How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[ESay]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

I highly doubt that anyone sits on the right or left hands of God. I hope you dont take anthropomorphic 'features' of God literally.

Yes, the angels are the sons of God. Moreover, even humans can be considered the 'sons' of God. But it is one thing if you refer to Jesus as the son of God in Christian interpretation, and the other thing if you somehow equal him with angels with this title.

In my perception, only God can be described with the word 'perfect'. All creatures are limited in their 'perfection'. Even if we assume that 'divine' Jesus is the first and the most important creation (somehow the way the Arians did), we will have to admit that his 'perfection' is also limited. So, how can I be sure he was a flawless lamb?

Clearly god was not perfect

Why? Because He created imperfect world?

Because perfect only exist in fantasy

As were X-rays some time ago?

 

[esalla]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

I highly doubt that anyone sits on the right or left hands of God. I hope you dont take anthropomorphic 'features' of God literally.

Yes, the angels are the sons of God. Moreover, even humans can be considered the 'sons' of God. But it is one thing if you refer to Jesus as the son of God in Christian interpretation, and the other thing if you somehow equal him with angels with this title.

In my perception, only God can be described with the word 'perfect'. All creatures are limited in their 'perfection'. Even if we assume that 'divine' Jesus is the first and the most important creation (somehow the way the Arians did), we will have to admit that his 'perfection' is also limited. So, how can I be sure he was a flawless lamb?

Clearly god was not perfect

Why? Because He created imperfect world?

Because perfect only exist in fantasy

As were X-rays some time ago?

X rays cause cancer.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I'll start out by apologizing, as I'm not bothering to look at some video, only toss out why I think that Jesus was converted from a man to a god/son of god...whatever.
We have to remember what era Jesus (if he really existed at all) lived in.
It was an age of "multiple deities" and Romans and Greeks had a plethora of them, as did the Egyptians. Various myths were postulated that sometimes, these gods would come down and impregnate women (this would cover for women's infidelities and subsequent pregnancies). The males, at least some of them, so convinced that their religion was true, would be brainwashed enough to believe the claims.
Long before Jesus' birth, Egypt had a story similar to Jesus's, as did the Babylonians. In each case, the birth of the baby was the birth of a future god.
It was just a similar story applied to a child born in the Israel region.
As for claims of his "miracles," Babylonia and Egypt had their miracle working son's of a god.
It was a superstitious time, long before even the Dark Ages. People believed in all sorts of nonsense (witches with the power of spells, could put curses and spells on people, people could shapeshift, et cetera, et cetera).
So, it's no stretch to hear in that era, that gods impregnated women. As for Jesus, he was just a man who had a different message. One of peace and good will towards others, even your enemy. He was the first person that could have been considered a "Hippie," as we call them.

 

[alang1216]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.

"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.

The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.

Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."

Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer

Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”

skepticalinquirer.org

I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.

Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomely

Evolution is a fact and can stand up to however many straw men you throw at it. Evolution is NOT a random process.

Sorry no proof that dna wrote itself exist

Also no proof that DNA had to exist BEFORE life could exist. It is likely that life existed for a very long time before DNA evolved.

 

[alang1216]

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

It's too late to come along with your consensus theory. You couldn't answer my question and conceded already by, "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". William Thompson's argument against Darwin turned out to be important because Darwin was about to concede his explanation of ToE could not happen due to not enough time. It also points out how "long time" was of utmost importance to him. The > 6,000 years wasn't that big of a deal and one that Lyell and Hutton left for their readers to come to a decision on. Today, I would say that is the most difficult argument to make since it is based solely on the Bible. What we find physically on Earth has been upset by the global flood and Lyell used geology to attack a 6,000 year old Earth and uniformitarianism.

OTOH, I made a good case on how Darwin could've said I need more than 3 billion years when that article had gone to the internet archives. Several hundred millions years, 3 hundred million years, and his other estimates kept going up as new items, i.e. older items, were discovered. However, creation scientists say these discoveries were all based on assumptions of what Darwin needed as explanations of evolution. Thus, they are all based on circular reasoning in order to back up evolution.

So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

What you're missing is the fact that had Darwin never lived, evolution science would be EXACTLY where it is today.

 

[esalla]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.

"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.

The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.

Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."

Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer

Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”

skepticalinquirer.org

I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.

Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomely

Evolution is a fact and can stand up to however many straw men you throw at it. Evolution is NOT a random process.

