Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Hollie]

Humans are humans no matter their characteristics. You see hollie this is due to change within a family usually isolated from others. This is the sort of evidence that evolutionist extrapolate from to build their theory of evolution.

Nonsense only ID'iots / fundies would propose.

Typical response.

It's in bad form to behave like a petulant child when you're not equipped to defend your bankrupt argument.

 

[Hollie]

I believe you have no argument once again and are reduced to exposing your ignorance because of your contempt for believers.

I hit you with a question and you avoid it like the plague. How are you ever gonna learn if you continue to evade my questions that throws doubt on your faith filled beliefs ?

You suffer from continued confusion. Furthering conspiracy theories as a way to promote your embrace of fear and ignorance is an emotional and intellectual defect only you can address.

Still avoiding the question.

Still the angry fundie who doesn't know what he's asking.

 

[Hollie]

It does not matter which bible translation I read other than little differences the message is the same.

If the message was the same, there would be no need for so many different versions of bibles.

Wasn't it you who claimed that the gawds wouldn't let their words be altered?

Like I said the message was not lost.

Example of little differences of saying the same thing.

Exo 3:2

(ASV) And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

(BBE) And the angel of the Lord was seen by him in a flame of fire coming out of a thorn-tree: and he saw that the tree was on fire, but it was not burned up.

(CEV) There an angel of the LORD appeared to him from a burning bush. Moses saw that the bush was on fire, but it was not burning up.

(KJV) And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

(KJV+) And the angelH4397 of the LORDH3068 appearedH7200 untoH413 him in a flameH3827 of fireH784 out of the midstH4480 H8432 of a bush:H5572 and he looked,H7200 and, behold,H2009 the bushH5572 burnedH1197 with fire,H784 and the bushH5572 was notH369 consumed.H398

(MKJV) And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a thorn bush. And he looked. And behold! The thorn bush burned with fire! And the thorn bush was not burned up.

So many versions of differing bibles.

What was it you were whining about regarding the alteration of the word of the gawds?

 

[Wake]

And if that were the only piece of information available, you are correct in making this point. However, this is not all the information. There is at least 70k years of human history, which shows the presence of strong spiritual connection. Indeed, as long as man has been 'civilized' he has also been behaving spiritually.

If you scientifically studied any other form of life, and you noted a particular behavior in that species of life for all of it's existence, and this behavior showed evidence that it produced beneficial things for the species, which explains why it has retained the behavior... We could not draw the conclusion this behavior was irrational, made up, imagined, or product of mass delusion. We may say we don't understand the behavior, but it does seem to legitimately serve a function in the advancement of the species.

It is not debatable that humans have always been spiritually connected, or that humans have benefited tremendously as a result. It's not debatable that other animals and forms of life, do not make up things to explain their fears or comfort lack of knowledge. It's not debatable that other upper primates, who share as much as 98% of our DNA, show no signs of even the most primitive forms of spirituality. All of the "reasoning" to explain why human spirituality exists, literally defies the theories of evolution and natural selection, and contradicts everything we know about nature itself. You have to adopt a FAITH in disbelief!

"Science proves there is no need for God," is a FAITH-BASED statement.

I am skeptical on the existence of spirits, because I base most if not all of my view on objective evidence that can be discerned through the five senses. Everything you have said is not debatable is indeed debateable and will continue to be so; saying that it is not is dangerous and borders on fascism.

Even though spirits cannot be proven through the scientific method, let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is true. You are saying that spirits exist. You are opening a massive, massive door.

How many spirits are there?
Are there water spirits? Fire spirits? Light and dark spirits?
Do they have genitalia or not? Are they like the angels?
Are they able to procreate? Do they give people powers?
Can they be harnessed for energy? Can they be farmed?
What is their weight? Their size? Dimensions? Colors?
How do they exist without being seen?
Is Golden Sun based on actual events?
How do they nest? May we hunt them? What is their flavor?
Their intellect: how high? Do they know more than one language?
Are they capable of destroying our world?
Can spiritualists collect and battle them like trainers do their Pokemon?

