Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 477. (Read 845654 times)
The op has no understanding of logic or scientific method.
C'mon BADecker, where's your god now?
At least I have faith in knowing your mouth will pull you through, shame you cant do the same for those that dont care for your shit.. BANG..
Edit: a rapper, no a crapper, you shit bag..
For a guy that has much time on his hands, you are sad. Unless you are copying and pasting, you need to GET OUT a bit, ken like, mingle.. get lifted for bein drunk.. smak a cop in the face and accept the fine as payment for being allowed to, is this too difficult to understand?
At least I have faith in knowing your mouth will pull you through, shame you cant do the same for those that dont care for your shit.. BANG..
Edit: a rapper, no a crapper, you shit bag..
For a guy that has much time on his hands, you are sad. Unless you are copying and pasting, you need to GET OUT a bit, ken like, mingle.. get lifted for bein drunk.. smak a cop in the face and accept the fine as payment for being allowed to, is this too difficult to understand?
Ps: A note: If a call anyone a cunt or fuck or twat or whatever i deem necessary at the time to get the fuckin point across... (note the 3rd .?
Keep in mind am scottish, no fuckin english, we want oor ain flag on every forum!!!! If ye canny dae that yer no worth kenin, cause ye dinae believe in god.. (freedom) from (bein a slave to the queen) Is a realisation that there are greater things to worry around your feet than GOD.
I did and although was piiiiissssed off when I learnt what it meant, canny refute the fact I swore alleigence to the queen, ordained by god, correct?
Keep in mind am scottish, no fuckin english, we want oor ain flag on every forum!!!! If ye canny dae that yer no worth kenin, cause ye dinae believe in god.. (freedom) from (bein a slave to the queen) Is a realisation that there are greater things to worry around your feet than GOD.
I did and although was piiiiissssed off when I learnt what it meant, canny refute the fact I swore alleigence to the queen, ordained by god, correct?
Perhaps you'd like to purchase some shungite?
Sorry BADecker, but am the decker aroond here, take the ruff wi the smoove homeboy, cause you aint got a clue wot a kin dae wae you usin nothin more than searchin for proof of god.. you spoiled your's, mine is greater than that 
The best bit is the timing in between.. now who wants to gamble their bitcoin that I can predict their god in its entirety based on what my gran taught me?
Syncronicity
And to back up my claim: Dear BADecker, in 4 steps less than 4 beats, say what it is your trying to say.. I can handle the maths.. I know frequencies beyond your control. FACT>
I am only allowed to play with them because I am a better option than YOU>
TWAT
In 64 words, say what you have to say!!
Edit: Ps: Bet his backup takes the same time to respond
Ooops..
I am only allowed to play with them because I am a better option than YOU>
TWAT
In 64 words, say what you have to say!!
Edit: Ps: Bet his backup takes the same time to respond
Ooops..
BADecker.. you are a dick.. you remove the possibility of freedom by the tone of your god. You are impossing and antagonistic to the point you should be shot at stake for your cheek based on nothing more than abmjr's vibe at sbhacker dot fuckin com, you are a twat with the knowledge, but nothing to back it up that actually matters.. DICK!
Ps: It's not me, but you that 'spoil' the mass's.. hence.)
DICK
Ps: It's not me, but you that 'spoil' the mass's.. hence.)
DICK
Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.
a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
My analogy isn't perfect. I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.
But God isn't enabling us to sin. He gave us free will to do so though. Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong? Should God have created us without that choice? Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to. But we have the ability to choose.
So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?
Was that yes?
I feel like I am back in college and trying to read a syllabus that is a bit too confusing.
It isn't like I have never asked the question of why God even allows us to sin or gave that option to us to begin with, especially if he foreknew that men would do the things they do. I guess what makes me sort of understand why He would do this, is because of His desire for us to really want to know Him because we choose to know Him. With that freedom comes the pain and suffering we see. Could we really choose God without having the choice to not choose Him? There is the real question. Then we could ask why God doesn't just hit the "smite" button on those that don't choose Him, or choose to hurt others, but then God is amazingly patient and will that everyone will choose to accept Him. So it really is not a simple thing. The gift of free will brings many issues along with it.
