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.
Yikes me thinks someones like to hear their own voices, this is really ridiculous. TOTN....you need to just let it go you know you can't reason with religious people, no matter how "educated" they proclaim to be. Lot of hot air and no real results from all those long a$$ posts. IBIO...simply stated....where's the evidence? There is none, end of discussion.
I am not trying to convince ibioiniui of anything. My intention is to fully shine a light on ibioiniui's claims, and to thoroughly subject them to public scrutiny. My experience is that these claims, so commonly espoused by fundamentalist Christians, whither badly and quite obviously in the light of public exposure. The posts are long it's true, but it is necessary to be thorough, I have found. Those who are interested will hang in there.
I understand the problem. Lengthy posts are, well, lengthy and often boring. My last post might prove to be at odds with that problem. It contains a wealth of some mighty interesting information, and even several puns. You might find it a worthy read.
Yikes me thinks someones like to hear their own voices, this is really ridiculous. TOTN....you need to just let it go you know you can't reason with religious people, no matter how "educated" they proclaim to be. Lot of hot air and no real results from all those long a$$ posts. IBIO...simply stated....where's the evidence? There is none, end of discussion.
While I agree that you can't reason with believers, I find this debate very interesting and I'm learning a lot, which is always a good thing.
I am not trying to convince ibioiniui of anything. My intention is to fully shine a light on ibioiniui's claims, and to thoroughly subject them to public scrutiny. My experience is that these claims, so commonly espoused by fundamentalist Christians, whither badly and quite obviously in the light of public exposure. The posts are long it's true, but it is necessary to be thorough, I have found. Those who are interested will hang in there.
Sorry but this is nothing new and it's all been done ad nauseum. No one cares.
I'll try to narrow down the lengths of my posts if I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
I declare that your God could not simply "just exist" without the benefit of a creator. So I declare that your creator God was created by Popeye. How did Popeye accomplish this? By eating his spinach naturally. It's well known to millions that He is a mighty Being when He eats His spinach. And where did Popeye get this spinach? He created it with a word, I imagine. And so the question is settled, because I have declared this to be true, and because it is common knowledge that when Popeye eats His spinach, He can do ANYTHING.
Now, you might consider this statement to be perfectly silly. Popeye is just an imaginary character after all who has been endowed with imaginary supernatural capabilities. Which of course is exactly my point. Simply declaring that Popeye created God is every bit is legitimate, and every bit as obviously true, as simply declaring that God created the universe.
I understand your attempted analogy. It doesn't really apply, both in in a practical sense, and in the scale of who you are trying to compare Popeye to, but I'll go along with it and zone in on some truths. First, you are declaring a false statement from the get go. We know who created Popeye, who is a cartoon character created by Elzie Crisler Segar. You personally declaring it is simply that, you declaring what we already know to me a lie. You cannot start of an analogy with a declaration that is known to be a lie.
The Torah says God created the universe. Jesus says God created the universe. Billions of Christians say God created the universe throughout History. I'm not basing my discussion of off my own personal declarations or analogies, but sticking as close to the Truth as possible, without reference to inapplicable analogies or use thereof.
Quote:
Do you notice how you have completely side stepped in your reply the uncomfortable aspects of what I was pointing out to you? Because the rest of us do. According to you, God once stopped the rotation of planet earth, a claim entirely at odds, not only with physics, but all reason, for the purpose of gaining extra time to allow the Israelites to complete the slaughter, the beheading and disemboweling, of thousand of defenseless women, children and babies. You consider this to be a genuine fact of history. You also apparently consider this vicious and bloody act of genocide to be perfectly righteous. Which leads me right back to the subject of what insanity make believe is, and what insanity make believe is the cause of.
I didn't intend to sidestep the issue, but I will accommodate you.
Quote:
So let's next look at one really good example of "utter nonsense" that is contained in the Bible. If the "long day" story is true, then the earth once abruptly stopped rotating for about 24 hours. So let's, as you earlier suggested, calm down and consider this story objectively for a moment. The speed of the rotation of the earth is roughly 24,000 miles an hour at the surface. If the earth abruptly stopped rotating, everything not tied down would instantly be launched over the earth's surface at a speed of 24,000 miles an hour. The stated purpose for arresting the earth's rotation was to allow the Israelite soldiers to complete the slaughter of thousands of defenseless men, woman and children. This would be spectacularly hard to do while flying over the ground at a speed of 24,000 thousand miles an hour. Especially when one comes into contact with a fixed stationary object. Like a mountain. But this objective consideration of the claim will go much deeper than that. Because abruptly stopping the earth's rotation would cause everything on the surface of the earth to flatten right out, including the tallest mountains. Entire Continents would shift, and the oceans would slosh right out of their seabeds and cover everything. Except that any true consideration of this claim goes far deeper than that. The earth's rotating speed of 24,000 miles an hour at the surface represents a MASSIVE amount of kinetic energy. Far more than enough to turn the entire planet into a molten mass. Were the rotation to be abruptly halted, intense heat would be the result. Because energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Kinetic energy, the speed of the earth's rotation, would be transformed into heat. If one were being truly honest in their objectivity, one might wonder WHY NO ONE ELSE, NO OTHER CIVILIZATION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, NOTICED OR RECORDED THE OCCURRENCE OF THIS AMAZING "EVENT?"
I actually find this part exciting, because it relates to what I want to focus on - primarily the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Let me just keep this brief, and whether you agree or disagree is up to you.
As a summary, there is evidence of a 10th Planet like object the sun in our solar system. They first postulated its existence years ago after discovering anomalies in Neptune orbit. Some call it Planet X. Some call it Nibiru. Here are two of many sources verifying this:
Since then they've tried to suppress the information, but observers around the world are documenting a very particular event - the appearance of two suns:
Of course, I, believe that Jesus Christ still speaks to His prophets. And lo and behold, in a recent message, he has declared that before His second coming, there would be unpredictable weather, and the appearance of two suns:
Here's an excerpt:
"The closer the Day of My Great Coming draws, the more people, who say they love God, will withdraw from Me. Even those who say they are holy and exalt themselves within the hierarchy of My Church on Earth, won’t be able to see the Truth. They will not see the Truth because they will be so busy attending to matters and ceremonies, which will be insulting to Me.
The first sign will be that the Earth will spin faster. The second sign concerns the sun, which will loom larger, brighter and begin to spin. Beside it you will see a second sun. Then the weather will cause the world to shake and the changes will mean that many parts of the Earth will be destroyed."
756
The time for the comet to appear, of which I spoke, when people will believe that there are two suns, is close
Saturday, April 6th, 2013 @ 17:00
My dearly beloved daughter, the stars will soon change and the time for the comet to appear, of which I spoke, when people will believe that there are two suns, is close. Soon the wondrous spectacle will be seen by humanity, and there will be heard the sound of thunder, and it will seem that the two suns will collide.
Indeed, the weathers been quite ... record breaking all over the world hasn't it? Floods in Texas, Winter storms all over the East Coast, drought in California, tsunami in Japan causing the nuclear incident, major Earthquake in Napal, massive animal dieoffs with no explanation, etc. etc.
So what am I trying to say, and how does this relate to Joshua? Well the following link summarizes many different sources I've found pretty well:
In essence, there is a planet around the size of Jupiter with a huge elliptical orbit around the sun which takes it far beyond even Pluto for most of its orbit, thus rendering it undetected. It is trailed by asteroids. Indeed, if you notice, Joshua 10 also describes that a meteor storm accompanied the event where the sun "stopped". All this evidence follows what is being discovered about planet X, which is trailed by a shower of meteors.
And it's appearance in the inner solar system has coincided with every major Biblical event. The flood, Moses and the 10 plagues, Joshua stopping the sun, King Hezekiah and Isaiah tilting the shadow of the dial, even the eclipse during the Jesus's crucifixion which led to 3 hours of darkness. And it's now back.
What you postulated based on what is possible from a physical perspective (the slowing of the Earths rotation, etc) is all correct, and the sources explain how such can be accomplished by the extra planet in question.
Either way, there it is. He who has eyes to see, let him see and judge. I investigate all sources, and once again, the Bible does not put limits to what is possible, even from a scientific perspective. God's creation is perfect and orderly in all ways.
Quote:
But of course the God of your imagination, whom you imagine to be capable of ANYTHING, could easily have achieved all of this. Because the God of your imagination is such a bloody brute, that He would naturally choose to accomplish this cosmic feat to achieve the necessary goal of having the Israelite's decapitate and disembowel the entire population of helpless Amorite women and children with the edge of their swords, right down to the smallest baby. What A Guy this God of your imagination is!
If you want to attempt to make a statement about God's morality, I am right with you. Let's talk about Jesus Christ, as described in the Gospels. He is the Word of God, and exemplifies what God wanted all men to be. The men of ancient were brutal, and surrounded by brutal men, and God worked with what he had to set the base for a country until He Himself could come down and show us what He really wanted us to be. And He did as Jesus Christ.
All these arguments attempting to label God as vindictive and cruel are meaningless. Look at Jesus Christ, the "visible image of the invisible God". Only He and He alone represents the actual character of God and what he expects and desires all men to be like. The men of ancient days were brutal, and God has historically had to work with sinners who fall far below his own standards, but you cannot judge God based on the actions of man. A common fallacy with no merit, especially if you deliberately ignore the Gospels.
Quote:
I know a couple who thoroughly believe in ghosts. The problem is, ghosts keep invading their house. They have resorted on several occasion to calling in a priest to rid their home, homes actually, of ghosts. The priest went from room to room, reciting his priestly mumbo-jumbo, and sprinkling holy water around. Holy water is amazing stuff. It comes directly out of the tap, but it takes on mysterious powers after being blessed by the priest. The problem is, this solution never lasts for long, and the ghosts come back. And so the couple have been forced to move from one new home to another, which has proved to be a great financial burden for them.
I on the other hand live in a large wooden two story 100 year old house, complete with an attic room and a basement. My house is only a block from the largest rural cemetery in the county. The father of the family that previously owned my home passed away in the very bedroom I have slept in for the last 30 years. And yet I have always slept very peacefully in that room. My house would seem to be ripe for ghosts. And yet I have never ever been bothered by ghosts. Unlike the couple that is constantly plagued by ghosts, I am NEVER bothered by ghosts. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the fact that I do not believe in ghosts seems to keep me safe from ghosts. But exactly the same holds true for my friends who also do not believe in ghosts. They are never plagued by ghosts either. The explanation here seems to be that superstitious expectations beget superstitious experiences. Or, more precisely, fools are easily fooled.
It's actually well known that the primary target of demons is ... believers, and priests/pastors in particular. The only goal of Satan is to drag people Hell, of which rejecting the salvation of Jesus Christ is the primary way. If you do not believe in God, then Satan has already done his work, and will have absolutely no reason to harass you or convince you that anything paranormal exists. Unfortunate actually . . . deceit is his greatest weapon.
And indeed, I notice that you refuse to even investigate my sources. But I will post another one. Here is Padre Pio, a priest who bore the physical signs of the stigmata for over 50 years, and documented his own struggles with the Beast. He had physical evidence of being beat up : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina
I will deliberately acknowledge that this will fly in the face of many nonbelievers. I have been on both sides, knowing what its like to live unharassed because I was an atheist, and knowing how the devil harasses faithful Christians. All the Church saints attest to this fact. Here is a website documenting such confrontations:
You can choose to disagree, but if you do so without actually going through the evidence and responding to that, then you can't even claim to be searching for the truth of things, but defending a preassumption that the spiritual world of fallen entities cannot exist.
Also, I noticed you completely sidestepped my sources about the apparitions of the Mother Mary, I don't expect you to even look into this one. But you cannot make such claims without investigating both sides of the table. I will continue to point you to Church history and the writings of the saints. Go look at Thomas Aquinas and try to discredit his writings if you dare. He debated men much more intelligent than both of us, and was familiar with all the philosophers of past; he even incorporated Aristotle into his works.
Evidence of the Living God goes much further than the Bible. That is really just one of several history accounts, the most formulated, but by no means the only once since the resurrection of Christ.
Quote:
Okay, let's tackle this subject head on. My apologies for those of you following along if this becomes somewhat lengthy, but it is a complicated issue. It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that
everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discreet spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, none of us existed as discreet individuals prior to our conception. The material that had the potential to become us existed with our parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in our bodies, from the moment of our conception to this very moment in time has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms.
Einstein's famous theorem E=mc2 tells us that matter and energy are co-equivalent. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. And as nuclear fission has abundantly established, the energy potential of even small amounts of matter is quite enormous. The law of conservation of energy specifically tells us that energy itself can neither be created or destroyed. If the law of conservation of energy is a valid and inviolate law of physics, which is the very purpose of describing the physical laws of nature as "laws," then every particle of our bodies has existed eternally in various forms prior to our current existence, and will continue to exist eternally in other forms after we have passed away. Everything is recycled and reused again and again, eternally. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the
law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then energy, which is what the universe is, can neither be created or destroyed. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the observable universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of conditions which already existed. And within our own universe this pattern of ongoing change, this FRACTALIZATION, continues through the process of the formation of black holes.
How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness. What happens when massive stars explode? The lightest elements are blown away and their heaviest elements are then reduced by the force of gravity into something approximating a singularity, from which not even light can escape and which then disappears from our plane of existence. Leaving only gravity for us to mark their passage. The question "Where did the energy for our universe come from" is echoed in the question, "Where did the energy in a black hole go?" The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive. It IS clear however, that the energy in a black hole WAS DERIVED FROM OUR UNIVERSE. In other words, A CONDITION IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE BLACK HOLE. This and the law of conservation of energy implies, at least, that the energy of our universe existed in a condition prior to the big bang. And this of course implies a multi-verse.
It is observed that the centers of most large galaxies glow brightly in x-rays. The explanation for this is that super massive black holes reside at the centers of most large galaxies, and they are accreting material from stars which are within their gravitational reach. As this material falls into the black hole it heats up, causing x-rays. The center of our Milky Way galaxy is an exception. It does not shine in x-rays. The Milky Way galaxy is spinning far too fast for there NOT to be a super massive black hole at it's center however. The inference here is that the super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy has already devoured all of the material within it's gravitational reach. But the point is, it is very possible for a black hole to continue gathering energy FROM OUTSIDE OF ITSELF. It is not creating energy, but acquiring energy which already exists. The law of conservation of energy is in no way violated by this.
According to observation based on the Doppler Effect, our universe is rapidly expanding. The galaxies farthest way from us seem to be receding from us at the speed of light in fact, an observation which seems to confound reason. Because, given the amount of matter that we CAN see, the expansion of the universe should be slowing due to the effects of gravity. The explanation for this apparent expansion is that there must be some mysterious unseen force, a force termed "dark energy," which is the cause of this expansion. It's as if the universe were gaining energy which WOULD violate the law of conservation of energy. Unless of course this energy already existed. It's as though energy exists outside of the universe, and the universe is tapping into it. Again, this is another implication of a multiverse. A vast cosmos of universes made of energy which we cannot, as yet, observe. Black holes accreting energy from outside of themselves MAY be the clue to conditions that we are observing in our own universe. Just perhaps, the interior of our own black hole we call the universe.
But you see, these are possibilities. Science deals in facts that can be quantified, like the law of conservation of energy, and then reflects on the possibilities of these discoveries. The polar opposite of religion, which declares "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it!" In science nothing is settled and inquiry continues. In religion everything is settled, and the door to inquiry is closed.
If the multiverse is true, How many infinite possibilities of universes have been realized and will yet be realized, each with it's own set of parameters, given that energy is INFINITE IN DURATION? There is no answer to this of course, because infinity has no number. And within this range of infinite possibility, what are the chances that a just right bowl of porridge which allows for a universe which further allows for our sort of existence, will be produced? Given that we are dealing with infinity, the answer is SOMETHING APPROACHING 100%. The driving force behind this process seems to derive from quantum mechanics. Believers choose to call the process God, because this allows them to feel safe and secure in the belief that their existence is the result of some cosmic plan. Science simply calls it quantum mechanics however. Something to be studied and understood, but not worshiped.
Ah this is interesting as well. You certainly typed a lot here, but it is filled with contradictions and assumptions. Remember, science in its purest sense describes what is - theorist postulate why. Science and God do not contradict, but theorists may try to interpret the facts in a way that they do. You are being a theorist, and mixing your own presumptions with facts. So lets go through your post and separate the science from your own theory.
I will address this in order:
First, you state
Quote:
CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT
which means by definition that all effects must trace back to a cause, the beginning of the effect. I repeat, the cause is the beginning. Thus all things have some beginning. And yet, above, you say
Quote:
It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discreet spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL.
So you are saying that the cause and effect train continues indefinitely. This makes no sense logically, because you are saying that everything is an infinite chain of causes and effects. If there was no first cause, then its not true that cause always precedes effect, since you have established an infinite loop of cause and effect with no discrete beginning. You directly contradict yourself. Even Aristotle disagreed with this assertion in this postulation of the unmovable mover: Who Is The Unmoved Mover?.
In short, if everything is an infinite loop with no discreet beginning, then each cause was caused by an effect, which came from a cause, which came from an effect, etc. etc. And cause therefore cannot be said to precede effect.
Then you go on to say
Quote:
How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness.
And so here, you again contradict yourself again, saying that the universe, was "squeezed into a dense point". What squeezed it? There had to be a cause, since cause precedes effect, and thus is its beginning, its discreet beginning.
Was it spontaneous? By your own words, no, there are no observable discreet spontaneous beginnings. Thus, it logically follows that there was a squeezer who deliberately squeezed matter into that point, creating the conditions for the big bang. So then, what is the first cause that squeezed (visible) matter into the singularity in the first place? Your own words point to a (conscious) force that deliberately squeezed it.
Honestly I can go on, but the main point is, you made your own assumption, instead of just sticking with the facts. The facts are, the observable universe (and remember, only 4.9% of the universe is observable) expanded from a singularity to where it is now, and is experiencing accelerating expansion. There was a beginning, the singularity, and pure science is unable to nor responsible for make further assumptions about what created (or caused) the singularity.
The rest of this section is a bunch of facts combined together but which bear no real logical coherence(and even if they did, everything you described, from Einsteins E= mc2, to the Big Bang, and even the conservation of mass and energy theory, only apply to electromagnetic energy and matter, which is 4.9% of the universe. Scientist cannot make any assumptions about dark matter or energy, except its influence on regular matter based on gravity. Indeed, many of the theories you posted were created before the existence of dark matter was even inferred).
Indeed, you continue to make false statements like:
Quote:
"But you see, these are possibilities. Science deals in facts that can be quantified, like the law of conservation of energy, and then reflects on the possibilities of these discoveries. The polar opposite of religion, which declares "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it!" In science nothing is settled and inquiry continues. In religion everything is settled, and the door to inquiry is closed. "
This is a blatantly false assumption of your own. God creating a vast universe is just that, nothing more, nothing less. You staying religion closes the door to inquiry is a false assumption, and I proved that by showing that many of the leading scientists were God believing Christians. Science is the tool given to discover His creation. It is you who is closing the door of inquiry by (a) making assumptions of what is and isn't possible based off of 4.9% of the universe and (b) attempting to use your own defined theory, stated as facts, to prove there can be no beginning. Of course even there you contradicted yourself.
I repeat, the existence of a God does not put any limitations of what we can discover about the universe. Indeed. God and the Bible are clear that most of the Heavens and the universe are invisible.
1 Timothy 1:17 - Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Colossians 1:15 - He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in[h] him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.
The Big Bang itself only documents the history of 4.9% of the total universe, i.e. the creation of light. Einsteins theory E=mc2 only applies to electromagnetic waves, since dark matter wasn't even postulated then. You can keep dancing around with logic, but the fact that most of our theories only applies to 4.9% of the universe still stands. Invisible matter dominates, and we can only make assumptions about it based on its gravitational influence on visible matter; nothing more, nothing less.
Finally, even your conservation of energy is false when it comes to dark energy. I mentioned that in my previous post. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, yet the density of dark energy is constant throughout. This means, quite simply, that dark energy is being created out of nothing.
But I do know that God created light out of darkness (light matter from the mass of dark matter). I do know that God, when he came in the flesh, multiplied a few fish and 5 bread loaves and fed thousands (creating mass/energy out of seemingly nothing). But as the programmer knows his program, so does God know His creation.
TL-DR
The Big Bang Theory, Supernovas, E=mc2, conservation of energy, etc. and all your other examples still only apply to 4.9% of the universe, the observable universe. We cannot logically apply those assumptions 95.1% of the universe (made up of dark matter and energy), which is only bound by the laws of gravity and gravity alone (based on current scientific knowledge). Thus, you cannot make assumptions about how the universe works as a whole, how it started, ended, when all of our theories about the universe are based on the observable, 4.9% of it.
You contradicted yourself, first by saying all causes precede effects, then by saying there is an infinite loop of cause and effects (which means you cannot determine what precedes what), and then by saying that the universe was squeezed, which presupposes a clause.
A lot of facts is just that, a lot of facts. Be succinct when dealing with science, and be careful in confusing your own assumptions with what is truth. It is not logical to extrapolate conclusions based on 4.9% of the total evidence.
Quote:
You're the one who keeps attempting to use Christianity's current position as the most numerous, in terms of total adherents, religious belief as evidence that it must be valid. In fact in total numbers, Christians only account for approximately 25% of the people in this world. My point is, even by your own estimation of what is true, the overwhelming majority of people in this world clearly subscribe to a lie. I was also pointing out that it is hardly a case of me and my unbelief against the whole world, as you suggested.
I will then state, that numbers are indeed indicative of truth to a certain extent. From that statement, I will go on to state that since the vast majority of humanity believes in a religion, a subset of those believers accept the existence of the spiritual realm (demons, ghosts, what not), and given the historical evidence of spiritual encounters in all religions, it is plausible that at the very least, a spiritual realm of conscious, intelligent spiritual entities exists. Very plausible, when one looks at the evidence. From there is a practice of discernment.
Quote:
Hmmm. Lay a coin on a desk and take a look at it. Notice that it is a circle and that it is also flat. It is also not a sphere, because circles are two dimensional and spheres are three dimensional. So your quote from Isaiah seems to prove EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT IT DOES. Nice try, but the force does not work on all of us.
Biblical Hebrew word for “circle†(חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round†or “sphere.†Indeed, Hebrew is a very precise language, and translations tend to miss out on minor details such as this. And there are several other parts in the Bible that use this term. Indeed, the misconception of the Earth being flat came primarily from misinterpretations over time (especially due to the influence of Greek philosophers).
Quote:
In this case I am willing to let scripture talk for me.
Acts.9
[1] And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
[2] And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
[3] And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[6] And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
[7] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
[8] And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
The men who were traveling with Paul may have been witness to what occurred, but we DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR WITNESS. All we have is the witness of the afflicted man. A man who clearly had some kind of physical break down while traveling, and who required care for several days. Denying what your own scripture clearly indicates only helps my argument, and is a clear indication of how you choose to interpret what you read in a manner that serves to confirm your desired supernatural interpretation. An interpretation that ultimately ends with a corpse coming back to life and flying away. But all of it, the entire story of Jesus, can be explained in perfectly natural terms, no supernatural intervention required.
I specifically and clearly denied the assumption that he spent all three days in the desert dehydrated, and thus causing delirium, which was your first assumption. You said he was dazed, confused, delirious, dehydrated, suffered from a stroke, etc. I discredited it, and you moved away from that falsehood. Good.
Let's now address the issues of witnesses. What you just quoted showed that he was led to town by the men with him (at least two). You didn't quote the rest of Acts, which shows where he stayed. Lets quote another section of Acts shall we?
First, there are the men traveling with him. At least two, since its multiple. Then the person he stayed with:
[11] The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul.
So Judas is a witness. The Lord of course is a witness, but you discredit that, understandable. Then there is Ananias who was there and freed Paul of his blindness and then baptized him:
[17]So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul[b] and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.†[18] And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized, [19] and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
So Ananias was a witness. Then when Paul went to the main apostles to give his testimony, he was backed up by another witness, Barnabas
[26] When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. [27] But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. [28] So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. [29] He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. [30] When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.
Paul also testifies for Himself, as does the writer of Acts, Luke. So we have an abundance of witnesses stating the same thing. And then there is you, going above and beyond to first discredit Paul by calling him deluded (which the witnesses and the scriptures don't indicate), and then by trying to say there is no testimony of any witnesses. Indeed. There is the evidence of several. And that doesn't even consider the fact that there was evidence of him preaching the Gospel, when he deliberately came to Damascus to persecute Christians (and there were witnesses). I could go on, but I expect you to continue your assault to discredit the text. The Bible is clear here though, and its several witnesses against your own interpretation.
Quote:
If we actually could meet the real Jesus/Yeshua ben Nazareth we would discover his strengths and weaknesses firsthand. That individual never left us a scrap of his own thoughts and beliefs however, written in his own hand. All we have are the rumors being spread around about him decades after his death by his followers, much as you are doing now.
You have extensive history of individuals who have indeed met with the risen Lord, and have written down their experiences. You just refuse to even look at the evidence, calling them rumors and imaginations. And that's fine, but you cannot claim to have the full truth if you do not look at all the evidence. I invite you once again, to investigate the saints of the Church who had specific encounters with Jesus, and there are several in the past century alone.
You think with the wave of a hand you can discredit various accounts without even investigating them. That's not even honest investigation from a scientific perspective.
And once again, still no comment on the actual messages in the Gospel? I don't mind the dancing around, but I wanna focus on one thing only: Jesus Christ. You titled this topic " Brief Message to Jesus from Atheists", yet you dance around Him completely. Can you find one fault in Him or in the Gospels themselves, of whom the religion is named after? No, you try to deny He even existed, but refuse to look at the evidence in the Church of His continued direct assistance and intervention.
I understand your attempted analogy. It doesn't really apply, both in in a practical sense, and in the scale of who you are trying to compare Popeye to, but I'll go along with it and zone in on some truths. First, you are declaring a false statement from the get go. We know who created Popeye, who is a cartoon character created by Elzie Crisler Segar. You personally declaring it is simply that, you declaring what we already
know to me a lie. You cannot start of an analogy with a declaration that is known to be a lie.
It's true, the cartoonist Segar created Popeye. And who exactly was the first person to come up with the idea of an all powerful creator? The answer to that is lost in the mists of ancient history. Which is apparently what makes it believable to some people. But my actual point was that things do not become true simply by declaring that they are true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
I actually find this part exciting, because it relates to what I want to focus on - primarily the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Let me just keep this brief, and whether you agree or disagree is up to you.
As a summary, there is evidence of a 10th Planet like object the sun in our solar system. They first postulated its existence years ago after discovering anomalies in Neptune orbit. Some call it Planet X. Some call it Nibiru. Here are two of many sources verifying this:
A distant planet may lurk far beyond Neptune
Planet X - theorised as affecting the orbit of Uranus
Since then they've tried to suppress the information, but observers around the world are documenting a very particular event - the appearance of two suns:
'Two suns' spotted in China defy explanation - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News
China's 'Two Suns' Video Unexplained By Science
Ooff! So you are seriously suggesting that you believe that the country of China, and ONLY the country of China, actually has two suns overhead? Do you have no understanding of the solar system at all? First, look
carefully at the video. Notice that the sun is low in the sky, so that the sunlight has to travel through the greatest amount of atmosphere. Now, notice the thick haze, a result of China's notorious smog problem.
What you are witnessing is nothing more than an optical illusion. I guarantee that when the sun got higher there was only ONE SUN in the Chinese sky, the same as every other country has. This level of gullibility is downright distressing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
I didn't intend to sidestep the issue, but I will accommodate you.
Your belief that China has two suns in the sky explains why God chose to defy the laws of physics and arrest the earth's rotation, giving the Iraelite's an extra 24 hours to carry out the task of beheading and disembowling thousands of woman, children and babies? Because I fail to see the connection between an optical illusion, and genocide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
Indeed, the weathers been quite ... record breaking all over the world hasn't it? Floods in Texas, Winter storms all over the East Coast, drought in California, tsunami in Japan causing the nuclear incident, major
Earthquake in Napal, massive animal dieoffs with no explanation, etc. etc.
Well, scientists HAVE been screaming "global warming" for a couple of decades now. The tsunami in Japan was caused by an earthquake. If it helps, everything that occurs is the result quantum mechanics at work. But then I don't suppose that someone who believes that China has two suns in it's sky is going to buy THAT explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
Is Planet X Biblical?
In essence, there is a planet around the size of Jupiter with a huge elliptical orbit around the sun which takes it far beyond even Pluto for most of its orbit, thus rendering it undetected. It is trailed by asteroids. Indeed, if you notice, Joshua 10 also describes that a meteor storm accompanied the event where the sun "stopped". All this evidence follows what is being discovered about planet X, which is trailed by a shower of meteors.
And it's appearance in the inner solar system has coincided with every major Biblical event. The flood, Moses and the 10 plagues, Joshua stopping the sun, King Hezekiah and Isaiah tilting the shadow of the dial,
even the eclipse during the Jesus's crucifixion which led to 3 hours of darkness. And it's now back.
We are now deep into cwackpot country. Be verwy verwy carwful. I will mention that a mysterious planet arresting the earth's rotation would STILL cause the sort of massive destruction I already mentioned. You might want to read up a bit on Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky made similar claims in a book called "Worlds in Collision" back in 1950. Velikosky is often trotted out as a textbook example of a crackpot to this day. Here is a nice way of putting it. "The plausibility of the theory was summarily rejected by the physics community, as the cosmic chain of events proposed by Velikovsky contradicts the basic laws of physics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
If you want to attempt to make a statement about God's morality, I am right with you. Let's talk about Jesus Christ, as described in the Gospels. He is the Word of God, and exemplifies what God wanted all men to be.
The men of ancient were brutal, and surrounded by brutal men, and God worked with what he had to set the base for a country until He Himself could come down and show us what He really wanted us to be. And He did as Jesus Christ.
All these arguments attempting to label God as vindictive and cruel are meaningless. Look at Jesus Christ, the "visible image of the invisible God". Only He and He alone represents the actual character of God and
what he expects and desires all men to be like. The men of ancient days were brutal, and God has historically had to work with sinners who fall far below his own standards, but you cannot judge God based on the actions of man. A common fallacy with no merit, especially if you deliberately ignore the Gospels.
How a God of love justifies a bloody genocidal God escapes me, since the latter completely makes a lie of the former. It's like claiming that Hitler was an okay guy because he liked children. But the tiny bodies in the camp ovens makes a lie of that sentiment, INDELLIBLY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
It's actually well known that the primary target of demons is ... believers, and priests/pastors in particular. The only goal of Satan is to drag people Hell, of which rejecting the salvation of Jesus Christ is the primary way. If you do not believe in God, then Satan has already done his work, and will have absolutely no reason to harass you or convince you that anything paranormal exists. Unfortunate actually . . . deceit is his greatest weapon.
That's odd. Since believers are protected by the power of God, it would seem that those poor sappy atheists with no protection at all would be the natural targets of demons. If believing makes one the target of demons, and not believing keeps one safe, doesn't that suggest a rather obvious and logical course of action? It also raises the question, "what good is a belief in God?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
which means by definition that all effects must trace back to a cause, the beginning of the effect. I repeat, the cause is the beginning. Thus all things have some beginning.
No. It doesn't mean that at all! Cause ALWAYS precedes effect. It does so in an unbroken chain as far back as we can see. No actual beginnings are ever actually observed. It's not logical to conclude that something which has never been observed to be true MUST therefore be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
And so here, you again contradict yourself again, saying that the universe, was "squeezed into a dense point". What squeezed it? There had to be a cause, since cause precedes effect, and thus is its beginning, its discreet beginning.
