I will now prove atheists are illogical!

You are baiting the atheist. What do you really believe? Can you defend it logically?

 

Just a huge, really huge, amount of faith.

 

Or if really want to disprove god, do this.

Go outside, strtech your arms upwards, look up towards the sky and shout as hard as your lungs allow it.

God i denounce you, i forsake you. I defy you. From now on we are enemies, you and I. Because you choose for your instrument of boastfull, lustfull, infentile boy and give me for reward the ability to recognize the incarnation. Because you are unjust, unfair, unkind, I will block you, I swear it. I will hinder and harm your creature on earth as far as I am able. I will ruin, your incarnation!

And if that doesn't make God angry nothing will.

 

Not so much. Just a will to not try to see indefensible religious truths within real science.

 

I'm going to prove atheists are illogical and I'm going to do that by stating outright lies, use logical fallacies, make crap up and say the most illogical things you can imagine.

Check mate Atheists.

 

And where did the 'unstable singularity' come from?

 

God of the gaps argument detected.

 

According to science it was a natural physical imbalance. No God was necessary.

If you have faith, why is this important?

Does God want you to demean people seeking a truth contrary to your own?

Show those without faith how much you care, otherwise you only evangelize ignorance.

 

There is no science that supports the origins beyond the Big Bang, merely hypothesi.

Does science want you to deem the truth? You think science about random guesses shoved down people's throats? And Panzer there, what is the point of simply accusing others of logical fallacy? Isn't that just an appeal to emotion? The old appeal to ridicule?

So, you don't have science to back up your claims, you have guesses - which is faith, but you need to crap on someone else's guess? Interesting science you atheists got there.

 

I am not an atheist. I just don't see any point in trying to use science to prove or justify faith. If you are spiritually connected you should feel comfortably above this argument. Why not expend your efforts to trying to reduce human suffering? Why argue with unbelievers who cannot comprehend where you are coming from? Why fight people if you are trying to save them?

 

Well, I agree with you.

The reality is that science leads straight to agnosticism. What science does however give us is preponderance and probability. What it does not give is certainty. So the nature of the debate about science is as much about the certainty of atheists - which science cannot deliever for atheism - as it is about faith. Preponderance, probability, possibility ... those are the realms of faith.

Its is, as the unbelievers so often charge, not a group of people sitting around making things up, it does make sense, and when explored honestly, well, lets just say that disagreement is one thing ... out right rejection from certainity makes little sense, and is far more illogical and fantasy based than just about any religion out there.

 

Claiming to be scientifically certain of god's non-existence is nonsensical? I think you're right. But saying that is "more" illogical than most religions? There WILL be disagreement on that.

 

This debate and others like it on this forum and in life generally. Will go around and around in circles by those who support religion. But they won't do the obvious. The obvious question that they choose to ignore. To ask God directly to appear and when he does not. There is your answer.

Although religious views are never sane. People will give up their entire life, lost in self denial to a 'God" they are afraid to question. Although as much as i take the p.iss out of it. I do appreciate the sheer stubborness to intensly believe in one myth. And like Neutral does. this belief is so strong, he will try to convince anyone who read or listen, that there is indeed an invisable entity somewhere out there but it will never show itself. Just believe blindly, forever.

 

It looks like I don't have to prove anything anymore. Panzer, I have been away for a week or so because I went to Star Tours. But It looks like all your Atheists friends here have proved my point with their posts. If you read the entire thread, which i'm NOT about to do again, it's shows that Atheists have no fundamentals. They have no clear goal or logic in life. They are lifeless, hating attacking people who believe that The universe was created by a singularity that came from NOTHING. Yet, they have faith in this data that proved nothing. Just because the universe seems to be expanding by examining clusters of Galaxy, does not mean that these nebulae, stars, Dark Matter etc. come from nothing. It just means that you people believe this outlandish stupid theory about creation. Which has NEVER been proven to create a single cell.

It is not obvious to me that Evolution/science cannot create the mind. Create the Brain and the conciousness within it. No particle or nuclear reaction could have conjured up a human form. You people have never proved this thru science.

Basically, the explanation Science gives us of how we came about is a fairy tale. And in logical terms to believe in that fairy tale its illogical. I rest my case.

 

I agree that the entire history of science has not managed to disprove God nor is there anything that proves the existence of God.

What science has done is proven that things did not happen the way they are described in the Bible shows that the entire Bible is not the literal word of God.

Logic,Philosophy, History and linguistics has shown that there are contradictions in the Bible.

This of course does not disprove God, but it does provide refutation to those who think they know the mind of God through the Bible.

The problem is not that one believes in God, but when one claims to speak for God.

 

And this is why people doubt that you are an expert on Christian History.

The parables of the Bible were called parables well before science came along, and indeed, the earliest Christian and wven Jewish scjholars were saying that the 'days' in genisis were not literal days.

But its science that figured this out?

Is there some reason you claim to be Christian and then talk like an atheist?

 

Where did the 'natural physical imbalance come from? Where was it? What is its nature? Does it end? When did it begin? How is it that asking questions of atheists is somehow 'demeaning' to them?

The point really is you do not know, atheists do not know and scientists do not know. Yet some of these folks are SURE there is no God. Amazing.

 

Literal or not, the timeline does not work in any sense of thought..... Why would God have inspired something so absurd, even as a parable.... What possible lesson could intellect gain from something like this?

Let me speak in a parable about this brilliant creation and speak of it as though I don't even have a basic understanding of it's principles.... Is God really this moronic or is Genesis a foolish story that is written exclusively from the minds of men?

 

Genesis 22
14And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

15And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Does everyone understand the requirements used to declare Jesus to be divine?

Where does the parable start and where does it end?

 

Genesis 12

7And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

 

Matthew 1
1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

 

Is Jesus not a literal savior?

HMMMMM!

 

Actually, the basic sequence of the story is correct. Bang, heavens created. World created, life in Oceans before land, and then when all else is done ... we have the first man and women created .... and we do have Mitochondrial Eve don;t we?

Only a true idiot would look at a 4,000 year old document and treat it like a modern physics examination. Very few Christians do, but athetards galore do.

Makes perfect sense.

 

Oh look ANOTHER ignoramus. You went from Genesis to Matthew, two completely separate Canon's within the Bible, whose very creation process is starkly different, and are using the old literal in parable, and avoiding those sections that are clearly literal. Nice

I guess actually using ones brain in a process of discernment is just out, eh?

 

And by your argument, only a true idiot would look at a 4,000 year old document and think it validates any claim of divinity..... Christians cherry pick, discarding those things that are offensive to sense and sensibility calling them metaphorical in nature, and then focuse on the portions that validate their belief claiming it to be literal in nature......