Butterflyleo:
On the other hand hopefullandlord if you feel you can do a much better job than the OP then ask him to step down so you can take over from his obvious featherweight attempts so far. That would be a more noble thing to do than to desperately try to derail as you are attempting to do.

Kindly stop posting on this thread. This is STRICTLY between myself and the OP. If you wish to post then ask him to step down so you can take over.

I will consider shitting bricks if he takes you up on this...

Butterflyleo:


Death is a part of life. Love does not negate death. You probably love eating beef do you have any qualms when you kill a chicken or a goat? Or do you have a problem when you plant corn and the corn has to first die before it becomes a new plant with much more corn?

Death indeed is a part of life. However, I wouldn't want harm to come to the one I love. If I had a cow as a pet, I wouldn't kill it to eat just because I love beef. Your counter here is baseless.
Man will die eventually of old age... why does god's self cleansing system have to cut lives short in order to function. That points to either a design flaw or just natural occurring phenomenon that was not designed by a god.

I thought you said man was mediocre so why do you now say man has developmental capabilities? Why didn't the grasscutters or sewer rats not "evolve"? They also have a brain as we do and also have practically every thing we have physically but in their own variants.

My statement about man being mediocre did not in any way imply that man cannot develop. Development is a process of evolution. Rats did evolve over time with documented evidence.. (http://www.ratbehavior.org/history.htm) (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4840-rat-genome-reveals-supercharged-evolution/).
Man did not always have the level of intelligence he exhibits now. The early men that drew hieroglyphics were limited by their abilities...evolution brought about advances in art...picasso, da vinci, rafael, michaelangelo.. those prominent artists were also limited in their abilities...further evolution has brought about hyper-realistic art.. the kind of art da vinci would drool over. (https://www.demilked.com/hyperreal-pencil-drawings-nigerian-arinze-stanley/) This is simply proof of evolution and not design.
.

You probably would be the first person to claim the hair on your skin does not help with sensations. Burning is not the only sensation available. Try this right now where you are. Don't touch your skin but run your hand very lightly through the hair on your arm or legs and tell me if you felt nothing.

I actually shaved off the hair on my arms some time ago and I practically almost caught a cold immediately because my skin was exposed. This is fact about temperature regulation. You say the third eye lid has no function. Well this is from www.sciencedirect.com and I quote



Are you saying science is wrong and telling a lie?

When you touch your hair, it is you skin that is responding to that touch (depending on the location of the hair you touch). If you have a full head of hair, you won't feel sh*t when you touch your hair. Your hair is not a sensory organ.
The third eyelid in humans (incomplete as it is) is a remnant from the evolutionary process. Cats and dogs possess a fully functional third eyelid that performs those functions you listed.
The plica semilunaris of conjunctiva is a vestigial remnant of a nictitating membrane in humans. (wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nictitating_membrane)

A benevolent God would chastise prior to punishment and this is how it has been. You are drifting away from the purpose of your own OP.

to chastise is to reprimand or punish..so i don't know what you're trying to say here.

Deformities can serve as a lesson to all because man is inherently wicked. At least today these deformities have given attention to the need for greater restraint and more dialogue unlike how it used to be.

If i had the power to do anything, there would be infinitely simpler ways to punish man's wickedness. Man was created by god according to you. Whence comes his inherent wickedness? If man was indeed created in the image and likeness of god, whence comes all the evil? Or does god have an evil side also?
the point of bringing this up is that god is an extremely contradictory element that cannot exist and operate within the given principles that man has claimed. god would have created a species of extremely intelligent and pure creatures if he did exist.

Besides women are not inflicted with bleeding as you would want it to look like a terrible thing.
You should thank it for that bleeding because it is a self cleaning process for where you lay in your mothers womb before you were born. Its like having your own personal Butler or cleaner in the womb who prepared the place specially to be ready to accommodate you. Without that "inflicted" bleeding, you wouldn't be here.

I know very well what the bleeding does and why women bleed. I do not see it as a terrible thing. Maybe you should read my post again.
For your perusal (Leveticus 15:19&20 - Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.)
The point of mentioning this is that if god exists, he is not just... and if you claim he is just, then he doesn't exist.
you claim he created all beings... he created man and woman.. why then pronounce the woman unclean when her body performs a function that you deliberately put there? The bible and religion as a whole was created by men who intended and succeeded in subjugating women for millenniums.

author=DeLioncourt post=66876947]

Death indeed is a part of life. However, I wouldn't want harm to come to the one I love. If I had a cow as a pet, I wouldn't kill it to eat just because I love beef. Your counter here is baseless.
Man will die eventually of old age... why does god's self cleansing system have to cut lives short in order to function. That points to either a design flaw or just natural occurring phenomenon that was not designed by a god.

There is absolutely no design flaw because like you said, death will eventually come to all be they young or old so if the process is via natural disasters how does that matter? Is death via natural disasters any different from any other death? Is it different from death by car crash or plane crash or a man falling from a great height? Will you blame God for car crashes and plane crashes too? This is what you do not realise. Natural disasters are not really what kills people. What kills people in such scenarios is deliberate inability to heed warnings. Example. We have instruments that detect impending earthquakes, impending hurricanes, impending tsunamis and impending earthquakes for sake of early warnings and so people can be quickly evacuated. Its on record that many for sentimental reasons refuse to evacuate so get caught in the problem. In such a scenario would you blame God or blame the sturborness of man?

My statement about man being mediocre did not in any way imply that man cannot develop. Development is a process of evolution. Rats did evolve over time with documented evidence.. (http://www.ratbehavior.org/history.htm) (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4840-rat-genome-reveals-supercharged-evolution/).
Man did not always have the level of intelligence he exhibits now. The early men that drew hieroglyphics were limited by their abilities...evolution brought about advances in art...picasso, da vinci, rafael, michaelangelo.. those prominent artists were also limited in their abilities...further evolution has brought about hyper-realistic art.. the kind of art da vinci would drool over. (https://www.demilked.com/hyperreal-pencil-drawings-nigerian-arinze-stanley/) This is simply proof of evolution and not design.

