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.
Help me with this one - you say it is insane to believe that matter, energy and life come from lifeless elements, yet in the same breath you say God is eternal and was not created.
That's not insane?
Indeed. That is why he needs only his god to be eternal. But if his god is eternal, why can the universe also not be eternal? Not the universe as we know it, but as it was before it expanded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Please explain to us exactly how God created matter from nothing. And also how God created life from nothing.
By the power of special pleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
In fact, what exactly is life?
Chemistry. Apparently omega does not believe in chemistry.
Oh dear! Not that old chestnut again. I'll leave that one to you Harry.
Thank you, I have covered this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
Sorry, he got his information from the Christians, not from Pontius Pilate. He was writing what the Christians believed, not quoting a Roman record.
That is one option, either directly or indirectly through his friend Pliny the Younger.
But Christians from the third century collected lists of Martyrs, yet not one mentioned this passage. For various reasons I think this passage was invented sometime after 350 AD.
This is called the Singularity problem in physics. Evolutionists admit that this is the biggest problem to solve.
Evolution is biology, not physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
There is a law in biology called biogenesis which proves that life cannot come from non-life.
One, it is not a law; two, it says life does not form fully formed from things like dust: and three, there is no life / none life distinction. Life is part of chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
This is biology fact. But there is a Big Problem: the biological theory of evolution had always taught us that life arose from non-life. But biogenesis tells us that life comes from life which logically follows that the Singularity of life came only from Eternal Life! Eternal Life is not a place but a Living Being.
Not one fact was presented here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
Lets consider the argument from common sense. ...
Straw man cut as this is not the science section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
God Is Eternal Life and the Singularity. This means that there is no cause before God, as God Is the uncaused Cause. God is not matter and energy but the Creator of matter and energy that began this universe. One moment there was no universe and the next moment--bang!--God brought the universe into existence within just a nanosecond. God is not a man nor is He mortal. God is Spirit.
But you have just argued this non sequitur can never happen. You are just using the special pleading fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
Hebrews 11:1-3 Modern English Version (MEV)
Hebrews, the book that says Jesus never walked the earth, and that he sacrificed himself once, and once only, in heaven?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
Fortunately I have the book, The Annals of Imperial Rome. Tacitus did not get any of his information from Christians and why would he?
Even if genuine, Tacitus does not say where he got his information. If genuine, he could have just been repeating what he knew about Christianity.
One, it is not a law; two, it says life does not form fully formed from things like dust: and three, there is no life / none life distinction. Life is part of chemistry.
Not one fact was presented here.
Straw man cut as this is not the science section.
But you have just argued this non sequitur can never happen. You are just using the special pleading fallacy.
Hebrews, the book that says Jesus never walked the earth, and that he sacrificed himself once, and once only, in heaven?
Even if genuine, Tacitus does not say where he got his information. If genuine, he could have just been repeating what he knew about Christianity.
its all physics really harry. I mean "studying organisms and how they change" is under "biology", but when we get to the information stored and transmitted using DNA we get into physics. we have biologist, hot shot biologist do some chemistry, chemist, and hot shot chemist do physics, and physics. Hot shot physics tried to be human ...
yes, when we get into chemistry and physics the life, non life, line becomes just a communication tool. its all 'alive" or "all dead", lmao, actually we say, "its all kind of the same thing. what word would you like to describe it?"
I say the word 'god", as in judeo-christian" doesn't fit. "random", "natural", and "meaningless"? well, those are as literally false as that omni-god thing being literally true.
Help me with this one - you say it is insane to believe that matter, energy and life come from lifeless elements, yet in the same breath you say God is eternal and was not created.
That's not insane?
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Please explain to us exactly how God created matter from nothing. And also how God created life from nothing. In fact, what exactly is life?
