Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-10-2018, 10:09 AM
 
Location: USA
4,747 posts, read 2,348,928 times
Reputation: 1293

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
That is only true if there is not an omnipotent God and common sense and logic tells us matter, energy and life cannot create themselves out of nothing.



An omnipotent Creator who can create those 3 elements certainly would be capable of causing the dead to return to life and ascend to heaven.


Spiritual concepts are certainly hard to accept, but that does not meant they are impossible. Don't forget I was in your shoes over half of my life. I know that the change in my life could only have come from God.

Doesn't that same "common sense" also tell us that God could not have created Himself from nothing then? "Common Sense" does not tell us that matter and energy are the same thing. But it happens to be true. Observation indicates that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy simply changes from form to form. Energy takes many forms, one of which is matter. Life is also one of the forms that energy takes, through the process of organic chemistry. Matter/energy continuously interacts with itself through a process called quantum mechanics. Your ignorance of these natural processes does not serve to make your ancient make believe true and valid, I am afraid. Ancient people knew very little modern physics.

"Spiritual concepts" are ancient make believe. A hold over from a time when people had no other means to answer the great questions of existence. The fact that you are ignorant of the actual answers doesn't mean that the actual answers are not known.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2018, 10:27 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,577,622 times
Reputation: 2070
not really tired. common sense asks us for some reasonable guesses. The two main, maybe three, are 'from nothing" and 'from something". I could put the standard cop out of "nobody knows so I aint playing" in there as number three, but then we wouldn't be here "playing".

1) "from nothing" is a party killer for most people. But "nothing" being the powerful "force" I know, could be interesting to some.

2) form something, well now, what kinds of something. for me, and actually most people could understand if you polled them, "born" is one of the more reasonable guesses. But, i concede, born, branes, quantum soup, strings, are al on the same level.

3) "nobody knows" cop out for the fearful. enough said on that.

'energy" not being 'created or destroyed is based on our location in the universe. Its a conservation thing that we are not sure about, on a "multiverse' scale that is. As proof of the uncertainty about conservation laws I point to QM mechanism being unknown and the singularity. But, I also concede that the standard model is based on conservation laws, and woefully incomplete.

He doesn't know, but there is no need for people with common sense to insert knows that are not, well, really known. And the conservations laws are broken regularly. And QM doesn't know why. again, I am willing to go elsewhere to learn about the mechanisms of this QM you speak of. Because as far as I am concerned, QM is direct evidence that leads us to a descriptor of this region of the universe to be "alive". And the mechanism for QM is unknown. It just works and has worked every time.

"alive" would be a reasonable conclusion to explain the theists misunderstanding. Yeah, it does nothing for the anti-religious deny everything sect of atheism, but I don't run my life on a statement of belief. I run it based on whats in front of me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 11:40 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,995,136 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Common sense tells us if you need to repeat this straw man fallacy yet again, that is because you still have no evidence.

I have admitted I can't prove what I believe. Why are you not willing to do the same? You certainly haven't produced any evidence to support your faith.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 11:44 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,995,136 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Once again with the straw man, plus non sequitur.

It is ony a straw man to those who can't prove it false and can't prove their biased OPINION RIGHT.




Quote:
Ironically proving your initial comment about not 'continuing this discussion' was also inaccurate.

Why don't you explain how some who has run away is still here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,772 posts, read 4,979,959 times
Reputation: 2113
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
I have admitted I can't prove what I believe. Why are you not willing to do the same? You certainly haven't produced any evidence to support your faith.
That is my 547th T Shirt bought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,772 posts, read 4,979,959 times
Reputation: 2113
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
It is ony a straw man to those who can't prove it false and can't prove their biased OPINION RIGHT.
Irony is another straw man from you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
Why don't you explain how some who has run away is still here.
Nothing to do with what I have said. I pointed out how you said it was pointless ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
... to continue this discussion.
Yet here you are, proving my point a second time.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 12:05 PM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,995,136 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
Doesn't that same "common sense" also tell us that God could not have created Himself from nothing then? "

God was not created. He is eternal. To believe matter, energy and lie from lifeless elements is insane.