Art evolved and not man. Man still had the same limbs he used in making hieroglyphics as the ones used by da vinci or Michelangelo. Do not get it twisted, it was simply art which evolved/ changed/ improved and not man. You seem to think evolution as it were has anything to do with inanimate objects. Can an inanimate art change or evolve? Rats are not you and since you claim rats evolved over time at what point did man overtake the evolution of rats and begin to do what rats could not do like have intelligence, construct, Design, study, beautify, etc?

.

When you touch your hair, it is you skin that is responding to that touch (depending on the location of the hair you touch). If you have a full head of hair, you won't feel sh*t when you touch your hair. Your hair is not a sensory organ.
The third eyelid in humans (incomplete as it is) is a remnant from the evolutionary process. Cats and dogs possess a fully functional third eyelid that performs those functions you listed.
The plica semilunaris of conjunctiva is a vestigial remnant of a nictitating membrane in humans. (wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nictitating_membrane)

Allow me educate you. The entire nervous system is interconnected. Nerve cells stretch from the spinal cord to the hair follicle cells. Your hair is a whole component of your nervous system, so when you pull it up that puts pressure on the nerve endings that are at the root of the follicle. In case you do not understand what I just said let me make it simpler. Your hair is a part of your nervous system. Period. If you still do not understand it then sorry.

to chastise is to reprimand or punish..so i don't know what you're trying to say here

To chastise is to correct and if punishment is needed to aid correction then it is the sole discretion of the one chastising after weighing the offense. Same thing is applicable to a criminal and the judge. Degree of offense determines sentencing.
.

If i had the power to do anything, there would be infinitely simpler ways to punish man's wickedness. Man was created by god according to you. Whence comes his inherent wickedness? If man was indeed created in the image and likeness of god, whence comes all the evil? Or does god have an evil side also?
the point of bringing this up is that god is an extremely contradictory element that cannot exist and operate within the given principles that man has claimed. god would have created a species of extremely intelligent and pure creatures if he did exist.

Man cannot lay claim to have principles he can place God on. God rather has principles man is to live by. This is not a man bossing God game its a case of the porter being in charge of his clay.

Man became inherently wicked when disobedience became a part of man. This is elementary. Originally man wasn't inherently wicked and was blind to the vices as it were but disobedience opened the door or their eyes to the vices they should not have known. That's why the bible says, break the hedge and the serpent will bit. A little leven leveneth the lump or little foxes spoil the vine. All mean the same thing.

I know very well what the bleeding does and why women bleed. I do not see it as a terrible thing. Maybe you should read my post again.
For your perusal (Leveticus 15:19&20 - Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.)

The word to note is CEREMONIAL. Today it is always a disgusting sight to see a woman in her period with blood stains on her behind due to inadequate padding or using the wrong stuff to stem the flow. You will agree that it is not a good sight to see and when she lays or sits on anything it is most likely to be stained by her flow which by the way smells and is stale. This is because it is removing redundant old skin from the womb and at this time women with not so clean sanitary habits tend to have body odour but today we have sanitary pads being used to you would never know when a woman is seeing her period unless she tells you. This was not so in those days. How did they stem the flow effectively. Of course a woman would be seen as unclean until she completely stops bleeding so her attraction would not be compromised. This however does not affect the reason for the bleeding. I already told you why it must be so in my other post and my point stands.

The point of mentioning this is that if god exists, he is not just... and if you claim he is just, then he doesn't exist.
you claim he created all beings... he created man and woman.. why then pronounce the woman unclean when her body performs a function that you deliberately put there? The bible and religion as a whole was created by men who intended and succeeded in subjugating women for millenniums.

She is declared unclean for her own good and self esteem purposes and not to debase her. Would you like to see the flow of your girlfriend (if you have one) staining her clothes or the seat she just got up from and people frowning at her as if she does not know how to take care of herself or did not know when it started?

Its the same thing. If today people frown at such sights then that's the same implication in Leviticus.

The bible was written but not by mans inspiration. Man was simply a tool to a higher plan. And the bible does not subjugate women.If it were so then we would not have people like Deborah in Judges 4 who ruled over israel, or Esther who single handedly saved her people from death or Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, Tirzah, Priscilla, Mary Magdalene, The Samaritan woman who was the first evangelist, Mary of Bethany, Jehosheba, Miriam, Achsah, daughter of Caleb, The 4 daughters of Phillip the Evangelist
who had the gift of prophecy and their ministry is mentioned in the Book of Acts, etc

DeLionCourt I am yet to see your cogent proof for the non existence of God. All I have seen so far are simply you complaining and ranting but not articulating your points as I thought you would.

DeLionCourt I would also like for you to respond to this post of mine below

DeLioncourt just to buttress my point on "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I will use your vestigial organs angle.

Once upon a time it was said that about 86 organs in the human body were vestigial and this declaration was because their functions were not yet known so based on this LACK OF KNOWLEDGE they made that profound statement in ignorance.

Several years later as science advanced, they began to discover the functions of these once thought vestigial organs and one by one began to tick them off the list of 86 until today we have about 5 left and I believe these 5 would sooner or later be also ticked off the list as their functions are revealed.

Would you say absence of evidence regarding the 81 formerly vestigial organs made them true that they were vestigial?

#FoodForThought.

Delioncourt when you are ready to forge ahead let me know and you would do well to sanitize your thread while at it. I know some would rather have you walk away perhaps due to their personal issues or perhaps they sense something you don't so would rather derail this thread as much as possible.

If you wish to walk away, its your call. I will however not be triggered by those who wish to derail the thread.

I am ready whenever you are.

Butterflyleo:


God does not need to be everywhere literally to be everywhere. Creation speaks of his existence so we can say he is in his creation and his creation is in him. Its like asking is the universe existing outside God or in God and we can say that the universe exists in God. Its like a being too vast and too great that he sees everything inside out, outside in, upside down, right side up, backwards, forwards, in every and from every direction at the same time. This is not impossible to acknowledge because analytic computers do this all the time at their own level.

