," as it pertains to the topic.
Are you even there? If not, then we need to examine where you are at and how you got there. I am at the biblical God because the Bible is a testimony I trust. I find evidence from it that is consistent (when understood) and corresponds to the world, reality, reason, and logic.
You say "you've already stated you don't know!" as if you DO know. You don't.
Where did I state that?
You think you do, but you can't show any steps that go from "Quetzocoatl is wrong" and from there to "Jesus is right." You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it.
No, that is my starting point. You have to start somewhere. It is not my ending point. Once I presuppose as my starting point this God I find evidence of His truths in what is made.
That's not how conclusions work in any other scenario: "I think X, so that's correct" is all you've done. No one thinks "therefore I'm god," that's just rhetoric.
No, this is how it goes --> "I think X (Christian God as revealed in the Bible). A, B, C...W, Z gives good reasons for X. Therefore X is reasonable to believe."
It is not rhetoric. It is finding in everything I see God as the source as reasonable and logical.
-->
@ludofl3x
No, you are not. You have no control over your existence. Life does not depend on you.Which one of us believes in an all powerful being with a plan for every individual in the universe that plays along with a stated purpose in the plan? BEcause that one has no control over their existence. And MY life depends on me, just like yours.
My life with God does not depend on what I do. I recognize I do not measure up. Only One does and I trust in Him and His promise to those who will believe. But I also recognize I have a volition. I choose. Thus, His plan for us is based on whom we trust in, ourselves or Jesus Christ.
Again, nothing you can prove. Where is your hope for the future after death?He can't prove we decompose? Can you prove that there's a soul? An afterlife? His are observations of physical science. Yours are fairy tales from a book.
I would appeal to the risen Christ as reasonable and logical to believe as one evidence of the afterlife. I would question if all we are is biological machines then what makes us intrinsically valuable and how do we get consciousness from something that lacks it? I would also point to the complexity of our being and a DNA structure that suggests intelligent design and engineering. What provides the best explanation?
If there is no necessary mind behind us then we are a product of methodological naturalism that has no goal in mind - most perplexing. If we are made in the image and likeness of God then we have a spirit and soul.
There is no 'after death' for living things that anyone can demonstrate, and if there is, you'd have a lot of work to do to still demonstrate that such an afterlife is yours and not, let's say, the Islamic version somehow.
The Islamic version is not reasonable. It comes 600 years after Christianity and it recognizes what we call the OT yet it changes it to suit its purposes without providing evidence that I am aware of to justify its claims. Then, found in Islam is a smorgasbord of other religious beliefs - Judaism, Zoroastrianism, aberrant Christianity, and pagan beliefs of the ANE. These are contrary to one another except the Judea-Christian system of thought, Christianity being the result of what was prophesied in the OT.
I agree and that is why God is necessary to know. Without Him, I'm in your boat.Yes, exactly. So you bring him in with no justification demonstrated, even when granted that A creator exists. I have bad news for you, though, I think you're going to find out you're in our boat all the same :).
I am willing to offer the evidence (and I do every day in my posts when I delve at the reasonableness of two opposing systems of belief) that I am not in the same boat by discussing the reasonableness of the Christian worldview as opposed to your worldview. I challenge you to make sense of your worldview. Please list what you believe and we will do this. I have set up threads on three different forums of the evidence specifically revealed by prophecy and the thread always gets derailed. It seems that no one I have spoken to on the topic (besides Annanicole) has the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. They can't demonstrate reasonably or logically that they understand prophecy. They do not understand how deeply embedded the prophetic theme is in both testaments. It carries through to most every biblical writing.
Why should I bother? You have shown you can't make sense or have the epistemic knowhow to answer life's most imortant questions. Your worldview doesn't have what is necessary.Taking your ball and going home is not only unbecoming, it's also in violation of 1 Peter 3:15: but gin your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"
To those who are willing I offer the reasons for my faith. For those who are not, I dispute that their worldview can make sense of itself. Jesus taught not to give what is holy to those who will not accept it. They will just trample over what is sacred.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
To those who have an agenda, I use ridicule and irony in showing the inconsistency of their worldviews. I take their worldview and I examine what is necessary for it to be true. I take the advice offered in Proverbs. Do you understand the difference between these two sayings:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
In lieu of challenging his rather straightforward axioms, please simply show how you got from a thinking agent to god of the bible.
The unity of the Bible, its testimony, and the reasonableness of this God in making sense of anything.