Quote:
Common Sense" does not tell us that matter and energy are the same thing. But it happens to be true.

Even if f it is true, which it isn't, it still doesn't explain how it came into existence.



Quote:
Observation indicates that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy simply changes from form to form.


True.





Quote:
Energy takes many forms, one of which is matter.


Not true.





Quote:
Life is also one of the forms that energy takes, through the process of organic chemistry.

Not true.



Quote:
Matter/energy continuously interacts with itself through a process called quantum mechanics.


Not only is that not true, it is pure bolony. QM is he poster child for wild speculation.



Quote:
Your ignorance of these natural processes does not serve to make your ancient make believe true and valid, I am afraid. Ancient people knew very little modern physics.

Not only are you ignorqant of these natural processes, you have to make up things about them that are not true.


Quote:
"Spiritual concepts" are ancient make believe.

Then prove it. O you can't. That makes is it your personal opinion and a very biaed one at that.



Quote:
A hold over from a time when people had no other means to answer the great questions of existence. The fact that you are ignorant of the actual answers doesn't mean that the actual answers are not known.

All you have done is beat around the bush and ignored the main question. What is the source of matter, energy and especially how did life originate from lifeless elements?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,857,175 times
Reputation: 2881
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
My belief in God does not depend on a secular story being true. It depends on having an omnipotent God who has he power to do anything He wants to. It is not silly, if you understand the Bible, which you can't, to say God not doing something is proof He does not exist.
I didn't say it was proof of non-existence but it is proof that your god is not the kind, loving, caring and benevolent deity who loves us more than his own son, that Christianity tries to sell it as.

Quote:
To believe matter, energy and life from lifeless elements created themselves out of nothing is far sillier than a man living in a big fish for 3 days, or any other miracle you want to mention and it takes much more faith than I have.
It's only Christians that think things can come from nothing...such as their god creating the universe ...out of nothing.

Quote:
Since I am still here disputing you, even your comment that I have run for the hills is about as accurate as your other comments.
It wasn't me you were running from. You were running from Harry. You said you weren't going to respond to him any more... but still continue to respond to him.
Aaaaaahahahahaha!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 07:26 PM
 
Location: USA
4,747 posts, read 2,348,928 times
Reputation: 1293
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
God was not created. He is eternal. To believe matter, energy and lie from lifeless elements is insane.
God is nowhere to be found except in the imaginations of those who created the concept of God. Meanwhile it is observed that living things share the same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up rocks. Life is made up of lifeless elements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Even if f it is true, which it isn't, it still doesn't explain how it came into existence.

Argue with Einstein. Argue with E=MC² (E=energy; M=mass or matter). Argue with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Argue with nuclear energy. In other words argue with modern nuclear physics.


Wikipedia
Abiogenesis
Researchers study abiogenesis through a combination of molecular biology, paleontology, astrobiology and biochemistry, and aim to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life.[13] The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three,[15] as life arose under conditions that are strikingly different from those on Earth today. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life on Earth descends from an RNA world,[17] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Energy takes many forms, one of which is matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Not true.
Again, you are arguing with E=MC²

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Life is also one of the forms that energy takes, through the process of organic chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Not true.
Like it or not, modern science has obliterated your medieval superstition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Matter/energy continuously interacts with itself through a process called quantum mechanics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Not only is that not true, it is pure bolony. QM is he poster child for wild speculation.

Unfortunately, the mods will not allow me to present more in depth explanations of quantum mechanics on the religion forum. The best I can do is point out that if quantum mechanics is nothing but wild speculation, then we have no explanation for why our modern electronic technology works at all, because modern electronic technology is dependant on our current understanding of quantum mechanics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Your ignorance of these natural processes does not serve to make your ancient make believe true and valid, I am afraid. Ancient people knew very little modern physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Not only are you ignorqant of these natural processes, you have to make up things about them that are not true.
Things occur entirely by natural means. Because we live in a universe of energy, and energy interacts with itself. One of the forms that energy takes, quite by natural means, is matter. And matter is the stuff of the stars and planets, the sun and the moon, and you and me.

