Here is the question atheists can't answer...

[turzovka]

By implying God does not know how to run his own program, you know better and are saying God would never use weeping statues because that is so lame.

God isn't lame. What's lame are those who think God, with the power to create the entire universe, would use something like putting Mary's image on a piece of toast as being a miracle.

The miracle is life itself, the fact the planets stay in orbit around their sun. The fact the universe even exists at all.

No. What is lame is you telling me an image on a piece of toast is tantamount to a wooden statue of the Virgin Mary in 1973 in convent in Akita, Japan weeping human tears or tears of blood on 101 occasions --- witnessed by hundreds of people, even filmed on Japanese TV. Not to mention the nun who was also receiving messages from the Virgin Mother in this statue's presence was cured of deafness.

Yes it has been observed and studied by experts. No one has come forward to say it is a trick, or it did not exude blood, or that they have an explanation for it. OUR LADY OF AKITA

For someone to dismiss this cavalierly is to their own peril, imo. At least, do not try to insist that there is no sign of miracles --- or try to equate this to nothing more than some lame image of a virgin on a piece of toast or a tree stump. Those are the methods and excuses of an uninterested skeptic.

 

[Divine Wind]

For someone to dismiss this cavalierly is to their own peril, imo. At least, do not try to insist that there is no sign of miracles --- or try to equate this to nothing more than some lame image of a virgin on a piece of toast or a tree stump. Those are the methods and excuses of an uninterested skeptic.

Don't worry about my peril. I have faith God is just. Worry about your own actions.

Ever notice how the vast majority of these "miracles" are with Catholics and not Protestants or God's Chosen People? Why do you think that is?

 

[Campbell]

It's a mystery. OTOH, I accept the Universe is about 13.8 Billion years old. Do you? God created the Universe and all the physical laws with in it. Do you deny this?

God gave us brains. My thinking is that God expects us to use our brains to better understand the natural universe God created over 13 BILLION years ago. Do you agree with this?

Everything you said minus the god part! Put me in the Einstein/Jefferson corner:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
~Dr. Albert Einstein~

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
~Thomas Jefferson~

There are countless highly documented miracles replete with observed phenomena that science has tried but cannot provide any explanation for. So you and they --- because you are so afraid of being wrong --- just call it a mystery and walk away. And then pretend you are still the smart ones in the room. How sad. How easily deceived.

There have been scores of weeping statues and paintings of Jesus and Mary over the past 50 years. How many have your team of scientists and skeptics uncovered the hoax behind them? Maybe 2 or 3?

What about the other 50 statues and paintings? Let me answer that for you.

1) Every single person who claimed to have observed the human tears or tears of blood or holy oil flowing from the statues or paintings are in on the joke. So that would account for several thousand witnesses over the past number of decades who just said it was weeping even though it was not.

2) All these statues and paintings that were seen by independent sources or journalists or TV cameras filming them weeping were clever tricks assembled by over-exuberant nuns or priests wanting to draw attention to themselves. And, no doubt, so clever no one could figure it out.

3) Or am I missing another explanation / theory?

The example above is just one way of God manifesting His presence to this modern world. But you do not want to consider anything like that, do you? No, you are so comfortable in your strange man-created environment called "natural selection." I cannot describe how much this bewilders me.

Man!! Somebody sold your naïve ass a bill of goods.

 

[turzovka]

For someone to dismiss this cavalierly is to their own peril, imo. At least, do not try to insist that there is no sign of miracles --- or try to equate this to nothing more than some lame image of a virgin on a piece of toast or a tree stump. Those are the methods and excuses of an uninterested skeptic.

Don't worry about my peril. I have faith God is just. Worry about your own actions.

Ever notice how the vast majority of these "miracles" are with Catholics and not Protestants or God's Chosen People? Why do you think that is?

Don't take my words too personally, either. I am not worried about Christians who ignore certain miracles but lead a charitable and just life. They are probably in good standing. I put these miracle reports out there primarily for those who say there is no sign that God exists. But of course, most of them are the ones who are least likely to accept the evidence.

The reason miracles are found in droves in the Catholic Church century after century and not found amongst Protestant "saints" or believers is because God is sending a clear message. The Catholic Church --- despite all its many sins and wickedness amongst some of its clergy and faithful --- is thee Church established by Jesus Christ with Peter as the first pope and the sanctioned bishops being the ordained ministers of apostolic succession. Jesus knew there would be division and disagreements in unfolding dogma and doctrines and interpretations. That is precisely why He gave His Church "the keys of the kingdom" and declared "whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven."

Lucky for protestants, they are greatly honored by the Catholic teachings. Lucky for pagans, agnostics and atheists the Catholic Church says they too can be found in heaven.

