Do you believe in God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which one.
If none exist, your answer would be "no." If any exist, your answer would be "yes."

Now quit being stupid

Stupid is framing the question as an "either/or" and allowing nothing else. Now that is stupid.
Stupid is being caught in lie after lie. ;)

You would know, as it is all that you do.
Let's see...

1. you lied about me initiating this exchange.
2. you lied about me going on the offensive.
3. you lied that I was the one who made the positive claim
4. and you lied when you said I tried to force you into believing as I do.

Care to go for #5?
 
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
And I never went on an offensive. I defended myself from your offensive when you accused me of trying to force you to believe as you do?

What offensive do you think I went on exactly?

Read the first post between us. I never attack you or your beliefs, I said I don't care. If you claim this as an attack, you are one sick puppy.
You said I was forcing you to believe as I do, which is a lie and an attack on me.

You should not force others to agree with you.
Who am I forcing? Is that even possible?
Siting the wonders you feel and singing the praiss of your beliefs, urging others to believe as you do and questioning others who disagree with you, that is how it is possible.
So by my doing those things I am forcing others to believe as me?
You certainly attempted to do so with your constant babble of how great you are for your beliefs.

Now do you understand?
 
Last edited:
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
And I never went on an offensive. I defended myself from your offensive when you accused me of trying to force you to believe as you do?

What offensive do you think I went on exactly?

Read the first post between us. I never attack you or your beliefs, I said I don't care. If you claim this as an attack, you are one sick puppy.


No the one who makes 20 posts on a thread not caring about GOD sure seems to me they care about God.
 
For the record I am more than happy for others to believe as they wish, but I'm not going to be quiet about my beliefs nor will I be quiet about singing God's praise.
 
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
And I never went on an offensive. I defended myself from your offensive when you accused me of trying to force you to believe as you do?

What offensive do you think I went on exactly?

Read the first post between us. I never attack you or your beliefs, I said I don't care. If you claim this as an attack, you are one sick puppy.


No the one who makes 20 posts on a thread not caring about GOD sure seems to me they care about God.

Your choice as to what you wish to believe. Once again, I don't care.
 
Which one.
If none exist, your answer would be "no." If any exist, your answer would be "yes."

Now quit being stupid

Stupid is framing the question as an "either/or" and allowing nothing else. Now that is stupid.
Stupid is being caught in lie after lie. ;)

You would know, as it is all that you do.
Let's see...

1. you lied about me initiating this exchange.
2. you lied about me going on the offensive.
3. you lied that I was the one who made the positive claim
4. and you lied when you said I tried to force you into believing as I do.

Care to go for #5?

Your perspective is, as always, skewed to suit your agenda. You will never accept anyone who disagrees with you. The true mark of a religious Nazi.

You claim that you do not promote your religious beliefs, claim that you are pure as driven snow and all to support your lies.

Care to provide proof for your beliefs?
 
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
And I never went on an offensive. I defended myself from your offensive when you accused me of trying to force you to believe as you do?

What offensive do you think I went on exactly?

Read the first post between us. I never attack you or your beliefs, I said I don't care. If you claim this as an attack, you are one sick puppy.
You said I was forcing you to believe as I do, which is a lie and an attack on me.

You should not force others to agree with you.
Who am I forcing? Is that even possible?
Siting the wonders you feel and singing the praiss of your beliefs, urging others to believe as you do and questioning others who disagree with you, that is how it is possible.
So by my doing those things I am forcing others to believe as me?
You certainly attempted to do so with your constant babble of how great you are for your beliefs.

Now do you understand?

And you fail to answer my final question to you. Very telling as you don't even bother to support your statements.
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.


No one went on offense to you not cared enough to care enough to post.

Claiming the wonders of your beliefs and continuing to state them is being on the offense. Of course you religious type claim that this is what is proscribed by your beliefs. Any other thought train is to be dismissed and denigrated.
 
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
Yes, I replied to Breezewood and then you replied to me.

You initiated the conversation with me.

Unless of course you are admitting to being Breezewood. Are you Breezewood? That would be in violation of board rules. :lol:


BTW, your dislike of me just makes my day as it means that you don't like to be challenged and just admitted it.
 
Which one.
If none exist, your answer would be "no." If any exist, your answer would be "yes."

Now quit being stupid

Stupid is framing the question as an "either/or" and allowing nothing else. Now that is stupid.
Stupid is being caught in lie after lie. ;)

You would know, as it is all that you do.
Let's see...

1. you lied about me initiating this exchange.
2. you lied about me going on the offensive.
3. you lied that I was the one who made the positive claim
4. and you lied when you said I tried to force you into believing as I do.

