I can not only prove the existence of God I can prove the one true God! Welcome!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:17 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  I asked if you believe that it is wrong/right to kill, steal or lie? A debate must be questions coupled with answers. Please answer my question. I don't know what your position is??

I will answer.

Your question is too vague. It is usually, for me, undesirable to kill, though in some situations I would willingly kill and feel little or no remorse about it. It is usually, for me, undesirable to steal, though in some situations I would choose to steal rather than suffer a harsher consequence. It is usually, for me, undesirable to lie, though in some situations I can and have lied to avoid worse consequences.

I would prefer it if others chose not to kill me, steal from me, or lie to me. On that basis, I find it undesirable to have them take those actions with regards to me.

I wish everyone viewed these things the way I do - if every human being found these same actions just as undesirable as I find them, then this world would be a better place. Sadly, some people seem to find such things less undesirable than I find them and are therefore more prone to kill, steal, or lie than I would desire them to be.

But you didn't ask about the desirability of performing or falling victim to these actions. You asked if they were "right/wrong". I think those terms are too vague to be used without clarification, so I answered in terms of desirability. If you can clarify your meaning, perhaps I can answer using your definition of "right/wrong".

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:39 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:34 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 07:21 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  So the two relating have no significance??? Amazing how so many people believe that God exists (like 5 billion) and the few I meet that don't beleive a thoroughly questioning their belief that there is no God based on my question. You guys seem to totally dismiss it as a possibility. why such a quick dismissal? Are you just not wanting to CONSIDER TRUTH. I just said it was the starting point. Which is important to those in your faith position.

You're question is easily shrugged off because it's such a loose question. It can be broken down in so many ways in different questions as well making it full of arbitrary distinctions and views. What is right/wrong at all? Who decides what is right/wrong? Is it always right and always wrong?

Even in the Bible there are moments where those don't happen to be the same. Apparently when ordered to kill, it's okay, it's apparently okay to steal food from a fellow Jew if you are starving. So what is right/wrong?

And simply, there are easy to grasp scientific/evolutionary explanations for these moral codes as they develop through a grown grasp of empathy and some other base emotions. The even exist in the animal kingdom, especially among mammals(I think but I'm not expert-sey) Creatures such as Primates and wolves definitely conform to these base ideas in their packs. It's a benefit for the survival of their species.

I simply asked if it was wrong or right and that seems quite difficult to answer. just that on its own. You have to know what the word kill meant in Exodus 20. Kill is to take a life of your own volition or will. It is outside of a war or government position policemen/ swat team/ executioner. On the matter of stealing, yes it was PERMISSABLE if a person stole to not punish them if it was for the case of hunger. It did not condone the action as right. It showed the mercy of the owner towards someone in such destitude conditions. Does that clarify you arguments?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2013 12:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:03 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  Before I go to the gym to make the NBLs swoon with my massive [Body odor.--Ed.] Shhh!:

(28-03-2013 06:39 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  I will start with the existence of God. . . .

Which one?

Quote:Romans 2 collaborates"It is written on our hearts."

So you reject Matthew? [Image: d89d8ee1.gif]

Meanwhile, kindly deal with this, son:

The Good[(Sic)--Ed.] Doctor's Prodigiously Pretentiously Pompously Perspicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Proof

Science involves the explanation of observations. Theory produces predictions that must hold else the theory proves incorrect or incomplete. If a rock is dropped from a building aimed at Obama's head yet stops 13.27 inches above it, a physicist would have to explain this in light of the current theory of gravity. Perchance all of the hot air emanating [Stop that!--Ed.].

Right. Nothing like a real observation. So here is a real observation that requires explanation. Children and adolescents develop a rather nasty tumor of the brain stem, particularly the metencephalon, or pons. It is infiltrative and not amenable to surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. The latter two therapies merely prolong the ultimate decline.

[Image: 1-s2.0-S1470204506706155-gr2.jpg]

The decline? As with real estate, the watchword for the central nervous system is "location!" The tumor destroys the descending voluntary pathways and centers for the cranial nerves which enervate facial musculature whilst preserving the sensory pathways. The child progressively losses control of her body up to her eye muscles which allows some rudimentary communication. Since the trigger for consciousness is located in the more rostral ventral midbrain or mesencephalon, she remains conscious throughout the months of decline. During this deterioration, she retains sensation and consciousness. She feels every ulcer, every pain; she remains completely aware of her condition and decline.

Eventually, on a tracheostomy, she will succumb usually to an infection.

This is not only a real case, it is all too frequent.

In fact, here is a quote given to me from a parent left on a webpage in which the parent describes the condition:

Quote:"Today, thanks to God's mercy he still with us. He can no longer walk on his own, the weakness on the left side of his body has increased, his speech is slurred and I am watching how the spark of life is slowly but surely dimming. His little body, swollen by the steroids, is slowly giving way to an end. I do not have an idea of how much time I will have with him."

I am not sure “mercy” is a word that applies.