The questions go on, ad nauseum.

I think you have tremendous belief in the notion of spirits, Boss, but I don't think you know for sure whether they exist or not. If they can be discerned through science, I would like to know, please.

If you still believe that spirits exist, why not angels and demons? Gods? Everything else?

Imagine someone else. Imagine he says and believes everything you believe and say, except that you've swapped out spirits for any other kind of supernatural being.

And back to the numbers part, just because a lot of people believe something... that doesn't mean it's true. That's just logic. Correlation isn't causation. If many people believe something, they may be right... but saying that because most people believe something then it must be right is absurd.

Well, first of all, I have no idea what you're talking about with "spirits" ...I've not mentioned these. Do you mean like aberrations and ghosts? I don't know if those exist or not, and I've not claimed they do, nor made a case for them. Spiritual nature is what I argued, and this doesn't necessarily include spirits.

Now let's be honest, you are skeptical regarding spiritual nature because it lacks physical confirmation. You can't detect it with your five senses, therefore, you assume it doesn't exist or doesn't have presence. I'll raise these questions again... Do you know which plants to pollinate? Can you coordinate billions of people to construct a colony through telepathic instructions, where each individual knows their role and does it? Bees and ants have the 'senses' to do these things and more. So are human's 5 senses all there is in the universe?

We have, what can be called, a "sixth sense" of spiritual connection. Humans are the only species with the ability to connect spiritually, and it is the secret to our success as a species. To utilize this sense, you have to first believe in spiritual nature, if you've closed your mind to the possibility, you can't make spiritual connection. If you intentionally blindfolded yourself for many years, you would lose your ability to see. Would that mean that vision is not real?

This is a contentious issue, and first and foremost I want you to know that I'm not personally attacking you nor do I have any ill-will towards you. It is the very specific notions and concepts themselves that I take issue with. You I respect; some of your arguments I criticize.

My prior response to you about spirits was because you discussed the notion of spirituality, which in itself is a very brad definition. One could think it deals in the existence of spirits. If you open the door of discussion on the notion of spirits, you open a very wide door indeed. Thus, my somewhat sarcastic criticism. Spiritualism demands that spirits exist, and so I questioned and continue to question as much as I can the assertion that spirits exist. I don't see how spiritual nature cannot include the existence of spirits: Gods, sure, but not even spirits? If spiritualism doesn't involve spirits, why even have the word "spirit" in spiritualism?

For a moment I may have confused you with Jimbowie, who in this thread states the very mind is a spirit. Looking back, I did not, but could easily have. Both of your assertions on spirits deserve more questions, with general respect.

Your argument about ants and bees is interesting, but those creatures likely do their work due to instinct. I may be wrong, though, and that deserves as much fair research as it can get. Boss, I take comfort in what I can know. Knowledge, not belief, is the surest foundation for one to rest on. If we leave our sturdy foundation of concrete knowledge, we march on the shifting sands of subjectivity, which may very well slow us down or drag us under.

I cannot believe what I can't discern. This is why I don't believe in spirits, or gods, or demons, or angels, or monsters, or legends, or aliens, etc. Actually, there may do exist "alien" life, if indeed Earth is not the only life-sustaining rock in all the planets, galaxies, universes...

It is nice discussing and debating with you, Boss. You've got me in a more inquisitive mood now. ;-)

 

[daws101]

lol, you make all these unsupported assertions as though you think you were God; maybe that's why you cant believe in Him - you cant imagine two of you in the same universe.

One thing I know from reading your posts is that you will lie, spin, slander, twist and do anything you can to feel like you got the rhetorical advantage.

The fact that you are a fraud and a liar should make everything you say irrelevant to a discerning mind.

wrong I've made no unsupported assertions .
I did make one statement of fact:"there can be no correct interpretation as there are no original texts to interpret from .
all you're doing is interpreting an interpretation of an interpretation."-ME

This is hilarious. You say that you made no unwarranted assertions except for a 'fact' that you never provide support for.