Now you're just grasping at straws... omnipresence simply means - (of God) present everywhere at the same time. Now he doesn't have to be everywhere literally to be everywhere? What are you saying?
If you claim omnipresence for god, then he has to be everywhere... if you claim omniscience, then he has to know everything and absolutely everything. If he cannot be in hell (that we can say he created), then he isn't omnipresent..and if he isn't omnipresent, that means he isn't all powerful.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. The key here is to look for the kind of evidence that is available and not to imagine one that you can never get due to the prevalent parameters. For example you cannot make a demand on a God who created you by asking for what you term irrefutable evidence when he has already done so but you are just blind to it. So many see this evidence for Gods existence through creation and those who do would argue against your claim and they are right. You would argue against theirs and you are right because its all about perception as I earlier said. Your saying there is no evidence defeats your premise that you have evidence that god or God does not exist. You can't say with one voice you have evidence and then say that there is no evidence. That's wrong on so many levels.

Why can't I demand proof of existence? Why does your employer ask for your birth certificate even when he can see you? why doesn't he just take your word for it? Who says you cannot request a DNA test to ascertain if your parents are actually your parents? And if there is irrefutable evidence to god's existence, why can't we see it? If you can, show it to me.
There is evidence to the law governing gravity. If you throw a rock up, it will come down 99.9% of the time.
In simpler terms, your abilities as a programmer remain non-existent until you prove that you can indeed write programs.
Your abilities to levitate are non-existent until you actually do levitate.

Its perfectly logical to say God exists and that is because

1) GOD MAKES SENSE OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

The fact is, by scientific standards, human existence is as good as not possible. Advances in cosmological science over the back half of the 20th century began to show that when the universe came into existence, the fundamental forces it came with were apparently ‘fine-tuned’ to allow for the appearance of life.
Some fundamental numbers, such as the force of gravity, the rate of expansion of the universe and the ratio of electrons to protons in the universe, are so exquisitely balanced that the smallest changes from their actual value would mean that a life permitting universe could not possibly exist.

For instance the cosmological constant (the dark energy density of the universe) is fine-tuned within 1 part in 10/120. If it had been wide of that tiny mark then the universe would either have expanded too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form or it would have collapsed in on itself before anything formed.
Perhaps the most impressive example is the initial distribution of mass energy to give the low entropy throughout the universe necessary for life. The fine tuning is 1 part in 1010(123). If you took a sheet of paper and filled it with zeros, then reproduced zeros on sheets of paper lined up across the entire universe, 15 billion light years across, that number would still be smaller than 1010(123).
These then are the odds of the correct constants, numbers and forces arising by chance. When you combine all the other odds of the other fundamental forces together, it becomes impossible to believe that our life-permitting universe is a product of chance.

As if that wasn't enough, modern cosmology has thrown up a second major shocker. The universe has not always existed. In fact, our best theories suggest that energy, space, matter, and even time itself, came into existence around 14 billion years ago in a sudden period of expansion, known as the Big Bang

So, your argument is that since this earth seems fine-tuned to accommodate human life, god must invariably exist?
Using your line of argument against you, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Science is yet to discover life on other planets... however, we haven't ruled out the possibilities. Over the decades, several distant planets that are light years away have been discovered that show potential to support some form of life.. the kepler-186f for example. It has been referred to as earth's cousin because it is in the habitable zone of it's star. So, it could indeed habit other forms of life unknown to us. Time and advances in science(not god) will tell.

The existence of human life does not prove that god exists.

2) GOD MAKES SENSE OF HUMAN VALUE

Why should humans have any more claim for special regard on the biological tree of life than a lice? There’s nothing intrinsically special about us in a universe that is blindly obeying the laws of nature.

Any beliefs in objective human rights, values and morality are ultimately an illusion, a side effect of our evolutionary history.
Why then do we feel that view of humanity to do bad is so wrong?

I believe it’s because we have the value of our Maker imprinted on us. Genesis 1:27 says that God created humans ‘in his own image’. That gives humans infinite worth. Anything else makes human worth a commodity, and makes some people disposable.

Your argument for human value is from the bible. The bible's veracity cannot be verified and therefore nullifies your argument. Winston Churchill said - History is written by the victors. The bible was written by people who wanted us to hold certain pernicious beliefs.
The biological tree of life also known as the evolutionary tree of life was produced by Charles Darwin - an atheist.

Not only humans can define and differentiate right from wrong. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html) Are wolves and coyotes also imprinted with the values of the maker?
Different animals have been proven to exhibit ethical behavior in a sense of it. But yet, we kill them for food and sell them like they are commodities...even when they display the values you falsely regard as strictly human.

3) GOD MAKES SENSE OF HUMAN PURPOSE.

Quoting Richard Dawkins he said



And he is absolutely righr. If there is no God. If atheism is true then there is no ultimate right or wrong, there is no reason to do anything. All human endeavours and self made purposes will ultimately be gone and forgotten in the future. As the universe continues to expand and its energy dissipates, all that will eventually be left is a cold, sterile void with no memory of our brief existence.

But as far as I am concerned, I see a very different universe to the one Dawkins sees Where the atheist sees only physical processes and laws that give rise to illusions of morality and free will, I see real beauty, truth, love, good and evil, purpose to life, freedom to choose and ultimate hope.

Although this cannot be proven scientifically. But I can show through the universal experience of all humans who have a yearning for something beyond our physical existence for ultimate purpose, value and meaning.

The things you see; beauty, truth, love, good and bad...can all exist without the concept of god. Like I have pointed out above, animals display a knowledge of good and bad... they also display love. Ants display purpose as do certain birds. All animals have freedom to choose... some cats hunt mice and kill them, mine don't. Some cats are mischievous and will steal from pots, some won't. (I use cats because I have cats). Female lions have been shown to make the choice of remaining with a pride after a takeover or leaving to join another pride. Yet these animals don't in the least bit exhibit a knowledge or belief in god. This simply points to the fact that all these things you see and attribute to the existence of god can indeed exist without him.
god has never been the reason for technological advancements... the cellphone was not designed because of god..it was designed as a result of the need to communicate. medicine to treat illnesses were not as a result of god. the people that came up with these advancements that we blissfully enjoy and foolishly attribute to god, did so out of necessity in most cases and not an inherent purpose.
Left to religion, there will be little or no technological progress. the church will obviously not have sponsored the hubble telescope or space exploration.
Many scientists and illustrious people have demonstrated purpose and achieved great things without believing in the existence of god. Darwin, Einstein, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell and Michael Ruse to name a few... god was never and is still not needed for humans and animals to have a purpose or yearn for a better life.

