A Challenge for Christians: Show Us Your Very Best Proof For Jesus (philosophy, prayer)

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Total Euebian garbage. Absolutely smack on the arguments - I should evasive and denialist rhetoric -he used.

Aside from your weak quip about salad dressing, your denial that an important event like the transformation missing from where it should be is not valid evidence of contradiction on little more than a play on words is going to make you a laughing stock amongst unbelievers and an embarrassment amongst believers "God almighty - they will think we are all as stupid as that!"

Evidently the level of your intellect is not high enough to know that an omission CAN'T be a contradiction.

The attempt to shrug off the Nativity contradiction is even funnier. I hardly need to explain how irrelevant it is, and I don't even need to say that if you repeat it and insist it is a rebuttal, just as you did with the John -Luke contradiction, you are Eusebius for sure, because the whole post convinces me -you are.
I don't know how you persuaded the mods that you were someone else but I'll bet my wife and daughter that you are Eusebius .

You also don't have the ability to understand the Bible. I did refute you so called contradictions.

I don't know why you are obsessed with me being Eusebius. It doesn't matter if I am and I am sure he would not come back with a different name. We just have similar theology from the same place, but someone mentioned something he accepted, that I do not---the gap theory. So you better retractd your bet before someone takes you up on it.

Your evolution denial and complete lack of understanding of the whole chimp with a gun scenario shows that you don't understand or are even interested in understanding. Just playing about with words and denying everything.

You also don't understand why my response to you ape with a gun senerio, could not prove man evolved from apes.

Your woeful excuse for not addressing the Census discrepancy merely shows the miserable colour of your money. At least Pneuma fought like mad to explain it.

I did explain it, you are just ignorant of Roman history. "The color of your money" is one of the stupidest remarks I have ever received in this or any other forum.

I often write posts and then cancel them

If what you have posted to me is an example of what you do, you should cancel more of your post.

[Rbbi1]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I don't know why you are obsessed with me being Eusebius. It doesn't matter if I am and I am sure he would not come back with a different name. We just have similar theology from the same place, but someone mentioned something he accepted, that I do not---the gap theory. So you better retractd your bet before someone takes you up on it.

There seems to be a trend right now, it's happening in the Christian forum as well, of cases of mistaken identity. I'm not quite sure what the motive behind it is, other than perhaps to get the mods to thinking someone has created a duplicate identity, so they can be banned, thereby removing the thorn from their flesh.

At any rate, Omega is not Eusebius. Peace

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by Rbbi1

There seems to be a trend right now, it's happening in the Christian forum as well, of cases of mistaken identity. I'm not quite sure what the motive behind it is, other than perhaps to get the mods to thinking someone has created a duplicate identity, so they can be banned, thereby removing the thorn from their flesh.

At any rate, Omega is not Eusebius. Peace

To insist I am someone else is absurd. I also don't see any point in it. Even if I was Eusebius, they still would not be able to refute what I say.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

As I pointed out to omega2xx, the concept of God and the concept of Santa are related only in that each is imaginary and has no physical existence. Poor Santa gets abused because he is so much a part of modern mythology. But in truth the belief in God is no different than the belief in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of these things can only be imagined. Because they only exist in the imagination, and cannot be demonstrated to have any physical reality.

Santa, God, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster... choose whichever one you prefer and declare it to be real. But all you will have is a hand full of make believe based on some imaginary standard.

As usual, you make the same mistake I've seen most make...you include the TITLE "God" in with a list of the NAMES of characters that are metaphorical and allegorical manifestations of God and that which comprises God (ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED...aka "The Universe").
"GOD" is a title, not a name...nobody/nothing is named "God", unless that title was used as a name by some Mother/Father (such as people named "Lord").

"GOD" (The Universe) objectively exists...and is self-substantiating. Those metaphorical characters are just poetic representations of God and/or that which comprises God.

It seems many have trouble telling the difference between what is real, and what is just symbolic of that which is real.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Someone please explain to our goldenbrick here how this actually supports the atheist analogy santa - god and if the writer of the article didn't understand that, somebody needs to explain it to him, also.

