My claim: Belief in God is reasonable.
But, a reasonable question for the Christian...is there evidence that God exists?
Yes, and the theological term would be "natural revelation" which is demonstrated by Paul in the first chapter of Romans.
So what is some of that evidence?
Here is something to listen to from Hugh Ross (a B.Sc. in physics from the University of British Columbia and an M.Sc. and Ph,D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto.

Give it a listen and let me know it this is evidence.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Stark

Actually there is no need for me to listen to it. Evidence on an individual and personal level is evidence. I have been given the proofs and evidence that I need to believe in Our Father. This proofs and evidence though is personal and individual and does not constitute evidence or proofs for someone esle.

Personal Revelations is just that personal. They do not constitute evidence for anyone other then the person who gets them;

That guy is awesome, his work is undeniable. I doubt he could be debated.

Sorry I don't buy any of it. I listened to it and see no proof of god just proof we cannot explain how it works yet. Just because we are ignorant of how things work or are incapable of understanding it does not mean "god" created it. If a being or beings on a highest plane of existance did great the Universe i doubt it would have been the Judeo christian from of god but many beings with intelligent working together to design the universe much like many scientist working togehter to engineer a way to get into space.
I am not saying there is not some higher form of being that could have designed the Universe or whatever. I refute that the Judeo-christian form of god was responsible for it.

He has this to say about quantum physics:
Quantum mechanics, rather than demoting God and elevating man, does exactly the reverse.
I'm inclined to agree. The murky, probabilistic world of quantum physics, if understood and used properly, could provide an endless source of ammunition for the individual interested in explaining everything with God.

I listened to the first 15 mins and didn't continue because it's nothing new. "Cause and effect tell us the beginning had a beginner therefore god exists" and "Einstein believed in god and if he had lived to the 1980s he would have believed in a personal god" plus some anecdotes about someone giving bible classes to Stephen Hawking.

Whoever this Ross guy and is he sure ain't a practising scientist and hasn't been for a long time.

I think higher quality Christian audios are offered by bethinking (http://www.bethinking.org/audio.php) (they have some duds too). I can listen to some (not all!) of the bethinkings all the way through because they are more original, fresh and engaging. For example, I enjoyed s God a Projection? - Wim Rietkerk (http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=330&TopicID=&CategoryID=) and Postmodernism and the question of
Identity, Dr Ted Turnau. (http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=89&TopicID=14&CategoryID=11)

Give it a listen and let me know it this is evidence.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

I did.

It isn't

Not only is it not *evidence* it is simply another way of repeating the nonsensical mumbo-jumbo that --"Welp, we can't figure out how all this stuff came to be, sooooo......it must have been god!".

I also find it interesting that he took the time to include a blatant lie about Einstein having believed that the God of the Bible created the universe.

But the most hilarious thing this guy put forth was -- ""as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.""

To put this bilge forward and try to pass it off as scientific evaluation, an ignoramus proclaiming -- **if you prove that time has a beginning it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ** --is incredibly assinine.

Sorry I don't buy any of it. I listened to it and see no proof of god just proof we cannot explain how it works yet. Just because we are ignorant of how things work or are incapable of understanding it does not mean "god" created it. If a being or beings on a highest plane of existance did great the Universe i doubt it would have been the Judeo christian from of god but many beings with intelligent working together to design the universe much like many scientist working togehter to engineer a way to get into space.
I am not saying there is not some higher form of being that could have designed the Universe or whatever. I refute that the Judeo-christian form of god was responsible for it.


Youre turning down evidence given and replacing it with your own baseless conclusions.
In other words, youre rejecting my reality and replacing it with your own, only I have evidence and you have your own personal opinion.

The murky, probabilistic world of quantum physics, if understood and used properly, could provide an endless source of ammunition for the individual interested in explaining everything with God.lol. I'm sometimes tempted to convert just to show them how to do it properly. And screw science. The fun a fundamentalist could have with the scathing attacks on science and empericism from sociologists, wishy-washy relativist philosophers (e.g. Rorty) and their ilk!

But no. It's always just the same old tired "2nd Law" nonsense over and over again. They can't even be bothered to try or something.

Warrior

If the Christian God turned out to be the real God I would be a Satanist. The Bible God is one of the greatest Monsters to ever be put to paper. He can put Stalin, Hitler and the Dozens of other Monsters to shame.

I did.

It isn't

Not only is it not *evidence* it is simply another way of repeating the nonsensical mumbo-jumbo that --"Welp, we can't figure out how all this stuff came to be, sooooo......it must have been god!".

Offer up your own evidence instead of your own opinion, or is it beyond you?


I also find it interesting that he took the time to include a blatant lie about Einstein having believed that the God of the Bible created the universe.

He didnt say that, however being blind as you are you seen what you wanted to. All he said was, that Einstein believed there was a God. However while Einstein was alive there wasnt enough evidence to prove God was personal.
Now there is enough to prove it and he is pointing out what it is.


But the most hilarious thing this guy put forth was -- ""as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.""

Again, personal opinion, you havent said anything other then what you believe. Then again you wouldnt want your faith in the abilities of other people to tell you what to believe shaken.


To put this bilge forward and try to pass it off as scientific evaluation, an ignoramus proclaiming -- **if you prove that time has a beginning it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ** --is incredibly assinine.

Once again, spouting off at the mouth doesnt prove anything other then youre an asshole.

lol. I'm sometimes tempted to convert just to show them how to do it properly. And screw science. The fun a fundamentalist could have with the scathing attacks on science and empericism from sociologists, wishy-washy relativist philosophers (e.g. Rorty) and their ilk!

But no. It's always just the same old tired "2nd Law" nonsense over and over again. They can't even be bothered to try or something.


Did you read it?

Youre turning down evidence given and replacing it with your own baseless conclusions.The evidence is what exactly? Ross delivered scientific topics of the day (it was pretty outdated, mind) followed by "which proves Jesus".

How on earth one gets from heady mathematical physics debates about energy, time and space to a man in sandals two millenia ago made everything back when he was a matterless entity has never been remotely proposed.

Did you read it?No, but I listened to 15 mins.

Free Thinker

You Said:

But the most hilarious thing this guy put forth was -- ""as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.""

What get's me is that even if, If mind you this evidence could prove that their is a God. How in H.E.L.L. Does Jesus come into it. Even if the evidence showed that a God really did exist this evidence does nothing to show who, what, when, where this God is. To claim that this evidence proves Jesus is God is so far out into the twilight zone that it should be consider a Mental Illness

The evidence is what exactly? Ross delivered scientific topics of the day (it was pretty outdated, mind) followed by "which proves Jesus".


Actually it came from 1994. More or less it shows the correlation between what the bible says and what is being said now, or in 94.
Which, with close comparison is evidence.


How on earth one gets from heady mathematical physics debates about energy, time and space to a man in sandals two millenia ago made everything back when he was a matterless entity has never been remotely proposed.


This is where you dismissed it out of hand.

Actually it came from 1994. More or less it shows the correlation between what the bible says and what is being said now, or in 94.
Which, with close comparison is evidence.You tell people not to dismiss things out of hand, Inviolable. Perhaps you need to take a leaf out of your own book. After all, you are the one starting with presupoositions you will not ever change. Is it remotely possible that one day you will no longer be a Christian? Is there any doubt whatsoever in your mind that Jesus is Lord?

This is where you dismissed it out of hand.I did not dismiss things out of hand. I did not just scream "Christian rubbish!". I also constructively posted urls to some Christian Audios I consider higher quality, for contrast.

