God exists, and I Can Prove It.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 531
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So how would you explain what started time?
For at least the third or fourth time now... I don't.

Why is this so difficult? Do you not understand that sometimes the best (and correct) answer is "I don't know"?

you say it is logically incoherent to assume that something cause time to exist.
Yes it is logically incoherent. That's not an opinion.

The only way around this is to presume some sort of time outside of time, but all that does is kick the can further backward, it doesn't solve the actual problem.

Again, I say something can't come from nothing.
When you say something can't come from nothing, what are you calling nothing? To put it another way, whatever nothing is, is there any possible intersection between it and reality?

If there is no possible intersection then all you're doing is providing a definition (nothing is that from which something cannot come). If that's the case then this is nothing more than a tautology, not an argument.

If nothing could have some possible intersection with reality then you are talking about something, and you would therefore need to be able to experiment somehow on it in order to claim what it can or cannot produce.

You even said before," Logically speaking, something could conceivably exist outside of the laws of physics."
So, is it possible that there is a being that is able to exist outside of time?
Outside of our particular phenomenon of time, it's logically possible. Logically possible and physically possible are two different things. As far as we know, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. That's a law of the universe that we discovered, but we can very easily conceive of something moving faster, so it doesn't violate logic.

So when we ask if something is possible we need to clarify which definition we are working with.

Let me rephrase my argument. He exists out of time, as we know it. 
Then you couldn't possibly know anything about it, hence this entire thing is just made up. That's the opposite of proof.

But you did bring it up as an argument. And when you use that argument, that you can't prove, to counter my argument that I can't prove, that is called being a hypocrite.
Your lack of understanding does translate to me being a hypocrite.

Nothing about my argument claims to have determined where the singularity came from. My claim, which is simply an acceptance of the scientific findings, is that the universe came out of the singularity.

You do not need to know where the cow came from to conclude that the ground beef you ate made you sick.

And as far as the argument I actually presented, yes there is proof of this, that's why the scientific  community accepts it. Your claim does not have any proof, there is no hypocrisy on my part. The only hypocrisy here is your rule only your belief can be asserted without explanation.

The difference between science/Atheism and Christianity, is that we have an explanation for our existence.
Anyone can have an explanation if we accept the idea that explanations can just be made up. The difference between christians and atheists is that atheists do not accept made up definitions.

But when we get to that point where we have no further, scientific evidence, we turn to our Lord and Savior, and have faith in him. 
Science is a method for learning about and understanding reality. Its limits are the limitations of human beings to attain knowledge of it.

When you say "the point where we have no further scientific evidence", you're simply saying the point in which there is no further evidence. If there is no further evidence then by definition you cannot prove what you are asserting.

You also demonstrate that you are engaging in circular logic. You can't appeal to God to prove God exists.

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
Nothing about my argument claims to have determined where the singularity came from. My claim, which is simply an acceptance of the scientific findings, is that the universe came out of the singularity.
Listen carefully:

When you use an argument, like the singularity, to counter my argument that is called being a hypocrite, because you can't explain the beginning of it, just like you claim I can't explain the beginning of my argument.

For at least the third or fourth time now... I don't.
Why is this so difficult? Do you not understand that sometimes the best (and correct) answer is "I don't know"?
Because you can't. And that is my point. You can't explain what started time, because you don't know. 

When you say something can't come from nothing, what are you calling nothing? To put it another way, whatever nothing is, is there any possible intersection between it and reality?
What do you mean, what is nothing. Nothing....is nothing.

Nothing: not anything; no single thing

And no there isn't any possible, natural intersection between it and reality, because something, cannot come from nothing, unless some being, or thing that is not natural, caused it to be there. So, there is a possible intersection, but not a natural one. 

So when we ask if something is possible we need to clarify which definition we are working with.
I'm clarifying that it is logically possible, which it is. 

Anyone can have an explanation if we accept the idea that explanations can just be made up
Christianity wasn't just made up. It is based on historical facts, and others, that we can use to prove the existence of God.
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being."

The Christians and Catholics are all in for evolution, so I am not sure where you get your info.

There are a few literalists who believe in talking serpents and Yahweh, but when push comes to shove, only about 5% will maintain a full supernatural stance.

------

As to   ---  4. Moral Law

Yahweh is portrayed as quite evil in scriptures and even admits to it in Job;2,3.

Who in their right moral mind would see such a character as a good God?

Christians do, as they sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's  plan.

Satan and Eve become the heroes of the story.

They keep the plan on track.