-->
@PGA2.0
ludofl3x--Somewhat related question, how does the "ignore' feature work on this board? I see block user, but...
Somebody doesn't like to hear the truth ergo in one ear and out the other is their way to ignorance. Oh yeah this is the religion forum. That explains most what is being stated in this thread and others like it.
Universe has nor ending in time. All suggestions of such are based on theoretical hypothesis.
Physical//energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent. Duhh...
Occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent. Duhhh...
Within that finite Universe set we have oscillations between one phase//state of existence and others. Duhh..
-->
@3RU7AL
The bringing in of billions of dollars of drugs into your country every year is a problem that needs to be addressed.Demonizing immigrants and building a wall will do nothing to stop drug smugglers.
I'm not demonizing immigrants. I'm demonizing ILLEGAL immigrants.
Sure building a wall will help with the drug problem. It will slow them down and give the border agents time to respond. It will help reduce the ILLEGAL immigration problem since many are smuggled over the border in areas without fences.
"Well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.""We've seen growing use of self-propelled semi-submersibles (SPSSs) - low-profile vessels made out of marine-grade plywood [and] fibreglass with commercial engines. The smugglers spend up to a $1m (£665,000) to build one of these SPSSs for what is often just a one-way voyage. [LINK]
Not according to two reports that I find reliable:
DEA: Most Illegal Drugs Enter via Mexico, Cartels Greatest Criminal Threat to U.S. [Link]
"Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
The rate of heroin-related overdoses has nearly quadrupled between 2002 and 2013, with more than 8,200 deaths that year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appearing on CNBC, Trump argued that this too is tied to weak borders.
"Our youth is being poisoned. You go to places like New Hampshire, where it’s the No. 1 thing, heroin, and it comes from the southern border.
"Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
The rate of heroin-related overdoses has nearly quadrupled between 2002 and 2013, with more than 8,200 deaths that year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appearing on CNBC, Trump argued that this too is tied to weak borders.
"Our youth is being poisoned. You go to places like New Hampshire, where it’s the No. 1 thing, heroin, and it comes from the southern border.
Mexican heroin accounted for 45 percent of the total weight of heroin the DEA seized and analyzed in 2012 (South American heroin accounted for 51 percent). By 2014, the proportion of Mexican heroin had grown to 79 percent (South American heroin made up about 17 percent), DEA spokesman Russell Baer told PolitiFact.
"The majority of the drugs in the U.S. market are trafficked across the Southwest Border from Mexico into the US. Southwest Border seizures conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, while not the complete picture, provide insight into trafficking trends," he said.
Traffickers typically smuggle the drugs in through secret compartments in vehicles across the border (illegally and legally), transport them to stash houses in hub cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and Phoenix, and then distribute to the Midwest and East Coast.
Here’s a map from the Justice Department that shows how heroin moves through the United States:
Nearly all of the heroin fueling a U.S. resurgence enters the country over the 1,933-mile Mexico border, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Customs officers in Nogales have seized more heroin in the first six months of fiscal 2014 than during each of the past three full fiscal years, Agosttini said.
Most is hidden in vehicles crossing through ports of entry like the bustling Nogales gate. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot by men dubbed "mules," hiking established desert smuggling routes. Some is ferried in by plane or boat.
Traffickers typically smuggle the drugs in through secret compartments in vehicles across the border (illegally and legally), transport them to stash houses in hub cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and Phoenix, and then distribute to the Midwest and East Coast.
Here’s a map from the Justice Department that shows how heroin moves through the United States:
Customs officers in Nogales have seized more heroin in the first six months of fiscal 2014 than during each of the past three full fiscal years, Agosttini said.
Most is hidden in vehicles crossing through ports of entry like the bustling Nogales gate. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot by men dubbed "mules," hiking established desert smuggling routes. Some is ferried in by plane or boat.
-->
@PGA2.0
i'm not demonizing immigrants. I'm demonizing ILLEGAL immigrants.
Then why not simply legalise all immigrants? No more illegals!
-->
@PGA2.0
That is literally what a presuposition is.You admitted you have to presuppose this knowledge in order to confirm it.No, that is my starting point.