I dismissed a beginning as evidence ("proof" Ross says - I'm building an anti-strawman against myself here, lol) that Jesus is God. And you know what? Many Christians would join me in dismissing it as evidence. What's more if I ever accept Jesus as my Saviour myself one day, I will continue to dismiss it as evidence. In this sense I think people like Ross damage the Christian cause. His ilk put me off. I am not dismissing things "out of hand" here because I have posted examples of Christian speakers online I consider constructive towards the Christian cause.

EDIT: Oh and hi Inviolable! While since we chatted.

You tell people not to dismiss things out of hand, Inviolable. Perhaps you need to take a leaf out of your own book. After all, you are the one starting with presupoositions you will not ever change. Is it remotely possible that one day you will no longer be a Christian? Is there any doubt whatsoever in your mind that Jesus is Lord?

Thats true, it isnt possible for me to be anything other then a Christian.
However, I have and do keep an open mind. I have read information you have given me in the past and agreed with it. For no other reason then I thought it was accurate or correct or undeniable and a lot of it had nothing to do with Christianity, in fact the bulk of it was quite the opposite of Christianity.

I see it this way. While I'm not going to change who I am, I am willing to learn more and adapt.
I see something that, for me, brings two things together. Explaining what I believe in a way that best describes it for me.

Has you have put into words how I am, I doubt there are to many evolutionist out there who are willing to see the Christian perspective as much as I have seen the evolutionary perspective.

I'm sure they'er willing to read about it, but knowing it and understanding it is two different things.
I can honestly say, I have come to understand evolution and yet I am still a Christian.
I have yet to see an evolutionist make the same claim.

To me, the link sparks left represents the understanding of both and that is something I dont think evolutionist will do. They will refuse to compromise. Its their way or no way.

Of course I havent looked at your links yet, but I promise I will.


I did not dismiss things out of hand. I did not just scream "Christian rubbish!". I also constructively posted urls to some Christian Audios I consider higher quality, for contrast.

I apologise, I should have been thinking about who I was talking to.

I dismissed a beginning as evidence ("proof" Ross says - I'm building an anti-strawman against myself here, lol) that Jesus is God. And you know what? Many Christians would join me in dismissing it as evidence. What's more if I ever accept Jesus as my Saviour myself one day, I will continue to dismiss it as evidence. In this sense I think people like Ross damage the Christian cause. His ilk put me off. I am not dismissing things "out of hand" here because I have posted examples of Christian speakers online I consider constructive towards the Christian cause.

EDIT: Oh and hi Inviolable! While since we chatted.

Hi Blob, nice to be chatting with you again.

Uh oh, those two are back together again. No good can come of this!

Blob, what do you make of the whole, 41 fine tuned aspects of our solar system stuff?

The bottom line to all of this is that we have 41 characteristics of the solar system that must be fine-tuned for life to exist. But even if the universe contains as many planets as it does stars, which is a gross overestimate in my opinion, that still leaves us with less than one chance in a billion trillion that you'd find even one planet in the entire universe with the capacity for supporting life.

Bullshit? I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up on the topic. My latest understanding was that we really have no clue, and it's all just guesswork when it comes to the Drake equation and Fermi paradox. Is such a thing as the right Jupiter and moon really necessary? Or are they being unnecessarily anthropic?

Youre turning down evidence given and replacing it with your own baseless conclusions.
In other words, youre rejecting my reality and replacing it with your own, only I have evidence and you have your own personal opinion.

LOL your reality is just that yours and does not make that a true reality. Your reality is based on your limited perspective.
Meaning you are not capable of understanding the truth of reality in itself as the universe is conserned.

LOL your reality is just that yours and does not make that a true reality. Your reality is based on your limited perspective.
Meaning you are not capable of understanding the truth of reality in itself as the universe is conserned.


Hmm, youre not pushing to turn me against you are you?

Anyway, you're typing more baseless theories. Nothing more.

P.S.

Neener, neener, neener.

Sorry but no human I know of is capable of understanding the Universe at this time and therefore anyone who claims they have figured out that god exist or does not exist with absolute certianty is blowing it out their ass. You hold on to your limited reality if you think it help define who you are but don't expect all of us to fall for a bunch of hockus pokus.

Sorry but no human I know of is capable of understanding the Universe at this time and therefore anyone who claims they have figured out that god exist or does not exist with absolute certianty is blowing it out their ass.

No one said anything about "absolute certainty" we said it is "evidence"
What is explained in the link is our current understanding of the universe, which is then compared to the scripture of the bible.
Which gives us evidence of God.



don't expect all of us to fall for a bunch of hockus pokus.

I'm not, I'm expecting you to debate it with the knowledge you have of our understanding of the universe and give your own evidence that it doesnt match up, has is shown in the link provided.

However, I have and do keep an open mind. I have read information you have given me in the past and agreed with it.That's all entirely true.
Has you have put into words how I am, I doubt there are to many evolutionist out there who are willing to see the Christian perspective as much as I have seen the evolutionary perspective.

I'm sure they'er willing to read about it, but knowing it and understanding it is two different things.
I can honestly say, I have come to understand evolution and yet I am still a Christian.
I have yet to see an evolutionist make the same claim.

To me, the link sparks left represents the understanding of both and that is something I dont think evolutionist will do. They will refuse to compromise. Its their way or no way.Hmmm. What I think you are trying to say is this: some monotheists and all atheists accept evolution; some monotheists and no atheists disbelieve evolution. Therefore there is an argument that Christians are open-minded because they consider both whereas atheists never consider the alternative.

Of course I havent looked at your links yet, but I promise I will.Well no obligation. But I'm sure you're tempted anyway, lol.

I apologise, I should have been thinking about who I was talking to.heh. No offence was taken so no need for all that.

Uh oh, those two are back together again. No good can come of this!Now don't go getting all jealous there, Hon. There's room for three.

No one said anything about "absolute certainty" we said it is "evidence"
What is explained in the link is our current understanding of the universe, which is then compared to the scripture of the bible.
Which gives us evidence of God.




I'm not, I'm expecting you to debate it with the knowledge you have of our understanding of the universe and give your own evidence that it doesnt match up, has is shown in the link provided.

sorry but it is nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors and just because something matches with the scripture of the bible is not evidence LOL. Just because a pychic says that one of my family members will die this year and it happens doesn't prove she is a true pychic just means she made a lucky guess.
There are many things that were predicted in the Koran that came true and many predictions by astrologist come true and same with the vedics of the hindu religious texts.
That isn't proof that your book is right above all other religious texts or that god actually does or does not exist. Simply mean it was a lucky guess.
You are so blinded that you want to be right because you have dedicated yourself to this being that you are willing to buy into this stuff. Just like many family members are so desperate to believe a pychic that they can actually communicate with a dead family member and tell them what they want to hear.
This guy is playing people like a violen and I for one am not falling for it.
If god wants me to see and acknowledge him he knows what to do otherwise he couldn't give a rats ass about me or does not exist. Either way I don't want to follow this being anywhere. He is not worthy of my praise, loyalty or worship.

Blob, what do you make of the whole, 41 fine tuned aspects of our solar system stuff?"It's so finely balanced! What are the chances of that! You see!"

It's been a while since I was into all this stuff really. What excites creationists so much about this one is that physicists come out with similar statements: "If x had been .0000001% different then...." Of course coming from physicists it is a reductionist, experiment-like insight: imagining a single variable's fluctuation when all else remains fixed. The metaphysical implications of this are clearly limited.

I'm afraid I don't remember the maths, but I recall that the Chance Of It All calculations you see around are flawed because they assume an equal probability for all possible values of x. It's an unjustifiable assumption, but without it the calculations would all give zero. And creationists don't like that because if we don't exist how can god?

Now don't go getting all jealous there, Hon. There's room for three.

Ever Watch Battle Star? Those Cylon love traingles are freaky.

Blob, what do you make of the whole, 41 fine tuned aspects of our solar system stuff?