Gravity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
Was it spontaneous? By your own words, no, there are no observable discreet spontaneous beginnings. Thus, it logically follows that there was a squeezer who deliberately squeezed matter into that point, creating the conditions for the big bang. So then, what is the first cause that squeezed (visible) matter into the singularity in the first place? Your own words point to a (conscious) force that deliberately squeezed it.
GRAVITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
Honestly I can go on, but the main point is, you made your own assumption, instead of just sticking with the facts. The facts are, the observable universe (and remember, only 4.9% of the universe is observable)
expanded from a singularity to where it is now, and is experiencing accelerating expansion. There was a beginning, the singularity, and pure science is unable to nor responsible for make further assumptions about what created (or caused) the singularity.
Actually Sir Issac Newton first postulated the existence of gravity. But it has become was rather well excepted concept. It keeps you from floating off into outer space. No assumptions about the cause of the singularity are being mad at all. Gravity is the source of the concept of of a singularity.
Wikipedia
Gravitational singularity
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
You might want to look further into the whole "gravity" deal. It's a reasonably important concept. At least in the physical world. Perhaps less so in the imaginary world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
The rest of this section is a bunch of facts combined together but which bear no real logical coherence(and even if they did, everything you described, from Einsteins E= mc2, to the Big Bang, and even the
conservation of mass and energy theory, only apply to electromagnetic energy and matter, which is 4.9% of the universe. Scientist cannot make any assumptions about dark matter or energy, except its influence on regular matter based on gravity. Indeed, many of the theories you posted were created before the existence of dark matter was even inferred).
Energy comes in many varied forms. The law of conservation of energy applies to them ALL. Otherwise it wouldn't be a "law," it would be a "some of the time."
Actually I believe I will stop here. I am already being criticized for abusing you by humoring you. I very much enjoy these sorts of discussions, and I thank you for this one, but it has become so lopsided that I am beginning to feel guilty. You claim to have a masters degree, but your understanding of basic science is so confused as to be useless. I understand. Science is complicated, and it's much simpler to declare "God did it." But if everyone took that attitude we would all still be living in mud huts with no air conditioner. And I like my air conditioner. Kudos to you for the attempt.
It's true, the cartoonist Segar created Popeye. And who exactly was the first person to come up with the idea of an all powerful creator? The answer to that is lost in the mists of ancient history. Which is apparently what makes it believable to some people. But my actual point was that things do not become true simply by declaring that they are true.
And my point is that there is verifiable evidence and history that backs that assertion - it is not simply my own declaration, whereas you own example was. You mixing false statements and examples with humorous analogies doesn't apply to this situation.
Quote:
Ooff! So you are seriously suggesting that you believe that the country of China, and ONLY the country of China, actually has two suns overhead? Do you have no understanding of the solar system at all? First, look
carefully at the video. Notice that the sun is low in the sky, so that the sunlight has to travel through the greatest amount of atmosphere. Now, notice the thick haze, a result of China's notorious smog problem.
What you are witnessing is nothing more than an optical illusion. I guarantee that when the sun got higher there was only ONE SUN in the Chinese sky, the same as every other country has. This level of gullibility is downright distressing.
I thought it was clearly implied that I only posted one example out of several sightings throughout the globe. I'll accommodate you again though, and post a few more examples, although a google search would bring up even more - one from Scotland, one from Florida, and testimony from a NASA employee.
Your belief that China has two suns in the sky explains why God chose to defy the laws of physics and arrest the earth's rotation, giving the Iraelite's an extra 24 hours to carry out the task of beheading and disembowling thousands of woman, children and babies? Because I fail to see the connection between an optical illusion, and genocide.
Above, I provided more samples, so its not just China, which is again your own false assumption.
I actually addressed those two situation separately and clearly in the videos. I explained the source of the 24 hour day and posted a video that explained the physics of it. It demonstrated the orbit of the 10th planet, and how the approach of that planet near the Earth slowed down its rotation by 12 hours, causing an extra long day. All this was explained, and then more. (how the extra-planetary object slowed down the rotation of the Earth, based on your own example, while still maintaining the laws of physics). That was indeed explained in the video.
I addressed the morality issue by pointing out that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, and it is He alone who you should judge as your template, and not by the primitive men who were brutal sinners. The ancient Hebrews, and indeed all ancient peoples, were very brutal because societies were no as established, nor was reading and morality as widespread as it is today.
I addressed both issues clearly and separately, because they are separate issues and separate questions. (1) What caused the 24 hour day (2) The morality issue. Now it is you who is side stepping the issue - you haven't even touched Jesus Christ yet, although you called to Him deliberately in this thread's title.
Quote:
Well, scientists HAVE been screaming "global warming" for a couple of decades now. The tsunami in Japan was caused by an earthquake. If it helps, everything that occurs is the result quantum mechanics at work. But then I don't suppose that someone who believes that China has two suns in it's sky is going to buy THAT explanation.
I state again, I provided two examples above of several that its not just China, and even in my original post I implied this throughout.
