Hey, superdim, who posted the link to my website?
God is Impossible
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
Q. Several posts up.
Two things before I get to the meat of the posts:
1. Please keep the Creation v. Evolution nonsense out of here.
2. Please keep the ad hominem out of here.
1. Please keep the Creation v. Evolution nonsense out of here.
2. Please keep the ad hominem out of here.
Only liars don't admit that there is a God who created all that we see, so God says in the Bible, therefore, way to go Satyr.
There must be a god, because the bible says so. How do we know the bible is true? Because it's the word of god.
Now, wipe the drool off your chin and get back to coloring with the water washable markers.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Actually, small point in case, but the Bible actually says nothing of the sort.
Right again old man.
Does too.
And verydim, the Bible has never shown any inaccuracy, that is why it's the primary roadmap for archaeological endeavors in the Middle East, no other book comes close, how do you like that?
And verydim, the Bible has never shown any inaccuracy, that is why it's the primary roadmap for archaeological endeavors in the Middle East, no other book comes close, how do you like that?
How can I not admit the ‘truth’?
Your astoundingly well-reasoned posts and well-documented evidence is overwhelming.
You and lightgigantic present a formidable duo of rational discourse and philosophical/scientific thought on sciforums.
I beleive it is indicative of the overall level of this forum.
I can’t believe there are still people resisting what is so self-evident.
Imagine believing we evolved from apes….I mean COME ON!!!! ...or that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, when the Bible clearly states that it is otherwise.
If I cannot believe Scripture then what am I supposed to believe…my eyes…my ears….sinners?
God created the earth and everything on it.
Simple.
You are right. I am wrong.
You managed to grasp reality better than I ever could and I bow to your superior intellect.
Keep doing God’s work and may Jesus look over you.
I hope I’ll be forgiven by Him when I come before the pearly gates.
Amen.
Oh and…I forgot to mention that I didn’t mean what I said about you being as attractive as you are intelligent.
You are pretty cute.
Last edited:
Kenny JC:
Upon what premise is it absurd?
It stands to reason there is some logical, rather than empirical, foundation for existence, does it not? Or at least that it is reasonable enough to speculate?
But that would only prove improbability.
Mr. Anonymous:
As One Raven pointed out: What if he is eternal? Unneeding of creation?
More replies shortly.
Upon what premise is it absurd?
It stands to reason there is some logical, rather than empirical, foundation for existence, does it not? Or at least that it is reasonable enough to speculate?
But that would only prove improbability.
Mr. Anonymous:
As One Raven pointed out: What if he is eternal? Unneeding of creation?
More replies shortly.
You must be forgiven to get to the pearly gates, when you're physically dead, unsaved, it's too late. Like the Bible says, "today is the day of salvation."
And by the way, those who have never heard nor understood the Gospel can be saved, based upon their God-given knowledge that there is a Creator to answer to, and upon how they respond to this knowledge, repentently or defiantly.
And by the way, those who have never heard nor understood the Gospel can be saved, based upon their God-given knowledge that there is a Creator to answer to, and upon how they respond to this knowledge, repentently or defiantly.
"And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." 1:17
Wrong. The stars are freely floating and mobile in the vacuum of space. Bible is inaccurate.
7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
This says that pi is equal to 3. Wrong. Bible is inaccurate.
32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light
A cloud in front of the sun will keep the moon from giving its light? Bible is inaccurate. And just plain stupid.
Preaching will get you banned. Keep it up.
Tell that to Satyr, he posted the subject, I just corrected him.
Nah, he just needs to continue wrecking threads and that will do it. I'll just standby and wait for that.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Ante up a scripture backing that up or quit with the yakking, numb-nuts - not asking. I've only in this one thread just made your aquaitance and already you're on just about my last neve and we've not yet even talked.
Back it up or piss off, I'm easy either way.
Prince James said:
As I responded to One Raven at the time: that only works as valid objection assuming God didn't create Time.
Eternity has no meaning without Time by which to define it. If God created Time He can't be eternal. If, on the other hand, God is eternal that must dictate that Time is not His creation - therefore undermining his own status of Godship as Creator of all things.
In short, once again, the existence of God undermines his own status as actually being God - in essence, disproving Himself by dint of His own existence.
Satyr:
An excellent argument. It must also be noted that man is incapable of even logically considering that which has neither existence in space nor time.
Precisely.
Yes.
Yet are not absolutes necessary to allow for these contingent qualities?
This is exceedingly so. The notion of a creator seems contradictory on ten thousand levels with the absolute.
Quite so.
In so much as most macroscopic objects behave in a way which is reversalable, you are correct that cause-and-effect can be reversed without a problem. Yet if this was not necessary, why is it consistantly observed? Moreover, is this not necessary for Becoming Something and Becoming Nothing?
It would stand to reason that at least one starting poing, even if non-linear, would be needed, no?
Does not this contradict your two-way street approach to causality?
Very well put.
Certainly.
Riku_124:
Presuming omnipresence, one must ask: Where is God -not-?
Q0101:
You do realize that this statement is emminently illogical? That it is self-invalidating? Indeed, it is in fact the premise of putting it forth, no?
Moreover, are you not 100 percent certain that contradictions are wrong? That something must be itself in order to be itself?
The Preacher:
Revealed religions are not God. Moreover, not all religions postulate Hellfire for non-believers.
An excellent assault on omnibenevolence.
This depends on Heaven. God does not.
Substantiate evil.
An interesting argument, but that is for religion, not God.
Cris:
Claims of God are mostly logical and philosphical in nature, not empirical. Cream cheese moons can be disproved through empirical testing. Moreover, there have been many classical arguments for God which are not at all so blatantly wrong as a creamcheese moon.
No - that would be unjustified. They aren't necessarily -wrong-. One can affirm something which one doesn't know and be right, just one cannot justifiably claim that one knows truth.
An excellent argument. It must also be noted that man is incapable of even logically considering that which has neither existence in space nor time.
Precisely.
Yes.
Yet are not absolutes necessary to allow for these contingent qualities?
This is exceedingly so. The notion of a creator seems contradictory on ten thousand levels with the absolute.
Quite so.
In so much as most macroscopic objects behave in a way which is reversalable, you are correct that cause-and-effect can be reversed without a problem. Yet if this was not necessary, why is it consistantly observed? Moreover, is this not necessary for Becoming Something and Becoming Nothing?
It would stand to reason that at least one starting poing, even if non-linear, would be needed, no?
Does not this contradict your two-way street approach to causality?
Very well put.
Certainly.
Riku_124:
Presuming omnipresence, one must ask: Where is God -not-?
Q0101:
You do realize that this statement is emminently illogical? That it is self-invalidating? Indeed, it is in fact the premise of putting it forth, no?
Moreover, are you not 100 percent certain that contradictions are wrong? That something must be itself in order to be itself?
The Preacher:
Revealed religions are not God. Moreover, not all religions postulate Hellfire for non-believers.
An excellent assault on omnibenevolence.
This depends on Heaven. God does not.
Substantiate evil.
An interesting argument, but that is for religion, not God.
Cris:
Claims of God are mostly logical and philosphical in nature, not empirical. Cream cheese moons can be disproved through empirical testing. Moreover, there have been many classical arguments for God which are not at all so blatantly wrong as a creamcheese moon.
No - that would be unjustified. They aren't necessarily -wrong-. One can affirm something which one doesn't know and be right, just one cannot justifiably claim that one knows truth.