Bullshit? I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up on the topic. My latest understanding was that we really have no clue, and it's all just guesswork when it comes to the Drake equation and Fermi paradox. Is such a thing as the right Jupiter and moon really necessary? Or are they being unnecessarily anthropic?


The link is from 94 and I cant find an updated version, back then there were theories, Im sure.

sorry but it is nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors and just because something matches with the scripture of the bible is not evidence LOL. Just because a pychic says that one of my family members will die this year and it happens doesn't prove she is a true pychic just means she made a lucky guess.
There are many things that were predicted in the Koran that came true and many predictions by astrologist come true and same with the vedics of the hindu religious texts.
That isn't proof that your book is right above all other religious texts or that god actually does or does not exist. Simply mean it was a lucky guess.
You are so blinded that you want to be right because you have dedicated yourself to this being that you are willing to buy into this stuff. Just like many family members are so desperate to believe a pychic that they can actually communicate with a dead family member and tell them what they want to hear.
This guy is playing people like a violen and I for one am not falling for it.
If god wants me to see and acknowledge him he knows what to do otherwise he couldn't give a rats ass about me or does not exist. Either way I don't want to follow this being anywhere. He is not worthy of my praise, loyalty or worship.


Thats still your personal opinion. You havent backed up any of it with any kind of evidence. All you have done for sure is say what you think and its not worth much.

What you say is an opinon too there is no fact there just and idea or concept. This guy does not prove anything? Just because something came true in the bible does not make it a real prediction just a lucky guess. Agian people will not fall for it. People are tired of being converted and lead away from logic. You just cannot accept the fact that this is all a lame attempt to prove something that is unprovable.
Your perspective or opinion is not fact and this man is mentally dilusional.
from your perspective this mans concepts is enough from my perspective it is not.
as far as I am concerned this is a flim flam artist nothing more. He has not credibility whatso ever exept for another religious wacko selling is concept of religion.
It is arrogents to claim that the Judeo christian god is responsible for the creation of the Universe because we do not know for a fact this version of god exist other than a 2,000 year old book and prove that all the other religions of the world are wrong. Even if a being created the Universe I would not accept the fact that it was this judeo christian version of god.

" I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion" Einstein himself said he was a agnostic and said that he knew the bible could not be true by the age of 12.

"Welp, we can't figure out how all this stuff came to be, sooooo......it must have been god!".


Who said that?

Oh, that's right.. you did.

The assumption that life can only be as life we know it is silly. If any of those 41 things were different then Life would have been different. Just because there are no known Earth look alikes that we have found does not mean that life has not evolved. It simply means that Life forms as we are cannot survive under those conditions. It does not mean that Life of a different kind could not thrive under those conditions.

Reminds me of a scifi story. A human was on a space station operated by a federation of worlds. He saw on species that was heavely armored in a exoskeleton, with spikes all around his body. The human talked to him/it and said that a human theory on the development of intelligent life was that the weakest, and most vulnerable species developed intelligence as a survival tool but that in seeing this heavely protected and amored being through that theory out the window.

The Alien told the human not necessarily. Because the Human had never seen the predators of his planet. There is no requirement that Life may only be as we think it should be. Life can adapt to the conditions that brings it into being.

I listened to the first 15 mins and didn't continue because it's nothing new. "Cause and effect tell us the beginning had a beginner therefore god exists" and "Einstein believed in god and if he had lived to the 1980s he would have believed in a personal god" so who 'began' god? How do you know that 'God' isn't some piss ant janitor who left the mop bucket full for billions of years (and out we poped). How do you know there are not higher beings, higher powers, endless layers of infinate gods all looking down upon one another?

(PS: I'm not talking bad about janitors, most are great people, its just that society doesn't put a high value on them)

so who 'began' god? How do you know that 'God' isn't some piss ant janitor who left the mop bucket full for billions of years (and out we poped). How do you know there are not higher beings, higher powers, endless layers of infinate gods all looking down upon one another?

(PS: I'm not talking bad about janitors, most are great people, its just that society doesn't put a high value on them)


He explains that.


"When I present this evidence to atheists, their most frequent response is the same one I got from both of my sons when they were three years of age. It's, “If God created us, then who created God?”

My sons and the atheists are assuming that God is confined to time in the same way that we are. But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is.

God can move and operate in at least two dimensions of time. In two dimensions of time, time becomes a plane, like a sheet of paper, length and width. In a plane, you can have as many lines as you want and as many directions as you want.

It would be possible for God to dwell on a time line running through a sheet of paper that's infinitely long, and that never crosses or touches the timeline of our universe. As such, God would have no beginning, no end and he would not be created. Sound familiar? "

It would be possible for God to dwell on a time line running through a sheet of paper that's infinitely long, and that never crosses or touches the timeline of our universe. As such, God would have no beginning, no end and he would not be created. Sound familiar? "Who made the sheet of paper?

Who made the sheet of paper?


It was always there.

In two dimensions of time, time becomes a plane, like a sheet of paper, length and width. In a plane, you can have as many lines as you want and as many directions as you want.


Are we playing, 'Guess that movie'... ?

If so, my guess is Deja Vu starring Denzel Washington.






Where in the bible do we find out about time travel? God can be created due to a lapse in time but the universe can't be created on its own in the same lapse of time?

What what?!?!? (This what what should be read in the tone that Kyle's mom on Southpark uses... or Stan's, the 'Jew')

What get's me is that even if, If mind you this evidence could prove that their is a God. How in H.E.L.L. Does Jesus come into it. Even if the evidence showed that a God really did exist this evidence does nothing to show who, what, when, where this God is. To claim that this evidence proves Jesus is God is so far out into the twilight zone that it should be consider a Mental Illness

I agree, I glanced through it quickly and the basic thrust of the article seems to be that the universe has a beginning, therefore god exists. The problem comes in the assumption that "God" matches the author's personal belief of what God is, including Jesus being God, etc. The problem is that the author is falling for the logical fallicy of trying to "prove" beliefs.

It was always there.So it was there before God?

So it was there before God?

How about, they were both always there.

My sons and the atheists are assuming that God is confined to time in the same way that we are. But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is.

The Theory of General Relativity does not make any reference to an "entity" creating the universe in it's equations.

How about, they were both always there.So God did not make the sheet of paper?

I thought God made everything.

I agree, I glanced through it quickly and the basic thrust of the article seems to be that the universe has a beginning, therefore god exists. The problem comes in the assumption that "God" matches the author's personal belief of what God is, including Jesus being God, etc. The problem is that the author is falling for the logical fallicy of trying to "prove" beliefs.

If Jesus is god did god have a spit personality disorder? I mean god in the old testiment was vengence and murdering rampage but Jesus was a pacifist and taught love and compassion? When did god develope a conscious?

Yes also I agree if "a" god or gods was responsible for the creation of the Universe it is arrogant to assume it was the judeo-christian god who did it.

So God did not make the sheet of paper?

I thought God made everything.

God shows up and says to the paper, "How the hell did you get here? Hey, 'Hell', I'm going to run with that."

If Jesus is god did god have a spit personality disorder? I mean god in the old testament was vengence and murdering rampage but Jesus was a pacifist and taught love and compassion? When did god develop a conscious?



If you believe with the mormons, then god, jesus, and the holy spirit are separate entities.

I guess they were confused about that too and decided to alter that part a little.

So God did not make the sheet of paper?

I thought God made everything.


They existed together, how can you make something if it never had a beginning?

Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus!!!!

Paul was the greatest corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus!!

They existed together, how can you make something if it never had a beginning?

Why not just assume the universe was here all along and it didn't need a "creator"?

Why not just assume the universe was here all along and it didn't need a "creator"? To which INV will reply .."buut, butt the big bang!"

And then I will reply well where did all the matter for the big bang come from and why not assume that it always just existed?