 

[Campbell]

For someone to dismiss this cavalierly is to their own peril, imo. At least, do not try to insist that there is no sign of miracles --- or try to equate this to nothing more than some lame image of a virgin on a piece of toast or a tree stump. Those are the methods and excuses of an uninterested skeptic.

Don't worry about my peril. I have faith God is just. Worry about your own actions.

Ever notice how the vast majority of these "miracles" are with Catholics and not Protestants or God's Chosen People? Why do you think that is?

Don't take my words too personally, either. I am not worried about Christians who ignore certain miracles but lead a charitable and just life. They are probably in good standing. I put these miracle reports out there primarily for those who say there is no sign that God exists. But of course, most of them are the ones who are least likely to accept the evidence.

The reason miracles are found in droves in the Catholic Church century after century and not found amongst Protestant "saints" or believers is because God is sending a clear message. The Catholic Church --- despite all its many sins and wickedness amongst some of its clergy and faithful --- is thee Church established by Jesus Christ with Peter as the first pope and the sanctioned bishops being the ordained ministers of apostolic succession. Jesus knew there would be division and disagreements in unfolding dogma and doctrines and interpretations. That is precisely why He gave His Church "the keys of the kingdom" and declared "whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven."

Lucky for protestants, they are greatly honored by the Catholic teachings. Lucky for pagans, agnostics and atheists the Catholic Church says they too can be found in heaven.

There cannot be anything but luck for all of human kind.....that's all there is!

 

[turzovka]

Man!! Somebody sold your naïve ass a bill of goods.

Proverbs 18:2
A fool does not delight in understanding,
But only in revealing his own mind.

Proverbs 17:10
A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding
Than a hundred blows into a fool.

Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.

 

[Montrovant]

So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god.

You are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god (or a belief that there is no god, depending on the definition). If natural selection is a person's god, they are not an atheist. Calling natural selection an atheist's god is just a way to try to make atheism into a type of religion IMO.

You're pleased with what you said above?

What that tells me is that you really had no defense for the gist of my post, so you looked for something to pick at and divert the discussion.

I know atheism does not believe in any god. I used the word 'god' in a context I was hoping the reader would understand.

Now go back to my post and explain how "nature" can be so clever, yet so mindless, thoughtless, and without feeling all at the same time. (Post #131 So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god. Somehow, some strange way "natural selection" which according to Dawkins has no will, no plan, no real intelligence --- still given that "decided" now is a good time to start hearing. So mindless "natural selection" by chance began the unimaginable process of creating the physiological makeup of what it would take to create hearing. And some of us in the classroom yelled out --- "Yeah, Right!" : 0 )

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of natural selection. There is no decision involved. Some creatures survive, others do not. Natural selection is just a phrase to use to easily describe the process whereby some creatures are better able to survive and procreate due to whatever characteristics they have which other creatures, that don't do as well at surviving and procreating, do not have.

In other words, natural selection did not do anything. It is not an entity or intelligence capable of doing.

I, myself, cannot begin to imagine how anyone can make such statements and think they have said something anywhere near factual or profound. It is totally bizarre. It is man acting as though he is in control and all I can sense is ego not wisdom.

And their oft used phrase “survival of the fittest” implies it is no sweat for some animal that cannot see or hear to think it needs to start seeing and so it embarks upon making an eyeball via “natural selection.” And yet you then quickly follow up by telling me “natural selection did not do anything (because) it is not an entity or intelligence capable of doing.” Sorry, but that is so insulting it is hard to describe it in words.

What on earth are you talking about?

Again, you seem to be having trouble with the concept of natural selection. It has nothing to do with any sort of decision. A creature does not decide to see. If a creature develops sight where there was none before, it is more likely to survive and procreate, hence keeping that trait alive in the species.

Looking at large changes, like the development of eyes, may be part of the problem. Let me try to give an easier example. Let's say there is a 4 legged, furred mammal that can be found on an island. There is a change in the environment, through a few years of extremely wet, rainy weather, and the island becomes flooded and water-logged. Now, some of the members of this mammal species have had somewhat webbed feet while others have not. Before the change in environment, it had no significant effect one way or the other because the island was mostly dry. During and after the years of heightened rain, however, it is much harder for the non-webbed footed mammals to travel and find food, not to mention the dangers of drowning because they are poor swimmers. The web-footed versions of the species, on the other hand, still get along pretty well. Those without webbed feet begin dying off, those with webbed feet continue to thrive. Eventually, those without webbed feet are gone entirely. This is natural selection. There is no decision involved. The animals don't decide anything, natural selection doesn't decide anything. The term is just a description of what happens when certain character traits allow some animals to survive better than others, which leads to those better surviving animals multiplying while the others die out.

I'm sure someone else could explain this far better than me, I'm just a layman. However, trying to ascribe intelligence or decision making to natural selection is like trying to ascribe intelligence or decision making to photosynthesis, or nuclear fusion, or oxidization.