Regarding prayer, we can attest to the fact that murderers, killers, homicidal maniacs, perverts, suicidal people, armed robbers, prostitutes, many more people of diabolical or evil beginnings have been changed through the power of intercession aka prayer and even you cannot deny this. The principle of God is not an immediate universal change but an individual deliberate change so everyone would be individually accountable for his or her actions. My repentance cannot cover my friend who refuses to repent. He has to learn from me and become a better person. Its a deliberate accountable chain reaction and successfully instills self values and self worth as against an imposed change.

as to the power of prayer, i will refer you to the 2006 study on the power of intercessory prayer that was initiated and carried out by a team which included staunch believers in god. read it up and see how woefully it failed. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567).

The principle of God is not an immediate universal change but an individual deliberate change you say, then i'll refer you to the conversion of Saul to Paul from the bible... his change wasn't gradual.

Ironically God was not the one who fought those battles and the ones he instructed to be dealt with was out of judgement and nothing more. (I speak for Yahweh here and not Islam) Christianity and terrorism are not to be placed in the same room because Christianity teaches peace and not war. It teaches patience, kindness, goodness, if your enemy asks you for a cup of water or food or shelter give him. Render not cursing for cursing etc. It is peaceable.

I can also say that even more countless lives have been lost to a lack of belief in God than a belief in God. This I say authoritatively because it is fact that in the last 100 years the world has experienced about 50 atheist leaders who based on their lack of belief in God took very gory actions against their citizens of which a name stands out among them. His name is Mao Zedong. He was the atheist leader of China as at 1949 or so and it is on record that he brought about communism into China and ruled that Christianity must be expunged and the idea of God annihilated and within 4years he succeeded in carrying out between 40million to 80million murders and killings of anyone. who stood against his atheistic agenda and it was solely because of him that the word Democide was originated because Genocide could no longer accurately cover his actions and when all the other atheist leaders death counts were added up it showed that they had almost 300million murders and killings combined and this record in just 100 years far outweighed the record of deaths through religion, or wars IN HISTORY

The graph image is attached. So I can say a lack of belief in God has caused more harm than a belief in God.

Christianity and Terrorism - i will simply refer you to;
The gunpowder plot,
the pogroms,
the KKK,
God's army in myanmar,
the Maronite Christian militias of lebanon
The National Liberation Front of Tripura in India
The Walisongo school massacre that happened in Indonesia
Ilaga in the phillipines
The Russian Orthodox Army
The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda..
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord in the USA
Defensive Action, the Montana Freemen also in the USA

Creation isn't pointless if it was, you wouldn't be sitting where you are and typing what you are typing. My point here is that purpose got you to this point of being able to even type or even access the web. Omniscient simply means all knowing and all knowing can cause actions to be deliberate and seen as a no threat situation after all he knows the end from the beginning. Lucifer isn't a threat to God and also not a threat to Gods creation (those who know God and serve him) are the ones I refer to. If you see him as a threat its because you do not know God and neither do you serve him.

First of all, I don't believe in lucifer or any such superstition. I only mention it because you believe in his existence.
Second, i have a question for you.. according to you, god wants man to learn to be good right? then explain the flood. the bible clearly says that god destroyed the world and all humanity (except noah and his folk) because of their violence and evil. Are we to believe that man is less evil today than then? Didn't god in his omniscience know that noah (who was righteous and blameless) and the people he saved on the ark were only going to procreate and lead to another sinful and violent generation?? Or does he enjoy the process... and why was he remorseful about the whole flood thing and promise never to do it again after he had done it? did he not foreknow the outcome?

Gen 9v14-16 (Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”)
Does this mean god can forget?? He needs to see the rainbow to remember?
A myriad of inconsistencies that smell of fiction that wasn't properly thought through.

Freewill is such a perfect thing. It isn't for God but for us as people because it would help build our values and show our seriousness when options are placed before us. Of course we are free to choose not to go with the good options and go with the bad. Not a problem for God after all he already gave reasons why you should choose the good.

A good example is like this,

A scientist goes into his lab to run an experiment whose outcome he already has an expectation about. He now places 5 rabbits in a cage and on one end he places carrots while on the other he places water. He expects the rabbits to crave the carrots and prove his theory or omniscience correct but the rabbits end up doing a 2 to 3 split. 2 going for the carrots and 3 going for the water. Should he be disappointed? It simply shows that man has the ability to choose what he thinks is best for him at that time even if that is not what the scientist would want but also because the scientist is omniscient he also knows the water may not be the best thing for the rabbits as at that time because he is the one running the experiment so knows the steps he wishes to take after the first step even when the rabbits have no idea.

I have to say this again, freewill is not for God but it is for men and I say this because you talk about preknown results of football matches or your actions for 20years are foreknown. Freewill means YOU CAN CHANGE THOSE ACTIONS hopefully for good based on the pointers or options you have been given.

Your scientist analogy is not a good one and i will tell you why.
Your scientist expects the rabbits to go to the carrots..but he doesn't know that they will. Omniscience suggests that he knows that 2 will go to the carrots and 3 to the water.
Let me give you a simple example of omniscience.
Quentin Tarantino writes a mindblowing movie with crazy twists and turns. As a movie watcher, you can only guess what will happen while you watch. You can only make educated assumptions based on previous Tarantino movies you have watched or based on the behavior of the characters.
However, Tarantino himself will be omniscient as far as the movie is concerned. He will know what every character will do, when they will do it and how they will do it. He will know who dies and who lives...because he wrote it. Because he is the god of that movie...the creator.

If his characters can decide to change what happens in the movie, this defies his omnipotence. Immediately one character deviates from script, Tarantino is no longer omniscient...but that can't happen because he wrote the movie.

