MuttleyLaff:
Joan of Arc, is a movie about a young French heroine who heard from God
and so dressed up as a young soldier man to fight battles.
whereas Joan of Arcadia, was a TV series, who also had interesting encounters and conversations with ...

Type the workaround instructions I gave ihedinobi3 to watch the 101 pilot

Okay. I'll try to check that out.

Ihedinobi3:

I am fine, dear brother. It's good to see that you are well and busy.

You are exactly right about the section. It does get old quite easily. For my part, since my return, I made apologetics an opportunistic activity: only such discussions as possess the potential for producing Bible teaching that would be useful to fellow believers or encouragement in some form to them interest me. So, it is a means to an end and so far it has worked quite well.

You're right. Apologetics should be embarked upon here when we see that there is a potential for it to produce meaningful discussions with people who are interested in learning, not people who came to waste time and mock.

You're doing well brother.

MuttleyLaff:
It is by His grace,
it is a labour of love, sometimes a tinge of the occasional tough love thrown in

I have posts I started replying to, but stayed unfinished.
I might go back to them. If not they stay indefinitely on the back burner, afterall, c'est la vie

You come in here, not necessarily choosing your battles wisely
but to choose a stand and then express the point of view.
It can be like taking people along with you climbing "mountains",
and reassuring them on the way, that the view from the top is exhilarating and worth the struggle

Doctor Alien have you unlimited data bandwidth or near to that?
Have you ever watched the "Joan of Arcadia" CBS TV series?

You described it perfectly it can really be like taking people along with you climbing mountains. Still, as a soldier of Christ, I would do my best to seize any opportunity to demolish unfounded arguments against the Biblical Christian faith.

When I was younger, I watched a movie entitled " Joan of the Arc". The main character was a woman. Is that the same movie?

Ihedinobi3:
Hello MuttleyLaff. How are you, bro? Rarely see you and Doctor Alien anywhere here these days. Or is it I that am rarely here?

I hope you are well, my brother.

Hello bro! How are you doing?

Having other things to do, I don't come here frequently. This section can be tiring too. You know, having to repeat things you've said over and over again.

Meaningless thread.

I believe the thread enjoined the believers to share experiences that had served to convince they themselves that GOD is real. Is this thread then trying to counter the fact that those experiences served to make those persons believe in God? That's nonsense. Except you're in the heads of those believers. The experiences make/made them believe that GOD is real because they said so!

Note that the thread did not ask them to bring "experiences that will make atheists believe God is real." The topic of the thread didn't even contain the word "proof" or "prove", which you have inserted in the OP. Perhaps the OP of that thread knew that some people are atheists not for lack of evidence that points to GOD but for reasons best known to them. After all Martin Rowson once told Giles Fraser of The Guardian that he(Martin) would remain an atheist even if GOD walked into the restraunt.

So, once again, pointless thread.

JMAN05:


Your comment seem to suggest that Satan had been cast down immediately he turned Adam and Eve to sin?

I don't think so. Which part of my comment?

tintingz:
If God is every law and the highest authority why then he's worried about Satan's charges or anyone's charges?

He's kind of bound to a law.

Perhaps the fact that He is not a tyrant, and that the perception which His conscientious creatures have of Him matters so much to Him explains it? I do not claim to know all of GOD's ways. Indeed, as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are His ways and reason higher than mine.

He is not bound to any higher law. No authority is higher than Him. But still His own Law which is a reflection of His character, He never breaks nor goes against.

LordReed:


LoL I don't know how this works there fore God did it is more coherent then I want to study this thing but my tools are insufficient? Ok that's enough crazy for today. LMFAO!

Even when we know how it works, we creationists say "GOD did it". After all did He not create everything? We know how the aeroplane is able to fly and we know how living things reproduce, but we still acknowledge that GOD created the universe, and put the laws and other necessities in place which make these things able to happen.

What about you materialists? "nothing did it." LOL

LordReed:


LoL. This is so funny. Here is someone who believes that a magic sky daddy created the universe from nothing questioning the breakdown of the laws of nature at the boundaries of the origin event. So seriously the irony is lost on you?

In the light of the fact that science has been dubiously redefined to mean "the search for natural explanations"(I smell naturalism here), it becomes very funny that you would entertain the same ideas that creationists entertain, which is that the natural laws could be set aside. But creationists are far more coherent in that they acknowledge a greater Cause than the universe, while naturlists and materialists entertain silly ideas like "the universe created itself from nothing".

I still wonder how they hope to study the origin of the universe with a science which operates by the laws that supposedly broke down at that origin?

LordReed:


This shows you don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that the laws breakdown as you go back to the beginning of the universe.

What other reasoning can there be behind it other than that such a thing could not have happened if they stick they stick with the laws of nature?

The big bang is a better hypothesis for the origins of our universe than a made up fairytale of an all powerful God. The interesting thing is that scientists know that they are positing a hypothesis based on the evidence available and entertain the possibility of being wrong but you with no evidence whatsoever of a God are certain. I'll stick with where the evidence takes us so holler at me when you have some.

The "evidence" still lead creationists to believe that GOD created everything. In the end they're trying to sell to you the idea that the universe managed to create itself from nothing, coated in outlandish terms to look very convincing. Such a silly idea.

LordReed:


How does 1 picosecond with a maybe, fit into your narrative?

You and I know that this whole Big Bang story is a sham. The "may" there may as well be replaced a certain "does", like Hawking did in his lecture. Who is sure anyway?

Anyway my point is that the planck epoch is part of that picosecond. The singularity is part of the planck epoch. And the planck epoch is touted to immediately follow the event which began the known universe. And the laws of Physics breakdown at the singularity, and at the planck epoch in general. One then wonders how we hope to study such a thing, as our science operate by the same laws which supposedly broke down for the thing in question to be.

Of course the laws of nature have to be jettisoned for the nonsensical idea of big bang to be entertained.

LordReed:
Point out the part that you are referring to.

It is near the beginning of the article:

"1. The very early universe – the first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently understood laws of physics may not apply; ..."

LordReed:


Maybe you should read it again. It's a comparison between the before and after states. In a before state yes the laws of physics would probably not exist but we can't even say what this state was. The big bang being the boundary event would highlight the difference between the two.

Read this for more clarity: http://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/defenders-guide-to-science-and-creationism/big-bang-first-law-of-thermodynamics/

You're trying to perform semantic gymnastics here. Hawking says that at the singularity, all known laws of physics would break down. This is the same singularity wikipedia claims is a part of the planck epoch, in its article on "the initial singularity". So your "before and after states" is word gymnastics. Wikipedia affirms again in it article on "Chronology of the universe" that the laws of physics "may not apply" in the planck epoch, "the era immediately after the event which began our universe."

tintingz:
The point is, is God also following a law or bound to something?

GOD is the author of every law by which creation is governed. He is the highest authority. No authority is higher than Him.

Besides God already knew all what will happen, how does this make any sense, God knows the beginning and end, he's perfect, so what exactly does God want to prove?

God has the power to stop evil, rebellion from happening in the beginning but for whatever meaningless reason he let it happen and then angry at Satan and humans for what he's responsible of, does this even make any sense to you?

Stop lashing out and calm down and read my submissions slowly.

LordReed, you asked who said that the Big Bang violated the physical laws of the universe. Hear Stephen Hawking: www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Check the 5th paragraph of that article. I did not copy and paste it because the copyright forbade it.

LordReed:


Are you attempting a strawman again or are you just being disingenuous? Who ever said that the big bang violated the physical laws of the universe? Such things come from believers with your universe transcending gods.

How could the universe come into existence from nothing? Can nothing give rise to something?

tintingz:
Lol, An almighty God of the whole universe was concern about the charges laid by Satan yet he destroyed homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Wow, what a logic.

Who dare question God on what he feels like to doing?

Are you even sure you understand my argument? How does GOD's setting out to prove to the whole of creation, at the first time that rebellion surfaced, His just character and the fact that rebellion should not exist, contradict his action in destroying the wicked Sodom and Gomorrah?

LordReed:

The rules are the physical laws of the universe. Nobody prescribed them, they are a result of the outcome of the event we call the big bang.

LOL. Where were the laws during the Big Bang itself? Oh, I forgot! The Big Bang itself violates the Laws of nature. And if we adhere strictly to the Laws of Nature, the Big Bang would be imposssible.

The products of a random process limited by physical laws will be able to be described by those physical laws.

Your point is useless if you keep saying design. Evolution doesn't design, I think you need to wrap your head around that.

What you believe is your business. What is real however is independent of your beliefs.

The bolded very much summarizes it. What we believe is our business. But what it is true remains true, whether we believe it or not.

LordReed:
That something is random and purposeless doesn't preclude it from being limited by prescribed rules.

What are the rules limiting a random process that started randomly, and who prescribed the rules? How do the rules affect the products of the random process?

Our observations has shown that among the factors that drive evolutionary processes, utility plays a role. The more useful an evolved trait is the more likely it will be passed on to the next generation.

How does this unverified utility factor affect my point that evolution cannot produce a brain designed for thinking?

I can trust my thinking to a certain degree because we all share a reality which we all agree on certain things eg the sky is blue, drink clean water, etc. To say that because the brain is not designed therefore is unreliable is nonsense.

I cannot believe that random processes brought atoms together to form the brain, only to believe the sensations of the brain.

LordReed:
You are a funny fellow. You started this thread just so you could demean atheists. Any answer that is given to you here is just for you to have leverage to demean.

No matter, I will give you the answer you seek.

All brains are a result of evolutionary processes. No brain is intelligently designed.

If the brain is a result of evolutionary processes, which are random and purposeless, then it means that the brain was not designed for thinking, and that your thought processes are nothing more than the sensation you get when there is a rearrangement of atoms inside your skull in a certain way, for probably physical or chemical reasons. But if it so, how can you trust your thinking to be true? Is there a particular arrangement of atoms termed "true"? And if because of this, the thinking of the brain cannot be trusted, then one cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism, or to anything else. I therefore need to believe in GOD, before I believe in thought.

budaatum, you wrote:

If it all boiled down to believing in him as you claim, he wouldn't have bothered with so many
other lessons about love, compassion and empathy which he
taught.

Wrong! That He emphasized the need to believe in Him, while teaching the lessons (on love, compassion and empathy) shows that both are equally important.

And even your own personal experience would show that Jesus is way more than mere belief.

I would say belief comes first. In fact I cannot follow Jesus if I don't believe in Him.

Yet here we are trumping belief over actual understanding. No wonder some
claim Christianity has not yet been tried and tested;

Christianity has survived 2000 years of onslaught from every angle.

some are indeed in the infancy of mere believing and are yet to abandon childish ways.

Believing is not childish way. Not according to Jesus who said "believe in me" in Jn. 14:1

budaatum, you wrote:

I can neither add an hour to my living and there's enough to worry about in this life, so why waste time on an afterlife of eternal existence that I have no evidence for?

Here's where you have to watch it. The "enough to worry about in this life" maybe what Christ is cautioning against.

Take "for God so loved the world" for instance. You would note in Bibles that use red to depict direct utterances of Jesus that John 3:16 et al is not depicted in red.

Very poor argument. The coloring of Jesus' words in red is a modern invention. Moreover, it may be subject the editors beliefs. Besides, what do you make of Jesus saying "believe in me" in Jn. 14:1?

Critical analyses would also make one consider Christ would never
say such a thing.

Wrong. Christ said it.

To start with, it is sheer hubris. Another is that it is just so unjesusy.

Purely your opinion.

budaatum, you wrote:

An example is "eternal life". There is no evidence for it whatsoever

You mean evidence for it that appeals to you?

yet many appear to believe in it.

Yeah. Including me. That the Bible says it is enough evidence for me. The Bible always says things that are true.

One might as well read Alice in Wonderland and believe Alice truly fell down a hole or humpty dumpty is a real entity outside fiction.

Solely the person's business.

I'm afraid my attitude to such things is incredulity, and it applies to some things written in the Bible.

We believe what we want to. We also refuse to believe what we want to refuse to believe.

Besides, the Bible itself warns me not to worry about such things.