Limakasidian entropism begets nihilism.
> "...why [christian gods] even allow [their respective christians] to [transgress upon theirself]..."
Their procession exceeds allowance.
For their knowledge of what proves hailed of a deed, they proceed about all deeds proving hailed of their own.
Much wow. Such deep.
Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.
a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
My analogy isn't perfect. I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.
But God isn't enabling us to sin. He gave us free will to do so though. Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong? Should God have created us without that choice? Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to. But we have the ability to choose.
So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?
Was that yes?
I feel like I am back in college and trying to read a syllabus that is a bit too confusing.
It isn't like I have never asked the question of why God even allows us to sin or gave that option to us to begin with, especially if he foreknew that men would do the things they do. I guess what makes me sort of understand why He would do this, is because of His desire for us to really want to know Him because we choose to know Him. With that freedom comes the pain and suffering we see. Could we really choose God without having the choice to not choose Him? There is the real question. Then we could ask why God doesn't just hit the "smite" button on those that don't choose Him, or choose to hurt others, but then God is amazingly patient and will that everyone will choose to accept Him. So it really is not a simple thing. The gift of free will brings many issues along with it.
Limakasidian entropism begets nihilism.
> "...why [christian gods] even allow [their respective christians] to [transgress upon theirself]..."
Their procession exceeds allowance.
For their knowledge of what proves hailed of a deed, they proceed about all deeds proving hailed of their own.
Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.
a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
My analogy isn't perfect. I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.
But God isn't enabling us to sin. He gave us free will to do so though. Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong? Should God have created us without that choice? Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to. But we have the ability to choose.
So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?
Was that yes?
I feel like I am back in college and trying to read a syllabus that is a bit too confusing.
It isn't like I have never asked the question of why God even allows us to sin or gave that option to us to begin with, especially if he foreknew that men would do the things they do. I guess what makes me sort of understand why He would do this, is because of His desire for us to really want to know Him because we choose to know Him. With that freedom comes the pain and suffering we see. Could we really choose God without having the choice to not choose Him? There is the real question. Then we could ask why God doesn't just hit the "smite" button on those that don't choose Him, or choose to hurt others, but then God is amazingly patient and will that everyone will choose to accept Him. So it really is not a simple thing. The gift of free will brings many issues along with it.
Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.
a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
My analogy isn't perfect. I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.
But God isn't enabling us to sin. He gave us free will to do so though. Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong? Should God have created us without that choice? Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to. But we have the ability to choose.
So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?
Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.
a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
My analogy isn't perfect. I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.
But God isn't enabling us to sin. He gave us free will to do so though. Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong? Should God have created us without that choice? Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to. But we have the ability to choose.
So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?
Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.
a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
My analogy isn't perfect. I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.
But God isn't enabling us to sin. He gave us free will to do so though. Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong? Should God have created us without that choice? Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to. But we have the ability to choose.
Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.
a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
My analogy isn't perfect. I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.
But God isn't enabling us to sin. He gave us free will to do so though. Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong? Should God have created us without that choice? Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to. But we have the ability to choose.
...
If we are discussing what is "unfair," isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins? I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins. Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me? That is unfair to God! I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone! God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.
...
If God did not want to suffer for sins, he should not have deemed them such.If we are discussing what is "unfair," isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins? I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins. Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me? That is unfair to God! I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone! God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.
...
We can get frustrated at thy way God has chosen to do things, or we can accept that He has chosen to do things they way He has and respond with gratitude for even caring about us. Who are we to say how God, the creator of the universe, should or should not have done something? It really is all about humility. It is said that one of the greatest sins is actually pride. This is because our own pride is what keeps us from even humbly coming to God and accepting Him at all.
So why is it unfair that god (Jesus) suffered for the thing he himself created? If I give you a gun, and you accidentally shoot and wound yourself, and then in turn I take my own gun and shoot myself in the foot, is it unfair that I ended up getting shot because you got shot? And does that fix your wound? That whole "dying for our sins" thing makes no sense whatsoever. Just like blaming all the actions of murderers and rapists on a goat, taking the goat out of town, and killing it (a completely idiotic ancient practice that inspired the story of Jesus).