Sorry no proof that dna wrote itself exist

Also no proof that DNA had to exist BEFORE life could exist. It is likely that life existed for a very long time before DNA evolved.

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

 

[james bond]

So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

What you're missing is the fact that had Darwin never lived, evolution science would be EXACTLY where it is today.

No, it wouldn't. We would not have had "survival of the fittest" nor social Darwinism. We would not have had pseudoscientific racism, eugenics, black genocide, the rise of Nazism, the Holocaust, and more.

We would have a better and safer world. Maybe our medicine would be more advanced and we would've stopped covid-19 already. Even today there are sick, twisted Darwinists in medicine who want to do some of those experiments that Hitler did. Darwin and Dr. Louis Pasteur lived in the same time and Pasteur didn't want anything to do with Darwin. He was considered a pseudoscientist and sicko in medicine and the medical world.

All Darwin did was give credence to atheism and its science.

 

[alang1216]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

 

[alang1216]

So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

What you're missing is the fact that had Darwin never lived, evolution science would be EXACTLY where it is today.

No, it wouldn't. We would not have had "survival of the fittest" nor social Darwinism. We would not have had pseudoscientific racism, eugenics, black genocide, the rise of Nazism, the Holocaust, and more.

We would have a better and safer world. Maybe our medicine would be more advanced and we would've stopped covid-19 already. Even today there are sick, twisted Darwinists in medicine who want to do some of those experiments that Hitler did. Darwin and Dr. Louis Pasteur lived in the same time and Pasteur didn't want anything to do with Darwin. He was considered a pseudoscientist and sicko in medicine and the medical world.

All Darwin did was give credence to atheism and its science.

Darwin probably sped up the acceptance of evolution by, maybe, a decade. I call Alfred Russel Wallace as my witness.

 

[esalla]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

Ok kid, you reinvent life to suit your delusion and call it science

 

[alang1216]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

Ok kid, you reinvent life to suit your delusion and call it science

If not by biogenesis and evolution, how did life come to exist?

 

[james bond]

So then you acknowledge that Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth as you earlier claimed.

You've been shown wrong on this in this thread and thus have disappeared under your chair seeking protection from your embarrassment beyond belief fallout.

Anyway, I now have evidence of support for Intelligent Design as similar to SETI. While it cannot be considered science, it can be considered to have science behind it. DNA was one of the evidence for the movement against evolutionary science or the science of atheism.

"The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.

But the adherents of Intelligent Design protest the protest. They point to SETI and say, "upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" And SETI, they would note, enjoys widespread scientific acceptance.

If we as SETI researchers admit this is so, it sounds as if we're guilty of promoting a logical double standard. If the ID folks aren't allowed to claim intelligent design when pointing to DNA, how can we hope to claim intelligent design on the basis of a complex radio signal? It's true that SETI is well regarded by the scientific community, but is that simply because we don't suggest that the voice behind the microphone could be God?"

SETI and Intelligent Design

Many readers don't know that SETI research has been offered up in support of Intelligent Design. Let's take a minute to fix this, shall we?

www.space.com

The above is just the stupid hypocrisy of atheist to defend their religion and sins of unbelief. ID has demonstrated itself to be be based on science as much as SETI used to be considered scientific in by the adherents of the science of atheism. Tax payer money should not be given to NASA to fund searches for life or microbes on other planets. The best we can do is find if there are other planets, moons, or even asteroids we can colonize.

 

[james bond]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

Ok kid, you reinvent life to suit your delusion and call it science

If not by biogenesis and evolution, how did life come to exist?

Now, you're sorta getting it. Biogenesis and natural selection explains how we came to be today. We still need God for creation or origins. We don't need evolution except for those who believe in the atheist religion.

 

[ding]

Science has explanations for how each evolved that requires no supernatural intervention. That is one reason I say that there is little evidence of design.

You mean other than space and time being created from nothing and the laws of nature predestining intelligence?

Sorry but I don't know what existed before the BB and I don't believe there are such laws of nature predestining intelligence.

That's because you are intentionally ignorant. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

It's not intentional. On the trillions of planets in the universe we know of exactly one with intelligence and that took billions of years to create. If the universe is an intelligence creating machine it is a very inefficient one.

Sure it is. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature.

How?