Then you follow with....

you might want to use word and phrases that you actually know:

lol, you just cant make up this shit. Dawes you are the dumbest bitch on these boards, though Starkey and a few other do give you competition.

'An appeal to advantage is a rhetorical device in which the speaker encourages his or her audience to perform some action by representing that action as being in the audience's best interest.
An appeal to advantage can also be a request from someone in a position of power to someone who is in a socially subordinate position; the request is specifically for the subordinate to perform an act contrary to the subordinate's wishes, such that the subordinate is forced to commit the act in order to satisfy a more significant need. The appeal is specifically most expedient or advantageous to the person in power, but is also presented as forwarding the subordinate's interests in some significant way.

the above is not one of them.

Red herring much? ROFLMAO

There is no need to support my statement it stands on it own.
Question:

Do the original Gospels and Epistles written by the original authors still exist today? If so where are they, and can I go see them, (as in an address)? If not, could you tell me what happened to them? I am doing a report on the history of the Bible, and would like to know this info. Any information you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Response:

We do not have the originals of any of the books in the Bible. Before the invention of the printing press, books (originally scrolls) were copied by hand. Many copies were made of the biblical books for use in the early churches. What we have today are actually copies of copies. As far as what happened to the actual originals, we don't know but they probably deteriorated from use. The Greek manuscripts which we do possess today are kept in various museums and institutions, mostly located in Europe but there are a few in the United States. Scholars now must compare the various Greek manuscripts we have to try and determine what the original said. This process is known as textual criticism. The standard Greek texts of the New Testament are the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bibles Societies' 4th edition. They both contain footnotes throughtout the text indicating where there are major differences between Greek manuscripts.
What Happened to the Original Books of the Bible?

so much fun watching you rationalize..

 

[daws101]

JimBowie1958; et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.

I do believe the sons of God were angels. A study on who they were.

might have been, but I doubt it. There are more sentient beings than just humans and angels in the Creation God has made.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what a "sentient being" is. Is a computer that is "self-aware," and able to learn a "sentient being?" How do I recognize a "sentient being?"

I have a Maine Coon (Ace).

"ACE" at 5 Weeks​

Today, Ace is quite a bit bigger. But he knows his name. He recognizes a mouse on the computer screen; he can (even when it is not moving) search the screen and find it. He responds to various stimuli; a big fan of Fever Ray and Nickelback. He will let me know if he is hungry and if he is hurt.

What test do I perform to determine if he is a "sentient being?"

And what is the connection between being a "sentient being" and a "Supreme Being?" Does a human baby have an awareness of the "Supreme Being?" Or, is awareness of the "Supreme Being" (the belief in a "Supreme Being") something that the baby is taught over time?

If you isolate humans, in a society that had no belief in supernatural beings, would they somehow create or deduce a "Supreme Being?" Would a personality like "Jim Jones" or "David Koresh" emerge and convince people that have a religion? How do we know that the same mental processes that follow the main stream religions are not the same processes at work in the case of "Jim Jones" and "David Koresh" ----> or the Heaven's Gate cult, and con artists like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Derideo_Te]

ROFLMAO

A mobius strip does not escape the first moment problem, nor does changing the units of chronological measure.

There can be no following time segments of any kind on any model of time flow without there also being a FIRST segment of time.

As long as a T1 is followed by a T2, there MUST be a first T of some kind.

At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality.

While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.

You have consistently failed to show why the GTR time-space would avoid the first moment problem. My understanding of it is that it does not.

If you cant argue your case then fine, admit it and walk away, but don't blame me as though I am too dense to grasp what you refuse to essplain, dear.

Where was any implication made as to your level of intelligence? If you did gain that impression it was unintentional.

As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does NOT exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the PAST as well as the future. With an INFINITE PAST there is no "first moment" ever.

Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has ALWAYS existed in the PAST just as it will always exist in the future.

 

[Boss]

I love how this pompous know-it-all calls a survey of 18k people "superficial" but because ONE, that's right ONE, Mongo Man 40,000 years ago in Australia was for the first time covered in red ochre in his grave and that means that everyone in the entire world for 70k years was strongly spiritual.

Apparently for the first 30k years people were not spiritual because none of them were buried with red ochre before Mongo Man. BTW, Mongo Lady, the same age as Mongo Man, was not covered in red ochre, she was cremated, so women did not become spiritual until later.

Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Please present your scientific evidence to support this theory. Until then, you are simply making a "because I say so" argument. There is nothing any more complex about human brain structure (or function) than chimps, if you believe that is true, you need to present evidence, otherwise, you are making a "because I say so" argument.

Humans do have abstract thought, but this doesn't come from special brains that are different from all other primates. It comes from the human's ability to spiritually connect. You're free to believe in your "special brain theory" but until you can back it up with some science, it has no basis other than your word. We see no evidence of other upper primates practicing even the most primitive forms of spirituality, even though they have the same brain structure and function as humans.

The 6,000 year-old Earth thing is real old. I would say, it's probably less than 2% of Christians who ascribe to this particular belief, yet it is repeated ad nauseum by Atheists, in almost every thread where religious arguments break out. Now, I am real sorry that some people believe this, but then... some people believe humans have special brain structure.

 

[daws101]

lol, you make all these unsupported assertions as though you think you were God; maybe that's why you cant believe in Him - you cant imagine two of you in the same universe.

One thing I know from reading your posts is that you will lie, spin, slander, twist and do anything you can to feel like you got the rhetorical advantage.

The fact that you are a fraud and a liar should make everything you say irrelevant to a discerning mind.

wrong I've made no unsupported assertions .
I did make one statement of fact:"there can be no correct interpretation as there are no original texts to interpret from .
all you're doing is interpreting an interpretation of an interpretation."-ME
as to your false accusations ...call the waaaaaabulance!

you might want to use word and phrases that you actually know:
'An appeal to advantage is a rhetorical device in which the speaker encourages his or her audience to perform some action by representing that action as being in the audience's best interest.
An appeal to advantage can also be a request from someone in a position of power to someone who is in a socially subordinate position; the request is specifically for the subordinate to perform an act contrary to the subordinate's wishes, such that the subordinate is forced to commit the act in order to satisfy a more significant need. The appeal is specifically most expedient or advantageous to the person in power, but is also presented as forwarding the subordinate's interests in some significant way.

the above is not one of them.

I have absolutely no doubt that the creator of all we see touch and smell can make sure his words of truth are just that and the accurate message is not lost.

your absolute surety is why you're wrong.
all it means is you've convinced yourself of it's veracity when actual evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt what you believe is false.
I do not need to support this statement as it supports itself.
you seem to forget or leave out that everything you use as evidence must be absolutely correct for your belief to be fact.

 

[daws101]

And if that were the only piece of information available, you are correct in making this point. However, this is not all the information. There is at least 70k years of human history, which shows the presence of strong spiritual connection. Indeed, as long as man has been 'civilized' he has also been behaving spiritually.

I love how this pompous know-it-all calls a survey of 18k people "superficial" but because ONE, that's right ONE, Mongo Man 40,000 years ago in Australia was for the first time covered in red ochre in his grave and that means that everyone in the entire world for 70k years was strongly spiritual.

Apparently for the first 30k years people were not spiritual because none of them were buried with red ochre before Mongo Man. BTW, Mongo Lady, the same age as Mongo Man, was not covered in red ochre, she was cremated, so women did not become spiritual until later.

18,000 VS 7 Billion

Yep that poll is superficial.

why did I know you'd say that!!
there is nothing more superficial then religious dogma

 

[daws101]

I have absolutely no doubt that the creator of all we see touch and smell can make sure his words of truth are just that and the accurate message is not lost.

That must be why the all-powerful, creator of all, Big Kahuna, god of the gods, Big Cheese in Charge has allowed the many different bibles and many different versions of religions and many different religious doctrines to propagate, knowing these various groups would forever be at each others throats.