Survival of the fittest does not imply what you claim it does. While some may mistake the idea behind the term fittest, it does not imply any kind of ease in the development of new and complex organs. Survival of the fittest and natural selection are really two ways of saying the same thing.

 

[Saul]

Where did you get the idea that you need to believe what another person decides is life's meaning? That's like saying that person is lying to one's self about something that only s/he can know: what s/he thinks. The meaning of life does not have a universal answer, it can't, unless you hear a voice in your mind, and call it God.

I didn't say that, but it's interesting that is the conclusion you leaped toward.

Also, there's a difference between "the meaning of life" and the meaning of existence. If you want to believe the Universe just magically popped into existence with no questions as to why or from where, that's your choice.

It's because no answer to the question can possibly be ascertained makes the question just something to occupy one's time and mind. Eg, a difference between meaning of life, and existence; for either or both to have meaning requires a sentient creator. Only our imagination can create causes for our own satisfaction; it serves no other purpose. Or do you include a rock in this argument?

I do appreciate your allowing me to have my own opinion; thank you.

 

[Saul]

Nice dodge on my questions. Odd that you responded to a question posted to sealybobo

I wish I had time to give you a thoughtful response. Can you hold your breathe until 9:00pm EST tonight?

This is to inform you that Saul has passed on due to his having held his breath too long for an 85 year-old.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's because no answer to the question can possibly be ascertained makes the question just something to occupy one's time and mind. Eg, a difference between meaning of life, and existence; for either or both to have meaning requires a sentient creator. Only our imagination can create causes for our own satisfaction; it serves no other purpose. Or do you include a rock in this argument?

I do appreciate your allowing me to have my own opinion; thank you.

Disagreed. First starters, our mind is all we have. What was Camus' famous comment about ""There is only one really serious philosophical question..."?

Until we can "mind-meld", how can we really know if other people are more than figments of our own imagination? Have you read where we might all just be holograms? Where did the Primordial Atom come from?

In the movie "Contact", character Ellie is a skeptic who needs facts and material existence to believe something exists, whereas Palmer Joss understands there is more to existence than physical being as shown in this quote:

Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.

In business, much of corporate America functions directly as a result of the balance sheet; the white, black and red. Where on a ledger is loyalty? Morale? Good leadership? Hint: it's not on there. The bean-counters think that if something can't be quantified, it has no value. Do you agree that loyalty, morale and good leadership have no value in a corporation?

 

[Campbell]

Man!! Somebody sold your naïve ass a bill of goods.

Proverbs 18:2
A fool does not delight in understanding,
But only in revealing his own mind.

Proverbs 17:10
A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding
Than a hundred blows into a fool.

Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Do you realize that the men who wrote that believed in witches and thought the earth was flat?

 

[Saul]

It's because no answer to the question can possibly be ascertained makes the question just something to occupy one's time and mind. Eg, a difference between meaning of life, and existence; for either or both to have meaning requires a sentient creator. Only our imagination can create causes for our own satisfaction; it serves no other purpose. Or do you include a rock in this argument?

I do appreciate your allowing me to have my own opinion; thank you.

Disagreed. First starters, our mind is all we have. What was Camus' famous comment about ""There is only one really serious philosophical question..."?

Until we can "mind-meld", how can we really know if other people are more than figments of our own imagination? Have you read where we might all just be holograms? Where did the Primordial Atom come from?

In the movie "Contact", character Ellie is a skeptic who needs facts and material existence to believe something exists, whereas Palmer Joss understands there is more to existence than physical being as shown in this quote:

Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.

In business, much of corporate America functions directly as a result of the balance sheet; the white, black and red. Where on a ledger is loyalty? Morale? Good leadership? Hint: it's not on there. The bean-counters think that if something can't be quantified, it has no value. Do you agree that loyalty, morale and good leadership have no value in a corporation?

It's because no answer to the question can possibly be ascertained makes the question just something to occupy one's time and mind. Eg, a difference between meaning of life, and existence; for either or both to have meaning requires a sentient creator. Only our imagination can create causes for our own satisfaction; it serves no other purpose. Or do you include a rock in this argument?

I do appreciate your allowing me to have my own opinion; thank you.

Disagreed. First starters, our mind is all we have. What was Camus' famous comment about ""There is only one really serious philosophical question..."?

Until we can "mind-meld", how can we really know if other people are more than figments of our own imagination? Have you read where we might all just be holograms? Where did the Primordial Atom come from?

In the movie "Contact", character Ellie is a skeptic who needs facts and material existence to believe something exists, whereas Palmer Joss understands there is more to existence than physical being as shown in this quote:

Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.