-->
@PGA2.0
"Well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.""We've seen growing use of self-propelled semi-submersibles (SPSSs) - low-profile vessels made out of marine-grade plywood [and] fibreglass with commercial engines. The smugglers spend up to a $1m (£665,000) to build one of these SPSSs for what is often just a one-way voyage. [LINK]Not according to two reports that I find reliable:DEA: Most Illegal Drugs Enter via Mexico, Cartels Greatest Criminal Threat to U.S. [Link]
Your link does not debunk "95% of the drugs are moving on the water".
It just harps on "Mexican Cartels", yes, of course, who are shipping drugs USING BOATS AND SUBMARINES and tunnels.
-->
@3RU7AL
The number of resources used would be greatly reduced with a wall, as the border agents have stated.Citation please.An unpatrolled, unmonitored wall is easily breached by either simple power tools and or chemicals and or common explosives.
First, the manpower needed for patroling unfenced areas of the wall will be reduced. The manpower can be used elsewhere. Caravans coming through unfenced areas will not happen and anyone scaling the wall will give the border patrol more time to react.
The U.S. Border Patrol agents' union backed Donald Trump's candidacy. Steve Inskeep talks with union leader Brandon Judd about the president's executive action on a border wall and sanctuary cities.
INSKEEP: In a few seconds, how different do you think the country could be in three or four years if these proposals are carried out?
JUDD: Well, I think the country is going to be a lot safer.
INSKEEP: A lot safer.
JUDD: I really do, yes, absolutely. I mean, I was there with what they call the angel families, families that had children that were killed by persons that were in the United States illegally. If these laws are carried out properly - and he's not talking about new laws. By the way, he's not saying that he's going to give us new laws. He's talking about enforcing the laws that are currently on the books.
I recently visited the United States-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona, where I met with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents and was briefed on the challenges of an unsecured border.
The problem we are dealing with is not just illegal immigration; there are illicit drugs flowing through our borders, human trafficking, and dangerous cartels exploiting vulnerable women and children. The biggest takeaway: We need the wall and the wall will work.
I asked the border patrol agents I met on my visit if they thought the wall would help. These are the people who see the mess that is our southern border every single day. They told me yes, the wall will help in their efforts to combat illegal immigration and other activity along the border.
That’s because walls work. It is a protective infrastructure that deters unlawful border crossings and other illegal activity where our natural barriers — such as rivers, mountains, and other impassable terrain — do not exist.
INSKEEP: A lot safer.
JUDD: I really do, yes, absolutely. I mean, I was there with what they call the angel families, families that had children that were killed by persons that were in the United States illegally. If these laws are carried out properly - and he's not talking about new laws. By the way, he's not saying that he's going to give us new laws. He's talking about enforcing the laws that are currently on the books.
The problem we are dealing with is not just illegal immigration; there are illicit drugs flowing through our borders, human trafficking, and dangerous cartels exploiting vulnerable women and children. The biggest takeaway: We need the wall and the wall will work.
I asked the border patrol agents I met on my visit if they thought the wall would help. These are the people who see the mess that is our southern border every single day. They told me yes, the wall will help in their efforts to combat illegal immigration and other activity along the border.
That’s because walls work. It is a protective infrastructure that deters unlawful border crossings and other illegal activity where our natural barriers — such as rivers, mountains, and other impassable terrain — do not exist.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Ron Vitiello, who was ceremonially sworn in on Tuesday, said that a border wall done "right" will be important and effective.
Brandon Judd: As a veteran Border Patrol agent, I know firsthand that a secure border with the big beautiful wall the president is building is the only humane and permanent solution to the crisis at the border.
Longtime border patrol agent Terence Shigg, a former union local leader, supports building a barrier...
BRANDON JUDD: Walls actually work. I promise you that if you interview Border Patrol agents, they will tell you that walls work.
MARTIN: So, Terence Shigg, from your understanding of things and from your representation of the folks you work with, is that the position of most of the agents you know? Is that your position?
SHIGG: Yes, that is my position. And the wording changes from walls to barriers to fencing. And I think barriers work, and that's been proven, especially here in San Diego. You can come here, and you can see the places that are more secure due to the fact that we have barriers here. So I agree with that statement, and I think most Border Patrol agents know that that is a fact - that they do help and that they do work.
SHIGG: Yes, that is my position. And the wording changes from walls to barriers to fencing. And I think barriers work, and that's been proven, especially here in San Diego. You can come here, and you can see the places that are more secure due to the fact that we have barriers here. So I agree with that statement, and I think most Border Patrol agents know that that is a fact - that they do help and that they do work.