This is a case of Unjustified Suffering unless you or anyone else can find some manner in which to justify it. Notice that I do not attack the death--people die. Perhaps she was destined to be the next Celine Dion. . . . It is the extent and severity of the suffering that renders it Unjustified Suffering. What did the child do to deserve it? Consider then why Josef Mengele passed easily from a stroke while swimming. Why did he apparently deserve a far easier passage?

Perhaps imagine a Heaven and a Hell--dream up a reward and punishment that will somehow magically balance the books, so to write? The problem remains the extent and severity of the suffering. If die she must, far quicker and less-severe methods do end a tyke's existence. Forced listening of country-western music, for example. Children do, unfortunately, ask what the did wrong to be punished by such a condition. What "reward" balances it? Is it greater than that obtained by children who die of leukemia, car accidents, and falling masonry? Why? Furthermore, that one imagines a Mengele horribly tortured throughout eternity--something involving fish hooks and Patsy Cline--does not justify the extensive and severe suffering of the child. Finally, if some grand argumentum ad ignorantiam of a "reward" exists, why do not the children who die of the less-horrible leukemia and steam rollers deserve it?

Since No Alleviation of her Unjustified Suffering occurred, we are left with Five Possible Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] regarding deities:

1. No Deity Exists
2. A Deity Exists and He is Evil
3. A Deity Exists and He is Incompetent
4. A Deity Exists and He is Irrelevant
5. A Deity Exists and He is Some Combination of 2-4

you are, of course, free to choose from any one of the Five.

Which is it?

--J.D.

I find that the astrocytomas are the proof of an evil god. A truly evil god.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/985927-overview
Little fingers that grow down into the glial system, and eventually grow out their ears in big ugly wads. Truly evil. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:38 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 07:17 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  I asked if you believe that it is wrong/right to kill, steal or lie? A debate must be questions coupled with answers. Please answer my question. I don't know what your position is??

I will answer.

Your question is too vague. It is usually, for me, undesirable to kill, though in some situations I would willingly kill and feel little or no remorse about it. It is usually, for me, undesirable to steal, though in some situations I would choose to steal rather than suffer a harsher consequence. It is usually, for me, undesirable to lie, though in some situations I can and have lied to avoid worse consequences.

I would prefer it if others chose not to kill me, steal from me, or lie to me. On that basis, I find it undesirable to have them take those actions with regards to me.

I wish everyone viewed these things the way I do - if every human being found these same actions just as undesirable as I find them, then this world would be a better place. Sadly, some people seem to find such things less undesirable than I find them and are therefore more prone to kill, steal, or lie than I would desire them to be.

But you didn't ask about the desirability of performing or falling victim to these actions. You asked if they were "right/wrong". I think those terms are too vague to be used without clarification, so I answered in terms of desirability. If you can clarify your meaning, perhaps I can answer using your definition of "right/wrong".

Is it appropriate or condonable behavior to lie, steal or kill? would you want others to immitate or emmulate or even copy your behavior? Of course we don't want others to do it to us, and if we were honest with ourselves we know that it is not appropriate to do it to others. Like the golden rule.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:42 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:34 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 07:30 PM)SomeOne Wrote:  I know you said it was your starting point. You asked, I said "nope" (aka: no), then you asked "so why do we have them"

So when you have 1) moral people who value right and wrong 2) the Bible concurs and clarifies why this is so "written on our hearts" 3) people in vast numbers and a great, great majority seek God. This leads one to question his existence. Are you at least willing to concede that it is possible that a God does exist????

What I really want to say is "I dont know". I dont see moral standards as something that "must be related to a higher power". Can you please try to convince me that having moral standard is proof that "God" exists?

You posted an empty reply...

if your faith can move mountains it should be able to withstand criticism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:42 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:21 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  Amazing how so many people believe that God exists (like 5 billion)

No, like 2 billion, tops. Which god? if you mean Yahweh, it's about 2 billion. If you mean Allah, it's about 1 billion. Or did you mean Vishnu? Thor? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

But you are right, it's amazing to me that so many people believe in this nonsense.

(28-03-2013 07:21 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  and the few I meet that don't beleive a thoroughly questioning their belief that there is no God based on my question.

Can you please rephrase that in a fully formed sentence? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

(28-03-2013 07:21 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  You guys seem to totally dismiss it as a possibility. why such a quick dismissal? Are you just not wanting to CONSIDER TRUTH. I just said it was the starting point. Which is important to those in your faith position.

What do we dismiss? The possibility of god (Yahweh?) existing? Who said anything about dismissing god? I didn't.

You guys seem to totally assume what we guys think. Why such a quick assumption? Are you just not wanting to CONSIDER REALITY?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
28-03-2013, 07:43 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 07:03 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  Before I go to the gym to make the NBLs swoon with my massive [Body odor.--Ed.] Shhh!:


Which one?


So you reject Matthew? [Image: d89d8ee1.gif]

Meanwhile, kindly deal with this, son:

The Good[(Sic)--Ed.] Doctor's Prodigiously Pretentiously Pompously Perspicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Proof

Science involves the explanation of observations. Theory produces predictions that must hold else the theory proves incorrect or incomplete. If a rock is dropped from a building aimed at Obama's head yet stops 13.27 inches above it, a physicist would have to explain this in light of the current theory of gravity. Perchance all of the hot air emanating [Stop that!--Ed.].