Allow me to give you an example of matter/energy, ultimately quantum mechanics, in action. Here in the USA the conditions are right for a phenomenon called tornadoes. Tornadoes are often called "the finger of God," but in truth they have no connection to anything intelligent. They are caused entirely by the conditions that exist in the American midwest, although they occur on other parts of planet Earth as well. They occur due to the FACT that energy/matter interacts with itself. They occur, like everything else in the universe occurs, because of a process called quantum mechanics at work.

The sun is constantly streaming out radiation, which is to say, tiny bits of quanta, some of which is charged either positively or negatively. Because positively and negatively charged particles either attract or repel each other, when these particles strike the earth they cause the earth's molecules to react by moving in response. This movement is what we detect as heat. The more southern latitudes, being more directly in line with the sun, receive more of this solar heating. Conversely, the northern latitudes receive less. This is why it is noticibly cooler at the poles then at the equator.

As the sun shines on the Gulf of Mexico, the nice warm tropical Caribbean, the air molecules become more active and spread out, causing the air to become lighter. As you may or may not know, warm air rises. It rises because as the molecules of air spread out, they become less dense in volume and therefore lighter than cooler air. In the gulf of Mexico however, the sun also causes the waters of the Caribbean to evaporate. The water molecules fill in the spaces between the air molecules, causing the air to be dense and heavy with water molecules (H2O). We call this humidity, and if you have ever been in any of the southern United States in the summer, most especially Florida, then you have had direct experience with humidity. It's like a sauna in the summer.

Water heats more slowly than the land does however. So air over land masses can heat heat quite rapidly whereas the air over water remains cooler. As the warm air inland rises, the relatively cooler air over the Gulf is pulled in to fill the vacuum. We refer to this resulting movement of air as "wind," and it has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is an ENTIRELY natural process at work. In the far north over Canada the cool dense air is also pulled towards the warm rising air over the mid-section of the US. And here is where tornadoes are born.

When the warm but moisture heavy air from the south meets with the cold air from the north, things can turn violent. The moisture in the warm humid air from the south very quickly condenses from contact with the cooler air and turns into rain. If the cold northern air is below zero at elevation, when the cold air encounters the heavily moisture ladened air from the south hail is produced. Not just any hail either. Big chunks of ice fall from the sky large enough to kill. When the naturally warm air from the south is suddenly relieved of it's moisture, it instantly becomes lighter, and rapidly rises. The heavier cool air from the north falls into the vacuum caused by the rapidly raising warm air. When the conditions between the cold air mass and the warm air mass are disparate enough, and the abrupt loss of moisture in the warm air is rapid enough, this can cause a violently rotating column of air to form at speeds of several hundred miles per hour.

We call this a tornado. And it has nothing to do with any supernatural intelligence. It occurs because there are positively and negatively charged particles (quanta) from the sun constantly bathing the earth. Because oppositely charged particles (quanta) are attracted to each other, while particles (quanta) with like charges are repelled by each other. This is the driving principle behind quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is the driving force behind everything that occurs. Quantum mechanics occurs because matter/energy NATURALLYinteracts with itself. Positive and negative charges are responsible for the sun, the stars, and the very thoughts in your brain.

Make believe is not involved. Crediting all of this to God or the gods or any supernatural cause at all, yes, that is make believe. Things which are fictitious can be SHOWN to be fictitious. Because ancient people did not understand the physical reasons for tornadoes and other natural phenomena, they concluded that gods and supernatural forces were involved. Ancient people were ignorant, they had no other choice. But, more and more, today ignorance IS a choice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
"Spiritual concepts" are ancient make believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Then prove it. O you can't. That makes is it your personal opinion and a very biaed one at that.
Prove that Santa DOESN'T exist and DOESN"T have a team of flying reindeer, and I will use the same method to "prove" that spiritual concepts are make believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2018, 12:44 AM
 
179 posts, read 83,104 times
Reputation: 50
I saw Jesus rise from the dead through fulfilled prophecy. Right now atheists are proving the Bible by fulfilling prophecies spoken by Jesus. There are many prophecies that prove Jesus rose from the dead. There is one prophecy involving the rise of the Christian era and even the invention of the airplane plus many more prophecies which occur after Christ' death and resurrection. So I go by the prophecies and see all this skepticism as more proof in Jesus' resurrection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
We cannot reliably date Mark any earlier than the 2nd century because no words of Mark's gospel appear in manuscript and no mention of Mark occurs until the late 2nd century
That's funny, because a fragment of the Gospel of John was discovered in the early 2nd century, A.D.125. We all know he Gospel of John was the last of the Gospels written. We also know that these Gospels were written on papyrus which has a relatively short shelf life. So what the fragment of John tells us is that Christians had used that many time before it found its final resting place; meaning, it was well circulated before it's shelf life expired. What does this say? Well common sense should tell you that if John is so old then the other three Gospels were older and thus could not be as easy to find fragments of them in the early 2nd century due to the short life span of papyrus. We are lucky to have found the scrolls and fragments we have! For centuries atheists mocked believers for having manuscripts that did not date past the 9th century. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and atheists are till having a problem remembering that. But the Dead Sea Scrolls deal solely with OT Books. We were lucky to have found them as well. If people only knew how history was written and preserved they might not be as skeptical about those things we have not found.

The other error in your post is a common error made by atheists and even some Christian scholars. That err is the presumption that the Gospel of Mark was the first written Gospel. This is not true and Christian tradition does not agree with this assumption. The Gospel of Matthew was the first written Gospel. The Gospel order in the NT is correct tradition and even today all Bibles contain that order due to the more sound tradition supporting that order of writing. And again the Gospel of John is something we know was written before atheists claim and the early 2nd century fragment proves this.

I'm no master in manuscripts but some of this is just basic knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
****The phrase "The first day of the week" is very ancient.

Bogus nonsense.
Its ancient to Judaism. They called the names of the week simply by 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day etc. By the top of the 2nd century Christians were regularly calling the 1st day of the week The Lord's Day based on His resurrection which was on the 1st day. In A.D.150, Justin Martyr uses the word Sunday for the first time in recorded Christian history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
The empty tomb nonsense was just a later development by early church men to support the growing story that Jesus was resurrected. Before the gospels Christians had absolutely no idea of an empty tomb because it doesn't show up anywhere in the 1st century.
Nobody became a Christian who did not believe Christ rose. You don't even have a Christian faith without the resurrection of Christ. I also do not believe these disciples of Jesus, who all deserted Jesus the night of His arrest, would three days later transform into Apostles who all died brutal deaths for their testimony of Christ' resurrection. Many of the early Christians were rounded up and killed for their belief when all they had to do is recant their faith to save their lives. Most of the believers chose death as history is full of Christians who were executed for their faith. So were all these early Christians willingly dying for a lie? I don't think so. There is no evidence they didn't believe. They definitely believed and many people saw Jesus after His death.

The Romans have Jesus recorded as being executed in Tacitus, who was a 1st century Roman historian who confirms Christ' execution. The Romans were well trained in crucifying people as they did this all the time. They had crucifixion down to an art. Jesus died on that cross and nobody denies that. Yet hundreds of reports from people who say Jesus after His execution are mentioned by Paul in Scripture. These same witnesses to Christ resurrection died for that testimony. Nobody is gonna die for a lie when all they need to do to save their lives is recant their claim. But these early Christians did not recant and therefore were all executed.

Then there are all the prophecies which were to be fulfilled after Christ' resurrection which many of them are fulfilled for the exception of End Time prophecy which is not being fulfilled by atheists which further confirms the truth of Scripture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top