Jump to content

Do you believe in a divine Creator of the universe and everything in it, including mankind?


blackbird

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Oksanna said:

I always like to point out that the problem of evil is insurmountable. If there is a god, then we are all in deep trouble because it is an evil being and want's us to suffer.

I have already answered that false claim a number of times on here.  If you are serious about wanting to know the truth about it, just put it in a search engine.  "Why is there evil in the world"  Or some such similar wording.   Yes, most of the world is in deep trouble because they will not listen to what the Bible says and what many preachers have been preaching through history.

"19  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {in them: or, to them} 20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so…: or, that they may be} 21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. "  Romans 1:19-23 KJV

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2022 at 11:44 PM, Oksanna said:

I always like to point out that the problem of evil is insurmountable. If there is a god, then we are all in deep trouble because it is an evil being and want's us to suffer.

There is no problem of evil in Christianity.

Christians adore a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God!

Christians call evil good, --- so cannot have a problem of evil  for what they see evil as good?

 Remember that the Christian hymn, Exsultet, calls Adam's sin a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

What you and I call evil, Christianity praises as good.

Regards

DL

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Christians adore a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God!

You are not too bright are you.

And for a so-called French Patriot to smear and belittle his countrymen and his nation - France being traditionally Catholic after all - speaks volumes about your brand of patriotism.

Edited by Great American
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, French Patriot said:

How firmly do you believe in talking serpents?

Your childish post indicates that you probably cannot understand the answer, but I will answer anyway for the benefit of other members:

In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.

So, to your snotty question about talking serpents: Genesis One reveals the Truth that God wanted revealed, which is that he created all things and created man in is image. This truth was revealed in such a way, as was stated, using the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

Furthermore, God wanted it revealed that man fell from grace through sin, and that God has set about from the very beginning to restore man to friendship with God. This great "History of Salvation" culminated in the sacrifice of the Son of God.

As I said, I do not expect you to be intelligent enough to grasp these things, but I hope others here benefit from my answer.

 

 

Edited by Great American
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathematics

It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power(the 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)

The mathematical probability of a single living cell arising spontaneously has been calculated over and over again by evolutionary scientists and they have been unable to come up with a figure which falls under Borel's upper limit. 

Dr. Fred Hoyle calculated the chance that life could have evolved spontaneously to be 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. This number is far larger than Borel's upper limit and makes the supposed spontaneous origin of life nothing short of a miracle. (See - Evolution from Space, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe,J. M. Dent & Sons, 1981, p. 130)

Mathematically, there must be a creator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2021 at 3:37 PM, blackbird said:

The evidence is all around us that the complex, intricate universe required a divine Creator to design and create it, as recorded in Genesis of the Bible.

Do you recognize that your source of the Judeau-Christian-Muslim religions is from what is deemed 'myth' of the Egyptians? That is, your own majority would deem the ancient Egyptians as irrational 'nutcases', using today's terminology, yet not recognize that the whole source of the Jewish roots that is interpreted as shared among all of your historical religions came directly from those like Akenaten and Ramses dynasty? If you doubt the Egyptian roots that gave you your religion, should this not make you a relative 'atheist' of the most traitorous kind to your real 'superior' being? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Do you recognize that your source of the Judeau-Christian-Muslim religions is from what is deemed 'myth' of the Egyptians? 

Also - never point out to an Abrahamian adherent that the Epic of Gilgamesh has passages from which the origin story of Moses was lifted.  Why it's almost like those books were just stories and that Moses never talked to a burning bush, parted the red sea and all that other bullshit.  

Oops... going to hell again... God damn it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Great American said:

Mathematically, there must be a creator.

Math is a subset of Logic that uses numbers as its domain of inputs. I didn't see your proof 'mathematically' and while statistics is one part of 'math', logically, it is less certain than other areas. Statistics when used specifically for social-political-religious arguments is abused more often than not. I saw that some presume that the competing Steady State theory is somehow supporting of your view given you assert Holye as relevant. But the main reason for preferring the Big Bang is actually DUE to the fact that its theory is LESS harmful to religion POLITICALLY than the Steady State. In fact, I have my own Steady State based theory that not only has no need for gods but can definitively remove any such religious beings with stronger logical permanence than the Big Bang class theories. So you can't use Hoyle's quotes to defend your religious beliefs.