This is what it takes to create intelligence. You are criticizing how intelligence is created. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the laws of nature strive to produce intelligence. Everything which exists exists through the laws of nature. If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

But once was nothing, what we are able to call nature. "Then" appeared space-time, energy and information and the universe started to expand.

Through everything about the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

"Before" time existaed was no time. So it makes not any sense to say something existed "before" time existed. It's "only" our belief that god made everything out of nothing.

That’s how. Every little detail. So before space and time existed the laws of nature existed

What's nearly the same as to say the word of creation is a timeless word as Augustinus said about 1700 years ago.

such that everything that was possible to exist by the laws of nature existed in potential before space and time.

... or not ... ¿Who knows? ...

In the sense that things existed outside of our space and time

To exist means for us to be here in our universe within space and time.

they most certainly did exist before the creation of our space and time. It's not that complicated to understand.

It sounds nice what you say, that's all. But you do not understand on your own, what you try to speak about.

The purpose of potential is realization which manifests itself in mind stuff so it goes to reason that the source of potential and realization is mind stuff. It's not that complicated to understand.

It is simple what you say here. A coordinate system, three coordinates: possiblity, time and space. If you draw a line into this coordinates then this line - whatever the form is - is a reality. But what do you know about the correct line - if it is not a shower of raindrops or anything else? Nothing!

Apparently I was wrong. It was too complicated for you to understand.

It's not very difficult to find out that existence means to be part of a flow of energy in interaction within space and time - and it's also not difficult to know that this game started once in a first cause (for example a big bang). But is is impossible to know, what had caused the first cause of this game, because then this first cause would not be a first cause any longer. A first cause is without cause.

The universe has no outside (it expands from all points into all directions, so everything is always in the middle of the universe) - and the universe has no before (it is about 13.8 billion years old). So what was 15 billion years ago? Nothing! And what exists in a distance of 200 billion lightyears? Nothing!

So where do you take from the natural laws, which make us? What kind of nature is this?

Knowing the first cause in no way negates the first cause.

The creation of the universe followed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which means the laws of nature preceded space and time.

 

[ding]

God will be better than you. Trust me.

I love how you have constructed a narrative of something you don't believe in. What could possibly go wrong with that.

I am still not seeing where God told you He will judge you. Was that in a phone call with Him?

Why should I trust you? Has God phoned you?

I'm not the one stating as fact that God will judge you, now am I?

So again... how do you know that God will judge you?

Everything I know about God is admittedly hearsay. Can you say anything different?

Yes. I can. Through reason and experience.

I've seen examples of your reasoning so I'll ask what in your experience could only have been from God?

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.

So you judge the universe and demand it have purpose?

I'm not sure how you made that leap in logic, please feel free to explain.

In the meantime, let me provide my basis for my belief...

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. 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.

So why is it that YOU believe there is no purpose to the universe?

 

[ding]

If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

Really? If I put 100 monkeys on typewriters it is possible one may write Hamlet. Is that your argument?

Ok, prove it. Because I don't believe that is possible.

The laws of nature, however, are hardwired to produce intelligence.

If you're willing to wait an infinite amount of time everything is inevitable. Including both of these.

No. Not everything is inevitable. Only the things which are potential under the laws of nature are inevitable. Such as the molecular machinery of life....

 

[ding]

Not sure how anyone can watch that video and not know that life and intelligence was preordained by the laws of nature.

 

[esalla]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

Ok kid, you reinvent life to suit your delusion and call it science

If not by biogenesis and evolution, how did life come to exist?

Biogenesis means the production of matter from life, so biogenesis can not create life. The term you are trying to use is abiogenesis, the fact that you do not know the difference is because you are just a parrot repeating what you think you heard and are not thinking. All we know for sure about life is that it is based on the most complex and productive code known that in no way could write itself. The code for the simplest life contains thousands of lines of molecular code that all are useless without the other, so an intelligence had to write them

 

[ding]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

They would have to had two things; long chains that mimicked proteins and they would have had to fold themselves in exactly the correct sequence. You might as well call it a miracle.

 

[BreezeWood]

...

.
“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” - - “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
.

With the words "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani ..." starts Psalm 22.

-----
To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet — I can count all my bones — they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. But you, O Lord, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will perform before those who fear him. The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the Lord! May your hearts live forever! All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.
-----

-----

.

With the words "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani ..." starts Psalm 22.

.
you're sure that was not spoken from the cross ... words of a dying man.