Prove that God doesn't exist.

Does God exist?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 63 59.4%
  • No.

    Votes: 44 41.5%

  • Total voters
    106
The bible is FAKE!!! Like take noahs ark for example. How can you stand to smell **** from 100 diiferant animals for 40 days 40 nights? How can you eat on the ark for 40 days 40 nights? How can you take a crap on the ark when its rocking during a storm? Try praying,, Did your Prayers get answered?
Watch here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A

And,,, Jesus is imaginary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUj8hg5CoSw
 
Werbung:
The bible is FAKE!!! Like take noahs ark for example. How can you stand to smell **** from 100 diiferant animals for 40 days 40 nights? How can you eat on the ark for 40 days 40 nights? How can you take a crap on the ark when its rocking during a storm? Try praying,, Did your Prayers get answered?
Watch here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A

And,,, Jesus is imaginary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUj8hg5CoSw

As much as I disagree with your post I am happy you posted it. A few min ago you posted on another thread saying homosexual people should be fired from their job so everyone note this... that did not come from a christian!!!
 
Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

You cannot prove a negative. But if you want a logical argument, you can start with the fact that in hundreds of years of scientific research, there has never been found anything other than natural explanations for the various phenomenon that science investigates. Given the utter lack of unambiguous evidence, it makes no sense to insist that one does exist.
 
Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???[/


should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics....
The short answer to that is, yes. There are some mine fields to traverse though before we settle on everything. First, let it be understood that the Bible does not address every single issue that we as Americans are facing today. By that I mean in the specifics, as the Word of God most definitely gives us the principles by which we should conduct our lives. Our culture has so complicated life that there seems to be no easy answer to anything anymore. If we are willing to forget political correctness and our fear of being called some name, then we can get down to fixing what is wrong on the governmental side of things. Secondly, it is important to note that all Christians do not agree on every single issue of the day. For instance, the theory of global warming is just now beginning to be discussed by some evangelicals. Truth be told, however, is that many of the things that consume the political mind do not interest a large portion of believers.

The words liberal and conservative are a good way to divide political points of view. They will serve to consider the divide amongst Christians. Those who hold to a liberal perspective toward the Bible will generally hold liberal political views. If you do not believe that the Bible is a fixed, settled, revelation of the plan of God and His person, it is not likely that you will believe that the Constitution of the United States is a fixed document. The idea of an evolving Constitution grew out of the congregations who believed that the Bible could and should be interpreted in the light of history and culture. Some have so changed the shape of the truth that it is no longer recognizable to them or anyone who objectively considers their stance on the issues of the day.

Conservatives and fundamentalists, these are not always the same group, believe that the Bible is a fixed, settled revelation of God and His plan for men. Likewise, we believe that the Constitution is a settled document that should be read as it was written and its principles applied to modern life. Conservatives do not find a right to privacy that guarantees the right to an abortion. We do not say things like, “I am personally against abortion, but….” Principle will not allow us to pick and choose the popular position, but demands that we take a consistent position.

This is where I stand amazed at so many who profess the Lord as Savior. I have lost count of the number of people whom I have heard say that they are against abortion, but they will vote for those who support it. I am not trying to get Christians to support the Republican Party with what I am saying. I do not believe that the acronym GOP means God’s Own Party as some evangelicals seem to do. I am arguing for consistency in our Christianity. How can we honor the Lord and vote for those who support the radical agenda of the sodomites in our country? How can we claim to be faithful believers and put our vote and influence behind those who will support expunging any reference to God from our society? Is there a Christian position on these issues? Then there must be a Christian position on politics.

Many people believe that the Bible does not address the budgetary process of our country. It is not unusual to hear someone say that they are “voting their pocketbook.” What this means is that they believe that the economy needs attention. I agree. However, I will not support a candidate who I believe could fix the economy if he, or she, is wrong on core moral issues. Further, the Bible teaches that we are to lay aside goods for hard times. In Proverbs chapter six, the Word of God addresses being surety for another’s debt and the need of learning from nature about laying up in store for the day of need. Our country has less money than I do. It is in debt trillions of dollars because they are giving away what they do not have. The philosophy of Keynesian economics is that growth will result when the government borrows and spends money. That is a very simplified view of the theory, but it is a proper way of explaining it. Our government officials have been for decades spending what they have not yet received in the form of tax revenue. “Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have,” said President Gerald Ford. He was right. It is, in my opinion, unbiblical to support those who will give away government largess in order to stay in power.