Right. Nothing like a real observation. So here is a real observation that requires explanation. Children and adolescents develop a rather nasty tumor of the brain stem, particularly the metencephalon, or pons. It is infiltrative and not amenable to surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. The latter two therapies merely prolong the ultimate decline.

[Image: 1-s2.0-S1470204506706155-gr2.jpg]

The decline? As with real estate, the watchword for the central nervous system is "location!" The tumor destroys the descending voluntary pathways and centers for the cranial nerves which enervate facial musculature whilst preserving the sensory pathways. The child progressively losses control of her body up to her eye muscles which allows some rudimentary communication. Since the trigger for consciousness is located in the more rostral ventral midbrain or mesencephalon, she remains conscious throughout the months of decline. During this deterioration, she retains sensation and consciousness. She feels every ulcer, every pain; she remains completely aware of her condition and decline.

Eventually, on a tracheostomy, she will succumb usually to an infection.

This is not only a real case, it is all too frequent.

In fact, here is a quote given to me from a parent left on a webpage in which the parent describes the condition:


I am not sure “mercy” is a word that applies.

This is a case of Unjustified Suffering unless you or anyone else can find some manner in which to justify it. Notice that I do not attack the death--people die. Perhaps she was destined to be the next Celine Dion. . . . It is the extent and severity of the suffering that renders it Unjustified Suffering. What did the child do to deserve it? Consider then why Josef Mengele passed easily from a stroke while swimming. Why did he apparently deserve a far easier passage?

Perhaps imagine a Heaven and a Hell--dream up a reward and punishment that will somehow magically balance the books, so to write? The problem remains the extent and severity of the suffering. If die she must, far quicker and less-severe methods do end a tyke's existence. Forced listening of country-western music, for example. Children do, unfortunately, ask what the did wrong to be punished by such a condition. What "reward" balances it? Is it greater than that obtained by children who die of leukemia, car accidents, and falling masonry? Why? Furthermore, that one imagines a Mengele horribly tortured throughout eternity--something involving fish hooks and Patsy Cline--does not justify the extensive and severe suffering of the child. Finally, if some grand argumentum ad ignorantiam of a "reward" exists, why do not the children who die of the less-horrible leukemia and steam rollers deserve it?

Since No Alleviation of her Unjustified Suffering occurred, we are left with Five Possible Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] regarding deities:

1. No Deity Exists
2. A Deity Exists and He is Evil
3. A Deity Exists and He is Incompetent
4. A Deity Exists and He is Irrelevant
5. A Deity Exists and He is Some Combination of 2-4

you are, of course, free to choose from any one of the Five.

Which is it?

--J.D.

I find that the astrocytomas are the proof of an evil god. A truely evil god.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/985927-overview
Little fingers that grow down into the glial system, and eventually grow out their ears in big ugly wads. Truly evil. Weeping
I have no idea what you said or am trying to say. sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:43 PM
I can not only prove BLA BLA BLA
(28-03-2013 07:35 PM)Anjele Wrote:  And now for my pat response to people who open with this kind of nonsense...Oh FFS.

And I add, here we go again.

Actually mine was, "It's Maundy Thurdsay evening. Why isn't he in church ?"

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-03-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:43 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 07:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I find that the astrocytomas are the proof of an evil god. A truely evil god.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/985927-overview
Little fingers that grow down into the glial system, and eventually grow out their ears in big ugly wads. Truly evil. Weeping
I have no idea what you said or am trying to say. sorry.

Then please come back, after you get an education.
You are dismissed.
We have better things to do.
Are you like in 6th Grade ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:46 PM
RE: I can not only prove the existence of God.
(28-03-2013 07:42 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 07:21 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  Amazing how so many people believe that God exists (like 5 billion)

No, like 2 billion, tops. Which god? if you mean Yahweh, it's about 2 billion. If you mean Allah, it's about 1 billion. Or did you mean Vishnu? Thor? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

But you are right, it's amazing to me that so many people believe in this nonsense.

(28-03-2013 07:21 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  and the few I meet that don't beleive a thoroughly questioning their belief that there is no God based on my question.

Can you please rephrase that in a fully formed sentence? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

(28-03-2013 07:21 PM)rbmead1960 Wrote:  You guys seem to totally dismiss it as a possibility. why such a quick dismissal? Are you just not wanting to CONSIDER TRUTH. I just said it was the starting point. Which is important to those in your faith position.

What do we dismiss? The possibility of god (Yahweh?) existing? Who said anything about dismissing god? I didn't.

You guys seem to totally assume what we guys think. Why such a quick assumption? Are you just not wanting to CONSIDER REALITY?

So you do consider that there could be a God, you just have to have him proven that he exists. correct. So what would make you think that a person could prove that they were God. You see people don't look at the situation going backwards. If God could not phone, e-miail, fax or speak through the tv "what means would he have to prove himself to you!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: