God exists, and I Can Prove It.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 531
Topic's author
#301
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
1. In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:25-27)

2. In the second Creation story, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib!  “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22) 
Well, Genisis one was more or less a wrap up of the whole creation process, in which it summarizes what God did through the six "days".
Genisis two goes more into depth of detail about the creation of man. 
Both Genisis one and Genisis two are the same story, just one is more detailed than the other.

God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

If you look closely at these passages of scripture, you will see, that it does not exactly state in which day each thing was created.
The majority of this whole chapter takes place in "one day."
So, Adam and Eve were both created on the same "day" as the animals.
It's not a different story, it's the same story.

 in Genesis 1:25-27 has Adam created AFTER the animals, and in Genesis 2:18-19, Adam was created BEFORE the animals!
See this is why you need to read the scripture more thoroughly, because little details like that can mess you up. In Genisis 1, it doesn't say that Adam was created before the animals, and In Genisis 2 it doesn't say the opposite either. They were created on the same "day".

THINK, why did Jesus create the animals for Adam as a helpmate FIRST that was obviously acceptable to Him,  because Adam had a male anatomy for procreation, and so did the animals, male and female!  Then, did Jesus as God expect ADAM TO HAVE SEX WITH THE ANIMALS IN THE BEGINNING FOR PROCREATION PURPOSES?! 

EXPLAIN, WITHOUT YOUR SATANIC AND LAUGHABLE "OPINIONS," IN WHY JESUS WANTED ADAM TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS FOR PROCREATION AT THAT TIME:
Well, I can see where you think this is the case in the scripture, but I am sorry to say that you are once again mistaken.

"The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”"

Then later in the chapter, the scripture reads:
"But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found."

God was not trying to find a mate for Adam. He was trying to find a suitable helper to help maintain the Garden of Eden. 
"The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."

So, I can see where you made that mistake, but this is another example why it is very important to read the bible very closely.
Topic's author
#302
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

JESUS H. CHRIST, here you go again with your myriad of your subjective ungodly “OPINIONS” where you flail around like a-fish-out-of-water where you are embarrassingly quoted in saying:

“IF” God exists outside of time,  
 Creation could have been 7 days
 Creation could have been 7000 years
 It may as well of been millions of years.
Well, you took that out of context. Let's just use another word that will help you to understand better. Let's say "Given god exists outside of time,"





1. The Hebrew word "yom" is used to refer to a 24-hour period: ”In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.” Genesis 7:11    GET IT?  HUH?

2. The word "yom"  is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk: ”And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.” Genesis 1:16)

3. Furthermore, "yom" it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 2:4.

In any of the examples given above, the day is NOT a thousand, or millions of years long like your dumbfounded Bible ignorance stated in your initial quote shown above!  ROFLOL!

EXPLAIN YOUR OUTRIGHT BIBLE STUPIDITY RELATIVE TO THE BIBLICAL AXIOMS ABOVE, BEGIN:
Ok well first of all let me ask you this. Does God speak Hebrew. Well, if he's God then yes. But he also speaks other languages. This argument has no value whatsoever, and you are just playing with definitions.

To further prove this here is a link to the original Hebrew Translation, to show you what the bible actually translates to:

And yes, the technical definition of Yom is a 24-hour period.
But I could literally say the same thing for the word day.
So, it's not the definition, it's how you define it using Gods word.




Number one, cite your scientific evidence for the proof of your statements #1 and #2 above, WAITING! BEGIN:
"Researchers say lack of oxygen, not a massive asteroid, may have killed off the dinosaurs 65-million years ago.
A team of scientists presented new evidence Wednesday supporting the theory that dinosaurs suffocated when the oxygen level in the atmosphere dropped suddenly after a period of unusual volcanic activity."

"Instead of an asteroid impact rapidly killing the dinosaurs, they gradually died out over a 10-million year interval," Landis said.
Apart from making the dinosaurs extinct, the scientists said, the high level of volcanic activity _ which continued for millions of years _ also affected evolution, sea level and global climate.
Landis said the plummeting oxygen level, from a high of 35 percent to a low of 28 percent, "was 10 to 20 times faster than previously thought and put an enormous strain on all plants and animals."
Oxygen now makes up about 21 percent of air."

2.
"Geneticist Dr. John Sanford of Cornell University—who was part of a team that invented the “gene gun”—noted that these lifespans fit so tightly along this power curve that 95% of the lifespan variance is explained by the number of generations from Noah.[2] This statistical model matches the biblical data so closely that its likelihood of occurring by chance lies below one in a thousand. Now that’s uncanny.
This exceptionally strong correlation allows us to predict how long people would live based on how many generations they are from Noah. For example, the curve predicts that someone living 10 generations after Noah would have a 90% likelihood of living between 137 and 234 years. Similarly, it predicts with 90% certainty that a descendant alive 15 generations after Noah would live between 100 and 172 years. This model is so powerful that the average lifespans predicted by the model are within 10% of the actual lifespans recorded in the Bible! This close match reaches well beyond coincidence.

This leads to an even more stunning realization:  The lifespans in the biblical text span over 2,500 years of recorded history. And the original portions of Scripture that include these lifespans—Genesis 5 and 11—were produced by eyewitnesses whose lives overlapped one another for centuries and decades. So how in the world could they be faked? All of the original authors over numerous generations would have to be in on the scam, conspiring together to record lifespans that perfectly declined along an exponential power curve. Like that’s going to happen!
Thinking about that for a minute… why would they even want to do that? If you were going to make up some story about people in the past that you wanted your future readers to believe, why would you include such unbelievable lifespans? Making this “myth” explanation even less likely, whoever would fabricate this story must have understood advanced statistics. In addition, look at how the lifespans before the Flood are stable. They don’t follow ANY sloping trendline. The systematic decline only starts AFTER the Flood, suggesting that some aspect of the Flood event initiated the down-sloping power curve in lifespans. What was it?"