My own personal thoery is that the universe is on a cycle of expansion and collapse. The universe is shperoid. Is expands until all the peices hit back togather on the other side thereby destroying time/space/physics and everything else and creating a whole new unviverse all over again.

To which INV will reply .."buut, butt the big bang!"

And then I will reply well where did all the matter for the big bang come from and why not assume that it always just existed?


My own personal thoery is that the universe is on a cycle of expansion and collapse. The universe is shperoid. Is expands until all the peices hit back togather on the other side thereby destroying time/space/physics and everything else and creating a whole new unviverse all over again.


So youre saying that the big bang created time?

So youre saying that the big bang created time?

According to Stephen Hawking's "Arrow of time" theory, yes.

Even if the evidence showed that a God really did exist this evidence does nothing to show who, what, when, where this God is. To claim that this evidence proves Jesus is God is so far out into the twilight zone that it should be considered a Mental Illness.

ROTFLOL!!!!!

I cannot imagine how it could be put more succinctly.

My claim: Belief in God is reasonable.
But, a reasonable question for the Christian...is there evidence that God exists?
Yes, and the theological term would be "natural revelation" which is demonstrated by Paul in the first chapter of Romans.
So what is some of that evidence?
Here is something to listen to from Hugh Ross (a B.Sc. in physics from the University of British Columbia and an M.Sc. and Ph,D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto.

Give it a listen and let me know it this is evidence.

First off, we don't KNOW if God exists or not. I'm on the fence with this one.

I could also add that it is rather interesting to note that before science started getting good at explaining everything, religious scholars would've told you that God created everything, it just works and there is no point in studying HOW things work. Now, ironically, that science has started to explain how things work. Geez, that dogma had been around since before the Dark Ages, the same kind of religious scholars will point to the complexities of the universe, the properties of atoms, the age of the universe and how it does benefit life here on earth, the physics of the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity and state, "do you honestly believe that something so complex, so well balanced just happend by CHANCE? It's an interesting turn of debate.

The biggest mistake that lecturer made was that he tried to fit what he learned of the physical properties of the universe into Biblical scripture. Which is just plain bad science. IF God is to be proven scienfically, and it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that it can be done, it has to be done from open ended research and from the RESULTS of the research can people come to "know" God from a scientific standpoint and what he's like. Darwin didn't set out to "prove" evolution when he came aboard the Beagle. It was through his research that the theory of evolution came about. It's just and out and out bad idea to start with "well I have faith in God as written in the Bible and I'll do research to PROVE he exists." That leads to studying leads to slanting the evidence towards one's hypothesis and ignoring evidence that wouldn't support one's supposition. It leads to delusion. IF God can be proven scientifically, it'll be found without the need to convolute the facts to support God as it's been written in Biblical scripture.

Dammit.

I do have my moments. God is God, I personally/individually have no problems with this. It is in how God is portrade by other thiests that I have a problem with. If there is a God what is his name, image, persona. I do not think that I or anyone else can say. God is God and God can show himself, herself/lt itself without the need of used camel sales men to do this.

So youre saying that the big bang created time? If the Big bang created space then it must have created time since the 2 are linked (I am refering to time/space as we know it. It existed but not in a way we understand it.

Sorry I don't buy any of it. I listened to it and see no proof of god just proof we cannot explain how it works yet. Just because we are ignorant of how things work or are incapable of understanding it does not mean "god" created it.
Are you saying that we don't know how things work, but we do know that God didn't do it?

Whoever this Ross guy and is he sure ain't a practising scientist and hasn't been for a long time.
This "fact" is based on...?

I also find it interesting that he took the time to include a blatant lie about Einstein having believed that the God of the Bible created the universe.
I don't remember him saying that...in fact, I thought that he said something to the effect of: "he didn't believe in a personal God, but would have if he had been alive in the 80's" or 90's or some such thing.
I'll listen to it again.

Not only is it not *evidence* it is simply another way of repeating the nonsensical mumbo-jumbo that --"Welp, we can't figure out how all this stuff came to be, sooooo......it must have been god!"
As opposed to "Welp, we can't figure out how all this stuff came to be, sooooo......God doesn't exist."

What get's me is that even if, If mind you this evidence could prove that their is a God. How in H.E.L.L. Does Jesus come into it.
Ross's point is that the only religion that gives time a beginning, and has a Creator existing outside of space and time, is the Bible and the Bible teaches that Jesus (the Word, God in the flesh) is that creator.

There are many things that were predicted in the Koran that came true
Interesting...would you name some?
Verse and fulfillment.

" I am a deeply religious nonbeliever....
Amen
This is a somewhat new kind of religion" Einstein himself said he was a agnostic and said that he knew the bible could not be true by the age of 12.
But did Einstein go on from there and say what it was about the Bible that made him come to his conclusion?

The assumption that life can only be as life we know it is silly. If any of those 41 things were different then Life would have been different. Just because there are no known Earth look alikes that we have found does not mean that life has not evolved. It simply means that Life forms as we are cannot survive under those conditions. It does not mean that Life of a different kind could not thrive under those conditions.
You believe this with out empirical evidence, but God is out of the question???
Having said that, I most certainly believe that a different kind of life could thrive under conditions other than ours...Those conditions were before the universe existed, the life is God.

Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus!!!!
Paul was the greatest corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus!!
What were the original doctrines of Jesus (the doctrines that Paul corrupted)?
How and why did Paul change those doctrines?
Have you seen the ancient documents of the doctrines of Jesus that demonstrates the uncorrupted doctrines?

Why not just assume the universe was here all along and it didn't need a "creator"?
Is that the teachings of Big Bang cosmology...the universe was always here?

To which INV will reply .."buut, butt the big bang!"
Interesting that you would paint a picture of Inviolable answering in this manner...does it make your view seem more intelligent when you do this?
And then I will reply well where did all the matter for the big bang come from and why not assume that it always just existed?
My own personal thoery is that the universe is on a cycle of expansion and collapse. The universe is shperoid. Is expands until all the peices hit back togather on the other side thereby destroying time/space/physics and everything else and creating a whole new unviverse all over again.
That's the Oscillating model of the universe, it was big in the '60's but Hawking and Penrose say that physics never supported it...the Oscillating universe is big in the Hindu religion.

The biggest mistake that lecturer made was that he tried to fit what he learned of the physical properties of the universe into Biblical scripture.
I don't think he was trying to "fit what he learned" into Biblical scripture as much as he was trying to show that the teaching of the Bible about God and creation fit into the scientific model of the Big Bang cosmology.

It's just and out and out bad idea to start with "well I have faith in God as written in the Bible and I'll do research to PROVE he exists."
As a believer in God and His Son Jesus Christ I think that reinforcing the reasons for belief/faith is important for the Christian...especially in a world that largely teaches Christianity is unreasonable and illogical.

Still, Darth, your post was well said, I obviously don't agree, but your point was very reasonably made.

I never said a god or gods didn't do it. I say we do not have enough information to make an informed decision if there were intelligent designers or not and I certianly would not give credit to the Judeo-Christian god for it if there was proof of intelligent designers.
and if and I mean if he was I still wouldn't bow to him because of the atrocities upon mankind he has created. I would rather sit in hell with satan.

If the Big bang created space then it must have created time since the 2 are linked (I am refering to time/space as we know it. It existed but not in a way we understand it.


I'm confused here. If the big bang was made up of matter, that matter being what we call the universe now, how is it this matter existed outside of time as we know it?

I mean, the matter that blew up made up the stars that make up time as we know it. Right?
But thats it. The universe would exist as it is with out the sun and stars had the big bang not happened.
I mean, theres a lot there that wouldnt exist, "a lot" being an understatement, that still doesnt explain how anything else would change, that isnt made up, formed from or the result of matter.