Another example... games.
Games like Shadow of Mordor, Mass effect and a host of others have different storylines to keep the players engaged. You can finish the game, start over and experience a whole different thing. The gamer doesn't know all the possible endings... only the game designer does. The game designer implemented all the scenarios via code, so he knows what will happen when a player decides to do one thing or another.
The characters in that game have no freewill...the gamers themselves have no freewill (in the real sense of the word) as far as that game is concerned, because whatever they do will lead to an already pre-designed end. If a character is meant to die (according to the game story line), nothing the player or character can do will change that eventuality.

This applies to the god hypothesis and humanity's freewill. We cannot have freewill if god is omniscient. And god cannot be omniscient if we have freewill. They don't follow.
And if god doesn't have omniscience, it means he is flawed and does not live up to the god status which he has been ascribed... meaning he is all powerful or does not exist.


I will be remiss if I didn't add this:
For now, it will remain impossible to prove the non-existence of god 100% or to prove his existence 100%.
Every argument against can be countered by adding some supernatural clause e.g. why can't we see god - because he's a spirit. why can't we find heaven - because god doesn't intend us to and it isn't a physical place. why can't we hear god speak like he did in the old and new testament - because he has given us the spirit to guide us in the form of a still voice and what not.

I hope you get my point.


Also, you cannot fully disprove the existence of vishnu and krishna...zeus and aphrodite...venus and apollo..

But as Ralph Waldo Emerson said - “The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.”
Zeus and the rest are now seen as myths... the indian gods will soon go the same way... as sure as death is, the christian god will go the same way in future ages.

Butterflyleo:
DeLionCourt I am yet to see your cogent proof for the non existence of God. All I have seen so far are simply you complaining and ranting but not articulating your points as I thought you would.

And I am yet to see cogent proof of god's existence.
The thread says "Does God exist"...so i expect you will present cogent proof of his existence too.

author=DeLioncourt post=66880506]

Now you're just grasping at straws... omnipresence simply means - (of God) present everywhere at the same time. Now he doesn't have to be everywhere literally to be everywhere? What are you saying?
If you claim omnipresence for god, then he has to be everywhere... if you claim omniscience, then he has to know everything and absolutely everything. If he cannot be in hell (that we can say he created), then he isn't omnipresent..and if he isn't omnipresent, that means he isn't all powerful.

Let me explain EVERYWHERE to you. You seem to think it means he is divided into billions of parts and then spread out into every little space available. No.

Everywhere means everything exists in him. The bible says IT IS BY HIM WE MOVE, WE BREATH AND HAVE OUR BEING. in others words since everything is in him he does not need to be everywhere literally because he is already everything.

Why can't I demand proof of existence? Why does your employer ask for your birth certificate even when he can see you? why doesn't he just take your word for it? Who says you cannot request a DNA test to ascertain if your parents are actually your parents? And if there is irrefutable evidence to god's existence, why can't we see it? If you can, show it to me.
There is evidence to the law governing gravity. If you throw a rock up, it will come down 99.9% of the time.
In simpler terms, your abilities as a programmer remain non-existent until you prove that you can indeed write programs.
Your abilities to levitate are non-existent until you actually do levitate.

You said you had proof of non existence and not the other way around. I will cut this short, the employer here is God and you are his subject whether you like it or not and since you exist in him, all you can do is talk while still acting our your script. This is one of the reasons man discovers and not creates. Things have been here working in sync before we came on the scene and discovered them and confirmed that they were in sync hence we harnessed them. Those things which have existed in sync before we came are more or less a DNA footprint to an intelligence behind the scenes which we did not influence and cannot control. They speak and those who wish to understand who its speaking about understand.

So, your argument is that since this earth seems fine-tuned to accommodate human life, god must invariably exist?
Using your line of argument against you, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Science is yet to discover life on other planets... however, we haven't ruled out the possibilities. Over the decades, several distant planets that are light years away have been discovered that show potential to support some form of life.. the kepler-186f for example. It has been referred to as earth's cousin because it is in the habitable zone of it's star. So, it could indeed habit other forms of life unknown to us. Time and advances in science(not god) will tell.

There is no such thing as " seems to be fine tuned to accommodate life" it is totally fine tuned to accommodate life. From the way plants recycle our emission to give us oxygen we breathe, to the way the rivers and seas cooperate in the filtering the earths water supply, to how bacteria helps us survive, to how shifts in weathers conditions help hydrate our planet and by extension what we eat to live, to how the sun helps our planet with light and energy for plants and also how the moon helps our planet with regulation of seasons and temperature of our planet etc. There is too much harmony to overlook so it is in perfect sync and not otherwise. If and when we ever discover life on any other planet then that would change a lot of things. First of all NASA began broadcasting messages in different formats to space hoping that they would be intercepted and replied to by other life forms out there. Nothing happened. Now they wish to explore physically, still nothing yet so you are going to grow old before that would ever be a reality but you can keep hoping.

The existence of human life does not prove that god exists.

The existence of creativity, purpose, value, beauty, appreciation, love, desire, in man proves that we did not come here by chance. I quoted CS lewis earlier so let me quote him again

"A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. People feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

Your argument for human value is from the bible. The bible's veracity cannot be verified and therefore nullifies your argument. Winston Churchill said - History is written by the victors. The bible was written by people who wanted us to hold certain pernicious beliefs.
The biological tree of life also known as the evolutionary tree of life was produced by Charles Darwin - an atheist.

Not only humans can define and differentiate right from wrong. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html) Are wolves and coyotes also imprinted with the values of the maker?
Different animals have been proven to exhibit ethical behavior in a sense of it. But yet, we kill them for food and sell them like they are commodities...even when they display the values you falsely regard as strictly human.

My argument for human value is not from the bible but from simple every day observation. If there was no purpose to life then why do we live? If evolution which is purposeless brought us here then where did our purpose and values come from? This is simple enough.

I am not speaking about animals. I speak for humans. I do recognise that you feel humans are animals but I disagree. There are many areas animals have no values, why are we opposite to them in those areas?