"Dr. John Sanford explains[3]: “The mathematical nature of the declining lifespans arose because the Biblical accounts are true, and are actually faithfully recording the historical unfolding of some fundamental natural degenerative process… The shape of the downward slope should be immediately recognized by any biologist. It is a biological decay curve. Noah’s descendants were undergoing some type of rapid degenerative process… there is now very strong evidence that humans are degenerating genetically, and have been for thousands of years, due to continuously accumulating mutations. This makes it very reasonable to conclude that the systematic degeneration of man that is documented in the Bible was due to mutation accumulation and resultant ‘genetic entropy.’”"



Firstly, I was NOT asking you how the dinosaurs died, but that they lived 66 MILLION YEARS AGO as science has inferred, GET IT? Therefore, how can this be when the Creation of the universe and the man Adam, and then forwarding to Jesus, and the time of Jesus to the present day, is approximately 6000 years, where said dinosaurs were existing before Jesus as God created the man Adam, and the animals in the first place! HUH? GET IT BIBLE FOOL, or do you need another simple explanation to this FACT?

Explain this Biblical anomaly shown above and by NOT using your Satanic and ungodly "opinions" that go directly against Jesus' inspired words, BEGIN:
First of all, why do you keep assuming that I believe the creation of the universe took 6000 years.
I have already told you that I take the metaphorical scripture," A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4, As proof that Jesus lives outside of time, therefore the scientific timing of the universe aligns with the Bible.





So, what you are saying relative to the Trinity Doctrine is simply:  there are three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.  However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. The Son was begotten by the Father, but existed before He was begotten. Christ is just as old as his Father, and the Father is just as young as his Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but He is of the same age as the other two! 

YouFound_Lxam, are the above FACTS true to this point? Yes or no?


To further the Godly Triune premise in your way of thinking:  Then the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost is Almighty, but yet there are not three Almighty's but one Almighty. It is plainly seen that we have three Almighty's, and at the same time, one Almighty. You inform us that obviously the three persons in the Trinity are co-eternal together and coequal. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Ghost is eternal, and yet there are not three eternally, but one eternal. The plain English is, that the three entities in the Trinity are three eternally, and individually considered, and yet they are not three eternally, but one eternal! 

YouFound_Lxam, are the above FACTS in the name of Jesus true to this point? Yes or no?

You are still not listening to what I am saying.

1. God exists outside of time. Therefore, he isn't limited to age. He has been, is, and always will be eternal.
2. God exists outside of our plain of existence. It is hard to fathom, but everything as we know it here, is not how it is where God exists. Therefore, you can't prove God did something, that only exceeds our reality. God exists outside of everything we know. 
3. God is not bound to our Laws of Physics, Biology, and Science, because he created those things. Therefore, God can be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 


Relating to the Trinity Doctrine, yes, as I have shown many times that Jesus as God, and where He impregnated His own mother:  "Jesus spiritually impregnated His own mother through "celestial impregnation and incest." When Jesus did this act, He not only became Mary’s son, but his own Father as being Yahweh/God incarnate AND a bastard child through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was not the paternal father."

Furthermore, since Jesus was a bastard child through Hebrew tradition, then poor Jesus could NOT enter into one of His Temples: “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)

BUT, guess what? Jesus forgot this doctrine shown above that was inspired by Him in the first place (1 Thessalonians 2:13),  and entered one of His own temples: "And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons." (Matthew 21:12)

YOUFOUND_LXAM, how do you deal with these problems relating to Jesus shown above?  BEGIN:
Same goes for this question.

#303
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,363
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
300 posts and counting. 
#304
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,363
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
We came from God's asshole.
#305
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,177
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok now we take both of those claims and put them together.

Time had a beginning, which is when the universe began.
That is when the Big Bang happened.

Now I ask all of you this. 
How did the "infinitely hot and dense single point" come into existence, at the beginning of time, if there was nothing there to create, that point?

Answer is: There was something there to create that point, and that thing was a god, or a higher being of some sort.

That is just a scratch of my evidence proving a god
This isn't evidence, it's a conclusion based on fallacious logic.

You ask how the singularity came into existence presuming that something must have created it, but you don't apply that same rule to the thing you credit for creating it. In other words, it's special pleading. The singularity follows one rule (must have a creator) while the God you say created it doesn't.

This is a very common argument from religious folks. The issue at the core of all of this is that the problem you are actually trying to solve is that if existence itself. You're invoking God as the answer to existence in order to prove God exists.

Think of it this way, let's ask ourselves the age old question; why is there something rather than nothing?

There are only two possible answers here, either something is responsible, or nothing is responsible.

Everything coming from nothing is a logical contradiction, so that rules out that possibility.

But everything coming from something is also a logical contradiction; it means the answer to why is there a something is... Something. But something cannot cause itself to exist. Another logical contraction.

Since, by definition, everything that is not nothing is a something, god is therefore a something. Thus invoking him, no matter how powerfully you define him, is still a logical contradiction.

The way theists get around this is to claim that something must therefore have always existed. This is a fairly reasonable inference. But as soon as you go down that path you've lost the argument. If we grant that something always existed the only question left is, what? There is no reason at this point to rule out the singularity as having always existed. In fact Occam's razor dictates this as our answer. We  have powerful evidence there was a singularity, so there are no unnecessary assumptions there. Invoking a God comes with a plethora of assumptions, so the singularity is easily the less complex answer and therefore the most reasonable conclusion by comparison.
Topic's author
#306
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
You ask how the singularity came into existence presuming that something must have created it, but you don't apply that same rule to the thing you credit for creating it.