The “interest payments” on this godless philosophy of governing are already coming due in the form of decreasing morality and rising vulgarity. Forty plus million voices from the grave are calling for justice and an end to abortion. That is what I call the Christian Position on Politics.

Best Regards
doug
 
Universal probability bounds...."Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."
"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."
 
Universal probability bounds...."Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."
"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."

Erm, Mr. Nobull, if you propose to keep your assumed name, perhaps you should be a little more honest about the origin of the above post. I'm pretty sure it comes from Dr Dembski's argument for design; it has been refuted, and yet interestingly, the good doctor refused to address the rebuttal and continues to use this argument. Secondly, when you quote "cosmologists", or anyone else for that matter, it is usually a requirement that you cite who they are and from what publication you are quoting. Since you didn't cite the originator of the piece in the first place, so it is no surprise that you also didn't cite the cosmologists in the quotes.

Some would call the above misuse of intellectual property plagiarism. And as has been pointed out in talk.origins, "one of the dangers of plagiarism is that someone else's mistakes transform into your mistakes without warning".

Here is a rebuttal:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov03.html
 
Erm, Mr. Nobull, if you propose to keep your assumed name, perhaps you should be a little more honest about the origin of the above post. I'm pretty sure it comes from Dr Dembski's argument for design; it has been refuted, and yet interestingly, the good doctor refused to address the rebuttal and continues to use this argument. Secondly, when you quote "cosmologists", or anyone else for that matter, it is usually a requirement that you cite who they are and from what publication you are quoting. Since you didn't cite the originator of the piece in the first place, so it is no surprise that you also didn't cite the cosmologists in the quotes.

Some would call the above misuse of intellectual property plagiarism. And as has been pointed out in talk.origins, "one of the dangers of plagiarism is that someone else's mistakes transform into your mistakes without warning".

Here is a rebuttal:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov03.html

If I write it I will sign it..some might call you arrogant..not me but some..lol

regards
doug
 
If I write it I will sign it..some might call you arrogant..not me but some..lol

regards
doug

Why would some call me arrogant, Nobull? Because I pointed out that you may have plagiarized someone, or because I pointed out that what you posted has been refuted and doesn't actually prove anything?
 
2hezf2o.jpg

eiquix.jpg
 
I received this in a PM from nobull.

Oh . and by the way..That was an e-mail I recieved

regards
doug

the arrogance statement was from reading a few of your rants..

Well, Doug, if it was in an e-mail ou recieved, don't you think that you should have verified it's claims and found out who actually wrote it before you decided to post it on the forum as your own? At the least, you should have made clear that it wasn't your own words, but that of someone else and where you found it.

As for the arrogrant accusation, you're not the first to call me that, and likely won't be the least. If speaking the truth and expecting others to do the same means that I am arrogant, well then I am arrogant. Got it? Now, speaking of arrogance, don't you think it is a bit presumptuous of you to call me arrogant when you are plagiarizing someone in an attempt to prove that god exists? Lying for god? Is that kind of behavior acceptable in any religion?
 
oro..Let people believe what they want to believe in. If people find comfort in religion, why should this be a problem for anyone of us? Sometimes, religion is the reason people rise from poverty and make their lives successful, and sometimes religion is the reason people are able to overcome hard times in their lives. Let people believe in what they want to believe in.

As I have read some of your writings, I can tell you are a very educated and wise man. I am sure you have questions that I have no answers to; however, I know a man who has all the answers, Jesus. If you truly seek a relationship with him I assure you he will answer every question in your mind that needs answered. I did not write this post to anger or upset you, just in obedience to God.

I have discovered this to be true - Christ is an experience (FAITH) and not a subject for argument or debates.FAITH.. bottom line "if I knew all the answers and could prove God's existence through mathematical equation, we would have science not faith, for when there are no more unknowns, there will be no room for faith" MY FAITH & HIS GRACE are two wonderful things..

regards
doug
 
Werbung:
Fear not, o ye of impoverished intellect, infirm mind, suspicious thought, and scant knowledge, for God loves the smallest among you even as he loves the greatest. And even the itsy-bitsy teensy weensiest. and there are some tiny weenies here..lol


doug
 
Back
Top