Care to go for #5?

Your perspective is, as always, skewed to suit your agenda. You will never accept anyone who disagrees with you. The true mark of a religious Nazi.

You claim that you do not promote your religious beliefs, claim that you are pure as driven snow and all to support your lies.

Care to provide proof for your beliefs?
Given that you have been caught in four lies and have accused me of being dishonest, I'm not surprised you are calling me a nazi. As for proof of my beliefs, remember that you asked for it.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So what proof do you have that God doesn't exist?
 
You claim that you do not promote your religious beliefs, claim that you are pure as driven snow and all to support your lies.
I never claimed I don't promote my beliefs. I claimed I don't force anyone to accept my beliefs.

And I never claimed to be pure as the driven snow. I'm no saint.
 
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
And I never went on an offensive. I defended myself from your offensive when you accused me of trying to force you to believe as you do?

What offensive do you think I went on exactly?

Read the first post between us. I never attack you or your beliefs, I said I don't care. If you claim this as an attack, you are one sick puppy.
You said I was forcing you to believe as I do, which is a lie and an attack on me.

You should not force others to agree with you.
Who am I forcing? Is that even possible?
Siting the wonders you feel and singing the praiss of your beliefs, urging others to believe as you do and questioning others who disagree with you, that is how it is possible.
So by my doing those things I am forcing others to believe as me?
You certainly attempted to do so with your constant babble of how great you are for your beliefs.

Now do you understand?

And you fail to answer my final question to you. Very telling as you don't even bother to support your statements.
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.


No one went on offense to you not cared enough to care enough to post.

Claiming the wonders of your beliefs and continuing to state them is being on the offense. Of course you religious type claim that this is what is proscribed by your beliefs. Any other thought train is to be dismissed and denigrated.
You never asked a question in the post before my response. So that's lie #5.

Actually, my right to express my religious beliefs are God given and protected by the Constitution as all of the founding fathers believed that government exists to protect God given rights.
 
Last edited:
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
Yes, I replied to Breezewood and then you replied to me.

You initiated the conversation with me.

Unless of course you are admitting to being Breezewood. Are you Breezewood? That would be in violation of board rules. :lol:


BTW, your dislike of me just makes my day as it means that you don't like to be challenged and just admitted it.
I don't dislike you. What makes you think I dislike you? I don't even know you.
 
Claiming the wonders of your beliefs and continuing to state them is being on the offense.
That is one bizarre belief given that we have free speech and a constitutional right to worship God in the manner of our choosing.
 
Claiming the wonders of your beliefs and continuing to state them is being on the offense.
You know who else felt that way? The militant atheists who hated freedom and liberty.

The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, synagogues etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designations were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes. In the long run state atheism failed to convert many people. Religion strengthened underground and was revived to help fight the Second World War. It flourished after the fall of Communism. As Paul Froese explains:

Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. But in the end, a majority of older Soviet citizens retained their religious beliefs and a crop of citizens too young to have experienced pre-Soviet times acquired religious beliefs.[10]

 
Claiming the wonders of your beliefs and continuing to state them is being on the offense. Of course you religious type claim that this is what is proscribed by your beliefs. Any other thought train is to be dismissed and denigrated.
This actually sounds like you are trying to force your beliefs upon me.

Would you like to abolish religion?
 
Some people - like Hollie and sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
Some people - like @Hollie and @sparky - have to lose what they have to appreciate what they have.
.
you're a joke bing, surly that would not pertain more for you, christianity than anyone here for mentioned.
But I do realize the spirit of God is within me.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

What ever you wish to believe is fine. It changes nothing.

This is our first exchange, after which you went on the offensive against me for my not caring. This continues to put to lie all that you claim about our discussions.
And I never went on an offensive. I defended myself from your offensive when you accused me of trying to force you to believe as you do?

What offensive do you think I went on exactly?

Read the first post between us. I never attack you or your beliefs, I said I don't care. If you claim this as an attack, you are one sick puppy.


No the one who makes 20 posts on a thread not caring about GOD sure seems to me they care about God.
I suspect he is a troll that's been banned dozens of times. I doubt his latest account will last more than a month.
 
BTW, your dislike of me just makes my day as it means that you don't like to be challenged and just admitted it.
I love challenges. It would be nice if you could actually pose one. Defeating you has been pretty easy.
 
BTW, your dislike of me just makes my day as it means that you don't like to be challenged and just admitted it.
I love challenges. It would be nice if you could actually pose one. Defeating you has been pretty easy.
But your version of defeating someone is one inane comment after another by you, each unrelated to the last, until someone would rather drink bleach than read another post by you, and so stops posting to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top