Those gawds. They're such kidders.

Do you remember what God said he would do to anyone who alters his words ? I think most believers took him serious. Man creates religion not God the key with God is be the best person you can be by obeying the law the best that your ability will allow and believe on him. You must have faith the rest of the bible is for teaching and reproving setting the record straight. Your doctrine will not save you your faith in him will.

Religion is not what unites all Christians it is our faith in Christ that does.

another fact-less sermonet . god has been credited for saying lots of things...none have ever come to pass..
please no scripture quoting that kinda sorta fits what you wish god said.
beside the bible is crammed full of people talking to god that can't be corroborated.
the same goes for god ..

 

[daws101]

Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Only according to mans dating methods which I possess no faith in. I have seen no evidence just the interpretations of that evidence that suggests an old earth. There is plenty of evidence that can be interpreted to suggest a younger earth. That is not evidence that will ever be accepted for the simple reason it would destroy most theories that exist today.

I guess I need to say this again....bullshit!

 

[Boss]

At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality.

While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.

You have consistently failed to show why the GTR time-space would avoid the first moment problem. My understanding of it is that it does not.

If you cant argue your case then fine, admit it and walk away, but don't blame me as though I am too dense to grasp what you refuse to essplain, dear.

Where was any implication made as to your level of intelligence? If you did gain that impression it was unintentional.

As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does NOT exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the PAST as well as the future. With an INFINITE PAST there is no "first moment" ever.

Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has ALWAYS existed in the PAST just as it will always exist in the future.

So you believe the universe is omnipotent and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that our universe operates as a functional 'machine' to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.

Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.

 

[daws101]

Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Aborigines are fairly close to neanderthals and yet are in Australia how does that fit your theory ?

another steaming pile of bullshit.
Aborigine's are 100% Homo Sapiens.
while there is some argument as to when hominids left Africa, or if they migrated as they evolved from one hominid to another, The aborigines today came to Australia as fully evolved homo sapiens approximately 40,000 years ago, while the Neanderthal Disappeared in Asia 50,000 years ago. No offense to the Neanderthal, but i doubt they would have had the know-how to design the rafts necessary to travel in the Asian pacific to Australia..bhahahahahahahah!

 

[daws101]

It does not matter which bible translation I read other than little differences the message is the same.

If the message was the same, there would be no need for so many different versions of bibles.

Wasn't it you who claimed that the gawds wouldn't let their words be altered?

Like I said the message was not lost.

Example of little differences of saying the same thing.

Exo 3:2

(ASV) And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

(BBE) And the angel of the Lord was seen by him in a flame of fire coming out of a thorn-tree: and he saw that the tree was on fire, but it was not burned up.

(CEV) There an angel of the LORD appeared to him from a burning bush. Moses saw that the bush was on fire, but it was not burning up.

(KJV) And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

(KJV+) And the angelH4397 of the LORDH3068 appearedH7200 untoH413 him in a flameH3827 of fireH784 out of the midstH4480 H8432 of a bush:H5572 and he looked,H7200 and, behold,H2009 the bushH5572 burnedH1197 with fire,H784 and the bushH5572 was notH369 consumed.H398

(MKJV) And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a thorn bush. And he looked. And behold! The thorn bush burned with fire! And the thorn bush was not burned up.

so what there is no evidence that what is described ever happened.
Moses didn't write it, god didn't.
so who did?
the author of Exodus is not credited.
like all books of the bible it was not reported as it happened.

 

[Derideo_Te]

et al,

Chaos is the term we humans use to describe activity in which we are unable to detect or observe some orderly fashion we can recognize. It does not mean that there is no order or logical sequence. It is a term of convenience in the absence of another descriptor; we sometime say "nearly unpredictable behavior." But it does not mean that there is not a rationale or explanation for the behavior. We just may not know what it is. Reductionism and chaos are extremely difficult to explain. But there is more to chaos than meets the eye.

Similarly, time is a period or interval; a continuous succession of equal (self defined) increments, of a hypothetical nature, between any set of given events. It is a measure of convenience. Time is not universal, but based on the relative position and acceleration of the observer to a given event, or set of events. Currently we find it convenient to establish the following basic relationships.

• Speed/Wavelength = Frequency
• 1/Frequency = Time
• 1/Time = Frequency

(SIDEBAR for THOUGHT)

Saint Thomas Aquinas once said that there are three (3) things God cannot do:

• God cannot sin.
• God cannot copy himself.
• God cannot make a triangle with more than 180 degrees.

How do we define the nature, powers, and characteristics of God? Define it!

Most Respectfully,
R

The 3rd item only applies to a triangle in 2 dimensions. Consider the following scenario;

Start the apex of the triangle at the north pole and draw a straight line following the Greenwich meridian down to the equator. Now turn 90 degrees west and draw another straight line down to the equator. The angle of each line meeting the equator is 90 degrees to the equator. The third straight line of the triangle runs along the equator. What you now have is a triangle with 270 degrees as the sum of the 3 angles. So a 3 dimensional triangle contains more than 180 degrees.

What is interesting is that this triangulation was the methodology used to determine if the universe is finite or infinite. Using the temperature map of the cosmic background radiation they drew a triangle from earth to the edges of one of the "warmer" patches. If the universe was finite the sum of the angles would have been greater than 180 degrees because the curvature of the universe would be "observable" over those vast distances. The results of the triangulation was a consistent 180 degrees which proved that the universe is infinite. From those measurements it is possible to extrapolate that the entire space/time continuum is infinite in all dimensions.

So to address your question regarding the nature and/or powers of God you have to take into account what is both known and unknown. The historical fallacy is to assign human attributes and yes, that continues to this day. The attributes that the deity will "judge" and "reward/punish" based upon what mankind assumes to be "good" and "evil" are ridiculous when compared to a deity with the "powers" to "create" an infinite universe that encompasses "chaos". If the universe was "created" then it was by something that was completely and utterly inhuman and alien and way beyond what is currently "imagined" as "God".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you and yes, I am saying there is much substance behind these myths and fables as there are in all myths and fables.

Stories in scripture with snakes and donkeys talking that obviously and irrefutable contradict reality are intentionally put in there like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.



And example of that substance can be seen in kosher law with the understanding that it is not intended to be taken literally preserved in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.

In the law, the specific defiling and contaminating quality of swine is that they do not ruminate which has direct implications about people who swallow the flesh, figurative for teaching, of people who do not ruminate.

This is the wisdom; If you fill your mind with the teachings of people who do not ruminate, that teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become a creature that can not ruminate.








Try not to think of it as a reward or punishment. It is more of a consequence as in cause and effect.

People who allow falsehood to ENTER their thoughts, as a consequence, distort and pervert their own perceptions of everything they see, feel, think, and imagine...

This is not a punishment from God and is true whether God exists or not.

Obviously you have stood guard and have been discerning about what you allow into your head or not. As a consequence your mind functions better than those who have failed to do the same.

This is not a reward from God either and is true whether God exists or not.

If you can see this, you are not far from being capable of perceiving God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. So the 2 lessons are to only heed those who have spent time thinking things through and to not believe everything that is written and/or said.

From my own perspective I see it as always remaining true to myself first and foremost. Self deception is no different to deceiving others and neither is good.


As for the ability to "perceive God" that might be a skill that not everyone shares. Just as there are those who have musical talent and those who are tone deaf this ability to "perceive" what others believe has never worked for me. Since I abhor self deception I am not about to lie to myself and say that I can "perceive God" when I cannot.

Instead I make allowances for those who not only claim to "perceive God" but who also behave in word and deed as if they did. Those who profess to "believe" but behave in "unchristian" ways strike me as being dishonest not only about their beliefs but about themselves too. Disclaimer: This applies irrespective of the actual religion in question just in case anyone believes that I am picking on Christians only.