P.s I thought I'd look up his logical credentials.

C. Michael Patton (ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary) is president of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. In addition to serving under Chuck Swindoll for six years at Stonebriar Community Church, he is a fellow at the Credo House of Theology in Edmond, Oklahoma, developer of The Theology Program, and hos

' Nuff sed. Goldie, I'd almost say "I'm surprised at you" but of course, I'm not. intellectual dishonesty and clumsiness is your stock in trade in debate.

P.p.s and please nobody say what's wrong. It should be obvious that the entire analogy is neing ignored other than first cause argument, and that runs up against the watchmaker argument and the 'which santa' argument.

Of course...you look at it from your close-minded, tunnel-visioned, cherry-picked view of "God" as limited to just Religious Deities and mythological characters that are just representations of God and that which comprises God.
View "God" as I do from a Pantheist perspective (ALL THE ENERGY MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED...aka The Universe)...and there is then the possibility you might "get it".
The God I perceive...ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (The Universe)...has all the attributes definitive of a God Entity...and thus IS GOD.
We KNOW:
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in, acts upon, and controls, Reality.---ALL POWERFUL 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, is capable of all the seeing that has ever occured. ---ALL SEEING 100%
I could go on...but these are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity.
Religions use metaphorical and allegorical characters and stories to describe all of this.
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment.
That's "GOD"!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

The point is that you are trying to say if something can be proved, it is not true which is false. Yo9u have no evidence that God is imaginary. That is a figment of your imagination. God created the heavens and the earth is not negative.

Im saying that something which cannot be physically proven is not on the same level as is something that has physical existence. The law of conservation of energy is a proven law. Dispute it? Try not charging your notebook or your smart phone and see how far you get.

"God created the heavens and the earth," on the other hand is a statement of belief and nothing more. It has no effect on reality. Most of us discover quite early in life that things are not true do not occur simply because we say so. Although some keep trying.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

God is Spirit. He can take on physical characteristics if it suits His purpose. He showed Moses His backside.

Genesis 33:
[22] And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
[23] And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

One of my favorite passages from the Bible. God showed Moses his butt and Moses was exalted for all time. The great irony is that such an act is generally a considered a sign of contempt. But we know it happened because whoever wrote the Book of Exodus said so.

Apparently God use to take on the appearance of George Burns. But then he switched to Morgan Freeman. Except for in Dogma, when it was Alanis Morissette. But I suppose that "physical characteristics" could mean anything from a table to a burning bush. But tell me. Where is God when he is ACTUALLY NEEDED?

People often confirm that God is there for them answering their prayers. When they get that promotion they have been praying for, or when their team wins the big game. Just as they prayed it would. And yet when a psycho comes into a classroom full of six year old's armed with a hand gun and an intent to shoot each one in the head at point blank range, or when a tornado causes a brick church wall to collapse on and kill worshipers in the very ACT of praying to God... in other words when faith comes face to face with physical reality, physical reality inevitably prevails. And God is nowhere to be found. A God who is not there for these individuals and who does not act at a moment of extreme physical peril is in no way different from a God who never existed to begin with.

In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? The problem is that when put to the test, make believe is invariably unaffected by the harsh realities of real life. If a wall falls on you, or a mad man shoots you in the head, make believe does not serve as protection. Even for innocent children.
Piedmont Journal - Tried by Deadly Tornado, An Anchor of Faith Holds - NYTimes.com

In 2012, after shooting and killing his own mother, a mentally unstable man went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and methodically shot 20 six year olds and a teacher in the head. A Supreme Being would really have come in handy that day. Did God just sit there and watch the whole thing? Or was he distracted, too busy fulfilling the mundane prayers of others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting

The point is, in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible unknowable but assumed to exist anyway God, will invariably act in exactly the same manner as a God who isn't actually there. In fact a God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! What exactly is the difference? This is as close to an empirical test for the actual existence of God as one might reasonably hope for. And in these sorts of make or break tests, the result for the question "does God exist," invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.