Wrong. The Bible warns you to seek first the kingdom of GOD, and its righteousness. How can you do this without belief in Christ? Besides the kingdom of GOD is made up of those who are deemed fit for eternal life. See Jn. 6:47

budaatum:

Of course your beliefs are relevant to you. Moreso if you have sought to verify those beliefs.

I agree

There are after all reasons why praying to a stone or a rat would give some the results they desire.

Yeah. Probably they have verified it to an extent with which they are satisfied, and they think they are satisfied with what they found.

If one believes enough it becomes true to the individual but that in no way makes a thing true.

You mean it in no way makes a thing true to you? Is there any objective standard of trueness?

I can cook up whatever I wish in my head and believe it, and I can provide tons of evidence (texts, for instance) to validate my beliefs.

Solely your business. And I add that if your tons of evidence are compelling enough, someone else might believe same with you.

vaxx:
That dude is a master of red hearing.....he will read you out of context. Is found of that. Even that articule he presented as opposed to what should be the reply had been beaten to stupor.

I think I agree. He certainly does read one out of context sometimes, and then multiplies words(sometimes very unnecessarily) to drive home his point, and in doing so he veers off the track all too often. I agree too that he has some degree of mastery over use of red herring.

budaatum:

P.s. There is also a school of thought that operates from the falsification of what one is taught. It helps one to resist the bias to confirm which seems inherent in humans.

You might want to learn about it here.

You provided a link to an article on "falsifiability" on wikipedia. Inasmuch as I don't think that article is treating a school of thought that "operates from the falsification of what one is taught", but a concept(of falsifiability of statements), I wonder how that article is of help to me.

budaatum, you said

Surely, if "belief", as opposed to what one actually does, were more
important, Jesus would have just said, "believe in me"!

Let Jesus speak:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jn. 3:16

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Jn. 3:18

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Many more examples abound.

Note too that Jesus told the man to do what was written in the law to have eternal life. Luke 10:28. The man then asked who his neighbour was, and Jesus cleared him. Therefore "Go and do likewise" in v37 is part of a larger "do the law" in v28.

budaatum:

I shall accept the above as confirmation that beliefs are irrelevant, be they mine or yours. So, let's deal with that we know, shall we.

You can accept it as confirmation that yours beliefs, and probably my beliefs too, are irrelevant to you. But it is not a confirmation that my beliefs are irrelevant to me.

budaatum:

True. Especially when we are children, and the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are cases in point. But when we grow up we should abandon our childish ways, be a bit more sceptical about our beliefs and develop critical minds.

The only thing about growing up is that we should be ready to verify whatever we're told. That's all. And I can say that, for me, the Bible keeps standing up to scrutiny every blessed day.

I am incapable of believing, Doctor.

Again, this is what you believe. So...

budaatum:

Jesu of Oyingbo said just about the same thing. Some treat his claim with the same ridicule they treated Jesus' claim. They both at least broke the command not to create other gods or bow down and worship them because "I am a jealous God".

I'm not sure you were talking about Jesus of Oyigbo in the post I quoted. But I wasn't gonna let you say something wrong about Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Jesus broke no command. He is GOD. I wonder how shocked you'd be to discover that it was Jesus Himself speaking on mount Sinai.

I've heard it said that he rose from the dead and is in heaven, but I don't really trust such evidences myself. And I'm as likely to believe in heaven as apple pie in the sky. "Someone said" is hardly evidence. And the records you have for it is spurious at best.

We only believe what we want to believe. The Gospels are anything but spurious, even though, again, you can believe what you want to.

budaatum:

See, Lord reed. Christ taught love compassion and empathy, but humans deified him, created a religion out of his simple teachings and worship him.

Christ Himself asserted His deity. He said "before Abraham I AM". He claimed to have power to forgive sins, something which only GOD can do. He received worship in the Bible.

He would turn in his grave, but even he knew they should be forgiven since they know not what they do. It seems they can't help themselves, and would always be amongst us.

Wrong! Christ rose from the dead. His disciples were eyewitnesses of His resurrection. He is in Heaven now, preparing a place for His people.

Surely you very much need forgiveness, because you know not what you do.

LordReed:


How is it that people can believe a loving god will wipe out billions of people with fire and gleefully repeat this every where they go? SMH

People who deserve the fire. Wicked people.