So unless you have some different way to "perceive God" that I have never heard of before you might just be "singing a tune" that I will "never hear" in a manner of speaking.

What I meant by saying that you are not far from being capable of perceiving God is that you already are adept in the foundational discipline of integrity required to wade through all the bullshit that surround belief in God which like thick dark clouds inhibit accurate perception..


I didn't mean that you are close to having the ability to pretend to believe in what you cannot perceive and become a three dollar bill like the majority of believers..

I think its safe to say that you will never die in that way.


As far as another way to perceive God, if you are willing I can show you a rational way to interpret everything from the creation story to feeding 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air to the resurrection of the dead and the ascension of Jesus which will paint a picture of a completely different God unlike the God created by a literal interpretation of those same stories, an unseen God that you already know.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if God existed he would have been intimately involved in your life already, even for all of your life ?

That's where you should look.

With a new understanding of what God is like, you will see what has always been there and it will be impossible for you to not learn to sing a new song.

I will caution you that knowing what the majority of the world does not and maybe cannot know will separate you from the rest of the world in a very profound way.

If you are a seeker of smooth things or dream of easy street, do yourself a favor and run like hell....

As someone who is always open to learning about new ideas and concepts I am willing to admit to being intrigued enough to want to find out more about this. Please proceed with the lesson either in this thread or another or even via PMs if you prefer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I love how this pompous know-it-all calls a survey of 18k people "superficial" but because ONE, that's right ONE, Mongo Man 40,000 years ago in Australia was for the first time covered in red ochre in his grave and that means that everyone in the entire world for 70k years was strongly spiritual.

Apparently for the first 30k years people were not spiritual because none of them were buried with red ochre before Mongo Man. BTW, Mongo Lady, the same age as Mongo Man, was not covered in red ochre, she was cremated, so women did not become spiritual until later.

18,000 VS 7 Billion

Yep that poll is superficial.

why did I know you'd say that!!
there is nothing more superficial then religious dogma

You finally realized how rediculous your poll really was.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If the message was the same, there would be no need for so many different versions of bibles.

Wasn't it you who claimed that the gawds wouldn't let their words be altered?

Like I said the message was not lost.

Example of little differences of saying the same thing.

Exo 3:2

(ASV) And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

(BBE) And the angel of the Lord was seen by him in a flame of fire coming out of a thorn-tree: and he saw that the tree was on fire, but it was not burned up.

(CEV) There an angel of the LORD appeared to him from a burning bush. Moses saw that the bush was on fire, but it was not burning up.

(KJV) And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

(KJV+) And the angelH4397 of the LORDH3068 appearedH7200 untoH413 him in a flameH3827 of fireH784 out of the midstH4480 H8432 of a bush:H5572 and he looked,H7200 and, behold,H2009 the bushH5572 burnedH1197 with fire,H784 and the bushH5572 was notH369 consumed.H398

(MKJV) And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a thorn bush. And he looked. And behold! The thorn bush burned with fire! And the thorn bush was not burned up.

so what there is no evidence that what is described ever happened.
Moses didn't write it, god didn't.
so who did?
the author of Exodus is not credited.
like all books of the bible it was not reported as it happened.

The important question was who inspired it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Aborigines are fairly close to neanderthals and yet are in Australia how does that fit your theory ?

another steaming pile of bullshit.
Aborigine's are 100% Homo Sapiens.
while there is some argument as to when hominids left Africa, or if they migrated as they evolved from one hominid to another, The aborigines today came to Australia as fully evolved homo sapiens approximately 40,000 years ago, while the Neanderthal Disappeared in Asia 50,000 years ago. No offense to the Neanderthal, but i doubt they would have had the know-how to design the rafts necessary to travel in the Asian pacific to Australia..bhahahahahahahah!

They have concluded the mapping of the Genome of Neanderthals and Aborigine's are closely related to neanderthals, Suggesting they interbred. Can't wait til the complete findings are released.

Nice theory though daws.