As a child of God

You can cast out Devils
You can resist Devils

But you can not kill Devils
You don't need to even abuse demons
No human has been given the power to kill Satan so trying to attempt it is pure mindless endeavor





The Bible is a book about God, not the devil.

The Bible doesn’t answer every question about warfare, nor does it grant us permission to focus our attention on the devil. Any approach to warfare that magnifies the devil’s power does not reflect biblical spiritual warfare.
Satan and his forces are real.

Some argue the concept of Satan and demons is only a first-century attempt to explain evil, but the Bible reveals them as real, supernatural beings who oppose God and his people. Our attempts to explain away these forces do not negate their reality.
Satan, however, is not our biggest problem.

We face three enemies: the world, our flesh, and the devil (Eph. 2:1–3). In some cases, the three are so interwoven that it’s difficult to tell them apart. Our primary problem is not Satan, though. We are our biggest issue.
God reigns, even over the enemy.

There is strife between human beings and the serpent because God put that conflict there (Gen. 3:15). That strife would lead to the cross, where the death of Jesus would break the back of the powers (Col. 2:15). Now, God sovereignly uses the spiritual battles to make us the followers he wants us to be.
The enemy we face is a defeated foe.

Satan has been bound through God’s judgment and through the cross; is being bound through the preaching of the gospel; and will be bound for eternity. We do genuinely wrestle against principalities and powers (Eph. 6:12), but the devil and his forces have never been outside of God’s control.

Warfare is the devil’s attempt to deceive and divide believers.

Since the Fall in the Garden of Eden, the devil has tried to bait us with false teaching, lure us into sin, and turn us against each other. He does this to keep us from glorifying God and doing the Great Commission. He seeks to devour us (1 Pet. 5:8.. ) so we can no longer be a light to a lost world. The summary I commonly use is that the enemy wants us to mess up (fall into sin), give up (get discouraged), get puffed up (live in arrogance), split up (divide), or shut up (quit evangelizing).
But we are not on the defensive in this battle.

Yes, we’re to stand against Satan (Eph. 6:11, 13, 14), but standing is not simply waiting and deflecting the arrows of the enemy. Even Paul, who called the Ephesians to stand, sought their prayer so he would keep proclaiming the gospel boldly even when he was imprisoned (Eph. 6:18–20). His own “standing” meant that he would faithfully evangelize even if the war cost him his life. We put on the full armor of God not so we can defend ourselves, but so we can march into the enemy’s kingdom to do the work of the Great Commission.
Satan battles against us because we are God’s witnesses to the world.

When the apostle Paul described lostness, he often framed it in terms of spiritual warfare. Non-believers follow the prince of the air (Eph. 2:2). They are blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:3–4), bound in darkness (Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18), and caught in Satan’s snare (2 Tim. 2:25–26). His goal is to keep us from proclaiming and living out the gospel that sets people free.
The offensive nature of this battle demands evangelism and discipleship.

Evangelism requires intentionally taking the light into the darkness. Discipleship then requires teaching others to understand their position in Christ and to put on the full armor of God. If we don’t evangelize, non-believers remain in Satan’s kingdom. If we don’t disciple, we send believers into the war unarmed. Both can result in tragedy.
One of Satan’s subtle strategies is to entice us to operate in our own ability.

David the shepherd boy took on the giant in faith and dependence, knowing that the battle was not his in the first place but rather the Lord’s (1 Sam. 17:47). When he became the king, though, David sought to know just how mighty his own forces were as he leaned more on himself than on God (1 Chron. 21:1–5). The enemy delights when we go there—when we’re much more like David the king than David the shepherd boy.
The very task of missions places us in the sights of the enemy. Because we are seeking to reach nonbelievers, develop strong disciples, and plant healthy congregations that plant more congregations—all of which means that we are offensively engaging the enemy’s territory—we can know that the enemy will fight back.
We needn’t fear, however. In the power of God, we must simply love Christ and live and speak for him in such a way that God is glorified and an already-defeated Satan is threatened (Acts 19:11–16).

Jude spoke of the archangel Michael as an example of how cautious and humble we should be when engaging in spiritual warfare.

"But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” Jude 1:9 (NIV)

We don’t know what this dispute looked like. Was it an argument of words, or a full on spiritual battle for possession of Moses body after he died? What we need to see here is what Jude was telling his audience about the danger of arrogance in dealing with celestial beings.

Jude tells us the archangel Michael, one of God’s most powerful angels (see Daniel 10:13), was very cautious in what he said to the Devil when he contended with him directly. In spite of all the authority given him, Michael didn’t dare to say, "I rebuke you." Instead he says only, "The Lord Rebuke you." If the archangel Michael was unwilling to even say, “I rebuke you” I’m fairly certain he wouldn’t have said “I bind you” either. This should be a clear warning to us not to attempt what a supernaturally powerful angel would not do.

The Bible is our standard for what is wise and best. Every practice and tradition we follow must be supported by, or at least not go against, the examples and commands we have in the Bible.

James 4:7
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

1 Peter 5:9
Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.

Matthew w12:26
If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

Luke 9:1
And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to heal diseases.

Matthew 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”

Mark 3:22
The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.”

Mark 1:39
And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons.

Matthew 8:31
The demons began to entreat Him, saying, “If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.”

Luke 9:49
John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.”

Mark 9:38
John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”

Mark 3:15
and to have authority to cast out the demons.

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.

Mark 16:17
These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

Luke 11:...
But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Matthew 17:19
Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not drive it out?”

You don't need to be afraid of demons because we are created to put them under our feet

Remember the devil is doing his own work which he will receive his own reward according to his work

So don't be bothered about his personality and face your own work

Those who abuse devil children are just wasting their time

Because you don't fight an evil man your are meant to avoid an evil person

Is Satan a man or spirit

Betscoreodds:
Is Satan a man or spirit

all spirit are referred to as male but Satan is not human

There is a name above all names

In order words there is a name greater than anything in the universe

That name is

JESUS

Bishopkingsley:
There is a name above all names

In order words there is a name greater than anything in the universe

That name is

JESUS

Are you new here?
Seems like you don’t know that a lot of us here don’t respect that name

Workch:
Are you new here?
Seems like you don’t know that a lot of us here don’t respect that name

Even if you don't respect the name

Jesus still loves you so much and wants to save you from the plans of the evil one who blinded many people from the knowledge of Christ

Bishopkingsley:


Even if you don't respect the name

Jesus still loves you so much and wants to save you from the plans of the evil one who blinded many people from the knowledge of Christ

The flying spaghetti monster loves you too, he boiled for your sins

Workch:
The flying spaghetti monster loves you too, he boiled for your sins

The love God has for you is great all you need to do is to reach towards your heart and you will hear him speaking to you

Let go of all your anger and hurt and trust him he gave you life because he wants to show you how much he loves you

Bishopkingsley:


The love God has for you is great all you need to do is to reach towards your heart and you will hear him speaking to you

Let go of all your anger and hurt and trust him he gave you life because he wants to show you how much he loves you

Lol, there’s no evidence that god exist

Workch:
Lol, there’s no evidence that god exist

Question one
What if I gave you the evidence that you need would you believe?

Now let me explain some things while I wait for the answer to the question I asked you.....

It is often concluded: If one does not believe in God, no proof is sufficient enough except probably God appears to them personally and If one believes in God, no proof is required.

Many find God's hand everywhere in creating the highly complex structures that could not have existed without a divine creator who can do anything he wants. There is a force behind the existence of everything that exists

To prove gravity exists, the effects are seen. Similarly, God's effect on and in the world can be seen.
A parable says that a king asked a rabbi for proof of God. When the king was gone, the rabbi wrote a lovely poem on a paper and left. When the king returned, he asked the rabbi about the beautiful poem.
The rabbi denied writing it. The king was furious saying the ink was not even dry and no one else was in the room. The rabbi said, it’s the same with the world. It’s not possible that it simply invented itself or came into existence without God.

Bishopkingsley:


Question one
What if I gave you the evidence that you need would you believe?

Now let me explain some things while I wait for the answer to the question I asked you.....

It is often concluded: If one does not believe in God, no proof is sufficient enough except probably God appears to them personally and If one believes in God, no proof is required.

Many find God's hand everywhere in creating the highly complex structures that could not have existed without a divine creator who can do anything he wants. There is a force behind the existence of everything that exists

To prove gravity exists, the effects are seen. Similarly, God's effect on and in the world can be seen.
A parable says that a king asked a rabbi for proof of God. When the king was gone, the rabbi wrote a lovely poem on a paper and left. When the king returned, he asked the rabbi about the beautiful poem.
The rabbi denied writing it. The king was furious saying the ink was not even dry and no one else was in the room. The rabbi said, it’s the same with the world. It’s not possible that it simply invented itself or came into existence without God.

”If one doesn’t believe in god, no proof is sufficient” that’s an oxymoron that you should fix.
1. Belief means that you don’t need evidence or proof to accept it, you only need faith.
2. No one has ever presented any verifiable evidence for their god, they believe it without evidence by faith.

So if you give me an evidence that I can test 10times and it gives me the same result, I will accept that god exist.

Mind you, I need this evidence to be tested repeatedly hence 10times. To ascertain statistical significance and limit bias.

Workch:
”If one doesn’t believe in god, no proof is sufficient” that’s an oxymoron that you should fix.
1. Belief means that you don’t need evidence or proof to accept it, you only need faith.
2. No one has ever presented any verifiable evidence for their god, they believe it without evidence by faith.

So if you give me an evidence that I can test 10times and it gives me the same result, I will accept that god exist.

Mind you, I need this evidence to be tested repeatedly hence 10times. To ascertain statistical significance and limit bias.

This statement below is wrong because you already said once you test the evidence ten times you will believe

Workch:



If one doesn’t believe in god, no proof is sufficient” that’s an oxymoron that you should fix.

So you have already fixed the oxymoron by yourself by saying once you test the evidence ten times you will believe

Workch:


Belief means that you don’t need evidence or proof to accept it, you only need faith.

No believe Is not only faith it is a mixture of faith, seeing, feelings, touching,hearing, experience etc
In fact it involves a lot of things

That is why I said only when you probably see God that when you will believe

There are many evidence one is if you see God I know you will believe next evidence is if I give you that thing to test ten times and it works you said you will then believe

So I now gave you an example story of the rabbi and the king

Question two
Considering your a man of science and from the example the king knew that the poem can't write itself which means to every action there is another action so
Is it possible that the world simply invented it self or came into existence without an active action force?

Bishopkingsley:



This statement below is wrong because you already said once you test the evidence ten times you will believe


So you have already fixed the oxymoron by yourself by saying once you test the evidence ten times you will believe



No believe Is not only faith it is a mixture of faith, seeing, feelings, touching,hearing, experience etc
In fact it involves a lot of things

That is why I said only when you probably see God that when you will believe

There are many evidence one is if you see God I know you will believe next evidence is if I give you that thing to test ten times and it works you said you will then believe

So I now gave you an example story of the rabbi and the king

Question two
Considering your a man of science and from the example the king knew that the poem can't write itself which means to every action there is another action so
Is it possible that the world simply invented it self or came into existence without an active action force?

Do you want to give me evidence or not?
I am a busy person and I don’t have time to answer a lot of questions.
I don’t think I should be taking questions because you made the positive claim of god. You should provide evidence instead of asking me questions

Workch:
Do you want to give me evidence or not?
I am a busy person and I don’t have time to answer a lot of questions.
I don’t think I should be taking questions because you made the positive claim of god. You should provide evidence instead of asking me questions

The question I asked you is the evidence that you have been looking for

Because you already know that nothing can happen without someone or some thing making it to happen

So therefore the existence of the earth is enough prove for you to agree that there is something or someone who created it

If you say you don't accept this evidence then did the kings poem write it self

Bishopkingsley:


The question I asked you is the evidence that you have been looking for

Because you already know that nothing can happen without someone or some thing making it to happen

So therefore the existence of the earth is enough prove for you to agree that there is something or someone who created it

If you say you don't accept this evidence then did the kings poem write it self

How is the existence of earth an evidence for god owing to the fact that we know How earth was formed and no god has been detected in it?

Workch:
How is the existence of earth an evidence for god owing to the fact that we know How earth was formed and no god has been detected in it?

Kindly tell me how was earth formed

Bishopkingsley:


Kindly tell me how was earth formed

Approximately 4.6 billion years ago, the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas known as a solar nebula. Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin, forming the sun in the center of the nebula.

With the rise of the sun, the remaining material began to clump up. Small particles drew together, bound by the force of gravity, into larger particles. The solar wind swept away lighter elements, such as hydrogen and helium, from the closer regions, leaving only heavy, rocky materials to create smaller terrestrial worlds like Earth. But farther away, the solar winds had less impact on lighter elements, allowing them to coalesce into gas giants. In this way, asteroids, comets, planets, and moons were created.

Earth's rocky core formed first, with heavy elements colliding and binding together. Dense material sank to the center, while the lighter material created the crust. The planet's magnetic field probably formed around this time. Gravity captured some of the gases that made up the planet's early atmosphere.

Early in its evolution, Earth suffered an impact by a large body that catapulted pieces of the young planet's mantle into space. Gravity caused many of these pieces to draw together and form the moon, which took up orbit around its creator.

The flow of the mantle beneath the crust causes plate tectonics, the movement of the large plates of rock on the surface of the Earth. Collisions and friction gave rise to mountains and volcanoes, which began to spew gases into the atmosphere.

Although the population of comets and asteroids passing through the inner solar system is sparse today, they were more abundant when the planets and sun were young. Collisions from these icy bodies likely deposited much of the Earth's water on its surface. Because the planet is in the Goldilocks zone, the region where liquid water neither freezes nor evaporates but can remain as a liquid, the water remained at the surface, which many scientists think plays a key role in the development of life.

Exoplanet observations seem to confirm core accretion as the dominant formation process. Stars with more "metals" — a term astronomers use for elements other than hydrogen and helium — in their cores have more giant planets than their metal-poor cousins. According to NASA, core accretion suggests that small, rocky worlds should be more common than the more massive gas giants.

The 2005 discovery of a giant planet with a massive core orbiting the sun-like star HD 149026 is an example of an exoplanet that helped strengthen the case for core accretion.

"This is a confirmation of the core accretion theory for planet formation and evidence that planets of this kind should exist in abundance," said Greg Henry in a press release. Henry, an astronomer at Tennessee State University, Nashville, detected the dimming of the star.

In 2017, the European Space Agency plans to launch the CHaracterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS), which will study exoplanets ranging in sizes from super-Earths to Neptune. Studying these distant worlds may help determine how planets in the solar system formed.

"In the core accretion scenario, the core of a planet must reach a critical mass before it is able to accrete gas in a runaway fashion," said the CHEOPS team.

"This critical mass depends upon many physical variables, among the most important of which is the rate of planetesimals accretion."

By studying how growing planets accrete material, CHEOPS will provide insight into how worlds grow.

Bishopkingsley:


The question I asked you is the evidence that you have been looking for

Because you already know that nothing can happen without someone or some thing making it to happen

So therefore the existence of the earth is enough prove for you to agree that there is something or someone who created it

If you say you don't accept this evidence then did the kings poem write it self

The king's poem didn't write itself.

The king also didn't make himself.

Workch:
Approximately 4.6 billion years ago, the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas known as a solar nebula. Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin, forming the sun in the center of the nebula.

With the rise of the sun, the remaining material began to clump up. Small particles drew together, bound by the force of gravity, into larger particles. The solar wind swept away lighter elements, such as hydrogen and helium, from the closer regions, leaving only heavy, rocky materials to create smaller terrestrial worlds like Earth. But farther away, the solar winds had less impact on lighter elements, allowing them to coalesce into gas giants. In this way, asteroids, comets, planets, and moons were created.

Earth's rocky core formed first, with heavy elements colliding and binding together. Dense material sank to the center, while the lighter material created the crust. The planet's magnetic field probably formed around this time. Gravity captured some of the gases that made up the planet's early atmosphere.

Early in its evolution, Earth suffered an impact by a large body that catapulted pieces of the young planet's mantle into space. Gravity caused many of these pieces to draw together and form the moon, which took up orbit around its creator.

The flow of the mantle beneath the crust causes plate tectonics, the movement of the large plates of rock on the surface of the Earth. Collisions and friction gave rise to mountains and volcanoes, which began to spew gases into the atmosphere.

Although the population of comets and asteroids passing through the inner solar system is sparse today, they were more abundant when the planets and sun were young. Collisions from these icy bodies likely deposited much of the Earth's water on its surface. Because the planet is in the Goldilocks zone, the region where liquid water neither freezes nor evaporates but can remain as a liquid, the water remained at the surface, which many scientists think plays a key role in the development of life.

Exoplanet observations seem to confirm core accretion as the dominant formation process. Stars with more "metals" — a term astronomers use for elements other than hydrogen and helium — in their cores have more giant planets than their metal-poor cousins. According to NASA, core accretion suggests that small, rocky worlds should be more common than the more massive gas giants.

The 2005 discovery of a giant planet with a massive core orbiting the sun-like star HD 149026 is an example of an exoplanet that helped strengthen the case for core accretion.

"This is a confirmation of the core accretion theory for planet formation and evidence that planets of this kind should exist in abundance," said Greg Henry in a press release. Henry, an astronomer at Tennessee State University, Nashville, detected the dimming of the star.

In 2017, the European Space Agency plans to launch the CHaracterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS), which will study exoplanets ranging in sizes from super-Earths to Neptune. Studying these distant worlds may help determine how planets in the solar system formed.

"In the core accretion scenario, the core of a planet must reach a critical mass before it is able to accrete gas in a runaway fashion," said the CHEOPS team.