Quote:
We are now deep into cwackpot country. Be verwy verwy carwful. I will mention that a mysterious planet arresting the earth's rotation would STILL cause the sort of massive destruction I already mentioned. You might want to read up a bit on Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky made similar claims in a book called "Worlds in Collision" back in 1950. Velikosky is often trotted out as a textbook example of a crackpot to this day. Here is a nice way of putting it. "The plausibility of the theory was summarily rejected by the physics community, as the cosmic chain of events proposed by Velikovsky contradicts the basic laws of physics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
That's an assumption. The destruction caused depends on the laws of physics and the circumstances of the planet. The video explains it all from a physics perspective. So your assumption and use of the belittling term "cwackpot country" doesn't apply. Joshua also states that there was a meteor storm during the 24 hour day, which provides further evidence of a massive astronomical occurring during that time. You sidestepped all this evidence and reply with an article that is irrelevant to the discussion (again, attempting to use bad analogies instead of sticking to the evidence provided).
Quote:
How a God of love justifies a bloody genocidal God escapes me, since the latter completely makes a lie of the former. It's like claiming that Hitler was an okay guy because he liked children. But the tiny bodies in the camp ovens makes a lie of that sentiment, INDELLIBLY.
You still completely sidestep Jesus Christ Himself. You ignore the fact that only Jesus Christ is the image of God and thus reflects the actual desires that God. Why do you continue to attempt to judge God, but ignoring Jesus Christ, who the Bible repeatedly says is the image of God and reflects the actions and thoughts of God in truth? You are being dishonest here, and I have been stating this from the get go. A message from an atheist to Jesus Christ, but then you ignore Him completely ....
And again, you make an analogy that doesn't apply. Compare Jesus Christ to Hitler. And we all know how fond, of children Jesus Christ was. Very much so.
Quote:
That's odd. Since believers are protected by the power of God, it would seem that those poor sappy atheists with no protection at all would be the natural targets of demons. If believing makes one the target of demons, and not believing keeps one safe, doesn't that suggest a rather obvious and logical course of action? It also raises the question, "what good is a belief in God?"
Actually its not odd at all. I explained it clearly and with examples. Satan only wants souls in Hell. If you don't accept Jesus Christ, he already has you where he wants. Why risk losing you by revealing the existence of Himself and His agents. You are actually not safe at all - why would the Captain of an army waste resources and manpower on territory he has already conquered?
Quote:
No. It doesn't mean that at all! Cause ALWAYS precedes effect. It does so in an unbroken chain as far back as we can see. No actual beginnings are ever actually observed. It's not logical to conclude that something which has never been observed to be true MUST therefore be true.
The concept of an infinite loop breaks the idea of a first cause by definition.
Quote:
Gravity.
GRAVITY
Actually Sir Issac Newton first postulated the existence of gravity. But it has become was rather well excepted concept. It keeps you from floating off into outer space. No assumptions about the cause of the singularity are being mad at all. Gravity is the source of the concept of of a singularity.
Wikipedia
Gravitational singularity
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
You might want to look further into the whole "gravity" deal. It's a reasonably important concept. At least in the physical world. Perhaps less so in the imaginary world.
I already mentioned gravity, and how its the only force that governs dark matter, which is more than 20% of the universe, and dark energy, which is about 70%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
Scientist cannot make any assumptions about dark matter or energy, except its influence on regular matter based on gravity.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibioiniui
We cannot logically apply those assumptions 95.1% of the universe (made up of dark matter and energy), which is only bound by the laws of gravity and gravity alone (based on current scientific knowledge).
You didn't even address the fact that most scientific theories only deal with 4.9% of the universe. You didn't address the issue of an expanding universe, with the density of dark matter continuously expanding. I see I finally made you understand you cannot make baseless assumptions about what is possible based on only a small subset of the universe.
You know you continue to do this. You throw out many discoherent scientific terms attached to science articles. from wikipedia regarding science (E=mc2, conservation of energy, gravity) in attempt to prove you understand science, no, more so in an attempt to prove that science and God cannot coincide, which is again an assumption that is contradicted even in the Bible. The singularity tracks the history of visible matter only (4.9%). We can make absolutely no assumptions about dark matter.
Quote:
Energy comes in many varied forms. The law of conservation of energy applies to them ALL. Otherwise it wouldn't be a "law," it would be a "some of the time."
Side stepping the 4.9% issue again. Think I'll just leave it at that.
Quote:
Actually I believe I will stop here. I am already being criticized for abusing you by humoring you. I very much enjoy these sorts of discussions, and I thank you for this one, but it has become so lopsided that I am beginning to feel guilty. You claim to have a masters degree, but your understanding of basic science is so confused as to be useless. I understand. Science is complicated, and it's much simpler to declare "God did it." But if everyone took that attitude we would all still be living in mud huts with no air conditioner. And I like my air conditioner. Kudos to you for the attempt.
Interesting. I already proved you contradicted yourself by saying cause precedes effect, then stating there is an infinite loop. You completely sidestepped that all of the theories you discussed apply only to 4.9% of the universe, and that you cannot make assumptions of the universe based on 4.9% (you didn't address it all, picking and choosing quotes whereas before you were more thorough).
And now you try to play it off with more assumptions, sarcastic jibes, and subtle insults, while backing out. And I do not intend to insult, I just state the truth and call you out on it. I did not criticize you or use far fetched analogies, nor did I attempt to insult your intelligence or that of an entire subset of humanity.
More importantly, you didn't even address Jesus Christ at all, sidestepping every single one of His teachings and examples. You try to judge the morality of God .... by ignoring the morality of God.
Indeed - you can stop if you wish. Let me also say that I by no means judge you or have any negative opinion about you, and I did appreciate the discussion. I just wish you at least addressed the person who you named this topic after. More importantly, maybe one day you'll read the sites containing His messages. Peace be with you.
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.