Actually, Jesus didn't suffer and die only for people. Mankind were originally given the authority for this universe. The universe is one; anything done on earth affects the whole thing. Jesus died to hold the whole universe in place. He could do it because He is God, the Son of God.
The underlying law that the whole universe is based on is, love God above all things. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. When God came as man in the form of Jesus, the only way to uphold the two great laws was to die. Why? Because mankind would have died from their breaking of the fundamental laws that hold the whole universe together. Why did Jesus rise in the resurrection? Because His love for God wouldn't allow the creation to be destroyed.
The most amazing miracle is that Jesus is God and man at the same time. Jesus has combined man and God, thereby making mankind into God along with God. Because of this, the two great laws - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - have taken on a whole new meaning. Man has become limitless because of the love of God.
The interesting thing is that God can do anything. Man as god, therefore, has the ability to deny his position as god. Atheists do this. They will be tossed into the lake of fire, simply because that is what they have will for themselves.
Interesting. I am not sure about the statement as "Man as god" though. That seems a bit dangerous to go there. We are made in His image, but we are not equal to God. But I do like your description of Jesus being God and man at the same time. It does cause an interesting spin on Loving God and your neighbor as yourself.
But that said, in response to Rassah, the reason it is "unfair" as I put it for God to suffer for our sins, is that it is kind of like a parent that has a child that makes a huge mistake, for example the child decides to play with matches and then burns the house down, the parent will have to pay for that mistake even though it was not the parent's fault the house burned down. So in a way it is unfair that the parent has to pay for the child's stupid decisions. (of course we have the choice to either allow God to pay for our mistakes or not unlike this analogy) I suppose God could have created us without the ability to make any mistakes but then we would have to have been created without a free will. But it is our free will that sets us apart from God's other creation. I think I wrote this before in one of the other threads, but I believe that God wanted to have a true relationship with His creation not because we have to serve Him, but because we choose to. It is like if I put a magic ring on my spouse and He loved me because the ring forced Him too. What if the magic ring made my husband do everything I wanted him to do for me. It seems tempting.
But at some point wouldn't I want to know if he really loved me? I would want to take the ring off and see how he really feels. God has removed the "magic ring" and we have the choice to try and know him or we can just do our own thing and reject him, or even say He doesn't exist. But that said, there will come a day when we will be accountable of those choices we have made. It doesn't matter if we don't believe in God or not. Not believing in God does not then cause God to not exist. Our belief has nothing to do with His existence. a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.
b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to proceed about them in a manner unwanted but the child themself.
c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.
...
If we are discussing what is "unfair," isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins? I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins. Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me? That is unfair to God! I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone! God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.
...
If God did not want to suffer for sins, he should not have deemed them such.If we are discussing what is "unfair," isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins? I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins. Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me? That is unfair to God! I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone! God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.
...
We can get frustrated at thy way God has chosen to do things, or we can accept that He has chosen to do things they way He has and respond with gratitude for even caring about us. Who are we to say how God, the creator of the universe, should or should not have done something? It really is all about humility. It is said that one of the greatest sins is actually pride. This is because our own pride is what keeps us from even humbly coming to God and accepting Him at all.
So why is it unfair that god (Jesus) suffered for the thing he himself created? If I give you a gun, and you accidentally shoot and wound yourself, and then in turn I take my own gun and shoot myself in the foot, is it unfair that I ended up getting shot because you got shot? And does that fix your wound? That whole "dying for our sins" thing makes no sense whatsoever. Just like blaming all the actions of murderers and rapists on a goat, taking the goat out of town, and killing it (a completely idiotic ancient practice that inspired the story of Jesus).
Actually, Jesus didn't suffer and die only for people. Mankind were originally given the authority for this universe. The universe is one; anything done on earth affects the whole thing. Jesus died to hold the whole universe in place. He could do it because He is God, the Son of God.
The underlying law that the whole universe is based on is, love God above all things. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. When God came as man in the form of Jesus, the only way to uphold the two great laws was to die. Why? Because mankind would have died from their breaking of the fundamental laws that hold the whole universe together. Why did Jesus rise in the resurrection? Because His love for God wouldn't allow the creation to be destroyed.