"This critical mass depends upon many physical variables, among the most important of which is the rate of planetesimals accretion."

By studying how growing planets accrete material, CHEOPS will provide insight into how worlds grow.

This statement below that you said is what we call the power of God working

...... the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas known as a solar nebula. Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin,........

Now....... You said...... Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin, forming the sun in the center of the nebula................ But it can not collapse on it self because you and I know that science does not support random occurrence without an action causing the occurrence .......

So the actual thing or the actual brain that caused those gravity to collapse the material and cause the spin off which formed the sun is what we call God

So all the process you list out is caused by an intelligent being.... Because we already know from science that nothing can spin off on it own and create another thing....

For example
If you insist that it spin off on it own..... Then..

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might or can assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein.”

So Workch
Do you believe a tornado sweeping through a junk yard can assemble a Boeing 747 from material in the junk yard?

Sheunma:
The king's poem didn't write itself.

The king also didn't make himself.

So in order words a superior being created all things right

Bishopkingsley:


This statement below that you said is what we call the power of God working

...... the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas known as a solar nebula. Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin,........

Now....... You said...... Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin, forming the sun in the center of the nebula................ But it can not collapse on it self because you and I know that science does not support random occurrence without an action causing the occurrence .......

So the actual thing or the actual brain that caused those gravity to collapse the material and cause the spin off which formed the sun is what we call God

So all the process you list out is caused by an intelligent being.... Because we already know from science that nothing can spin off on it own and create another thing....

For example
If you insist that it spin off on it own..... Then..

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might or can assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein.”

So Workch
Do you believe a tornado sweeping through a junk yard can assemble a Boeing 747 from material in the junk yard?

Hence you commit a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, we don't know how the dust collapse is not evidence that God did it.

It spins on its own, we haven't seen God in it.

Boeing 747 argument is from a proponent of panspermia and has nothing to do with the existence of God, religious people hold on to it without knowing the origin. It's an argument between panspermia and Abiogenesis. It has been trashed by the ultimate boeing 747 gambit by Richard Dawkins:

The assumption is that complex items need a designer. Of course, that designer “must” be god. Typically the presenter of the argument’s very specific god.

The problem lies in the god concept itself. This god is supposed to be the most complex being. If complexity is required to create complex things, then something more complex would also be required to create this god.

You can not simply exempt any version of a god from this argument. That is the definition of a logical fallacy called “special pleading”.

I would add that the watch maker’s argument (the Boeing 747 is simply a variation of that same argument) ignores just exactly how humanity normally and consistently determines manufactured versus natural surroundings. The watch on the beach stands out as created (manufactured) because this thing is NOT like the others. The sand is natural. The ocean is natural, the shells are natural. The watch is NOT natural.

This is a children’s game played by kindergarten age humans. I simply do not understand why the religious among us think this is a good argument.


Again, show us evidence that it is your God that did this without appealing to ignorance

Workch:
Hence you commit a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, we don't know how the dust collapse is not evidence that God did it.

It spins on its own, we haven't seen God in it.

Boeing 747 argument is from a proponent of panspermia and has nothing to do with the existence of God, religious people hold on to it without knowing the origin. It's an argument between panspermia and Abiogenesis. It has been trashed by the ultimate boeing 747 gambit by Richard Dawkins:

The assumption is that complex items need a designer. Of course, that designer “must” be god. Typically the presenter of the argument’s very specific god.

The problem lies in the god concept itself. This god is supposed to be the most complex being. If complexity is required to create complex things, then something more complex would also be required to create this god.

You can not simply exempt any version of a god from this argument. That is the definition of a logical fallacy called “special pleading”.

I would add that the watch maker’s argument (the Boeing 747 is simply a variation of that same argument) ignores just exactly how humanity normally and consistently determines manufactured versus natural surroundings. The watch on the beach stands out as created (manufactured) because this thing is NOT like the others. The sand is natural. The ocean is natural, the shells are natural. The watch is NOT natural.

This is a children’s game played by kindergarten age humans. I simply do not understand why the religious among us think this is a good argument.


Again, show us evidence that it is your God that did this without appealing to ignorance

You call it natural substances because you did not see who created it and you call the watch manufactured because you saw likely know who manufactured it but look at it from a broad perspective and consider both the same application

Workch:


The watch on the beach stands out as created (manufactured) because this thing is NOT like the others. The sand is natural. The ocean is natural, the shells are natural. The watch is NOT natural.

If a manufacturer can manufacture a watch then there must be something else that manufactured the sand and the ocean

It is as simple as abcd.
You can't place one as natural and the other as not natural because both are substance we can feel

Workch:



The problem lies in the god concept itself. This god is supposed to be the most complex being. If complexity is required to create complex things, then something more complex would also be required to create this god.

Now let move to this concept of another complexity required to create the other complex things

What you will arrive from this principle will be a chain of complex events upon complex event which will according to mathematics will tend to infinity.........

So therefore it will have no end.... Therefore the total of the complexity to infinity will be what we call uncountable complexity..... In order words the brain behind the total complexity which tends to infinity..... Is what we call God

It is as simple as that that is why he is infinite that is why the complexity continues without an end

That is why his power continues endless and that is why he is God...

So no matter how much you add to the complex brain behind the other complex brain you will arrive at the infinite aspect of God

Bishopkingsley:


You call it natural substances because you did not see who created it and you call the watch manufactured because you saw likely know who manufactured it but look at it from a broad perspective and consider both the same application




If a manufacturer can manufacture a watch then there must be something else that manufactured the sand and the ocean

It is as simple as abcd.
You can't place one as natural and the other as not natural



Now let move to this concept of another complexity required to create the other complex things

What you will arrive from this principle will be a chain of complex events upon complex event which will according to mathematics will tend to infinity.........

So therefore it will have no end.... Therefore the total of the complexity to infinity will be what we call uncountable complexity..... In order words the brain behind the total complexity which tends to infinity..... Is what we call God

It is as simple as that that is why he is infinite that is why the complexity continues without an end

That is why his power continues endless and that is why he is God...

So no matter how much you add to the complex brain behind the other complex brain you will arrive at the infinite aspect of God

So why must the chain of complexity end with your God?

If you God doesn't have a creator then why can't the universe not have a creator?
You cant see that you are special pleading by assuming that your own God is the only one in question. We are talking about 4,200 or more Gods and you are special pleading for your own God.

Why can't we say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created your own God, then your God created the universe?

Bishopkingsley:


You call it natural substances because you did not see who created it and you call the watch manufactured because you saw likely know who manufactured it but look at it from a broad perspective and consider both the same application




If a manufacturer can manufacture a watch then there must be something else that manufactured the sand and the ocean

It is as simple as abcd.
You can't place one as natural and the other as not natural because both are substance we can feel



Now let move to this concept of another complexity required to create the other complex things

What you will arrive from this principle will be a chain of complex events upon complex event which will according to mathematics will tend to infinity.........

So therefore it will have no end.... Therefore the total of the complexity to infinity will be what we call uncountable complexity..... In order words the brain behind the total complexity which tends to infinity..... Is what we call God

It is as simple as that that is why he is infinite that is why the complexity continues without an end

That is why his power continues endless and that is why he is God...

So no matter how much you add to the complex brain behind the other complex brain you will arrive at the infinite aspect of God

Your argument created the problem of infinite regress and special pleading.

You want the universe to have a creator but you do not want your God to have one. That's flawed

Doesn't work that way.

We can as well decided to create a creator for your god to make your logic valid and I have created one, he's the flying spaghetti monster and I also propose that that he's the uncaused cause. We don't need evidence to back this since you have not provided evidence to jusfity your own claim of God.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

How do you handle that line of reasoning?

Workch:
So why must the chain of complexity end with your God?

If you God doesn't creator then why can't the universe not have a creator?
You cant see that you are special pleading by assuming that your own God is the only one in question. We are talking about 4,200 or more Goss and you are special pleading for your own God.

Why can't we say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created your own God, then your God created the universe?

now the meaning of God actually means he is the highest and no other is above him so if you choose the flying Flying Spaghetti Monster as the highest then you must call him God and not call him Flying Spaghetti Monster....

Because only God can be God
We can't have another above him since from the complexity principles he is infinite

Bishopkingsley:


now the meaning of God actually means he is the highest and no other is above him so if you choose the flying Flying Spaghetti Monster as the highest then you must call him God and not call him Flying Spaghetti Monster....

Because only God can be God
We can't have another above him since from the complexity principles he is infinite

That's your own definition of God.
Some people think God is nature: Deism

Even within the definition of God, we have different descriptions and qualities. Your own description of a God is that of a Christian concept and we must not act inline with that. Your Christian concept is not obtainable in other religions, you have to acknowledge that.
Most concepts of God disagree, the descriptions are contradictory, if you must treat them then we have to unravel them strand by strand.


You are a proponent of a Christian God, who created everything and then sent his son to die for the redemption of our sins. He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent according to most of your descriptions.

I have told you that you should provide a method for us to test these descriptions but you decided to talk about creation of earth which is an argumemt you cannot substantiate even going by the creation stories in the Bible which is obviously not consistent with reality. Now you don't mop-up everything by making the concept of God non-ambigious.


How can we test for the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent nature which you ascribe to your specific God?

That's the evidence that will convince me.

Workch:
That's your own definition of God.
Some people think God is nature: Deism

Even within the definition of God, we have different descriptions and qualities. Your own description of a God is that of a Christian concept and we must not act inline with that. Your Christian concept is not obtainable in other religions, you have to acknowledge that.
Most concepts of God disagree, the descriptions are contradictory, if you must treat them then we have to unravel them strand by strand.


You are a proponent of a Christian God, who created everything and then sent his son to die for the redemption of our sins. He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent according to most of your descriptions.

I have told you that you should provide a method for us to test these descriptions but you decided to talk about creation of earth which is an argumemt you cannot substantiate even going by the creation stories in the Bible which is obviously not consistent with reality. Now you don't mop-up everything by making the concept of God non-ambigious.


How can we test for the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent nature which you ascribe to your specific God?

That's the evidence that will convince me.

I already told you that the sum or total of the complexity is infinite and since it infinite... The brain behind it continues which we call the total infinite value.... God... Now that explains the below...
Question you asked about how.... How do you handle that line of reasoning.....

Workch:


Your argument created the problem of infinite regress and special pleading.

You want the universe to have a creator but you do not want your God to have one. That's flawed

Doesn't work that way.

We can as well decided to create a creator for your god to make your logic valid and I have created one, he's the flying spaghetti monster and I also propose that that he's the uncaused cause. We don't need evidence to back this since you have not provided evidence to jusfity your own claim of God.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

How do you handle that line of reasoning?

Now I have explained the above to you as the total complexity value which according to mathematics tends to infinity and I said the total is called God

Workch:



That's your own definition of God.
Some people think God is nature: Deism

Deism refers to what can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason and the rejection of religious knowledge......... You and I know that deism does not explain that total infinite complexity
Principles we talked about earlier so in order words deism is under the theory of the God we are summing up

Now any religion that fails to acknowledge the total infinite complexity is under the God of the total infinite complexity.....this now shows that nature can't be the real God.

Workch:



we must not act inline with that. Your Christian concept is not obtainable in other religions, you have to acknowledge that.

Now the reason I can't acknowledge that is because all other religions their God falls under this God that we summed up his total infinite complexity.......

Workch:



Most concepts of God disagree, the descriptions are contradictory, if you must treat them then we have to unravel them strand by strand.

All religions agree that there is a point that you get to which shows there is a God that is called the highest so we don't need to treat all strand by strand since
There is no other God greater than the total infinite complexity.........

Workch:



I have told you that you should provide a method for us to test these descriptions but you decided to talk about creation of earth which is an argumemt you cannot substantiate even going by the creation stories in the Bible which is obviously not consistent with reality. Now you don't mop-up everything by making the concept of God non-ambigious.

Let me retrace my steps now I provided you with the evidence that he created the earth

You told me how the earth was created and I told you he is the infinite complexity total...
So there is nothing to test since everyone believe that... To every action there is equal and opposite reaction......

And I told you that the opposite reaction that caused the spin of was God... You and I agree that it is infinite and I still told you that the total is equally called God

So I have given you an evidence and you and I have agreed to call the total infinite complexity.. God

Workch:




but you decided to talk about creation of earth

I told you that creation of earth is one evidence... You need to pay attention to the details.... The only reason you don't like the creation of the earth to be used as evidence is because it beats your imagination and your theory

Workch:



creation stories in the Bible which is obviously not consistent with reality. Now you don't mop-up everything by making the concept of God non-ambigious.

Which area is not consistent in the Bible let me clarify it to you

Workch:



How can we test for the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent nature which you ascribe to your specific God?

That's the evidence that will convince me.

I told you the brothers of faith is
Seeing. Touching, hearing, feelings, etc

We can test it by looking which is seeing the creation examples the earth we live in

So we test God nature by what he created for us just like you test an electrical equipment when you buy a product from the market

If the electrical device fails you won't ever trust the manufacturer again

That is how we test the earth creation principles so we can then be able to understand how God is God

Bishopkingsley:


I already told you that the sum or total of the complexity is infinite and since it infinite... The brain behind it continues which we call the total infinite value.... God... Now that explains the below...
Question you asked about how.... How do you handle that line of reasoning.....



Now I have explained the above to you as the total complexity value which according to mathematics tends to infinity and I said the total is called God



Deism refers to what can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason and the rejection of religious knowledge......... You and I know that deism does not explain that total infinite complexity
Principles we talked about earlier so in order words deism is under the theory of the God we are summing up

Now any religion that fails to acknowledge the total infinite complexity is under the God of the total infinite complexity.....this now shows that nature can't be the real God.





Now the reason I can't acknowledge that is because all other religions their God falls under this God that we summed up his total infinite complexity.......



All religions agree that there is a point that you get to which shows there is a God that is called the highest so we don't need to treat all strand by strand since
There is no other God greater than the total infinite complexity.........



Let me retrace my steps now I provided you with the evidence that he created the earth

You told me how the earth was created and I told you he is the infinite complexity total...
So there is nothing to test since everyone believe that... To every action there is equal and opposite reaction......

And I told you that the opposite reaction that caused the spin of was God... You and I agree that it is infinite and I still told you that the total is equally called God

So I have given you an evidence and you and I have agreed to call the total infinite complexity.. God



I told you that creation of earth is one evidence... You need to pay attention to the details.... The only reason you don't like the creation of the earth to be used as evidence is because it beats your imagination and your theory




Which area is not consistent in the Bible let me clarify it to you





I told you the brothers of faith is
Seeing. Touching, hearing, feelings, etc

We can test it by looking which is seeing the creation examples the earth we live in

So we test God nature by what he created for us just like you test an electrical equipment when you buy a product from the market

If the electrical device fails you won't ever trust the manufacturer again

That is how we test the earth creation principles so we can then be able to understand how God is God

Going by your Logic then you agree with me when I say that Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god?

You didn’t create any evidence that your god created the earth, you reached a flaws conclusion from appealing to ignorance that cannot be tested by any way.

Your logic could apply to anything because it cannot be tested. We can go ahead and even say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the Flying Spaghetti Monster and then the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god that created earth.

All including yours are mere claims that cannot be tested hence cannot be called evidence.

Religious logic are always flawed, one cannot accurately deduce a testable conclusions from them, based on assumptions and more assumptions

Workch:
Going by your Logic then you agree with me when I say that Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god?

You didn’t create any evidence that your god created the earth, you reached a flaws conclusion from appealing to ignorance that cannot be tested by any way.

Your logic could apply to anything because it cannot be tested. We can go ahead and even say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the Flying Spaghetti Monster and then the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god that created earth.

All including yours are mere claims that cannot be tested hence cannot be called evidence.

Religious logic are always flawed, one cannot accurately deduce a testable conclusions from them, based on assumptions and more assumptions

Workch:



Going by your Logic then you agree with me when I say that Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god?

I already told you that if you accept that he created my God then fine you must call the flying spaghetti monster... God.... And I told you no one can create God because he is the total infinite complexity...

We have settled this issue and you keep thinking that I will say no to your defense I won't say no all I want you to accept is to call that flying thing God...

I told you the highest brain behind all reactions is called God

Workch:



You didn’t create any evidence that your god created the earth, you reached a flaws conclusion from appealing to ignorance that cannot be tested by any way.

If you say I reached a flaw conclusion
Then answer this simple question

Question 1
Every one believes... To every action there is equal and opposite reaction.... This is pure science and Bible also support this theory......
..... So this theory cancels the theory that... The creation spin of you mention which you said spin off by itself..... If you insist that it spin of by itself...
..... Then Do you believe that the kings poem wrote itself?

Workch:



Your logic could apply to anything because it cannot be tested. We can go ahead and even say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the Flying Spaghetti Monster and then the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god that created earth.

Your problem is inability to stay in the agreed principle I already told you that when you sum it up all up what you will get is continuous infinite complexity.... And I told you let us add all the infinite total complexity together and call it God

Because God definitions actually means a being with infinite brain....

Workch:



All including yours are mere claims that cannot be tested hence cannot be called evidence.

It can be tested because scientists said nothing happens by itself.... They discovered that to every action there is equal and opposite reaction..

We tested it with this

This is a universal law so
It states , Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. ... Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

Workch:



Religious logic are always flawed, one cannot accurately deduce a testable conclusions from them, based on assumptions and more assumptions

Now religious laws are perfect it just that people use other words and terminology while we use spiritual terminology

Examples
Science says
Electrical power is neither created or destroyed..... Bible gives the impression God can neither be created or destroyed


Which is exactly the same thing as

Law of Conservation of Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.


You can see this two laws are consistent and proves the existence of God

Bible shows God is power and power is energy and this shows both Bible and science are saying the same thing