But everything coming from something is also a logical contradiction; it means the answer to why is there a something is... Something. But something cannot cause itself to exist. Another logical contraction.

There is no reason at this point to rule out the singularity as having always existed. In fact Occam's razor dictates this as our answer. We  have powerful evidence there was a singularity, so there are no unnecessary assumptions there. Invoking a God comes with a plethora of assumptions, so the singularity is easily the less complex answer and therefore the most reasonable conclusion by comparison.
Very strong argument.
Thank you very much for bringing this up.


As I have stated before to Brother D., God exists outside of Time and Space. 
He is omniscient. He exists at eternity. 

So, if we are to talk about the start of the universe you are right. There can't be something from nothing. 
Therefore, there has to be something that created that thing.

But then you say, well what created God. If God wasn't created, then it's a contradiction you would say.
But God exists outside of all we know to be physically proven true. 

There is no need to be created, when you exist at eternity, a place where we don't fully comprehend. 


Now to get to the rest of your argument, could you please elaborate on what you mean by singularity. 

Topic's author
#307
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
I am going to assume you meant singularity as the theory of one single point where some property is infinite.

Well let's take that into consideration then. 

You brought up Occam's razor which actually helps my argument even more. 
It takes more faith to believe that there was a singularity, than there is to believe in God.

Think about it.

Science explains the Big Bang as a single point in space, that just suddenly exploded, due to the amount of energy it held. Now some scientists will theorize the singularity as the cause of this single point in space time. But the only evidence of the singularity that we have as of right now, is the density of black holes. 

I bring this back to:
When there is a creation,
There has to be a creator. 

We can even prove God using the singularity. If the definition of singularity is:  "a breakdown in spacetime, either in its geometry or in some other basic physical structure." then we have to ask ourselves the same question again. Where did it all start? 

See time is measurable. That is what spacetime is. You could go back as far as you want in a singularity, for an infinity, but you still won't find a beginning. 

Here's something to think about. We know from the bible that the reason God created us was because he wanted true love. Not forced love, but true love. What if God, created this whole universe existence, and got lonely. So, the bible starts with the big bang, which was God starting back up the universe from a Singularity.

Just something to think about. 



#308
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,177
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But then you say, well what created God. If God wasn't created, then it's a contradiction you would say.
It's not a contradiction, it's special pleading. You claim the universe needs to have been created while God doesn't, so you've created a special set of rules for your belief that you dismiss with regards to any alternative possibility. Anyone can reach any conclusion and consider it valid if this is acceptable.

The only basis one can claim for this special set of rules is to claim that the universe is bound by the laws of physics, but if you understand physics then you know these laws only apply within the universe and cannot be invoked as rules governing the "creation" of the universe. In fact the working model suggests that the laws of physics themselves came into existence at the point of the big bang.

But God exists outside of all we know to be physically proven true. 
If we haven't proven that there is an outside of what we know to be true then the thing alleged to exist there could not possibly have been proven either.

Science explains the Big Bang as a single point in space, that just suddenly exploded, due to the amount of energy it held. Now some scientists will theorize the singularity as the cause of this single point in space time. But the only evidence of the singularity that we have as of right now, is the density of black holes.
You are wrong. The evidence for the big bang includes red shift, which allows us to track the distance, direction of movement, and speed of movement of light. By using red shift to track the movement of galaxies we learned that if we were to reverse it's movement and rewind the clock, every Galaxy observable would converge at a single point in space at the same time - 13.8 billion years ago to be exact.

When scientists studied what could have caused the clusters which are now galaxies to be catapulted in such a way, they concluded that there must have been an explosion and deduced the singularity which preceded it.

And then they experimented to find out if this was accurate.

The model which they came up with showed that if this did happen there would have been cosmic background radiation leftover from the intense heat that could still be observed, so they mapped out what it would have looked like and set up an experiment at the poles to see if they could measure it. And what do you know... The map they found matched precisely to what the model predicted.

None of this has anything to do with faith.

then we have to ask ourselves the same question again. Where did it all start? 
Asking the question is fine, presuming the answer without valid evidence is not. 

I bring this back to:
When there is a creation,
There has to be a creator. 
You are putting the cart before the horse. Creation requires a creator by definition, so when you call something a creation you are just presuming at the outset that something created it which is the very thing you are supposed to be proving.

Here's something to think about. We know from the bible that the reason God created us was because he wanted true love. Not forced love, but true love. What if God, created this whole universe existence, and got lonely. So, the bible starts with the big bang, which was God starting back up the universe from a Singularity.
The bible is a book written by men thousands of years ago. There is very little we know because if it.

That aside, we can do "what if" thought experiments all day long. Until we have evidence to support our conclusions we're just making stuff up.
#309
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING AND TRUTHFUL QUOTE: "If that be the case, I can live with the knowledge that when I slip my skin that I am hell bound to live among a better class of people, Brother D.😁"

Yeah, the irony is that the likes of unreligious scientists like Carl Sagan, James Chadwick, J.B.S. Haldane, Alan Hale, Stephen Hawking, etc., are burning in Hell as we speak!   Whereas, the likes of Albert Fish, American serial killer and child rapist - Devout Christian. David Berkowitz, aka Son of Sam, American serial killer - raised Jewish, converted to Catholicism, is now “born again” Christian. Peter Sutcliffe, British serial killer - raised Catholic, is now Jehovah's Witness, etc., are, or will be, walking with Jesus in heaven! 

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

With the passage shown above in where Jesus ALWAYS forgives us of our sins, then there is NO INCENTIVE not to sin in the first place! WTF!

.
Topic's author
#310
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
With the passage shown above in where Jesus ALWAYS forgives us of our sins, then there is NO INCENTIVE not to sin in the first place! WTF!
I've actually asked myself this question a lot. 

Why would God want us to live without sin, if at the end we can just ask him for forgiveness and become remade?

Well the answer is the position your "heart" is in when you do this.

If you're plan is to live a sinful life, then at the end ask Jesus into your heart, and be able to enter heaven, that's not going to work.

God looks at what you actually mean when you ask him to forgive you. If you really mean it, its real love and forgiveness. 

If you are only doing it for your own good to escape hell, then it won't work.
Topic's author
#311
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
If we haven't proven that there is an outside of what we know to be true then the thing alleged to exist there could not possibly have been proven either.
Yes, but we haven't proved that there isn't either. And how would we?

This is the part where you put faith in God.

Now let me say this:
There will never be definitive, concrete, real actual in your face evidence for the existence of God, besides the universe itself, but that helps my case even more.

If there was evidence of Gods existence that was in your face, telling you it was true, then everyone would just become Christian just for the purpose of there own safety. They wouldn't actually love God in the way he want's us too. They would only become Christian for the purpose of saving there souls from hell, and they wouldn't give two S**** about God.

You are wrong. The evidence for the big bang includes red shift, which allows us to track the distance, direction of movement, and speed of movement of light. By using red shift to track the movement of galaxies we learned that if we were to reverse it's movement and rewind the clock, every Galaxy observable would converge at a single point in space at the same time - 13.8 billion years ago to be exact.
Yes, this is just explaining evidence for the Big Bang, which I agree happened.

When scientists studied what could have caused the clusters which are now galaxies to be catapulted in such a way, they concluded that there must have been an explosion and deduced the singularity which preceded it.

And then they experimented to find out if this was accurate.
First of all, which scientists, and could you provide evidence for this experimentation?


The model which they came up with showed that if this did happen there would have been cosmic background radiation leftover from the intense heat that could still be observed, so they mapped out what it would have looked like and set up an experiment at the poles to see if they could measure it. And what do you know... The map they found matched precisely to what the model predicted.

None of this has anything to do with faith.
Well yes, this part has nothing to do with faith. But then they need to explain how the Big bang...…well banged.

Creation requires a creator by definition, so when you call something a creation you are just presuming at the outset that something created it which is the very thing you are supposed to be proving.
How else would creation come about? 

I am asking how did everything come to be. 

Something, cannot come from nothing. 

So even if the universe has been infinite and forever, that doesn't cover the fact that SOMETHING had to cause it to be there. And that's the question Atheist's can't answer.


#312
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,435
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Shouldn't the topic be:   God Doesn't Want You To Know He Exists, and I Can Prove It ?
#313
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Shouldn't the topic be:   God Doesn't Want You To Know He Exists, and I Can Prove It ?

Nice.😊
#314
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING AND TRUTHFUL QUOTE: "If that be the case, I can live with the knowledge that when I slip my skin that I am hell bound to live among a better class of people, Brother D.😁"
Yeah, the irony is that the likes of unreligious scientists like Carl Sagan, James Chadwick, J.B.S. Haldane, Alan Hale, Stephen Hawking, etc., are burning in Hell as we speak!



Good to know I am on the right path and heading in the direction I hoped for, Brother D.


Whereas, the likes of Albert Fish, American serial killer and child rapist - Devout Christian. David Berkowitz, aka Son of Sam, American serial killer - raised Jewish, converted to Catholicism, is now “born again” Christian. Peter Sutcliffe, British serial killer - raised Catholic, is now Jehovah's Witness, etc., are, or will be, walking with Jesus in heaven! 
Just shows that any pieces of shite can end up in heaven as long as one says" I believe in you lord".


"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

Yes. Ted Bundy and the Yorkshire Ripper have nothing to worry about, where as I am doomed to burn in the  hell-fire simply for  having the audacity question the bible.


With the passage shown above in where Jesus ALWAYS forgives us of our sins, then there is NO INCENTIVE not to sin in the first place! WTF!

Best get some sinning done before its too late for me then, Brother D.
#315
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,177
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If we haven't proven that there is an outside of what we know to be true then the thing alleged to exist there could not possibly have been proven either.
Yes, but we haven't proved that there isn't either. And how would we?

This is the part where you put faith in God.
Faith is not proof. If faith is what you are relying on then you are not making a rational argument suited for a debate site, you're just preaching.

If we can't prove that there is a something outside of space and time, and we can't prove that there isn't anything outside of space and time, then all that leaves us with is "I don't know". The difference between us is that you are claiming you do know, so the burden is on you to justify such a conclusion, not on anyone else to prove that nothing is there.

If there was evidence of Gods existence that was in your face, telling you it was true, then everyone would just become Christian just for the purpose of there own safety.
Satin disagrees

First of all, which scientists, and could you provide evidence for this experimentation?

Well yes, this part has nothing to do with faith. But then they need to explain how the Big bang...…well banged.
No, they don't. Their responsibility is to explain their findings. Anyone not satisfied with what questions they were able to answer is free to set up their own experiments and set out to explain whatever they wish. But not having an explanation for something is not an explanation for something else.

I am asking how did everything come to be. 

Something, cannot come from nothing. 

So even if the universe has been infinite and forever, that doesn't cover the fact that SOMETHING had to cause it to be there. And that's the question Atheist's can't answer.
No one can answer this question. The only difference between theists and atheists is that theists pretend they can.