You may be able to prove Yahweh exists, but you can never show that he is a good source of moral law.

-------------

On Jesus dying for Christians from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
 
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat. Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.

So how would you explain what started time?

For all we know, man is the only sentient life and able to have or know of concepts like time, space, spacetime and reality.

Prove that statement wrong.

Regards
DL

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I have read your argument, and I would love to go more into depth with you on it. Would you consider accepting a debate?
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How many Gods exist?

Are any more good or more evil than Yahweh?

Same question for Jesus.

Regards
DL


YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
How many Gods exist?
One

Are any more good or more evil than Yahweh?
More evil, but not  more good.

Same question for Jesus.
Same answer

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Would you consider accepting a debate?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,637
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Well, now its 428 posts.

Is the God proven, or do I still wait?
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I thought we were going to do just that here.

Who referees in the formal debates?

I would love a debate on morals, but whenever such a topic is proposed, Christians just run away,  after the usual insult are launched.
 
I am a Gnostic Christian with decent arguments and all they ever had was inquisitor tactics.

Regards
DL
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@Best.Korea
Question for you on how you perceive reality.

Are you a dualistic thinker?

That is usually describes as a body/souls or body/spirit way.

All but 5% of us claim to think dualistically.

If you do, your non-physical or inner self is your highest ideal and thus, in a sense, your God. 

Right?

That would be you thinking like a Gnostic Christian.

 Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
 
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
 
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
 
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
 
Allan Watts explains those quotes in detail.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw
 
Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU
 
The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.
 
Gnosis enlightens adults.
 
Regards
DL
 

GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Break the first commandment and name the one you put above God's for evil.

He said he created evil for his pleasure and here you are wanting to give some other God of evil the pleasure.

Yahweh will be angry with you.

Still want a formal debate?

Regards
DL
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
 and would like to share why I believe it

Nice. Why don't you start a new thread titled - Why I believe in the Bible &Jesus.
I will be more than happy to engage you in a civil conversation/discussion.
I look forward to it.😊


Thank you. Maybe I will one of these days.
What's stopping you starting it now?

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I would love to debate on morals as well. But I will be countering your claims on the forum. 

Yahweh is portrayed as quite evil in scriptures and even admits to it in Job;2,3.
Well, I have actually learned this story, and the story is about God testing Job, using the Devil. He has the Devil go in and take everything away from Job, but in the end, Job stays faithful to God, showing God that Job is a very faithful servant, and worthy being an evangelist.

Who in their right moral mind would see such a character as a good God?
God is good.

Christians do, as they sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's  plan.

Satan and Eve become the heroes of the story.

They keep the plan on track.
Sin was not the plan for God. 
I get this specific question a lot, that kind of pertains to your question:

If God knew that Adam and Eve were going to sin, then why did he not stop them? Did God want sin to enter the world?

The answer is no. God only did not stop Adam and Eve, because he wanted to truly love them, and have them truly love him in return. So, he gave them free will. Love is not real love, unless it is free.

The only command that God gave them, is to not eat the forbidden fruit. If they did anything else besides that, it wouldn't have been sin, because they wouldn't have known better.

God only kicked them out of the Garden, because they disobeyed his one rule, and they had sin in their hearts. So, they could no longer be in his presence.

You may be able to prove Yahweh exists, but you can never show that he is a good source of moral law.
He is a good source of moral law. Everything he says in the Bible, has never been morally wrong. 
People will try to take bits of scripture to prove he is morally wrong, but they don't read the whole story, and the whole point.

On Jesus dying for Christians from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
Well, he did. He wanted to be with us. But we couldn't because we were full of sin. So, in order to counteract that, God came down in the form of a human, lived a sinless life, and died for all of us sins to prove that we could be without sin, therefore all we need to do is ask him into our hearts and we can be with God.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.
God does not send people to hell. We are already on our way to hell. But if we accept him as our savior, he saves us from that eternity.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Yes, it is. So that is why God came down, and died for us, by his choice. That is why it is so beautiful.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 
If you read the whole story, then you will realize that what God is saying in this instance, is a son is not subject to his father's crimes. Each person will be judged on what they did, and not what others did.
"“Suppose there is a righteous man
    who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
    or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
    or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
    but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
    but gives his food to the hungry
    and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
    or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
    and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
    and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
    he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
    or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
    or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
    but gives his food to the hungry
    and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
    and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."



Deuteronomy 24:16," ``fathers should not be put to death, neither by the testimony, nor for the sins of the children; and children shall not be put to death, neither by the testimony, nor for the sins of fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin by proper witnesses. ''"

The same goes for the verse above.

For all we know, man is the only sentient life and able to have or know of concepts like time, space, spacetime and reality.
I agree to an extent. We are the only sentient life in this reality. 
But doesn't that surprise you?
That we alone are the only sentient life out of the trillions of systems in the cosmos?

I could go on, but I would save it for a debate, if you are willing.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

OK, it's time to vote. Do you think YF_L  proved that God exists?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

No.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yahweh is portrayed as quite evil in scriptures and even admits to it in Job;2,3.
Well, I have actually learned this story, and the story is about God testing Job, using the Devil. He has the Devil go in and take everything away from Job, but in the end, Job stays faithful to God, showing God that Job is a very faithful servant, and worthy being an evangelist.

Well you didn't learn it very well did you?



Who in their right moral mind would see such a character as a good God?
God is good.
Opinion. The god of the OT is a vile , jealous god of war. The OT is a history of the Hebrews/Israelites. It is an ancient book of war and conquest fought by men on gods command. 








Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW

OK, it's time to vote. Do you think YF_L  proved that God exists?

NO

. And this thread was finished right at the beginning of Page 2 if not before when he admitted this to Sidewalker


YouFound_Lxam wrote: You have proven the argument I am making impossible with the evidence that I have. But I am sure with time and resources I will be able to prove gods' existence". 
That should have been the end of it.

But then the true intent of his thread emerged as I predicted  when I wrote as early as post #13

Stephen wrote:  I thought you were going to prove god exists?. Is all you have done is make statements , made further claims and turned to asking me questions.

It is a backdoor way for you to avoid supporting your own claims. 

And is all you have done further is attempt to put the burden on proof  for the existence of a god onto someone else.
Tradesecret has attempted the same deceitful ploy using the same sly tactic many times.  In fact, Tradesecret is attempting this shite again as we speak on this thread here>>>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8366-why-and-how-did-life-come-about?page=1&post_number=1

when I wrote:
Stephen wrote: " It's another way asking a question about religion and god disguised as a evolution question and another way of saying atheist have the burden of proof (that god doesn't exist). It is a case of ask a question, wait for a  response, and then tell respondent to prove his case by supporting his response with facts, if he can't there must be a god. And where all facts will be denied and dismissed with the wave of the hand".
Which is happening exactly as I predicted it would.



YouFound_Lxam  has gone from "I can prove god exists" to making many claims about the bible that he has proven himself to know nothing about.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
so whats the proof?
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Ok here is another argument for God's existence.

I have one question for all of you. Just answer this one question, and I will continue with my argument.

Imagine I draw a circle on a white board. 
The space inside the circle represents all knowledge. 
It contains Physics, Chemistry, etc. 
Even knowledge that we are still trying to find, exists in this circle.

Now I ask you this question. If I gave you a pen, and asked you to fill in how much knowledge you think you have/know in the circle, how much of the circle would you fill in? 

Just answer me that.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,637
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If I gave you a pen, and asked you to fill in how much knowledge you think you have/know in the circle, how much of the circle would you fill in?

Alright, I will play along.

I would fill 0.000657843267876567865 % of the circle.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,637
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Go ahead now. Tell us your argument.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


.
.
YouFound_Lxam, that is vying to be the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, where Miss Tradesecret will be sad,

Then very simply, show us the links in where you allegedly already addressed Matthew 15: 3-4 many times!!!  WAITING!


DAY FOUR!!!!! 

NO RESPONSE YET FROM "YOUFOUND_LXAM" TO HIM PROVING THAT HE ADDRESSED SAID PASSAGE ABOVE LIKE HE SAID HE DID, OTHER THAN TO CONTINUALLY RUN AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!



Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
When you use an argument, like the singularity, to counter my argument that is called being a hypocrite, because you can't explain the beginning of it, just like you claim I can't explain the beginning of my argument.
Hypocrisy is when you apply a set of rules and/or standards to others that you do not apply to yourself.

An example of hypocrisy is saying "if you can't explain what caused X to come into existence then you cannot prove X" while also saying "I believe Y caused everything else to come into existence but I don't have to explain what caused Y because Y is special and therefore doesn't require a cause."

The reason you seem to think my argument is hypocritical is because you keep injecting you're own assertions into it.

Once again, the singularity is the starting point for the big bang model which I accept. Not because that's where all of existence began, but because that is as far back as we can go. We do not have the capability to determine what if anything caused or preceded it because the laws of physics break down at this point so we can no longer invoke its rules.

The fact that we cannot go back further than the singularity does not negate that the evidence we currently have points to a singularity.

You do not have evidence for a God. Your case largely hinges on the idea that if we can't prove where the singularity came from then that justifies asserting a God. I'm explaining to you why that argument is nonsense. That's not hypocritical, because I'm not the one who claims to have solved the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You are. And because you are claiming to have an answer to this question you are the one who needs to substantiate it. That's not being hypocritical, that's applying the burden of proof where it belongs; on the person making the claim.

You can't explain what started time, because you don't know. 
You tell me this as if you're saying something different than I have said a dozen times already.

Yes, I can't explain what started time. But you say you can, therefore it is incumbent on you to explain it and make rational sense out of your explanation. If you cannot then you are free to continue holding your own beliefs privately, but if you want to tell us that you can prove the existence of a God, or even rationally justify asserting it, you don't get to pretend that our lack of an explanation warrants anyone else accepting yours. We identify logical fallacies for a reason, this is one of the most classic examples.

What do you mean, what is nothing. Nothing....is nothing.

Nothing: not anything; no single thing

And no there isn't any possible, natural intersection between it and reality, because something, cannot come from nothing,
I ask because there are different definitions for nothing. If the definition you are working with cannot have any intersection with reality then "something cannot come from nothing" is a meaningless statement right there along with "it is what it is".

If there is no possible intersection with reality then when you talk about nothing you are not talking about reality, yet this conversation is about reality, so you have departed the conversation.

Part of why I ask is also because we've already been down this road. I've already accepted as the most plausible assumption that existence is a necessary state, meaning that something was always here. So I don't know why you think invoking "something cannot come from nothing" advances the conversation. It doesn't.

unless some being, or thing that is not natural, caused it to be there. So, there is a possible intersection, but not a natural one.
If it came from a being then it didn't come from nothing.

You said yourself that there is no possible intersection between nothing and reality. If God exists then by definition he is a part of reality.

Anyone can have an explanation if we accept the idea that explanations can just be made up
Christianity wasn't just made up. It is based on historical facts, and others, that we can use to prove the existence of God.
Reading a claim in a book doesn't mean the claim wasn't made up. The explanations we are talking about are not those of stories or people that lived thousands of years ago, were talking about claims of where everything came from. The bible cannot rationally qualify as evidence for that.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now I ask you this question. If I gave you a pen, and asked you to fill in how much knowledge you think you have/know in the circle, how much of the circle would you fill in? 
An astronomically small percentage barely worth noting.

How could this possibly be used as proof of a God?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
 Christians just run away,  after the usual insult are launched.

And pose questions of their own in response to your own questions. This,among many other devious ploys are simply attempts to guide and divert the direction of the argument.
Especially after they have painted themselves into a theological corner with an opening statement and are far too thick and dense to realise it.
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Name this more evil than Yahweh God, and tell us why Yahweh created one who is more evil than himself?

In our dualistic reality, that would make that God more good as well. Right?

Regards
DL


GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@Stephen
U C 20/20 on Christian apologists.

I do not care when they believe B S, but when they start promoting their genocidal homophobic God, a fully immoral God, then I dig in.

It has to be about 20 years since most major God religions started complaining about their own lack of decent apologists.

When the moral majority abandons religion, they do not go back.

Regards
DL

GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You sure deflected into a lot of topics that I would argue against.

You want a formal debate and show you cannot follow an issue or reply to points.

My issue with Yahweh was shown in my Job 2;3 reply, --- which you ignored, --- which has God admitting to being evil, --- and you just reply with a fucking "God is Good, ---- without negating or replying to my argument.

You win all arguments that way, so a formal debate would likely be a waste of time.

Regards
DL
  
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"God only kicked them out of the Garden, because they disobeyed his one rule, and they had sin in their hearts. So, they could no longer be in his presence."

What foolishness.

You do not seem to recognize that Yahweh murdered A & E by neglect and locking away what would have kept them alive. The Tree of Life.

That is analogues to you locking up your fridge and letting your children starve to death.

You think we lost something ion Eden, while scriptures show a huge success.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

Would you not follow Adam and gain what he did?

Regards
DL


GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Yes, it is. So that is why God came down, and died for us, by his choice. That is why it is so beautiful."

I thought that Christians thought God to be immortal.

Where do the scriptures say that Yahweh can die?

When Jesus taught these, was he not saying that it is immoral for us to even want a scapegoat?

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Regards
DL