In business, much of corporate America functions directly as a result of the balance sheet; the white, black and red. Where on a ledger is loyalty? Morale? Good leadership? Hint: it's not on there. The bean-counters think that if something can't be quantified, it has no value. Do you agree that loyalty, morale and good leadership have no value in a corporation?

Your points make no sense to me, Devine; To prove my love for my father, I need only die for him, and it would be proved. What that has to do with God or anything on this subject is beyond me.
Perhaps we need to define "God." I'm under the impression that I had when I say, "Sentient Being;" God is a figment of human imagination and a tool with which people are used and abused, as well as feeling emotionally secure. I can't connect whether we ourselves are in our imagination, to the question of ourselves melding minds, or answering questions about the existence of a big Daddy in the sky, and the ability of Atheists (or Distheists) to answer questions about "Him."

 

[Saul]

It's because no answer to the question can possibly be ascertained makes the question just something to occupy one's time and mind. Eg, a difference between meaning of life, and existence; for either or both to have meaning requires a sentient creator. Only our imagination can create causes for our own satisfaction; it serves no other purpose. Or do you include a rock in this argument?

I do appreciate your allowing me to have my own opinion; thank you.

Disagreed. First starters, our mind is all we have. What was Camus' famous comment about ""There is only one really serious philosophical question..."?

Until we can "mind-meld", how can we really know if other people are more than figments of our own imagination? Have you read where we might all just be holograms? Where did the Primordial Atom come from?

In the movie "Contact", character Ellie is a skeptic who needs facts and material existence to believe something exists, whereas Palmer Joss understands there is more to existence than physical being as shown in this quote:

Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.

In business, much of corporate America functions directly as a result of the balance sheet; the white, black and red. Where on a ledger is loyalty? Morale? Good leadership? Hint: it's not on there. The bean-counters think that if something can't be quantified, it has no value. Do you agree that loyalty, morale and good leadership have no value in a corporation?

"Do you agree that loyalty, morale and good leadership have no value in a corporation?" No! Such value is accounted for in executive evaluations which are part of the firm's "Books."

 

[Divine Wind]

Your points make no sense to me, Devine;....

No worries. A person who doesn't know how to spell can't be expected to understand much. Have a really nice day, Saul.

 

[Divine Wind]

"Do you agree that loyalty, morale and good leadership have no value in a corporation?" No! Such value is accounted for in executive evaluations which are part of the firm's "Books."

Prove it. Obviously your respect for corporate executives is much higher than mine. I eagerly await your evidence. You must be a Trump fan to have such high regard for the system. LOL

 

[MaryL]

God is beyond the universe now? I don't want to sound like doubting Jewish mom. But then wisenheimer, who made God and all that stuff. It's a interesting question, don't you think?

If God is eternal and our universe has a beginning and end it's safe to assume we aren't his first or last universe. We are but one roll of gods dice

So were DID GOD come from, just between us?

I don't believe there is a need for an initial creator. Why are theists comfortable with an eternal creator but not OK with an eternal number of infinite universes that exist just because? Why do we exist? We may never know. If we didn't exist what would be the point? Why do stars exist? Why does the universe? There is no ultimate purpose. Life just is. Lucky if you had a good life.

We exist so the universe can know itself. I believe we are all connected. I feel connected with the universe. In fact we all came from other stars that died billions of years before our star was born.

There just is existence in between the non existent. Ultimately I can't answer all your questions

God never existed and the universe always did. Or maybe it's the other way round'. How much does it matter?

 

[Divine Wind]

God never existed and the universe always did. Or maybe it's the other way round'. How much does it matter?

God's existence is unproven and the time line of the universe is well known. It matters because humans are curious. You may not be, but I am.

 

[presonorek]

Nice dodge on my questions. Odd that you responded to a question posted to sealybobo

I wish I had time to give you a thoughtful response. Can you hold your breathe until 9:00pm EST tonight?

This is to inform you that Saul has passed on due to his having held his breath too long for an 85 year-old.

No problem. I forgot what I was going to say anyways.

 

[sealybobo]

God never existed and the universe always did. Or maybe it's the other way round'. How much does it matter?

God's existence is unproven and the time line of the universe is well known. It matters because humans are curious. You may not be, but I am.

There may even be a creator and maybe out of respect for all life you don't kill unnecessarily and you try to be a good person because you never know but what I can't do is buy into any religions. They are lies.

 

[presonorek]

God never existed and the universe always did. Or maybe it's the other way round'. How much does it matter?

God's existence is unproven and the time line of the universe is well known. It matters because humans are curious. You may not be, but I am.

There may even be a creator and maybe out of respect for all life you don't kill unnecessarily and you try to be a good person because you never know but what I can't do is buy into any religions. They are lies.

What if there is a creator and he wants us to disrespect life, kill unnecessarily and wants us to be horrible people? Is that a possibility? If so, shouldn't we honor a creator like that?