The things you see; beauty, truth, love, good and bad...can all exist without the concept of god. Like I have pointed out above, animals display a knowledge of good and bad... they also display love. Ants display purpose as do certain birds. All animals have freedom to choose... some cats hunt mice and kill them, mine don't. Some cats are mischievous and will steal from pots, some won't. (I use cats because I have cats). Female lions have been shown to make the choice of remaining with a pride after a takeover or leaving to join another pride. Yet these animals don't in the least bit exhibit a knowledge or belief in god. This simply points to the fact that all these things you see and attribute to the existence of god can indeed exist without him.
god has never been the reason for technological advancements... the cellphone was not designed because of god..it was designed as a result of the need to communicate. medicine to treat illnesses were not as a result of god. the people that came up with these advancements that we blissfully enjoy and foolishly attribute to god, did so out of necessity in most cases and not an inherent purpose.

None of the above can exist without God. Why would they? To what end? If there was no purpose to anything then why beauty, love, truth, good, bad, why any of those things if we simply just exist for the sake of it? We were designed to show Gods praise same way a cell phone was designed to display the technological prowess of its maker.

Left to religion, there will be little or no technological progress. the church will obviously not have sponsored the hubble telescope or space exploration.

Ironically religion birthed science. You need to know your history. Atheists were philosophers aka talkatives when religion was immersed in science. Again know your history.

Many scientists and illustrious people have demonstrated purpose and achieved great things without believing in the existence of god. Darwin, Einstein, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell and Michael Ruse to name a few... god was never and is still not needed for humans and animals to have a purpose or yearn for a better life.

Many more scientists have demonstrated purpose and achieved far greater things by believing in the existence of God because to them it was due to their attempts to show the glory of Gods creation that made them make scientific discoveries and become scientists they are too many to list out but you can view them and the ground breaking scientific breakthroughs here.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

as to the power of prayer, i will refer you to the 2006 study on the power of intercessory prayer that was initiated and carried out by a team which included staunch believers in god. read it up and see how woefully it failed. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567).

Lmao you need to first of all understand a simply thing. Science cannot prove or disprove God. Science cannot be used to test spiritual operations but only physical which is why it is based on empiricism and nothing more. Prayer is a spiritual action and by extension they wanted to out God to test. Even the bible says " Do not put the Lord your God to test" that's in Deuteronomy. God is not admissible in a scientific lab because he does not subscribe to science and neither does science subscribe to God. However science can be used to show the glory of God IN THIS UNIVERSE and not beyond.

[s]The principle of God is not an immediate universal change but an individual deliberate change you say, then i'll refer you to the conversion of Saul to Paul from the bible... his change wasn't gradual.[/s]

Christianity and Terrorism - i will simply refer you to;
The gunpowder plot,
the pogroms,
the KKK,
God's army in myanmar,
the Maronite Christian militias of lebanon
The National Liberation Front of Tripura in India
The Walisongo school massacre that happened in Indonesia
Ilaga in the phillipines
The Russian Orthodox Army
The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda..
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord in the USA
Defensive Action, the Montana Freemen also in the USA

You just don't get it do you. There is a law that binds Christianity same way there is a law that binds any nation. Anyone who contravenes that law has committed a crime against the originator of the law. No Christian engages in terrorism. It is a non sequitur.

First of all, I don't believe in lucifer or any such superstition. I only mention it because you believe in his existence.
Second, i have a question for you.. according to you, god wants man to learn to be good right? then explain the flood. the bible clearly says that god destroyed the world and all humanity (except noah and his folk) because of their violence and evil. Are we to believe that man is less evil today than then? Didn't god in his omniscience know that noah (who was righteous and blameless) and the people he saved on the ark were only going to procreate and lead to another sinful and violent generation?? Or does he enjoy the process... and why was he remorseful about the whole flood thing and promise never to do it again after he had done it? did he not foreknow the outcome?

Gen 9v14-16 (Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”)
Does this mean god can forget?? He needs to see the rainbow to remember?

Good question. The days of judgement are different from the days of grace. Judgement are for those who err and not for the righteous which was why Noah and his household were exempted. Also since he is omniscient he already had a plan for redemption and the great flood will look like the second coming of christ. Same way the ark saved Noah and the animals would be same way anyone who enters into Christ would be saved from the impending doom. It was a lesson for those of us who were yet to come.

A myriad of inconsistencies that smell of fiction that wasn't properly thought through.

None that I see

Your scientist analogy is not a good one and i will tell you why.
Your scientist expects the rabbits to go to the carrots..but he doesn't know that they will. Omniscience suggests that he knows that 2 will go to the carrots and 3 to the water.
Let me give you a simple example of omniscience.
Quentin Tarantino writes a mindblowing movie with crazy twists and turns. As a movie watcher, you can only guess what will happen while you watch. You can only make educated assumptions based on previous Tarantino movies you have watched or based on the behavior of the characters.
However, Tarantino himself will be omniscient as far as the movie is concerned. He will know what every character will do, when they will do it and how they will do it. He will know who dies and who lives...because he wrote it. Because he is the god of that movie...the creator.

If his characters can decide to change what happens in the movie, this defies his omnipotence. Immediately one character deviates from script, Tarantino is no longer omniscient...but that can't happen because he wrote the movie.

Remember I talked about you acting out an already given script earlier? Well God is that movie director and you are the cast. But in this movie despite being given a script and expecting to trust the movie director regarding the outcome of the movie, you have the freewill to change what you don't like but this would mean you do not have faith in the directors direction or ability and that is what is happening today. So trust, faith is key, dump it and you lose out on your reward if you had only acted out the script in accordance to how you were given.

Another example... games.
Games like Shadow of Mordor, Mass effect and a host of others have different storylines to keep the players engaged. You can finish the game, start over and experience a whole different thing. The gamer doesn't know all the possible endings... only the game designer does. The game designer implemented all the scenarios via code, so he knows what will happen when a player decides to do one thing or another.
The characters in that game have no freewill...the gamers themselves have no freewill (in the real sense of the word) as far as that game is concerned, because whatever they do will lead to an already pre-designed end. If a character is meant to die (according to the game story line), nothing the player or character can do will change that eventuality.

Refer to the above.

This applies to the god hypothesis and humanity's freewill. We cannot have freewill if god is omniscient. And god cannot be omniscient if we have freewill. They don't follow.
And if god doesn't have omniscience, it means he is flawed and does not live up to the god status which he has been ascribed... meaning he is all powerful or does not exist.

Refer to the above

I will be remiss if I didn't add this:
For now, it will remain impossible to prove the non-existence of god 100% or to prove his existence 100%.
Every argument against can be countered by adding some supernatural clause e.g. why can't we see god - because he's a spirit. why can't we find heaven - because god doesn't intend us to and it isn't a physical place. why can't we hear god speak like he did in the old and new testament - because he has given us the spirit to guide us in the form of a still voice and what not.

I hope you get my point.

Logic presupposes science as I said earlier and logic is endless and is all about perspectives. I will keep refuting your points till eternity because that is how logic works. We do see God and hear him. Its you who does not. That's not any fault of those who do.

Every scientific experiment needs to have a proper test environment and certain parameters met for the expected result to be seen. If you do not meet with the parameters laid down by God then why would you expect to see him. Can evil see a Good God? You are earthly so if you wish to see God then you must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Also, you cannot fully disprove the existence of vishnu and krishna...zeus and aphrodite...venus and apollo..

But as Ralph Waldo Emerson said - “The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.”
Zeus and the rest are now seen as myths... the indian gods will soon go the same way... as sure as death is, the christian god will go the same way in future ages.

I never said I wanted to disprove Vishnu or Zeus or Aphrodite etc that was you and not me.

Only truth stands the test of time. For thousands of years Yahweh has withstood every onslaught released on him. Such that any of the gods you listed above never experienced and rather than die, he waxed stronger and it was the attackers themselves who died and faded away.

If you seriously think what you wish for would happen then you need to wake up from your dreams.

DeLioncourt:


And I am yet to see cogent proof of god's existence.
The thread says "Does God exist"...so i expect you will present cogent proof of his existence too.

I never said I wished to prove God to you did I? You said you wished to disprove Gods existence to me with evidence you have.

Butterflyleo:


Let me explain EVERYWHERE to you. You seem to think it means he is divided into billions of parts and then spread out into every little space available. No.

Everywhere means everything exists in him. The bible says IT IS BY HIM WE MOVE, WE BREATH AND HAVE OUR BEING. in others words since everything is in him he does not need to be everywhere literally because he is already everything.





You said you had proof of non existence and not the other way around. I will cut this short, the employer here is God and you are his subject whether you like it or not and since you exist in him, all you can do is talk while still acting our your script. This is one of the reasons man discovers and not creates. Things have been here working in sync before we came on the scene and discovered them and confirmed that they were in sync hence we harnessed them. Those things which have existed in sync before we came are more or less a DNA footprint to an intelligence behind the scenes which we did not influence and cannot control. They speak and those who wish to understand who its speaking about understand.





There is no such thing as " seems to be fine tuned to accommodate life" it is totally fine tuned to accommodate life. From the way plants recycle our emission to give us oxygen we breathe, to the way the rivers and seas cooperate in the filtering the earths water supply, to how bacteria helps us survive, to how shifts in weathers conditions help hydrate our planet and by extension what we eat to live, to how the sun helps our planet with light and energy for plants and also how the moon helps our planet with regulation of seasons and temperature of our planet etc. There is too much harmony to overlook so it is in perfect sync and not otherwise. If and when we ever discover life on any other planet then that would change a lot of things. First of all NASA began broadcasting messages in different formats to space hoping that they would be intercepted and replied to by other life forms out there. Nothing happened. Now they wish to explore physically, still nothing yet so you are going to grow old before that would ever be a reality but you can keep hoping.


The existence of creativity, purpose, value, beauty, appreciation, love, desire, in man proves that we did not come here by chance. I quoted CS lewis earlier so let me quote him again








My argument for human value is not from the bible but from simple every day observation. If there was no purpose to life then why do we live? If evolution which is purposeless brought us here then where did our purpose and values come from? This is simple enough.

I am not speaking about animals. I speak for humans. I do recognise that you feel humans are animals but I disagree. There are many areas animals have no values, why are we opposite to them in those areas?







None of the above can exist without God. Why would they? To what end? If there was no purpose to anything then why beauty, love, truth, good, bad, why any of those things if we simply just exist for the sake of it? We were designed to show Gods praise same way a cell phone was designed to display the technological prowess of its maker.



Ironically religion birthed science. You need to know your history. Atheists were philosophers aka talkatives when religion was immersed in science. Again know your history.



Many more scientists have demonstrated purpose and achieved far greater things by believing in the existence of God because to them it was due to their attempts to show the glory of Gods creation that made them make scientific discoveries and become scientists they are too many to list out but you can view them and the ground breaking scientific breakthroughs here.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology




Lmao you need to first of all understand a simply thing. Science cannot prove or disprove God. Science cannot be used to test spiritual operations but only physical which is why it is based on empiricism and nothing more. Prayer is a spiritual action and by extension they wanted to out God to test. Even the bible says " Do not put the Lord your God to test" that's in Deuteronomy. God is not admissible in a scientific lab because he does not subscribe to science and neither does science subscribe to God. However science can be used to show the glory of God IN THIS UNIVERSE and not beyond.

[s]The principle of God is not an immediate universal change but an individual deliberate change you say, then i'll refer you to the conversion of Saul to Paul from the bible... his change wasn't gradual.[/s]







You just don't get it do you. There is a law that binds Christianity same way there is a law that binds any nation. Anyone who contravenes that law has committed a crime against the originator of the law. No Christian engages in terrorism. It is a non sequitur.






Good question. The days of judgement are different from the days of grace. Judgement are for those who err and not for the righteous which was why Noah and his household were exempted. Also since he is omniscient he already had a plan for redemption and the great flood will look like the second coming of christ. Same way the ark saved Noah and the animals would be same way anyone who enters into Christ would be saved from the impending doom. It was a lesson for those of us who were yet to come.



None that I see







Remember I talked about you acting out an already given script earlier? Well God is that movie director and you are the cast. But in this movie despite being given a script and expecting to trust the movie director regarding the outcome of the movie, you have the freewill to change what you don't like but this would mean you do not have faith in the directors direction or ability and that is what is happening today. So trust, faith is key, dump it and you lose out on your reward if you had only acted out the script in accordance to how you were given.



Refer to the above.



Refer to the above




Logic presupposes science as I said earlier and logic is endless and is all about perspectives. I will keep refuting your points till eternity because that is how logic works. We do see God and hear him. Its you who does not. That's not any fault of those who do.

Every scientific experiment needs to have a proper test environment and certain parameters met for the expected result to be seen. If you do not meet with the parameters laid down by God then why would you expect to see him. Can evil see a Good God? You are earthly so if you wish to see God then you must worship him in spirit and in truth.




I never said I wanted to disprove Vishnu or Zeus or Aphrodite etc that was you and not me.

Only truth stands the test of time. For thousands of years Yahweh has withstood every onslaught released on him. Such that any of the gods you listed above never experienced and rather than die, he waxed stronger and it was the attackers themselves who died and faded away.

If you seriously think what you wish for would happen then you need to wake up from your dreams.

Then we are done here.
Until science creates man from scratch without the normal birthing process, there would always be some illogical statement or set of statements to proclaim the existence of god and/or other supernatural entities.
Your reason for me not seeing or hearing from god is that I don't believe in him...but once again, quoting your Bible, Paul wasn't a believer...he was even a persecutor...yet he heard clearly.
There will always be some lame excuse as to why some men can "hear" from God and others can't.

It was nice debating with you. I learnt a couple of things.
Peace.

where's muttleylaff when you need some popcorn.

DeLioncourt:


Then we are done here.
Until science creates man from scratch without the normal birthing process, there would always be some illogical statement or set of statements to proclaim the existence of god and/or other supernatural entities.
Your reason for me not seeing or hearing from god is that I don't believe in him...but once again, quoting your Bible, Paul wasn't a believer...he was even a persecutor...yet he heard clearly.
There will always be some lame excuse as to why some men can "hear" from God and others can't.

It was nice debating with you. I learnt a couple of things.
Peace.

Talking about science CREATING man from scratch is just ridiculous and this is why.

There is an already existing blueprint to man and it is known as DNA. Science did not create it. Science met it. Before anyone can lay claim to creating man from scratch then he has to first create DNA from scratch which itself is a no go area.

Also pertaining to Paul, As Saul he was a believer. He was a Pharisee which means he was a custodian and a follower of the law aka old testament. And that was why he metted out judgement on those who blasphemed God according to the old testament requirements.

He was doing right by the old testament but Jesus was already on a new path so had to correct his error and bring him to the new path. He had every right to hear from God because he obeyed the law. Simple.

He however was not required to continue in the law.

Paul had the right parameters met while you do not have such.

It was nice debating you too and as you can clearly see, your so called evidence for the lack of existence of God was nothing after all.

Peace

Butterflyleo:



Talking about science CREATING man from scratch is just ridiculous and this is why.

There is an already existing blueprint to man and it is known as DNA. Science did not create it. Science met it. Before anyone can lay claim to creating man from scratch then he has to first create DNA from scratch which itself is a no go area.

Also pertaining to Paul, As Saul he was a believer. He was a Pharisee which means he was a custodian and a follower of the law aka old testament. And that was why he metted out judgement on those who blasphemed God according to the old testament requirements.

He was doing right by the old testament but Jesus was already on a new path so had to correct his error and bring him to the new path. He had every right to hear from God because he obeyed the law. Simple.

He however was not required to continue in the law.

Paul had the right parameters met while you do not have such.

It was nice debating you too and as you can clearly see, your so called evidence for the lack of existence of God was nothing after all.

Peace

Oops... I spoke too soon.
They're almost there...if not there already.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831730-300-making-babies-how-to-create-human-embryos-with-no-egg-or-sperm/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=SOC&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1524221408

Butterflyleo:
Talking about science CREATING man from scratch is just ridiculous and this is why.

There is an already existing blueprint to man and it is known as DNA.
Science did not create it. Science met it.
Before anyone can lay claim to creating man from scratch then he has to first create DNA from scratch which itself is a no go area.
Also pertaining to Paul, As Saul he was a believer. He was a Pharisee which means he was a custodian and a follower of the law aka old testament.
And that was why he metted out judgement on those who blasphemed God according to the old testament requirements.

He was doing right by the old testament but Jesus was already on a new path so had to correct his error and bring him to the new path.
He had every right to hear from God because he obeyed the law. Simple.

He however was not required to continue in the law.

Paul had the right parameters met while you do not have such.

It was nice debating you too and as you can clearly see, your so called evidence for the lack of existence of God was nothing after all.

Peace

DeLioncourt:
Oops... I spoke too soon.
They're almost there...if not there already.

h t t p s:/ /w w w.newscientist.com/article/mg23831730-300-making-babies-how-to-create-human-embryos-with-no-egg-or-sperm/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=SOC&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1524221408

Except first create DNA from scratch as Butterflyleo put forward
anything less than that is just reverse engineering things

MuttleyLaff:


Except first create DNA from scratch as Butterflyleo put forward
anything less than that is just reverse engineering things

Like I said, there'll always be some illogical argument to defend the existence of god.

DeLioncourt:


Like I said, there'll always be some illogical argument to defend the existence of god.

And like I said, the existence of God is not illogical. Even the existence of god is not illogical how much more of God.

DeLioncourt:
Like I said, there'll always be some illogical argument to defend the existence of god.

Butterflyleo:
And like I said, the existence of God is not illogical. Even the existence of god is not illogical how much more of God.

Instead of all their black box analysis, copyright infringements and borrowed technology things going on,
like Butterflyleo said, let them start from scratch,
create, first, their OWN brand new skin cells or gametes to form a zygote, ultimately the embryo and what follows after