I'm sure in the beginning there were no stars, just matter expanding out across the universe. It still took time for that matter to get to where it needed to be for the universe to grow into what it is now.

How do we know that what did exist wasnt just integrated into what we have now.

Matter and energy are interchangable and can exist outside time and space as we know it. They can act as a particle or a wave and can actually be in two places at the same time.

Matter and energy are interchangable and can exist outside time and space as we know it. They can act as a particle or a wave and can actually be in two places at the same time.


I can see energy, but what kind of matter are you talking about?

I can see energy, but what kind of matter are you talking about?

All matter.
I misspoke before, Matter and Energy are not interchangable but they are interrelated. It takes varying amounts of energy to destroy matter and varying amounts of energy are released when matter is destroyed.

Energy is merely matter with a high energy value, E = mc2. But converting between the two is not a 1 for 1 relationship.

Light is an interesting example, it is both matter (photons) and energy. It acts as both a particle and a wave.

All matter.
I misspoke before, Matter and Energy are not interchangable but they are interrelated. It takes varying amounts of energy to destroy matter and varying amounts of energy are released when matter is destroyed.

Energy is merely matter with a high energy value, E = mc2. But converting between the two is not a 1 for 1 relationship.

Light is an interesting example, it is both matter (photons) and energy. It acts as both a particle and a wave.

My question is still unaswered then.

If the same matter makes up everything we know, it still took time to get to where it is, did it all expand out at the same rate?

Generating its own time as it did?

My question is still unaswered then.

If the same matter makes up everything we know, it still took time to get to where it is, did it all expand out at the same rate?

Generating its own time as it did?

I am afraid I don't really understand your question. The relationship between time and space is not completely understood.

There is speculation that time is the consequence of entropy playing out on matter as it passes through space. Hawking's "arrow of time" theory speculated that if the universe started contracting, we would see entropy reverse.

I think it is slowing down too. Time that is as the Universe gets bigger time slows down. When it was smaller time went by quicker. People did experiments in planes with one going faster then the other and even though thier clocks were set at the same time the plane that went faster had less time on it than the plane that was at a slower speed.

7. Does Time Flow?

"It is as if we were floating on a river, carried by the current past the manifold of events which is spread out timelessly on the bank," said one philosopher trying to capture time's flow with a helpful metaphor. Santayana offered another: "The essence of nowness runs like fire along the fuse of time." The philosopher's goal is to clarify the idea of time's flow, the passage of time. Everyone agrees that the passage of time "appears" to us humans to flow, although few scientists or philosophers believe that all conscious beings recognize the flow; crocodiles don't. Even if time does flow, there is the additional question of whether the flow can change. Can physical time's flow be slower on Friday afternoon, compared to Monday morning?

There are two categories of theories of time's flow. The first, and most popular among physicists, is that the flow is an illusion, the product of a faulty metaphor. Time exists, things change, but time doesn't flow objectively, although there may well be some objective feature of our brains that causes us to believe we are experiencing a flow of time; but in that case time flows only in a subjective sense of the term. This theory of time's flow is normally the one adopted by those who believe McTaggart's B-series is more fundamental than his A-series. The theory is sometimes characterized as a "myth-of-passage" theory.

The second category of theories of time's flow contains theories implying that the flow is objective, a feature of our mind-independent reality that is to be found in, say, today scientific laws, or, if it has been missed there, then in future scientific laws. These theories are called "dynamic theories" of time. This sort of theory of time's flow is closer to common sense, and has historically been the more popular theory among philosophers. Any theory in this second category is called a "dynamic theory."

Some dynamic theories imply that the flow is a matter of events changing from being indeterminate in the future to being determinate in the present and past. Time's flow is really events becoming determinate. Thus dynamic theorists speak of time's flow as "temporal becoming." Another dynamic theory implies that the flow is a matter of events changing from being future, to being present, to being past. This is the kind of flow associated with McTaggart's A-series of events.

Opponents of dynamic theories complain that when events change in these senses, the change is not a real change in the event's essential, intrinsic properties, but only in the event's relationship to the observer. For example, saying the death of Queen Anne is an event that changes from present to past is no more of a real change in the event than saying her death changed from being approved of to being disapproved of. This extrinsic change in approval doesn't count as a real change in her death, and neither does the so-called change from present to past. Attacking the notion of time's flow in this manner, Grünbaum said: "Events simply are or occur...but they do not 'advance' into a pre-existing frame called 'time.' ...[T]ime is a system of relations between events, and as events are, so are their relations. An event does not move and neither do any of its relations." So, Grünbaum denies the objective nature of McTaggart's A-series and points out that the flow of time is an illusion or myth.

Instead of arguing that events change their properties, some advocates of the dynamic theory of time embrace the flow of time by saying that the flow is reflected in the change over time of truth values of a sentence. For example, the sentence "It is now raining" was true during the rain yesterday but has changed to false on today's sunny day. It's these sorts of truth value changes that are at the root of time's flow. In response, critics suggest that the indexical (or token reflexive) sentence "It is now raining" has no truth value because the reference of "now" is unspecified. If it can't have a truth value it can't change its truth value. However, the sentence is related to a sentence that does have a truth value. Supposing it's now midnight here on April 1, 2007 in Sacramento, California, then the indexical sentence "It is now raining" is related to the more complete, context-explicit sentence "It is raining at midnight on April 1, 2007 in Sacramento." Only these non-indexical, non-context-dependent, complete sentences have truth values, and these truth values don't change with time. So, events don't change their properties because sentences don't change their truth values.

Other advocates of the flow of time ask us to re-consider the situation by focusing on facts that come into existence. The fact that it is raining at midnight on April 1, 2007 here in Sacramento is a fact that came into existence in 2007 but did not exist in 2000. This coming into existence of facts, the actualization of new states of affairs, is time's flow. In other words, what facts there are depends upon what time it is, and this is the key to the proper analysis of the metaphor of time's flow.

Energy is merely matter with a high energy value You mean Matter us high density energy.
If the same matter makes up everything we know, it still took time to get to where it is, did it all expand out at the same rate? Ok this is assuming the big bang occured which there is no solid evidence for, its just the best theory so far.

Everything started as hydrogen. When the hydrogen compressed enough in stars it became all of the denser elements in the order they are listed in the table of elements. Everything expanded at different rates hence we have all sort of different elements. The idea is that the big bang was from a super dence glob. The second the glob started expanding you started getting temperature and density variations. Even if everything started at the same rate the very nano second one small peice of matter changed to a heavier element it would have an effect on every other single bit of matter and hence change 'speeds'.

Generating its own time as it did?Space and Time are inter-related. Gravity creates time 'pits' in space. If you travel around the earth in a space shuttle time actually moves a bit slower. So while you may have been in space 10 years you may have only aged 9.7 years. So, When you are dealing with a super dense glob of matter we actually have no clue how time actually moves around it

You mean Matter us high density energy.
Ok this is assuming the big bang occured which there is no solid evidence for, its just the best theory so far.

Everything started as hydrogen. When the hydrogen compressed enough in stars it became all of the denser elements in the order they are listed in the table of elements. Everything expanded at different rates hence we have all sort of different elements. The idea is that the big bang was from a super dence glob. The second the glob started expanding you started getting temperature and density variations. Even if everything started at the same rate the very nano second one small peice of matter changed to a heavier element it would have an effect on every other single bit of matter and hence change 'speeds'.

Space and Time are inter-related. Gravity creates time 'pits' in space. If you travel around the earth in a space shuttle time actually moves a bit slower. So while you may have been in space 10 years you may have only aged 9.7 years. So, When you are dealing with a super dense glob of matter we actually have no clue how time actually moves around it

Thank you.