All physical theories can be argued to justify religion in some way. Given this flaw in reasoning is in fact BASED necessarily on evolution, it is 'natural' for the human animal to BE religious because without GAMBLING that 'faith' implies, we would have died out for hesitating in natural survival conditions that would have enabled other animals to have overcome us and prevent us from evolving. The KIND of weaker thinking that gambling, faith, and general 'trust' require is "inductive"; Logic of non-statistical math and reasoning is 'deductive' and more certain but hard for us to determine with ease in nature. As such, the pure math (deduction), though superior is LACKING in our essential need for survival over that weaker form of reasoning. 

You thus lack grounds for your argument (as others I see here do). The hard math and sciences, including the foundational evolutionary theory that gives us genetics, are against, not for religion, regardless of prefered theory of science. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also - never point out to an Abrahamian adherent that the Epic of Gilgamesh has passages from which the origin story of Moses was lifted.  Why it's almost like those books were just stories and that Moses never talked to a burning bush, parted the red sea and all that other bullshit.  

Oops... going to hell again... God damn it

I like pointing out a lot of connections to etymology that acts as memetic proof that the Judeao-Christian-Muslim beliefs are rooted in Egyptian 'myth'. For example, "Moses" is actually a generic Egyptia term for 'leader', as name like "Ramses" [= 'Ra' + 'Moses' for "Leader of the light (of the sun)] or "Adam" derives from "Aten", the term that referenced 'solids'. and is generally covered under the meaning "earth"; that "adam" then meant Earth-kind of which it isn't surprising that the ancients would know meant, human kind and all other animals under our Earthly control. That "Eve" meant "all that follows" and why we get terms like "ever", "even", "(h)eaven", and many other related terms referencing infinite concepts. 

Thus, I can show how the original source of the Bible likely had non-religious rational meaning that got twisted in time (and wait for it, "evolved") to become religion. The Adam and Eve story was itself not meant to literally refer to particular people but was personified (cartooned) to help communicate and remember the generic shared secular 'science' of its day and NOT the irrational modern religious interpretation. 

At least demonstrating these even if being 'speculative' can help show that their religious interpretations CAN be 'natural' without requiring religion. The 'statistical' significance of the eymological roots is way more convincing and harder for the religious person to deny using their own preferred method of thinking. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for those doubting evolutionary theory here, I can competently argue on this and can even show how the religious person woud also likely adopt it if they took care to reflect on some things about what they (you) know. So if you want, I can try to 'prove' that you doubters would agree to 'evolution'. But it might not necessarily defeat your religious view. Rather, it may make you less 'extreme' about it as a concern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Do you recognize that your source of the Judeau-Christian-Muslim religions is from what is deemed 'myth' of the Egyptians? That is, your own majority would deem the ancient Egyptians as irrational 'nutcases', using today's terminology, yet not recognize that the whole source of the Jewish roots that is interpreted as shared among all of your historical religions came directly from those like Akenaten and Ramses dynasty? If you doubt the Egyptian roots that gave you your religion, should this not make you a relative 'atheist' of the most traitorous kind to your real 'superior' being? 

 

That is a very poor, amateurish attempt to discredit the Bible.  First of all the Old Testament, King James Version, is based on the Hebrew Bible called the Tanakh.  The New Testament is based on over 5,000 copies of Greek manuscripts or part of manuscripts from over 1,000 years ago.  The Old Testament was originally written over a period of 1,500 years and completed over 2,000 years ago.  The original New Testament books were written in the first 100 years after Christ and copies were made repeatedly through the centuries.  There is no connection to ancient Egyptians.  Anyone who studied the Old Testament would know a large part of it includes the history of the Jewish nation from the time of the father of the Jews, Abraham as recorded in Genesis.   Nothing to do with the Egyptians other than the 400 years the Jews were in captivity in Egypt.  If the Old Testament had come from Egypt, why would it be a history of the Jewish nation where they lived in ancient Israel?  That Egypt claim doesn't make sense at all.  Exodus describes how they were rescued and escaped captivity miraculously.  The Jews made and kept very careful copies of the Old Testament Scriptures which were passed down through the ages.  