You hit my nail's head 303. I Like .308's, but thats cool. this is, for me, where we need a process to weight claims. What "process" do people use to form beliefs?
the god claim or no god claim isn't that important to me. 'how do one come up with it" is of way more important to me. Usually the disconnects are based on things like, just not knowing, busy life, not concerned.
claims that offer a mechanism, explanation, and make predictions are more valid than those that don't. And yes, most people agree we can have more than one valid claim.
If I were a theist, I would say, "god", did it through the processes demonstrated in the BB, branes, and other theories.
If I were a theist, I would say ... "life"? the smallest unit we have, for now, of "life" is a cell. It seems to be millions of proteins, and other things, interacting using 1000's to 10'ooo's different types of species in a small volume. Its basically lots of interactions per unit volume. for now, thats one that most people can see.
I am not sure why people on both ends of the boob stick resist? resistance to common sense if futile, it just causes conflict.
So is baking, but I do not use my recipe for Baklava to describe the origins of the universe.
Not only off topic, but the tax man wishes to know what I earned last year so he can make a pauper of me in this one.
yes, baking is physics ... science and engineering. The differences is only based on the conditions around the discussions. but it is correct to talk about the physics of baking in many situations.
No, its not off topic. making off topic is the problem. bashing other religions and not offering what one thinks it might be is a huge problem. I am certainly not "a tax collector". But you may owe somebody something. like a valid counter offer.
yes, when I start attacking other people I need to know why. I need more than "my statement of belief is better than theirs." I need exactly what my statement of belief is based on.
Your not one of these, but all to often i see ...
bullhorn: "christians are wrong." ,
ok, so what are they wrong about?
bullhorn:"no god you fool."
"ok, no god. whats causing what we see around us?"
bullhorn:"oh yeah, they are are wrong I tell ya, stupid, delusional fools."
"ok, I got it, i even agree to a point. what's you explanation, mechanism, and what predictions does it make?'
bullhorn:"what are you talking about? their are wrong, stupid, and dangerous."
err, ok, I see, this isn't about what the universe is, this is about your statement of belief is better than their statement of belief."
bullhorn: "YES ... I would rep you if I could", your are so insightful, smart, and kind."
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.
The myth that all the apostles died martyrs deaths for their faith is actually more prevalent than the myth Jesus rose from the dead. Since it's going to take millions of declarations of the facts just to put a slight dent in this myth I'll repeat the historical facts:
We have NOhistorical records of the apostles having even existed , much less having died for their faith. Everything we know about them are tales spun out of the Bible and later churchmen to put a gloss on Christianity's ragged reputation. That's historic fact.
Quote:
A couple of the names recorded in the New Testament are probably actual people. There was probably a Peter and a John, definitely a James (the brother of Jesus), and probably a Thomas. Beyond that, there’s nothing historical that verifies their existence other than the gospels themselves. So I think [the apostles] are a mixture of fact and fiction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fezilla, your post is riddled with so many errors, assumptions, historical inaccuracies etc that it would take a book to address them all properly. I'll take just one:
We have NO Roman record of Jesus' trial. We have no Roman record that even mentions Jesus as a rabbi, prophet, seditionist, NOTHING. Tacitus doesn't mention the name "Jesus" you are referring to. Here's what Tacitus says:
Quote:
Therefore, to scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians [Chrestianos]. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus
There were many men who were self-styled "Christs" [anointed one] wandering the hills of Palestine in the 1st Century. Any one of them could have been the template upon which the later churchmen painted their portrait of the "savior of mankind". But this myth that Tacitus talks about Jesus keeps getting perpetuated by inaccurate quotes such as you've just given. That's only 1 error out about a 100 in your post. I cannot possibly deal with all of them.
There are many historians that state that Christ Jesus live in the first century however no secular historians will deal with the death burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
The Apostle Paul was not affiliated with the death burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus. the Apostle Paul's only dealt with the Revelation that he received from God after the death burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
There are NO historians that mention Jesus. The few that Christians have all mention "Christian". The only one you have, Josephus was proven to be a later interpolation decades ago.
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.
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.