Again, you have created a special set of rules for your belief that you do not apply to alternative explanations.  Something had to cause the universe to be there, but nothing had to cause God to be there. You have no rational justification for this other than because your explanation follows the rules you made up.

If something cannot come from nothing, and there exists a something, then the only way forward is to presume something always existed. In other words, existence itself is a necessary state.

If existence is a necessary state, you no longer need a God to explain it. In fact invoking God as an explanation for it is self defeating because God cannot be the cause of existice without first existing.

So going back to the why is there something rather than nothing question, both answers are logical contradictions. In other words, the laws of logic themselves seem to break down at this point, which is why I take the position that it is ultimately an unanswerable question.
#316
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #301

1. In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:25-27)

2. In the second Creation story, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib!  “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22) 

YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE TO MY BIBLICAL AXIOMS SHOWN AT THE TOP OF THIS POST: "Well, Genisis one was more or less a wrap up of the whole creation process, in which it summarizes what God did through the six "days". Genisis two goes more into depth of detail about the creation of man. Both Genisis one and Genisis two are the same story, just one is more detailed than the other."

First thing, learn how to spell "Genesis," it is not how you spell it shown here; “Genisis,” understood? Show respect to Jesus for Christ’s sake you Bible dumb ass!  Secondly, my quotes in the gray area above was to show how Jesus contradicted Himself in the chronological order of when man and the animals and Eve were created, understand Bible inept fool? LOL!



YOUR BEFUDDLED QUOTE!:  "Well, Genisis one was more or less a wrap up of the whole creation process,"

HUH? How can the FIRST, I repeat, the FIRST Creation story be a wrap up, meaning finalized, when we have a Genesis 2 Creation Story that contradicts Genesis 1?  Furthermore, how can you even propose that it is "more or less" or a "wrap up" to begin with?!  Therefore, which process is "more," and which process is "less" in the Creation Story in Genesis 1?

EXPLAIN:



YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE AGAIN: "Both Genisis one and Genisis two are the same story, just one is more detailed than the other."

Heads up Bible fool, how can they be the same Creation story when they CONTRADICT each other? Huh?

GENESIS 1: In chronological order Jesus as God created animals first (Genesis 1:25), then He created man and woman simultaneously (Genesis 1:27) 

GENESIS 2: Jesus created man first, then the animals, then Eve separately! (Genesis 2:18-22) which CONTRADICTS in chronological order in Genesis 1 above! Can your inept reading comprehension decipher this simple FACT?! Huh?

EXPLAIN: 


Understand this very simple syllogism pseudo-christian, where there are contradictions, there are falsehoods, and where there are falsehoods, there are LIES because both propositions that contradict each other cannot be true at the same time, understood Bible fool?  

.
#317
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #301


YOUR QUOTE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE TERM CONTRADICTION: “If you look closely at these passages of scripture, you will see, that it does not exactly state in which day each thing was created.The majority of this whole chapter takes place in "one day."
So, Adam and Eve were both created on the same "day" as the animals.  It's not a different story, it's the same story.“
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361163


OMG, here we go again in you proving the Bible contradicts itself!  Now you propose that in Genesis 1, Creation was accomplished for the most part on one 24 hour day? LOL!  

STOP, when will your Bible ineptness ever stop?! Have you heard of the 6 day Creation, where Jesus as god specifically did certain Creation events upon certain "24 hour days" and then rested on the 7th day? H-E-L-L-O? 

Seriously, can any other pseudo-christian help out this Bible fool known as YouFound_Lxam, PLEASE!

.

#318
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #301

 in Genesis 1:25-27 has Adam created AFTER the animals, and in Genesis 2:18-19, Adam was created BEFORE the animals! 

YOUR OUTRIGHT DECEIVING SATANIC QUOTE: “…. In Genisis 1, it doesn't say that Adam was created before the animals,” 
 
I didn’t say that Bible dumb ass, I said that in Genesis 1:25-27 Adam was created AFTER the animals, READ what I said at the top of this post Bible fool!


YOUR OUTRIGHT DECEIVING SATANIC QUOTE #2:  “and In Genisis 2 it doesn't say the opposite either. They were created on the same “day”

AGAIN, I did not say the opposite, whereas in biblical FACT, Adam was created BEFORE the animals! READ what I said at the top of this post stupid Bible fool!

Jesus H. Christ, you get more deceiving day after day because that is the only thing you have left in trying to prove what I have said IN FACT, is wrong, when it is NOT!

You have a very bad situation in your lacking of reading skills that others have seen as well as myself, where maybe you should take the online reading comprehension class that I had given you, remember Bible fool?  Here it is again for your conveniance: https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm

.
#319
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, that is vying to be the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, where Miss Tradesecret will be sad,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #301

 in Genesis 1:25-27 has Adam created AFTER the animals, and in Genesis 2:18-19, Adam was created BEFORE the animals! 

YOUR OUTRIGHT DECEIVING SATANIC QUOTE: “…. In Genisis 1, it doesn't say that Adam was created before the animals,” 
 
I didn’t say that Bible dumb ass, I said that in Genesis 1:25-27 Adam was created AFTER the animals, READ what I said at the top of this post Bible fool!


YOUR OUTRIGHT DECEIVING SATANIC QUOTE #2:  “and In Genisis 2 it doesn't say the opposite either. They were created on the same “day”

AGAIN, I did not say the opposite, whereas in biblical FACT, Adam was created BEFORE the animals! READ what I said at the top of this post stupid Bible fool!

Jesus H. Christ, you get more deceiving day after day because that is the only thing you have left in trying to prove what I have said IN FACT, is wrong, when it is NOT!

You have a very bad situation in your lacking of reading skills that others have seen as well as myself, where maybe you should take the online reading comprehension class that I had given you, remember Bible fool?  Here it is again for your conveniance: https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm

.
#320
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #301


THINK, why did Jesus create the animals for Adam as a helpmate FIRST that was obviously acceptable to Him,  because Adam had a male anatomy for procreation, and so did the animals, male and female!  Then, did Jesus as God expect ADAM TO HAVE SEX WITH THE ANIMALS IN THE BEGINNING FOR PROCREATION PURPOSES?! 

EXPLAIN, WITHOUT YOUR SATANIC AND LAUGHABLE "OPINIONS," IN WHY JESUS WANTED ADAM TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS FOR PROCREATION AT THAT TIME:
THINK, why did Jesus create the animals for Adam as a helpmate FIRST that was obviously acceptable to Him,  because Adam had a male anatomy for procreation, and so did the animals, male and female!  Then, did Jesus as God expect ADAM TO HAVE SEX WITH THE ANIMALS IN THE BEGINNING FOR PROCREATION PURPOSES?! 

YOUR QUOTE IN TRYING TO REFUTE THE BIBLICAL AXIOM ABOVE: ”The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

1. YES, as shown, Jesus as God made a “suitable helper” for Adam of which in His mind, were the ANIMALS which had male and female anatomys just like Adam did! LOL! (Genesis 2:18)  What the hell was Jesus thinking?!

2. Why did Jesus as God “think” that creating animals would help Adam in the Garden, other than to EAT the garden’s spoils quickly? (Genesis 2:19)

3. After Jesus made this BIG MISTAKE in creating animals to help Adam, FIRST, then, and only then, did Jesus come up with the idea of creating a woman named Eve to help Adam with helping him in the Garden of Eden, and with reproductive qualities that the animals had as well in Jesus first suitable helper!!  WTF?

4. Furthermore, why didn’t Jesus create a woman in the first place instead of the animals to help Adam because He knew beforehand that He wanted to populate the world with species just like Himself (Genesis 1:27) and since He was omniscient knowing this was the outcome that Jesus wanted! (1 John 3:20)

5. We have to ask this logical question, therefore, was Jesus into “beastility” when creating animals FIRST to help Adam since they ALL had male and female anatomys?  LOL!

EXPLAIN THE TOP FIVE EMBARRASSING PROPOSITIONS THAT JESUS MADE AS GOD, 

YOU MAY BEGIN:


.
Topic's author
#321
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
If something cannot come from nothing, and there exists a something, then the only way forward is to presume something always existed. In other words, existence itself is a necessary state.

If existence is a necessary state, you no longer need a God to explain it. In fact invoking God as an explanation for it is self defeating because God cannot be the cause of existice without first existing.
But how did an existing state come into existence?
I have already proved that Time had to of had a beginning.

You cannot have something (even an existing state) from nothing. Something can't just exist just based off of the laws of physics and biology that we know today.

No, they don't. Their responsibility is to explain their findings. Anyone not satisfied with what questions they were able to answer is free to set up their own experiments and set out to explain whatever they wish. But not having an explanation for something is not an explanation for something else.
Well, if they really truly believe in all of this, then they have to explain how it came to be. If they can't do that, then they have failed at that task.

Nothing in here says anything about the singularity.

Faith is not proof. 
Then atheists are basing their beliefs off of no proof. You have to have a lot of faith to even believe that the big bang came from nothing.

#322
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #302.


YOUR PITIFUL AND EMBARRASSING QUOTE: BELOW, LOL!!!:   “Well, you took that out of context. Let's just use another word that will help you to understand better. Let's say "Given god exists outside of time,” https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361164

Okay, which is it, you said that “IF” God exists outside of time in this quote: “If God exists outside of time, then the way he interprets time, is different from how we interpret time.” 
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361129

Then, you now say that God does exist out of time in this quote: “Let's say "Given god exists outside of time,”
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361164

Which one of your laughable contradictions shown above do you want to agree with? 

EXPLAIN:


YouFound_Lxam, are you being Bible stupid on purpose to make us laugh?

.

Topic's author
#323
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

YOUR BEFUDDLED QUOTE!:  "Well, Genisis one was more or less a wrap up of the whole creation process,"

HUH? How can the FIRST, I repeat, the FIRST Creation story be a wrap up, meaning finalized, when we have a Genesis 2 Creation Story that contradicts Genesis 1?  Furthermore, how can you even propose that it is "more or less" or a "wrap up" to begin with?!  Therefore, which process is "more," and which process is "less" in the Creation Story in Genesis 1?

EXPLAIN:
Well, Genesis 1 explains the whole creation story. While Genesis 2 goes more into depth of the creation of man.
Genesis 1 does include the creation of man, but Genesis 2 goes back to that part of the creation more into depth.

YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE AGAIN: "Both Genisis one and Genisis two are the same story, just one is more detailed than the other."

Heads up Bible fool, how can they be the same Creation story when they CONTRADICT each other? Huh?

GENESIS 1: In chronological order Jesus as God created animals first (Genesis 1:25), then He created man and woman simultaneously (Genesis 1:27) 

GENESIS 2: Jesus created man first, then the animals, then Eve separately! (Genesis 2:18-22) which CONTRADICTS in chronological order in Genesis 1 above! Can your inept reading comprehension decipher this simple FACT?! Huh?

EXPLAIN: 
Actually, the Bible only explains which "day" the creations of animals and man took place, not the order in which they were created.

God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
Did you see that quote from the Bible?

1. YES, as shown, Jesus as God made a “suitable helper” for Adam of which in His mind, were the ANIMALS which had male and female anatomys just like Adam did! LOL! (Genesis 2:18)  What the hell was Jesus thinking?!

2. Why did Jesus as God “think” that creating animals would help Adam in the Garden, other than to EAT the garden’s spoils quickly? (Genesis 2:19)

3. After Jesus made this BIG MISTAKE in creating animals to help Adam, FIRST, then, and only then, did Jesus come up with the idea of creating a woman named Eve to help Adam with helping him in the Garden of Eden, and with reproductive qualities that the animals had as well in Jesus first suitable helper!!  WTF?

4. Furthermore, why didn’t Jesus create a woman in the first place instead of the animals to help Adam because He knew beforehand that He wanted to populate the world with species just like Himself (Genesis 1:27) and since He was omniscient knowing this was the outcome that Jesus wanted! (1 John 3:20)

5. We have to ask this logical question, therefore, was Jesus into “beastility” when creating animals FIRST to help Adam since they ALL had male and female anatomys?  LOL!

EXPLAIN THE TOP FIVE EMBARRASSING PROPOSITIONS THAT JESUS MADE AS GOD, 

YOU MAY BEGIN:
1.) Well, you obviously didn't see my other quote in that post, that you clearly didn't show, because it literally answers your question. 
God was not trying to find a mate for Adam. He was trying to find a suitable helper to help maintain the Garden of Eden. 
"The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
2.) How should I know what God is thinking? He is omnipotent. 
4.) Maybe because he didn't intend to make animals for that purpose.......hmmmmmmmmm. 
5.) Yea.... no.


#324
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #302.


YET ANOTHER BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE OF YOURS REGARDING THE HEBREW WORD “YOM” BEING A 24 HOUR DAY: “Ok well first of all let me ask you this. Does God speak Hebrew. Well, if he's God then yes. But he also speaks other languages. This argument has no value whatsoever, and you are just playing with definitions.”

1. Who did God inspire to write the Old Testament?
2. You admit that Jesus as God spoke Hebrew, duh
3. It matters NOT if Jesus as God spoke in other languages
4. You admit that the Hebrew word “yom” is defined as a 24 hour period

Therefore Bible fool, how am I playing with definitions?!
.
EXPLAIN: 



YOU SHOWNG THE FOLLOWING LINK PROVES THAT THERE WERE 24 HOUR DAYS IN THE CREATION 1 AND 2:  gen1.pdf (scripture4all.org)

In showing the membership the link above, PROVES that when Jesus referred to a “day” in the Creation narratives, it meant a 24 hour day, and not thousands of years, or millions of years in Creation days like you embarrassingly proffered in your quote herewith: “If God exists outside of time, then the way he interprets time, is different from how we interpret time. Therefore, the story of creation, could have been 7 days, 7000, years, etc. It may as well of been millions of years.” 


Seriously, were you sent to this Religion Forum to be as Bible stupid as you can be?

.
#325
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #302.
.
YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOUR BIBLE “STUPIDNESS” PREVAILS ONCE AGAIN: “First of all, why do you keep assuming that I believe the creation of the universe took 6000 years.”

It didn’t Bible fool, READ my quote again: “Thirdly, God created the world and the universe at approximately “6000 years ago” with the linage of Adam to Jesus, and Jesus to the present day ……”, Therefore the earth, universe, and man has been existing for approximately 6000 years!  GET IT BIBLE FOOL?  
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/360949 


YOUR QUOTE OF PURE UNADULTERATED STUPIDITY!: “I have already told you that I take the metaphorical scripture," A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4, As proof that Jesus lives outside of time, therefore the scientific timing of the universe aligns with the Bible.”

And, as I have “schooled” your Bible stupidity before, you cannot use a thousand years, or millions of years like you have said, in the creation narratives, period Bible dumb ass!

What part of the word Hebrew word “YOM” don’t you understand? Are you calling the Hebrews that wrote the Old Testament in the name of Jesus as god, LIARS?!  Since Jesus as God spoke Hebrew as you admit too, then by all means the Creation days were 24 hour periods like I have shown you in this link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361129


Jesus H. Christ, you have no end to your outright Bible stupidity! LOL!

.
#326
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #302.

YOUR EMBARRASSMENT ONCE AGAIN IN ALLEGEDLY CITING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE DINOSAURS DIED IN THE WAY DEPICTED IN YOUR “APOLOGETIC” CHRISTIAN LINKS:

1. Now, read this again REAL SLOW this time to help you understand that you are just chasing your tail, in the FACT that the earth, universe and man, only have existed BIBLICALLY for approximately 6000 years, STOP!

2. The above fact is determined upon Adam at the time Jesus as God created the universe, and remodeled the earth, to Jesus existence in the GENEOLOGY from Adam to Jesus, is approximately 4000 years in including the many years in the age of said genealogy names in Luke 3:23-38!  STOP!  

3. Relating to the biblilcal FACTS shown above, that YOU didn’t even know existed in the first place because you are a Bible fool, otherwise you would have brought them to the forefront!  STOP!

4. Then, do the simple math, from Jesus’ existance to the present day is approximately 2000 years, GET IT?  Now, you say that you know the Bible, of which you don’t if you are lacking in why this biblical axiom is true above!  Get it Bible fool? STOP!


YouFound_Lxam, have you ever though of getting a pre-school child in helping you with your outright Bible stupidity? Huh?



.
#327
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #302.

So, what you are saying relative to the Trinity Doctrine is simply:  there are three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.  However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. The Son was begotten by the Father, but existed before He was begotten. Christ is just as old as his Father, and the Father is just as young as his Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but He is of the same age as the other two! 

YouFound_Lxam, are the above FACTS true to this point? Yes or no?


To further the Godly Triune premise in your way of thinking:  Then the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost is Almighty, but yet there are not three Almighty's but one Almighty. It is plainly seen that we have three Almighty's, and at the same time, one Almighty. You inform us that obviously the three persons in the Trinity are co-eternal together and coequal. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Ghost is eternal, and yet there are not three eternally, but one eternal. The plain English is, that the three entities in the Trinity are three eternally, and individually considered, and yet they are not three eternally, but one eternal! 

YouFound_Lxam, are the above FACTS in the name of Jesus true to this point? Yes or no?


WHAT THE HELL HAS YOUR FOLLOWING DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE HAVE TO DO WITH MY TRINITY DOCTRINE SHOWN ABOVE?:  “God exists outside of time. Therefore, he isn't limited to age. He has been, is, and always will be eternal.”

Your lame excuse above will NOT stand in your running away from the Trinity Doctrine as I have asked you to see if it agreeable to you! SCARED? Are you going to address the Trinity Doctrine shown above, or are you going to RUN from it again as a little pseudo-christian?

Can you tell the membership in what “running shoes” that you wear when you RUN AWAY from my godly posts to you? Are they Nike, Converse, Adidas, or? LOL!

.
#328
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,

Addressing your outright embarrassing post #302.



Relating to the Trinity Doctrine, yes, as I have shown many times that Jesus as God, and where He impregnated His own mother:  "Jesus spiritually impregnated His own mother through "celestial impregnation and incest." When Jesus did this act, He not only became Mary’s son, but his own Father as being Yahweh/God incarnate AND a bastard child through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was not the paternal father."

Furthermore, since Jesus was a bastard child through Hebrew tradition, then poor Jesus could NOT enter into one of His Temples: “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)

BUT, guess what? Jesus forgot this doctrine shown above that was inspired by Him in the first place (1 Thessalonians 2:13),  and entered one of His own temples: "And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons." (Matthew 21:12)

YOUFOUND_LXAM, how do you deal with these problems relating to Jesus shown above?  BEGIN:

YOUR CONTINUED RUNAWAY EXCUSE TO NOT ADDRESS BIBLICAL FACTS SHOWN ABOVE: “Same goes for this question.”

No it DOES NOT!  You have RAN AWAY again from biblical axioms in my statement shown at the top of this post!  Why?  Too SCARED to at least “try” to address them in front of the membership? And, you want to call yourself a CHRISTIAN, NOT! ROFLOL! Worried about our serial killer Jesus being a Bastard child? Or, is it the FACT that Jesus entered His temple that went against His own doctrine where He couldn't do this for 10 generations? Huh?


Is there any pseudo-christian that can help this poor Bible dumb ass YouFound_Lxam with his RUNAWAY status to actual Biblical axioms? Please, help him because Jesus is not looking down upon this Bible fool in a good way (Hebrews 4:13).

.
#329
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, 

LIsten up Bible fool, before you even “try” to address my previous godly posts to you IN YOUR EMBARRASSING THREAD, you have homework to do first!  Understood Bible runaway?

You are still running away from my addressing your Bible stupidity in my godly posts in the following link shown below:

You may begin to address the posts in the link above FIRST, then subsequent to licking your wounds, then you can "try" and address my current posts #316 through #328!  Understand you Bible ignorant and stupid fool?  Yes? Maybe?

YOU MAY BEGIN:

.


#330
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,177
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But how did an existing state come into existence?
I have already proved that Time had to of had a beginning.

You cannot have something (even an existing state) from nothing. Something can't just exist just based off of the laws of physics and biology that we know today.
If something can't just exist then there goes your position on God.

You are wrong to base anything in this conversation on the laws of physics. Those are laws observed within the local presentation of the universe, you have no basis to apply them to anything outside of it.

I would ask that you provide the proof that time had a beginning again but that is ultimately irrelevant. Time having a beginning does not mean that anything caused it and it certainly would not inform us as to any qualities of said cause. In fact a cause for the existence of time is a logical contradiction because cause and effect requires time.

And as far as how an existing state came into existence... I just explained how this question is logically self defeating. In order for something to cause existence it has to first exist.

There is no way around this problem, including your God. If God already existed then he can't be the cause of existence. If he can cause existince without existing then you believe in a being that can defy the laws of logic, which makes your belief irrational by definition.

Well, if they really truly believe in all of this, then they have to explain how it came to be.
The only thing they have to do is explain their findings and support them with evidence. It is not the scientists job to refute your religious claims or answer all of your questions about reality. 

One of the many differences between science and religion is that science requires intellectual discipline. "I don't know" is perfectly ok in science because that is what feuls us to learn more. All religion does is say "here is what sounds good to me" and pretends others are at fault for not blindly following suit.

Humanity has limitations. There are things we just don't know and probably never will. You can either accept that and deal with reality on its own terms or just make up your own. You seem to have chosen the latter.

You have to have a lot of faith to even believe that the big bang came from nothing.
This is complete nonsense, and I've already explained it to you multiple times. No one is claiming the big bang "came from nothing", that is a religious caricature invented to make the big bang sound as absurd and unsupported as religious beliefs.

Once again, the big bang theory *begins* at the point of the big bang. There is no theory on what if anything preceded it. And once again, the current model shows that time itself may have come into existence at the point of the big bang which if true, means that there is no such thing as 'before the big bang' for this would be an incoherent concept.

If you have some expertise on this and can tell me I'm wrong that's fine, enlighten me then. But please stop pretending like I haven't addressed this multiple times already.