The most amazing miracle is that Jesus is God and man at the same time. Jesus has combined man and God, thereby making mankind into God along with God. Because of this, the two great laws - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - have taken on a whole new meaning. Man has become limitless because of the love of God.
The interesting thing is that God can do anything. Man as god, therefore, has the ability to deny his position as god. Atheists do this. They will be tossed into the lake of fire, simply because that is what they have will for themselves.
Interesting. I am not sure about the statement as "Man as god" though. That seems a bit dangerous to go there. We are made in His image, but we are not equal to God. But I do like your description of Jesus being God and man at the same time. It does cause an interesting spin on Loving God and your neighbor as yourself.
But that said, in response to Rassah, the reason it is "unfair" as I put it for God to suffer for our sins, is that it is kind of like a parent that has a child that makes a huge mistake, for example the child decides to play with matches and then burns the house down, the parent will have to pay for that mistake even though it was not the parent's fault the house burned down. So in a way it is unfair that the parent has to pay for the child's stupid decisions. (of course we have the choice to either allow God to pay for our mistakes or not unlike this analogy) I suppose God could have created us without the ability to make any mistakes but then we would have to have been created without a free will. But it is our free will that sets us apart from God's other creation. I think I wrote this before in one of the other threads, but I believe that God wanted to have a true relationship with His creation not because we have to serve Him, but because we choose to. It is like if I put a magic ring on my spouse and He loved me because the ring forced Him too. What if the magic ring made my husband do everything I wanted him to do for me. It seems tempting.
But at some point wouldn't I want to know if he really loved me? I would want to take the ring off and see how he really feels. God has removed the "magic ring" and we have the choice to try and know him or we can just do our own thing and reject him, or even say He doesn't exist. But that said, there will come a day when we will be accountable of those choices we have made. It doesn't matter if we don't believe in God or not. Not believing in God does not then cause God to not exist. Our belief has nothing to do with His existence. ...
If we are discussing what is "unfair," isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins? I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins. Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me? That is unfair to God! I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone! God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.
...
If God did not want to suffer for sins, he should not have deemed them such.If we are discussing what is "unfair," isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins? I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins. Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me? That is unfair to God! I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone! God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.
...
We can get frustrated at thy way God has chosen to do things, or we can accept that He has chosen to do things they way He has and respond with gratitude for even caring about us. Who are we to say how God, the creator of the universe, should or should not have done something? It really is all about humility. It is said that one of the greatest sins is actually pride. This is because our own pride is what keeps us from even humbly coming to God and accepting Him at all.
So why is it unfair that god (Jesus) suffered for the thing he himself created? If I give you a gun, and you accidentally shoot and wound yourself, and then in turn I take my own gun and shoot myself in the foot, is it unfair that I ended up getting shot because you got shot? And does that fix your wound? That whole "dying for our sins" thing makes no sense whatsoever. Just like blaming all the actions of murderers and rapists on a goat, taking the goat out of town, and killing it (a completely idiotic ancient practice that inspired the story of Jesus).
Actually, Jesus didn't suffer and die only for people. Mankind were originally given the authority for this universe. The universe is one; anything done on earth affects the whole thing. Jesus died to hold the whole universe in place. He could do it because He is God, the Son of God.
The underlying law that the whole universe is based on is, love God above all things. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. When God came as man in the form of Jesus, the only way to uphold the two great laws was to die. Why? Because mankind would have died from their breaking of the fundamental laws that hold the whole universe together. Why did Jesus rise in the resurrection? Because His love for God wouldn't allow the creation to be destroyed.
The most amazing miracle is that Jesus is God and man at the same time. Jesus has combined man and God, thereby making mankind into God along with God. Because of this, the two great laws - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - have taken on a whole new meaning. Man has become limitless because of the love of God.
The interesting thing is that God can do anything. Man as god, therefore, has the ability to deny his position as god. Atheists do this. They will be tossed into the lake of fire, simply because that is what they have will for themselves.
Really sorry to say this BADecker, but the pyramid is over 64.000 years old.
...
...
I always knew Decky was a lot older than he let on.
Jump to: