Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardAgain, this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.If there is no creator, how did the universe get here?
That science has yet to determine the origin of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
God is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardAgain, this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
That science has yet to determine the origin of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
God is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
I'm no fan of 'rabid' atheists harassing the faithful - but you are in a thread specifically taunting non-believers.
Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardGod is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
I'm no fan of 'rabid' atheists harassing the faithful - but you are in a thread specifically taunting non-believers.
So? You worry about your own comments and let me worry about mine. Now shove off
Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardUnless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
I'm no fan of 'rabid' atheists harassing the faithful - but you are in a thread specifically taunting non-believers.
So? You worry about your own comments and let me worry about mine. Now shove off
No way. I"m your minder. Get used to it!
My my. Such devoutly Christian language.Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardAgain, this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.If there is no creator, how did the universe get here?
That science has yet to determine the origin of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
God is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
My my. Such devoutly Christian language.Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardAgain, this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
That science has yet to determine the origin of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
God is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heard
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
I'm no fan of 'rabid' atheists harassing the faithful - but you are in a thread specifically taunting non-believers.
So? You worry about your own comments and let me worry about mine. Now shove off
No way. I"m your minder. Get used to it!
Not in a million years...I walk my own path....get used to it
My my. Such devoutly Christian language.Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardAgain, this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
That science has yet to determine the origin of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
God is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
Which makes both either equally right or equally wrong. Which would you choose to be?That would only be paying them back in their own coin.
Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardAgain, this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.If there is no creator, how did the universe get here?
That science has yet to determine the origin of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
God is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
Too many thoughts/topics to respond since I try to avoid text-walls.When I was 12 years old (about 65 years ago), I had a 7-volume set of books called Secret of the Ages by Robert Collier. One of the things that Collier proposed is that when the Bible claimed men were made in the image of God, the word “image” did not mean a mirror image or likeness. He proposed instead that the word “image” actually meant imagination or mind. He concluded that mankind was created not merely in God's mind but out of the substance which was God's mind.
And here is where math comes in: Since the mind of God is infinite, any part of that mind is also infinite. Every mathematician knows that infinity divided by any number is still infinity, so if man was created out of the substance which is God's mind, than each man is truly omniscient. I have read many books which suggest that man's infinite knowledge explains such things as mental telepathy, NDEs, and other psychic phenomena. The theory is that each of us has complete knowledge of everything - past, present and future - however this knowledge is blocked by our continuous conscious awareness of our immediate environment and personal needs.
I am not saying that I fully agree with Collier's interpretation of the divinity of man. I am merely presenting another opinion on the subject. However, I believe that what Collier said requires at least some consideration since science seems to support his theory. The scientific consensus is that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed , although the two are interchangeable (first law of thermodynamics). For simplicity I will say that “things” can neither be created nor destroyed. Since things do exist but could not have been created, the logical conclusion is that everything which now exists has always existed, albeit in another form. Naturally, this reasoning applies to all things: every pound, every atom; everything which can be weighed or measured; anything which can be acted upon or which can act upon itself or anything else. This would include God.
From a purely scientific perspective, God could create nothing since everything has always been and always will be. However, God could transform that which always was and will be. The only question is whether there was anything outside of God for Him to act upon, or whether God simply transformed Himself. As mind boggling as it sounds, creation could be explained by the self-transformation of an eternal God. Actually, the self-transformation of God is the only explanation which harmonizes the scientific concept that things cannot be created from nothing and the Christian concept of God the creator of all.
One of the most difficult things to accept is creation. There are only two possibilities in all the world: (1) That which exists has always existed, although not necessarily in the same form, and (2) something can be created out of nothing. Both concepts are somehow intellectually unacceptable, but logic dictates that one must be true. The former hypothesis at least has some scientific support.
Some people see a conflict between science and religion, but I believe it all depends on how one defines the two terms Personally, I don't see I conflict and I will do my best to explain why.
I think it is insanity to assume that God would create the universe and then leave it to chance to determine how His creation would function. When things were created, the creation was complete. Each thing had its specific and unchanging characteristics, purpose and destiny. The metallic chemical element we call lead always behaves as it was designed. Among other qualities, pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water. I prefer to refer to the inherent qualities of things as their nature. This nature is constant and predictable for the world could not function otherwise. In essence, nature is the way God does things and science is the study of nature; therefore, science is nothing more than the study of the way God does things. Man has identified and even sent rockets past planets that were unknown a mere two hundred years ago. Using stem cells he has regrown a severed human finger complete with a perfectly formed nail; using recombinant DNA he has created life forms which had never before existed. But every scientific principle exploited by humankind has always existed just waiting to be discovered. There is no conflict between science and religion; they are merely different words used to describe the same thing: how God does things.