Now that I have that. The universe is constantly growing, are there particles or is there matter that has moved outside the universe? as it expands.
And is it possible for that matter to become its own universe?

You know something that occurred to me while I was researching this and learning what I could from it.

When Einstein came up with his answer we got the adam bomb.
Wonder what we're gonna get when Stephen Hawking comes up with his answer.

We're gonna kill ourselves.

I never said a god or gods didn't do it. I say we do not have enough information to make an informed decision if there were intelligent designers or not and I certianly would not give credit to the Judeo-Christian god for it if there was proof of intelligent designers.
and if and I mean if he was I still wouldn't bow to him because of the atrocities upon mankind he has created. I would rather sit in hell with satan.


Yeah, any God who creates a universe, takes human form, shows man the value of love and dies for that same value is totally something you should avoid.

Value of love??God never taught the value of love ,Jesus did! God was a crazed seriel killer so jealous that he demands your worship and praise. He has murdered more people than any serial killer in the world.
God did not teach love. God is vengeful, jeoulous and abusive.
Jesus who "claimed" he was the son of god taught love, compassion and tolerance. He "claimed god was a loving god" which is totally inconsistant with the old testiment.
There is no proof that Jesus was the son of god. There was no DNA test to see if his blood was some how different than ours and his miricles were never taped.

and if Christians actually followed Jesus in practicing love, compassion and tolerance I wouldn't dislike most of them but you got the conservative republicans caring more about not paying taxes than caring about the poor and hungry and homless completely ignoring the bible that said "turn no man away that is hungry" ect and so on. "turn the other cheek" then you go the evangalist trying to convert everyone and telling them they will burn in hell forever and telling everyone else how to live thier lives.
Jesus was not god and if he was god , god has a personality disorder to go from vengeful, hateful and jealous to the persona of Jesus of compassion, tolerance and understanding.

God was a crazed seriel killer so jealous that he demands your worship and praise. He has murdered more people than any serial killer in the world.

Lady, you are one sick, twisted individual. I feel sorry for you and your poor family. Ever considered counseling?

SMW

God was a crazed seriel killer so jealous that he demands your worship and praise. He has murdered more people than any serial killer in the world.

Lady, you are one sick, twisted individual.
In the Bible he kills far more than any serial killer. He also demands our worship and praise, and calls himself a jealous god, does he not?

Many people do not know thier own bible they don't read it they only hear what thier preachers want them to hear. Please if god is not a crazed serial killer please explain to me these atrocities.

stuff done by the Judeo christiand god.



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


Babylon Is Fallen
"And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground." (Isaiah 21:9)

Comment
Many soldiers have used Bible verses to justify horrific destruction against their enemy. Such beliefs can comfort the minds of men to do virtually any kind of atrocity against men, women, and children of the enemy. The Crusaders of the 12th century, slaughtered or tortured anyone who stood in their way. The Bible's words gave them their justification.

Even today, our government, military and religious leaders judge wars as "moral" based on Biblical reasoning. Fighting men feel, not only comforted, but glorious in their actions against the destruction of fellow human beings. In the Gulf War, for example, an F-16 fighter/bomber had "Isaiah 21:9" written on its bombs.



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


David Slaughters Them
"And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes..." (I Chronicles 20:3)

Comment
Chapters 17-19 (17-18-19) tells us that David killed 22,000 Syrians and that Abishai killed 18,000 Edomites. No one expresses shame at such slaughters.

Here in 20:3, we have David, counted as a great leader of the Israelites, slaughtering captives after the cessation of hostilities. From what high moral ground should we admire this action?



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


Decapitate Them!
"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

Comment
Those who worshipped other gods must die, and even more horribly, their heads displayed publicly. Either God never said anything so cruel, or we truly live in a cursed universe, ruled by a maniac Supreme Being.

Millions of people, today, switch their religions. If God had any interest in this ongoing process, there appears no evidence of this.



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


Gideon Slaughters
"And Gideon said, Therefore when the Lord hath delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers" (Judges 8:7)

"Now Zebah and Zalmunna were Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword." (Judges 8:10)

Comment
The Gideon Society places Bibles into motels and hotels across America. One would assume Gideon lived as a person of exemplary character and great worth to have a worldwide society named after him. Below describes some of Gideon's accomplishments:

Gideon slaughtered thousands in battle by plotting with the "Lord" to use Treachery.
Gideon murdered thousands more for worshipping "false Gods."
Gideon tortured and killed still more for daring to taunt him.
Gideon plundered the bodies of his victims (to fashion a jeweled priestly vestment).
Gideon fathered an offspring who killed 69 of his stepbrothers.
Read the story of Gideon in Judges, chapters thru 6-9 ( 6-7-8-9). The tale of Gideon describes just one of the many horror stories in the Bible, a book that glorifies behavior abysmal to modern society. The clergy and leaders have hoodwinked millions of people about the stories in the Bible. Don't let others decide for yourself.



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


God Buries Them Alive
"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." (Numbers 16:32-35)

Comment
Moses relays a sadistic threat that asks us to believe that God punishes members of families, including innocent infants. And again we have the Satanic fire coming from God burning his creations.



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


God Kills The Firstborns!
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

Comment
If we believe every word in the Bible as coming from God, then it stands to reason that the violent actions from the God described in Exodus cannot give us a moral comparison to live our lives in a peaceful world.

If one wishes to believe that God possess love for His creations, then the killing of innocent children cannot possibly come from God, and therefore, these verses from the Bible must have come elsewhere. But note that if one takes the Bible's words as absolute truth, then not only did God smote the firstborn children, but all firstborn regardless of age. This means all firstborn teenagers, firstborn men & women, firstborn octogenarians, and even all firstborn cows and bulls. Regardless of how much love, charity, or goodness they may have imparted to the world, if they had the unfortunate luck to have first passed through their mother's vagina in the land of Egypt, according to the Bible, God killed them!



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


God Sends Pestilence
"Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel..." (I Chronicles 21:12)

"So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men." (I Chronicles 21:14)

Comment
David made an offense against God in taking a census of the people, so God gave David a choice. Oddly enough, David ignores God and never actually gets around to making a choice; so the Lord makes the decision for him and sends pestilence upon Israel.

It appears unclear as to why David committed a crime, but why shouldn't God have punished individual offenders instead of killing an army of innocent bystanders? Atrocities such as this appear outrageous enough when perpetrated by Attila the Hun, Hitler or Pol Pot, but when it comes from a, supposedly, loving God, it should make one wonder if this represents a Devil instead of a God.



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


God Slaughters Blacks
"And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots..." (II Chronicles 14:9)

So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. (II Chronicles 14:12)

Comment
It appears that Black Christian Bible studies programs ignore these verses, for it says that the Lord God slaughtered over a million blacks.

The association of black with evil goes far back in Western Christian culture. The early Church fathers, Origen, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo wrote about devils appearing as Ethiopians.

White racist groups (such as the Klu Klux Klan who think of themselves as opposite of black devils) see these Biblical verses as evidence to justify their beliefs. We still hear phrases such as "Prince of Darkness" or "Black magic" which link blackness with sin.

In the story of Ham and Japheth, the word "ham" has connotations of "hot" and "dark" in Semitic languages. To the ancient Israelites, as well as some modern Jews and Christians, the "children of Ham" had dark skin and lived in eastern Africa. Thus they see the "Curse of Ham" as a link with black skin and sexual license.



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


God's Threat To Kill
"And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts." (Exodus 11:4-5)

Comment
After reading such verses, it would become apparent, even to a child, that this does not describe the actions of a loving Being. Anyone who reconciles the killing of innocent children with an intelligent and loving Creator can only come from great ignorance under the addiction of blind faith.

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind."