Now let me make it clear. I do not blame God for what occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, in exactly the same way that I hold no grudge against Santa for not ACTUALLY coming to my house each Christmas. Being angry at imaginary things serves no purpose at all.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You still have no first cause for matter. Draw a circle without a beginning and I will accept your idea. It is not arbitrary that a circle had both, You just can't determine where they are.

Unless you have a first cause for God I don't require a first cause for energy. Energy actually exists, because it is us. All experimentation on energy indicates that it can neither be created or destroyed. The idea of God is derived from the imagination of a being who is composed of energy. You are the ultimate cause for the God you imagine exists. The first cause for the energy that you are composed of is not apparent.

So is energy REALLY eternal. I don't know! All I can do is consider that which can be observed. Make it up and declare it to be true has no obvious potential for leading to anything valid, I am afraid.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"We all had a starting point in the journey we call life. But there was a time before we existed. Yet every particle in our bodies then already existed. Every particle in our bodies now already existed. I am 69, so I have pretty much changed out every particle in my body over the course of those years. Particles of energy that clump together to form matter apparently exist eternally, according to all observation and experimentation."

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Even if that was true, which it isn't, you still have no first cause and it seem highly unlikely that life was eternal, because it needs life for a source.

Without a first cause, you are just blowing smoke. You can speculate all you wish, but it is irrelevant. That all life has beginning and an ending is a no brainer, and proves nothing.

If God exists without a first cause then clearly it is possible to exist without a first cause. No one is claiming that our sort of life has existed eternally.

Originally Posted by omega2XX

Before I was converted I would agree with you. I came a different route. I was not raised in a Christian home. I att4ended church off and on, mostly off, most of my married life. I was converted after I had decided not to ever attend church again, because it made no sense. The change made God as real as anything I can see. Most Christians will tell you the same thing---we know something sdupernatural happened that we can't explain.

Does this occur only to Christians? Or is it a valid experience among other religions as well?

Originally Posted by omega2XX

You are not qualified to declare God is only in my imagination.

imagination
[ih-maj-uh-ney-shuh n]
noun
1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery.
Compare fancy.
4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.

Establish for me that your belief in God does not conform in every way to the definition of that which occurs in the imagination.

Originally Posted by omega2XX

The intelligence of people then and now is irrelevant. Intelligence does not change anything in the Bible. Also the sons of Cain, developed farming, construction, music and metalurgy. That show a high level of intelligence.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Humans were no more or less smarter 2,000 or 5,000 years ago than they are now. The difference is in how much KNOWLEDGE has been acquired over the course of those years. We are not smarter now, but were KNOW vastly more now than they did thousands of years ago. As well we should. Every generation builds on the store of knowledge of the last generation.

You might also consider how many flat out geniuses who would have other wise toiled and lived out their lives in obscurity over the centuries, now get to go to universities and compare their thoughts with other genius minds. The rapid acceleration of scientific understanding that has been occurring just in the last couple of centuries is no accident.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

As usual, you make the same mistake I've seen most make...you include the TITLE "God" in with a list of the NAMES of characters that are metaphorical and allegorical manifestations of God and that which comprises God (ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED...aka "The Universe").
"GOD" is a title, not a name...nobody/nothing is named "God", unless that title was used as a name by some Mother/Father (such as people named "Lord").

"GOD" (The Universe) objectively exists...and is self-substantiating. Those metaphorical characters are just poetic representations of God and/or that which comprises God.

It seems many have trouble telling the difference between what is real, and what is just symbolic of that which is real.

If you can establish in some physical tangible way that God is different from the other figures I mentioned, then I will discontinue lumping them all together.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

If you can establish in some physical tangible way that God is different from the other figures I mentioned, then I will discontinue lumping them all together.