There is some information at this website although I have not really studied it as I don't have time at the moment.   It does say in one part:

Quote

The archaeological record evidences the existence of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as centers of commerce geographically located where Genesis indicates. A trade list from Ebla, a thriving commercial center at the time the Bible specifies for the existence of the five Cities of the Plain mentioned in Genesis 14, records the names of the cities, spelled exactly as they are found in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, evidence points to their destruction through earthquake activity in which layers of earth were hurled into the air, accompanied by intense heat that molded together layers of sedimentary rock and severe burning, probably when a basin of oil beneath the Dead Sea ignited and erupted. Brimstone (bituminous pitch) is also found plentifully in the area, along with abundant salt, sulfur, and natural gas deposits.[6] An explosion of the natural gas and oil lifted the salts and sulfur and bitumen high into the air, causing them to rain upon the city, destroying it. One portion of the falling deposits fell upon Lot’s wife, who had stopped fleeing to look back longingly upon the city, turning her into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26).[7]

Careful stratigraphic excavation of houses in the Cities of the Plain evidences that they were destroyed by fire that started on the roof and spread to the interior when the roof collapsed, supporting Genesis 19:24: “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.”[8]

The Biblical record of the existence and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is accurate.   Unquote

That is particularly interesting because it goes a long way back, several thousand years before Christ and the account is recorded in Genesis.

Archaeological Evidence the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible is God's Word (faithsaves.net)

As I have not had time to study this article right now, I cannot say I would agree with everything in it.  It is not infallible, but may have useful information.  Only the Bible is infallible, the King James Version of 1611.   If you are going to comment on it, it might be wise to study is and learn something about what you are talking about.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also - never point out to an Abrahamian adherent that the Epic of Gilgamesh has passages from which the origin story of Moses was lifted.  Why it's almost like those books were just stories and that Moses never talked to a burning bush, parted the red sea and all that other bullshit.  

Oops... going to hell again... God damn it

 I thought you might be more enlightened about the Bible.  Obviously you never studied it.  However, I will not try to refute the nonsense in that comment as it does the job itself.

Edited by blackbird
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Great American said:

Mathematics

It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power(the 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)

The mathematical probability of a single living cell arising spontaneously has been calculated over and over again by evolutionary scientists and they have been unable to come up with a figure which falls under Borel's upper limit. 

Dr. Fred Hoyle calculated the chance that life could have evolved spontaneously to be 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. This number is far larger than Borel's upper limit and makes the supposed spontaneous origin of life nothing short of a miracle. (See - Evolution from Space, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe,J. M. Dent & Sons, 1981, p. 130)

Mathematically, there must be a creator.

 

18 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Math is a subset of Logic that uses numbers as its domain of inputs. I didn't see your proof 'mathematically' and while statistics is one part of 'math', logically, it is less certain than other areas. Statistics when used specifically for social-political-religious arguments is abused more often than not. I saw that some presume that the competing Steady State theory is somehow supporting of your view given you assert Holye as relevant. But the main reason for preferring the Big Bang is actually DUE to the fact that its theory is LESS harmful to religion POLITICALLY than the Steady State. In fact, I have my own Steady State based theory that not only has no need for gods but can definitively remove any such religious beings with stronger logical permanence than the Big Bang class theories. So you can't use Hoyle's quotes to defend your religious beliefs.

All physical theories can be argued to justify religion in some way. Given this flaw in reasoning is in fact BASED necessarily on evolution, it is 'natural' for the human animal to BE religious because without GAMBLING that 'faith' implies, we would have died out for hesitating in natural survival conditions that would have enabled other animals to have overcome us and prevent us from evolving. The KIND of weaker thinking that gambling, faith, and general 'trust' require is "inductive"; Logic of non-statistical math and reasoning is 'deductive' and more certain but hard for us to determine with ease in nature. As such, the pure math (deduction), though superior is LACKING in our essential need for survival over that weaker form of reasoning. 

You thus lack grounds for your argument (as others I see here do). The hard math and sciences, including the foundational evolutionary theory that gives us genetics, are against, not for religion, regardless of prefered theory of science. 

 

 

Okay then, answer a simple question: What caused all matter in the universe to come into existence?

Edited by Great American
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

As for those doubting evolutionary theory here, I can competently argue on this and can even show how the religious person woud also likely adopt it if they took care to reflect on some things about what they (you) know. So if you want, I can try to 'prove' that you doubters would agree to 'evolution'. But it might not necessarily defeat your religious view. Rather, it may make you less 'extreme' about it as a concern. 

As with most people like you, you are wrong about what Christians think. We don't have a problem with Evolution, rather we have a problem with atheistic Evolution out of nothing.

God created the universe and everything in it. After that, if Evolution processes are part of the laws of nature which He wrote, then I have no problem with that.

BUT, trying to use Evolution out of nothing to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place fails miserably. It cannot be done.  You cannot say that everything just appeared out of the void om non-existence, "poof". Neither can you say that all matter simply always existed; that is a logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also - never point out to an Abrahamian adherent that the Epic of Gilgamesh has passages from which the origin story of Moses was lifted

That is pathetically ignorant, and pee-poor logic. Just because stories appear in different works does not mean that one had to steal it from another. That's just stupid.

I have heard that same dumb garbage about the flood. "Oh, well the flood appears in other old writings so the Bible stole it".

Yah? Well if there was a global flood then of course it appears in many old writings you moron. That does not mean the Bible stole it from another book.

I swear dude, the ignorance of your posts is absolutely astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2022 at 9:11 PM, blackbird said:

That is a very poor, amateurish attempt to discredit the Bible.  First of all the Old Testament, King James Version, is based on the Hebrew Bible called the Tanakh

I just have to stop you here. The "Torah" is the first five books. 

I am well versed in my history and strong skeptic against religion  in ANY form of government position.. A 'god' would not be so powerless as to require human will power to make if feel adequate. The ONLY reason religion has even gotten as far as it has so far is due specifically for those who want to rule with a means to excuse their accountability to God's command and to entice the dumbing down of the average intelligence to encourage BLIND faith in PEOPLE, not God. If God is powerful, it doesn't need your arragant DICTATORIAL means to inform us of its exitence. 

Given you are anti-evolution, you lack even the respect of what "Nature" does that you oddly go against. Didn't your 'god' create nature? I was born of nature. If you were not a product of evolution, you are not a product of Nature and so should just go back to whatever alien planet you came from. Governments that permit religion are severely intolerant and dangerously unaccountable to the people for "democracies".

Jerusalem (from "Je Ra Sol amen" [the last post of the fallen Egyptians meaning the "The end of the sun's rays" and was at "David" (the 'divide') between the 'Asher Ra El' [Assyrian people which where "Israel" comes from], and Judahs ("judges" given they were literalists of the original Egypt consevatives before the divide of "Saul"  who is also the reference to the original "Sol" Intentional distinct spelling is political; most didn't even write and based their words on how the SOUNDED, not spelled.] 

You most certainly get your own propaganda through your religion and given most other COMPETING religions your news is the perfect reflection of "fake news" throughout history. All religions begin by utterly destroying any prior history that might competently point to them as being less genuine. Egypt was the original home but since the fall of that ASSYRIAN-related dynasty fell, Babylon took over the Middle East while those in Judah (not 'Israel') had the last remaining Egyptian temple. The 'ark of the covenant' was literally a ceremonial boat that held likely a broken obelisk of Akenaten's city moved to the 'desert', "Amarna". [That was the foreign Assyrian 'moses' who tried to impose his single religious 'culture' but got kicked out to the desert for a generation (40 years). [https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-lost-city-of-akhenaten] Notice the similarity to the temple of Jerusalem. 

The reason others didn't accept his attempt to unify others to a single culture relates to the fact that the general Egyptian society was relatively 'multicultural' and the 'temple' was originally a public place for ALL people. They were kind enough to at least just kick him out. That chase where god supposedly 'divided' that last dynasty is why "David" is a common reference for Palestine. 

I can go on. But even if you disagree, you have to repect that politics that utilizes religious laws are dangerous for all given anyone can make up a story that some magical being came to them and told them to do x, y, and z, arbitrarily.

As for your own Rightwing Christianity, the renewed version that praises the rich and annihilates the sick and weak in direct opposition to the original communistic version that appealed to the poor, your leaders do not approve of anything referencing 'evolution' of which the Big Bang happens to differ from Steady State in regards to assuming physics at a prior time was (magically) different than today. It is NOT related directly to biological evolution or evolution of physical stages of development (using a universal physics). THAT evolution is thus still true about reality of which ANY physics theory would accept other than the religious extremes that WANT their religious mythical interpretation of reality of the past to be true. Rich and powerful 'lords' (originally a derogatory reference in which asserting the source of life (YWYH == ye oveh meaning 'the egg' or 'source') was argued to be the ONLY true owner of land and so did not approve of those who did settle. "Jew" means 'wander' and referred to the non-owners who had not settled, similar to the American Indians. 

Your PARICULAR religions thus EVOLVED memetically, a word referencing the social evolution  of words like 'genes' (and why the name "meme" came about). But it 'devolved' in that it once begun as non-religious as those hated communist countries that tend to fall by first recreating religion through its leader-worship. In time, the real history gets distroyed OR mislinked to its origins and ta da.....we get EXTREME religions that have their realities misplaced in myth and other magical thinking.

....OR.....

...you are as clever as the most 'evil' (from Eve and el, meaning the "fallen one") athiest. I mean, if we were so disgracefully the most cunning deceivers, wouldn't it be most rationally evil for an atheist to CREATE religions? You should think about this one hard given such deception would more likely have such leaders PRETEND they were 'religious' to rule as your church leaders!!

So if you are NOT just another wolf dressed up as a sheep, would you rather gamble in those politicians who ARE 'religious' but more incentivised to BE atheists? Are you not actually intentionally discrediting non-believers as a means to innoculate the masses into FAVORING the trickster's capacity to USE religion in politics? Would you PREFER that I hide my atheism and PRETEND to be religious like the rest of you? I assure you that such people exist!! And the ONLY rationale for Rightwing ideals of capitalism to be againt evolution is because pure capitalism IS a form of 'economic Darwinism' that proves just how natural evolution works when left free to act. 

So strong conservatives who sell religion are either the stupid members of the flock or are deceptive atheists conning others. Which is it?

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Great American said:

 

 

Okay then, answer a simple question: What caused all matter in the universe to come into existence?

Literally, Abolultely Nothing!! It is a logical and mathematical construct of which our Universe is only one of a contunuous infinity of possibilities. Ordered universes that happen to have strict patterns become worlds that are manifest into what we perceive as something more 'special' than it is. 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Great American said:

As with most people like you, you are wrong about what Christians think. We don't have a problem with Evolution, rather we have a problem with atheistic Evolution out of nothing.

God created the universe and everything in it. After that, if Evolution processes are part of the laws of nature which He wrote, then I have no problem with that.

BUT, trying to use Evolution out of nothing to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place fails miserably. It cannot be done.  You cannot say that everything just appeared out of the void om non-existence, "poof". Neither can you say that all matter simply always existed; that is a logical fallacy.

Hmmm. And how does your 'God' manage to do it? If your God creates, does it use factors that already also happens to exist appart from itself? Or does it 'create' from nothing? Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Great American said:

As with most people like you, you are wrong about what Christians think. We don't have a problem with Evolution, rather we have a problem with atheistic Evolution out of nothing.

God created the universe and everything in it. After that, if Evolution processes are part of the laws of nature which He wrote, then I have no problem with that.

BUT, trying to use Evolution out of nothing to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place fails miserably. It cannot be done.  You cannot say that everything just appeared out of the void om non-existence, "poof". Neither can you say that all matter simply always existed; that is a logical fallacy.

Although already mentioned, if your magical being, "God", can create from nothing, I think your own logic is amiss. The correct logic is based upon the following argument:

(1)Assume absolutely nothing.

(2)Then one thing exists.

(3)The prior statements. (1)and (2) are 'contradictory' but where only an Abolute nothing exists, it necessarily follows. The alternative is to have Absolutely Everything. So...

(4) Assume Absolutely Everything. 

(5) Then Absolute Nothing is included as ONE of these truths. 

This requires interpreting worlds like a monitor in which every pixel in every possilble resolution define distinct worlds. Most 'images' are nonsensical and so lack meaning. But for those worlds that happen to FIT a consistent pattern, these are worlds that act as 'consistent' and like our as one of them. Contradiction-free versions perist and define what 'evolution' is on a logical and physical level. 

Note that it is alright for Absolutely Nothing itself to BE 'contradictory' afterthefact looking back because at its origin, if an origin does exist, then it has no LAW (nor lawgiver) to ABIDE by, in the same way you would interpret your 'god' as having.... minus any complex human-centric imposition upon it as a function of Nature.

Edited by Scott Mayers
Added last paragraph.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

. . . I am well versed in my history . . 

So were some of the worst evil tyrants in history. Your posts are crap. You post like well educated person who has been educated with crap. You think you are smart but you don't have the first lick of common sense.

I asked you to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place and you said:

5 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Although already mentioned, if your magical being, "God", can create from nothing, I think your own logic is amiss.

This is so typical of your ilk:  When confronted with the stupidity of your position, you resort to snotty schoolyard smears. "Magical Being" is obviously a pejorative meant to invoke anger, knowing that a faithful person would be offended. You are just another snotty Godless loser, probably a socialist too. Happy May Day by the way.

All your long posts add up to a pile of bullshit. You are intelligent, but you are also an ignorant idiot who does not have the first clue about how all things came to be.

What I said to you stands as un-refuted FACT:

On 5/11/2022 at 4:17 AM, Great American said:

As with most people like you, you are wrong about what Christians think. We don't have a problem with Evolution, rather we have a problem with atheistic Evolution out of nothing.

God created the universe and everything in it. After that, if Evolution processes are part of the laws of nature which He wrote, then I have no problem with that.

BUT, trying to use Evolution out of nothing to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place fails miserably. It cannot be done.  You cannot say that everything just appeared out of the void om non-existence, "poof". Neither can you say that all matter simply always existed; that is a logical fallacy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2022 at 4:17 AM, Great American said:

As with most people like you, you are wrong about what Christians think. We don't have a problem with Evolution, rather we have a problem with atheistic Evolution out of nothing.

God created the universe and everything in it. After that, if Evolution processes are part of the laws of nature which He wrote, then I have no problem with that.

BUT, trying to use Evolution out of nothing to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place fails miserably. It cannot be done.  You cannot say that everything just appeared out of the void om non-existence, "poof". Neither can you say that all matter simply always existed; that is a logical fallacy.

 

19 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Hmmm. And how does your 'God' manage to do it? If your God creates, does it use factors that already also happens to exist appart from itself? Or does it 'create' from nothing? Which is it?

 

Ladies and Gentlemen., see the hypocrisy of the Godless. He demands answers from me that he cannot answer regarding his own barbaric beliefs. He cannot explain how all matter just came into existence, suddenly, without cause, but he demands that I explain to Him how God can do such a thing.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is simple:

  • It is impossible for the atheist belief that all matter just came into existence, suddenly, without cause.
  • But it IS possible that an almighty omnipotent God did just that

Until are little Godless troll can explain all matter just came into existence, suddenly, without cause, OR how all matter simply existed eternally, then his little theory is not only no better than Creationism, its actually worse..

Edited by Great American
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2022 at 6:06 AM, Great American said:

You are not too bright are you.

And for a so-called French Patriot to smear and belittle his countrymen and his nation - France being traditionally Catholic after all - speaks volumes about your brand of patriotism.

So because you like a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God, and cannot explain why, you deflect, like the moral coward you are, by attacking an avital.

You are the morally dim bulb here buddy, and I can show you why.

Firstly, I reject the prick of a God you idolise.

Bright people know evil when they read a fiction of it.

Regards

DL

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...