--Thomas Paine



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


Godly Head Wounds
"But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." (Psalms 68:21-23)

Comment
If anyone believes these sadistic words come from God, then it might serve prudence to stay away from such people. For anyone who holds to such beliefs may very well do the same to others.



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


Godly Mass Murder
"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)

Comment
Here we have just one more instance of God performing mass murder, a sadistic killer far worse than Hitler, Attila the Hun or Pol Pot.

These verses should insult the intelligence of any person who thinks that God possesses a loving nature.

One should not dismiss the Old Testament's repeated demand for the vilest atrocities as something peculiar to the early Hebrews. Even today, our most atrocious wars, terrorism and hate crimes occur around the world based on ancient religious beliefs, many of them coming directly from verses in the Old and New Testament.



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


Kill All Unbelievers
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

Comment
These severe laws commanded the members of the Hebrew religion to murder even their own children if they did not worship Yahweh (God).

These Bible words can justify, to a fanatical fundamentalist believer, the killing of friends or family simply because they may fail to change their beliefs.

Why anyone today would accept these words, much less allow them to exist in a sacred book goes against the nature of any tolerant and loving people.



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


Kill Man, Woman, Infant
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Comment
No matter how one can justify possible crimes from adults, suckling infants have no means of acting out crimes. And what evil against God could the animals have possibly performed? Only an evil entity could kill innocent infants and animals, no matter what their parents and owners may have done

God was a crazed seriel killer so jealous that he demands your worship and praise. He has murdered more people than any serial killer in the world.

Lady, you are one sick, twisted individual. I feel sorry for you and your poor family. Ever considered counseling?

SMW

not twisted enough obviously to follow a religion that has a god that mass murders on a world wide proportion.
You can feel sorry for me all you want. I am quite happy where I am at and my kids will grow up without being brainwashed my some 2,000 year old book written a culture that no longer exist. Wont be giving up logic like evolution for superstition.

I am in counseling thank you but not because I believe god is a the worst serial killer in the world but because I have PTSD.

not twisted enough obviously to follow a religion that has a god that mass murders on a world wide proportion.
You can feel sorry for me all you want. I am quite happy where I am at and my kids will grow up without being brainwashed my some 2,000 year old book written a culture that no longer exist. Wont be giving up logic like evolution for superstition.

I am in counseling thank you but not because I believe god is a the worst serial killer in the world but because I have PTSD.

Who the hell said I felt sorry for you?

What importance would that have on this conversation?

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to smartmouthwoman.

Exodus 20:5: For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Now that I have that. The universe is constantly growing, are there particles or is there matter that has moved outside the universe? as it expands.
And is it possible for that matter to become its own universe?

You know something that occurred to me while I was researching this and learning what I could from it. We din't know that the universe is expanding. The universe is an abstract idea that is boundless. The universe basically means 'any and all matter we can detect.' So no you cannot have matter outside the universe.
When Einstein came up with his answer we got the adam bomb.
Wonder what we're gonna get when Stephen Hawking comes up with his answer. A black hole...Seriously some science expiriments have been making me nervous. Theres far to much put into "can we" and not enough put into "should we."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060919_black_holes.html
yeah and what happens in the 'whoops' moment...

Value of love??God never taught the value of love ,Jesus did! God was a crazed seriel killer so jealous that he demands your worship and praise. He has murdered more people than any serial killer in the world.
God did not teach love. God is vengeful, jeoulous and abusive.
Jesus who "claimed" he was the son of god taught love, compassion and tolerance. He "claimed god was a loving god" which is totally inconsistant with the old testiment.
There is no proof that Jesus was the son of god. There was no DNA test to see if his blood was some how different than ours and his miricles were never taped.

and if Christians actually followed Jesus in practicing love, compassion and tolerance I wouldn't dislike most of them but you got the conservative republicans caring more about not paying taxes than caring about the poor and hungry and homless completely ignoring the bible that said "turn no man away that is hungry" ect and so on. "turn the other cheek" then you go the evangalist trying to convert everyone and telling them they will burn in hell forever and telling everyone else how to live thier lives.
Jesus was not god and if he was god , god has a personality disorder to go from vengeful, hateful and jealous to the persona of Jesus of compassion, tolerance and understanding.

Jesus is God, sense youre not a Christian and dislike most of us because of your sideways views or whatever happened to you I dont expect you'll acknowledge to understand it.

All I'll really expect out of you is bitching. Are you related to Freethinker by chance?

P.S

I could show you places where Christian devote their lives to feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless and I'm sure all I'll get from this sentence is more bitching.

In the Bible he kills far more than any serial killer. He also demands our worship and praise, and calls himself a jealous god, does he not?


Is your father a Christian Evak?

Jesus is God, sense youre not a Christian and dislike most of us because of your sideways views or whatever happened to you I dont expect you'll acknowledge to understand it.

All I'll really expect out of you is bitching. Are you related to Freethinker by chance?

P.S

I could show you places where Christian devote their lives to feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless and I'm sure all I'll get from this sentence is more bitching.

Jesus is not god. It doesn't matter if I am christian or not. Jesus said he was the son of god he did not say he was god?? Yes my sideways views I quoted the bible and you have yet to defend your gods actions against humanity. I acknowlege and understand that you would like to sweep what god did to humans in the first testiment under the carpet yet use things like homosexals are an obomination. You cherry pick the bible to meet your agenda.

Yes "MODERATE" christians do alot of social services and give much to the poor. I am totally kewl with moderate christians who actually follow the path of Jesus. However out of 100 percent only 30-40 percent actually donate their time to social issues such as homelessness, poverty and hunger.

as for bitching I have a ligitimate complaint. I am still waiting for you to somehow condone what god did to humans in the old testiment. Do you condone his behavior because he claims to be a god?

Exodus 20:5: For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
We din't know that the universe is expanding. The universe is an abstract idea that is boundless. The universe basically means 'any and all matter we can detect.' So no you cannot have matter outside the universe.
A black hole...Seriously some science expiriments have been making me nervous. Theres far to much put into "can we" and not enough put into "should we."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060919_black_holes.html
yeah and what happens in the 'whoops' moment...


Suposedly, or in theory, there is a huge black hole in the center of the universe.

Jesus is not god. It doesn't matter if I am christian or not. Jesus said he was the son of god he did not say he was god?? Yes my sideways views I quoted the bible and you have yet to defend your gods actions against humanity. I acknowlege and understand that you would like to sweep what god did to humans in the first testiment under the carpet yet use things like homosexals are an obomination. You cherry pick the bible to meet your agenda.

Yes "MODERATE" christians do alot of social services and give much to the poor. I am totally kewl with moderate christians who actually follow the path of Jesus. However out of 100 percent only 30-40 percent actually donate their time to social issues such as homelessness, poverty and hunger.

as for bitching I have a ligitimate complaint. I am still waiting for you to somehow condone what god did to humans in the old testiment. Do you condone his behavior because he claims to be a god?


Talk about Christians knowing their bible and then quoting the hell out of the bible to make your point and you dont know where in the bible Jesus said he is God?

And why not speak of "moderate Christians" when youre talking smack about our religion? Youre doing the same thing to them that you are to all Christians.

I havent "cherry picked" anything. I see it the way its meant to be. I cant help it if you wish to remain blind to it. Of course now youre going to be spouting off, how Im the blind one and youre so much more aware, as if Christians every where didnt know assholes with big one sided mouths are on the planet.
I see I wasnt wrong, more bitching.

because Moderate christans aren't annoying like you. Moderate Christian don't try to convert people or convince them there is a god they let people believe the way they want to.
I am not doing anything to "all" christians. I have talked to my husband who is a moderate about what god did and he says he doesn't listen to anything the old testiment has to say.

And you never answer my question. Do you condone the murdering and rampaging that god did to humanity in the old testiment based on the mere fact he "claims" to be your god?

You see it as it is meant to be? and what is the bible meant to be?

because Moderate christans aren't annoying like you. Moderate Christian don't try to convert people or convince them there is a god they let people believe the way they want to.
I am not doing anything to "all" christians. I have talked to my husband who is a moderate about what god did and he says he doesn't listen to anything the old testiment has to say.

And you never answer my question. Do you condone the murdering and rampaging that god did to humanity in the old testiment based on the mere fact he "claims" to be your god?

You see it as it is meant to be? and what is the bible meant to be?


If your husband was a true Christian he should be upset with the fact that his wife is calling his religion a load of crap. I guess you could care less what he thinks.
I feel sorry for your husband, I hope he makes it to Heaven because his life with you must be Hell.

Answer your question? I thought I did. You not understand when I said, "I see it the way its meant to be"
Obviously you dont understand it and I find that poeple like yourself attack anything they dont understand.
This being the case then simply asking the question you have has no real answer.

No he is not upset because he knows me being critical of the old testiment is not an insult on him. I think Jesus is a good guy. I do not buy the crap that he is god or the son of god but he did a lot of good things which makes him ok in my book.
So I have no problems with Jesus.
My husband understands my questioning of the authority of god even though he does not question it. He does not try to control my thinking and I do not try to control him.
He accept jesus in his heart so I am pretty sure he will go to heaven if one exist which I highly doubt but it seems to bring him peace so I let him believe in it without arguing with him about it.
Again you keep skirting the issue. Third time asking. Do you condone the mass murders of your god in the old testiment based on the fact that he "claimes" to be your god?

Is that the teachings of Big Bang cosmology...the universe was always here?

Perhaps not, but I wasn't talking about the Big Bang.

It's been my experience that the main argument for the existence of a creator god is often something like "the universe is too complex and wondrous to have happened by chance, therefore it must have an intelligent creator". When asked whence came the intelligent creator, who must be more complex and wondrous than his creation, the answer is usually "he was always here". If you're going to make an argument like that for convenience, why not make it more convenient and eliminate the creator from the outset?

I will give the authors of the creation myth credit where it's due. They've had millenia to perfect the myth and they've done a fine job. It's utterly untestable from a scientific standpoint, and therefore impervious to scientific refutation.

No he is not upset because he knows me being critical of the old testiment is not an insult on him. I think Jesus is a good guy. I do not buy the crap that he is god or the son of god but he did a lot of good things which makes him ok in my book.
But Jesus says in the bible that he is God, or do you only use what you need out of the bible to make bitter points.

So I have no problems with Jesus.
If you have a problem with God you have a problem with Jesus.
Even if you cant admit Jesus is God, you have admitted he is the son of God.
I doubt Jesus would be to happy about someone calling his father the things you have.

Again you keep skirting the issue. Third time asking. Do you condone the mass murders of your god in the old testiment based on the fact that he "claimes" to be your god?
I'm not dodging anything, this argument would seem to be your favorite one, one which I have had countless times and always with morons. So I'm kind of tired of having it.

Ask the question in a way it can be answered and I would be happy to answer it.

Actually, I dont see this conversation going anywhere. So, ask the question the way it should be asked or this conversation is over.

If your husband was a true Christian he should be upset with the fact that his wife is calling his religion a load of crap. I guess you could care less what he thinks.

So you're going to give us an example of how a "true christian" acts?


I feel sorry for your husband, I hope he makes it to Heaven because his life with you must be Hell.

Yes, I see you are. :rolleyes:

I do not have problems with "moderate" christians. When I was homeless it was moderate Christians who helped me and gave me shelter and not one ever forced me to read from the bible or convert to their religion for me to get help. In the family shelter the girls and I lived in called "Hopitality House" I saw woman who worked as staff who made very little for socail work. They were so kind and wonderful people and truly followed Christ path and I truly respected it. They were compassionate, understanding and tolerant they loved me unconditionally heathen or not and it really changed my eyes about christianity as a whole but these "true christians" are in the minority. I would welcome these guys in my home any day and they would not discriminate against because I am a pagan. I feel very comfortable around my husband because he has never pushed his belief system on me. If people want to believe in god or Jesus is the son or god or Jesus is god I do not care but when you set it out your goal to try an convert people claiming thier ideas an concept that god does not exist than I have every right to criticize your believe in god. When christians go around demonizing evolution and saying that athiest or pagans have no moral values then I show all the immoral things and demonize thier ideas and religious beliefs.

So you're going to give us an example of how a "true christian" acts?
I did in that sentence, "he should be upset with the fact that his wife is calling his religion a load of crap."

I did in that sentence, "he should be upset with the fact that his wife is calling his religion a load of crap."

And what was this?..."I feel sorry for your husband, I hope he makes it to Heaven because his life with you must be Hell."

And what was this?..."I feel sorry for your husband, I hope he makes it to Heaven because his life with you must be Hell."

A jab at the ribs.

Explaining reality.

A jab at the ribs.

Ok.


Explaining reality.

Ahh, but reality is subjective Inviolable. My reality may be different than yours, but it's just as valid. :)

Ok.



Ahh, but reality is subjective Inviolable. My reality may be different than yours, but it's just as valid. :)


That doesnt mean you wouldnt express your anger when someone rudely tells you, what you stand for is garbage.

Shes going off on how people force it on her, or whatever by trying to convert her or prove their God is real. While all I'm doing is replying to a thread in the "Religious" section of all forums.
If she dont want to see it she should have never come to this section of all forums. I can see if she wanted to debate it, but she isnt even doing that.
Shes coming in the thread and subjecting "me" (not the other way around) to her personal opinion and nothing else. All the while going off the topic of the OP to substitute it with her own.
Then shes saying she has the right to because somehow it was shoved down her throat.

So whats up Vile?

Is your father a Christian Evak?
He has his bachelor's in theology.

Why do you ask?

He has his bachelor's in theology.

Why do you ask?


Nothing, I was going to try and make a point, but thinking on it now it doesnt sound like a good way to go about it.

I can say, you quoted the bible to look how you wanted it to and not the way it was meant to.

Cool signature btw.

I like Naps better, I think its Naps? The one with the crock and no Cosby head.

That doesnt mean you wouldnt express your anger when someone rudely tells you, what you stand for is garbage.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but since warrior never labelled your beliefs "garbage" your point is moot.


Shes going off on how people force it on her, or whatever by trying to convert her or prove their God is real.

I must have missed that post, perhaps you could point it out to me.


While all I'm doing is replying to a thread in the "Religious" section of all forums.

Well, if you ignore the personal atacks and insults you've hurled I guess you could say that.


If she dont want to see it she should have never come to this section of all forums.

She's not the one complaining about your behavior, you're complaining about hers. So...take your own advice if you don't like the way the conversation is going.


I can see if she wanted to debate it, but she isnt even doing that.
Shes coming in the thread and subjecting "me" (not the other way around) to her personal opinion and nothing else.

Bull. Firstly, sharing opinions is what we do here. Secondly, it's you who is trying to frame the debate to your liking, for example:

"Ask the question in a way it can be answered and I would be happy to answer it. Actually, I dont see this conversation going anywhere. So, ask the question the way it should be asked or this conversation is over."

It would be nice if we could always demand that others in the debate wouldn't ask us difficult questions, but that isn't the way it works.


All the while going off the topic of the OP to substitute it with her own.

I've read the thread a few times now, and I think she's on topic.


Then shes saying she has the right to because somehow it was shoved down her throat.

Where did she say that?


So whats up Vile?

My cholesterol. :)

I can say, you quoted the bible to look how you wanted it to and not the way it was meant to.


You've said something like this to warrior as well, and I'm curious. How is it that you know how the Bible was "meant to look"?