The God I perceive...ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (aka: The Universe)...is comprised of, and is the totality of anything and everything, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy.
As "ALL"...any portion of it would obviously be less than the total, and thus tangibly physically different than "ALL".
So, metaphorical characters that represent things like generous old men, pasta, etc...are not only simply conceptual representations that don't exist as actual physical entities...but they don't even represent anything but a tiny aspect of ALL (God).
Other metaphorical characters such as the Abrahamic Deities (Jehovah, Allah...) and other omni-powered entities, are also just conceptual representations of "ALL" within poetic stories.
OTOH...ALL (God) unequivocally and irrefutably has a tangible objective existence that self-substantiates.
Do you really not know the difference between ALL THAT EXISTS (God) and allegorical characters like Santa, Zeus, Odin, etc?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

The God I perceive...ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (aka: The Universe)...is comprised of, and is the totality of anything and everything, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy.
As "ALL"...any portion of it would obviously be less than the total, and thus tangibly physically different than "ALL".
So, metaphorical characters that represent things like generous old men, pasta, etc...are not only simply conceptual representations that don't exist as actual physical entities...but they don't even represent anything but a tiny aspect of ALL (God).
Other metaphorical characters such as the Abrahamic Deities (Jehovah, Allah...) and other omni-powered entities, are also just conceptual representations of "ALL" within poetic stories.
OTOH...ALL (God) unequivocally and irrefutably has a tangible objective existence that self-substantiates.
Do you really not know the difference between ALL THAT EXISTS (God) and allegorical characters like Santa, Zeus, Odin, etc?

According to the belief system of the Greeks Zeus was the king of ALL the Gods. That would apparently make Jehovah, Yhwh, Allah, etc., subject to him. On the other hand, Elohim was the creator God of Abraham. Elohim had dozens of children with his consort Asherah. Including Jehovah, Yhwh and Allah? Zeus also had a father, Cronus. It does all become a bit confusing you see. In what way is your make believe superior to this other make believe? Because you say so? Everyone's God is the one true God. Just ask them.

Here's a thought. Everyone's make believe is is exactly the same!

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Evidently the level of your intellect is not high enough to know that an omission CAN'T be a contradiction.



You also don't have the ability to understand the Bible. I did refute you so called contradictions.

I don't know why you are obsessed with me being Eusebius. It doesn't matter if I am and I am sure he would not come back with a different name. We just have similar theology from the same place, but someone mentioned something he accepted, that I do not---the gap theory. So you better retractd your bet before someone takes you up on it.

You also don't understand why my response to you ape with a gun senerio, could not prove man evolved from apes.

I did explain it, you are just ignorant of Roman history. "The color of your money" is one of the stupidest remarks I have ever received in this or any other forum.

If what you have posted to me is an example of what you do, you should cancel more of your post.

More denial, false claims, accusations. Anyone following the posts can see you didn't answer a darn thing. You're Eusebius, not a shadow of doubt now, and you are as soundly debunked and discredited as he was.

P.s. just for anyone wondering, while I refuted the ape with a gun remark, it was in any case irrelevant to the case for human evolution, human evolution is irrelevant to the case for a god and the case for a god is irrelevant for substantiation of the Gospel Jesus. It is either idiocy or misdirection.

Game over, old pal.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Of course...you look at it from your close-minded, tunnel-visioned, cherry-picked view of "God" as limited to just Religious Deities and mythological characters that are just representations of God and that which comprises God.
View "God" as I do from a Pantheist perspective (ALL THE ENERGY MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED...aka The Universe)...and there is then the possibility you might "get it".
The God I perceive...ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (The Universe)...has all the attributes definitive of a God Entity...and thus IS GOD.
We KNOW:
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in, acts upon, and controls, Reality.---ALL POWERFUL 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, is capable of all the seeing that has ever occured. ---ALL SEEING 100%
I could go on...but these are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity.
Religions use metaphorical and allegorical characters and stories to describe all of this.
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment.
That's "GOD"!

More Golden garbage, old mate. Instead of addressing the point, you peddle your tired old semantic fiddle. You too are debunked and discredited.

Isn't there any apologists who can make a decent fist of a case for Jesus