For the record, my idea of God is not an anthropomorphic being. I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. Although I will not go into great detail at this time (maybe later), my basic conception of God is an eternal, creative and sustaining force, a power which acts with absolute certainty and infallibility.
Do I believe in a type of existence beyond physical death? Yes, but it is based upon scientific principles which are consistent with my idea of God.
But that is only my humble opinion and I will not debate yours, unless you believe that God is an old long bearded White guy in the sky. I am convinced that if God wanted to assume masculine human form He would be a tall, muscle-toned, bronze-skinned man with wavy hair and six-pack abs. He would also have one hell of a schlong.
OK, I'm done here.
Agreed both sides aren't discussing the primary point.I would be the guy who says," Before this all comes to blows have you two dimwits ever considered that this isn't what God had in mind?
Both sides are arguing over what the story is not about.
You type a single sentence pointing out the Biblical God isn't supported by facts then go on a multi-sentence rant about what this Biblical God did? WTF?Twilight zone
The biblical God who created the earth and filled it with creatures in six days and then took the seventh day off to admire what he had done is not supported by facts
If God is the creator, he did a lot of experimenting. He started with simple creatures and gradually got more complex. The earth and universe he created did not cooperate with his experiments in life. Cold spells, drought, volcanos, meteors...all raised havoc with his creations. Some survived, some didn't
He even had to experiment with man, gradually developing his most intelligent creature
If God is the creator, he is not done by a long shot
Disagreed. Like discussions on politics, it's the extremists who quickly escalate to hurling insults. Broad brushing all of those who are less extreme, be they atheist or theist in this case, is part of the problem.Dontcha just love how during the course of the mutual exchange of ideas; that the "Christians" are the first ones to escalate to personal insults, and attacks? Now there's the Christians we all know... Just not the Christ they claim to follow.
You type a single sentence pointing out the Biblical God isn't supported by facts then go on a multi-sentence rant about what this Biblical God did? WTF?Twilight zone
The biblical God who created the earth and filled it with creatures in six days and then took the seventh day off to admire what he had done is not supported by facts
If God is the creator, he did a lot of experimenting. He started with simple creatures and gradually got more complex. The earth and universe he created did not cooperate with his experiments in life. Cold spells, drought, volcanos, meteors...all raised havoc with his creations. Some survived, some didn't
He even had to experiment with man, gradually developing his most intelligent creature
If God is the creator, he is not done by a long shot
True. Not all the devoutly religious start hurling the insults. But 9 times out of ten; the first to start hurling insults are "devoutly" religious...Disagreed. Like discussions on politics, it's the extremists who quickly escalate to hurling insults. Broad brushing all of those who are less extreme, be they atheist or theist in this case, is part of the problem.Dontcha just love how during the course of the mutual exchange of ideas; that the "Christians" are the first ones to escalate to personal insults, and attacks? Now there's the Christians we all know... Just not the Christ they claim to follow.
This is what I mean. I think if someone truly believed they were going to a heaven and others were not, they would only be capable of feeling sorrow for anyone who mocked or doubted them. Even the slightest hint of being annoyed tells me you are getting defensive and to me that makes me doubt that even you believe what you are saying.Kind of hard to have a personal relationship with a being that can't be seen, or heardAgain, this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.If there is no creator, how did the universe get here?
That science has yet to determine the origin of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
God is the only answer...
Unless they have a personal relationship they will never understand
For you, not for me. Look if you don't believe that's your choice, it's my choice to believe. Now run along and bother someone else. You're an annoying twatwaffle
If you include atheism as a religion, then I agree 100%.True. Not all the devoutly religious start hurling the insults. But 9 times out of ten; the first to start hurling insults are "devoutly" religious...
We were put here by ancient space aliens, that were named God later on when they revisited to help humans out........How did we get here?
I think it was caused by a giant banana god who thinks gay people are better than everyone else. You can't prove me wrong.I believe in the Big Bang Theory, AND I believe in Jesus Christ.
But the Big Bang Theory leaves one basic question unanswered.
HOW did the Big Bang happen?
How about the ridiculousness of a single human lifetime being sufficient to judge someone for eternity?
If a person has a predilection for deception and they do not repent after 30 or 40 or 100 years then the odds are that they have made evil a deliberate choice and would never repent and develop a love for truth even if they lived forever.
If you were God how long would you wait around for a single seed to sprout that never has shown any signs of life before you would move on to plant some more and tend to the many that did come to life?
