Is Jesus the Word of God?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It was not and no you did not you failed MASSIVELY to demonstrate or explain that it was created.

Sure I did.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You never did period.

you never came close.

Even if some ( not all ) of your references are accurate they DO NOT point to creation.

beginning and creation are not synonymous

I just did in the post you replied to. Are you blind?

Tell you what, let's you and me go to the bull ring and go one on one. I'll take the position that there is evidence for God's existence.

How's that? Are you game? You vs me. One on one.

No you did not in any of your posts.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

You failed miserably to provide a shred or speck or shred of evidence of a creator or creation.

The existence of the universe and the begining of the universe is not direct or even indirect evidence of any god.

You failed massively and are being quite the coward and liar so no you would never step outside and face someone.

So then let's you and me debate it in the bull ring. For everyone to see.

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong as I never denied it had a beginning.

I said a beginning does not imply it was created.

You are all over the map, bro. First you denied that tangible items can be used as evidence, then you denied that the universe had a beginning, then you ass fucked the SLoT.

Did you even graduate high school?

No I am consistent it is you failing basic science.

You are also turning out to be a liar as i never denied that the universe had a beginning.

I have owned and destroyed your ignorant uneducasted ass.

Where did the matter come from that created the universe?

Matter creates nothing much less a universe.

Everything you see physically is matter. Rock, gas, etc. Where did it all come from?

Yes it does make up all things but it creates nothing.

The great expansion AKA the big bang.

 

[ding]

Sure I did.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You never did period.

you never came close.

Even if some ( not all ) of your references are accurate they DO NOT point to creation.

beginning and creation are not synonymous

I just did in the post you replied to. Are you blind?

Tell you what, let's you and me go to the bull ring and go one on one. I'll take the position that there is evidence for God's existence.

How's that? Are you game? You vs me. One on one.

No you did not in any of your posts.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

You failed miserably to provide a shred or speck or shred of evidence of a creator or creation.

The existence of the universe and the begining of the universe is not direct or even indirect evidence of any god.

You failed massively and are being quite the coward and liar so no you would never step outside and face someone.

So then let's you and me debate it in the bull ring. For everyone to see.

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

 

[ding]

Why is it that the atheists on this board are afraid of debating me in the bull ring?

No one is I would crush you as I have here.

So then you want to do it?

 

[Soupnazi630]

You never did period.

you never came close.

Even if some ( not all ) of your references are accurate they DO NOT point to creation.

beginning and creation are not synonymous

I just did in the post you replied to. Are you blind?

Tell you what, let's you and me go to the bull ring and go one on one. I'll take the position that there is evidence for God's existence.

How's that? Are you game? You vs me. One on one.

No you did not in any of your posts.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

You failed miserably to provide a shred or speck or shred of evidence of a creator or creation.

The existence of the universe and the begining of the universe is not direct or even indirect evidence of any god.

You failed massively and are being quite the coward and liar so no you would never step outside and face someone.

So then let's you and me debate it in the bull ring. For everyone to see.

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

I never have been and you would lose there as you have here.

 

[ding]

I just did in the post you replied to. Are you blind?

Tell you what, let's you and me go to the bull ring and go one on one. I'll take the position that there is evidence for God's existence.

How's that? Are you game? You vs me. One on one.

No you did not in any of your posts.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

You failed miserably to provide a shred or speck or shred of evidence of a creator or creation.

The existence of the universe and the begining of the universe is not direct or even indirect evidence of any god.

You failed massively and are being quite the coward and liar so no you would never step outside and face someone.

So then let's you and me debate it in the bull ring. For everyone to see.

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

I never have been and you would lose there as you have here.

Can you walk the talk?

 

[Soupnazi630]

No you did not in any of your posts.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

You failed miserably to provide a shred or speck or shred of evidence of a creator or creation.

The existence of the universe and the begining of the universe is not direct or even indirect evidence of any god.

You failed massively and are being quite the coward and liar so no you would never step outside and face someone.

So then let's you and me debate it in the bull ring. For everyone to see.

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

I never have been and you would lose there as you have here.

Can you walk the talk?

Already have.

You know you have lost and been badly schooled

 

[ding]

So then let's you and me debate it in the bull ring. For everyone to see.

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

I never have been and you would lose there as you have here.

Can you walk the talk?

Already have.

You know you have lost and been badly schooled

I'll create the thread and send you an invite.

If you don't show, then we will know. Right?

 

[BS Filter]

You are all over the map, bro. First you denied that tangible items can be used as evidence, then you denied that the universe had a beginning, then you ass fucked the SLoT.

Did you even graduate high school?

No I am consistent it is you failing basic science.

You are also turning out to be a liar as i never denied that the universe had a beginning.

I have owned and destroyed your ignorant uneducasted ass.

Where did the matter come from that created the universe?

Matter creates nothing much less a universe.

Everything you see physically is matter. Rock, gas, etc. Where did it all come from?

Yes it does make up all things but it creates nothing.

The great expansion AKA the big bang.

You're not answering the question. Where did the matter come from?

 

[Soupnazi630]

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

I never have been and you would lose there as you have here.

Can you walk the talk?

Already have.

You know you have lost and been badly schooled

I'll create the thread and send you an invite.

If you don't show, then we will know. Right?

I have no idea what you are babbling about bullrings are entertainment in mexico.

The fact is you lost badly and you know it you are the only one hear who is afraid

 

[ding]

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

I never have been and you would lose there as you have here.

Can you walk the talk?

Already have.

You know you have lost and been badly schooled

I'll create the thread and send you an invite.

If you don't show, then we will know. Right?

I have no idea what you are babbling about bullrings are entertainment in mexico.

The fact is you lost badly and you know it you are the only one hear who is afraid

Are you making an excuse for not showing up?

 

[ding]

Then you shouldn't be afraid of debating me in the bull ring, right?

Let's go now. Ok?

I never have been and you would lose there as you have here.

Can you walk the talk?

Already have.

You know you have lost and been badly schooled

I'll create the thread and send you an invite.

If you don't show, then we will know. Right?

I have no idea what you are babbling about bullrings are entertainment in mexico.

The fact is you lost badly and you know it you are the only one hear who is afraid

OK, big talker, I created the thread in The Bull Ring. This will be epic.

Bull Ring - Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator. ding vs Soupnazi630

 

[ding]

Sure I did.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You never did period.

you never came close.

Even if some ( not all ) of your references are accurate they DO NOT point to creation.

beginning and creation are not synonymous

I just did in the post you replied to. Are you blind?

Tell you what, let's you and me go to the bull ring and go one on one. I'll take the position that there is evidence for God's existence.

How's that? Are you game? You vs me. One on one.

No you did not in any of your posts.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

You failed miserably to provide a shred or speck or shred of evidence of a creator or creation.

The existence of the universe and the begining of the universe is not direct or even indirect evidence of any god.

You failed massively and are being quite the coward and liar so no you would never step outside and face someone.

So then let's you and me debate it in the bull ring. For everyone to see.

When one or more of debaters get to wield "magic" as a rhetorical asset, there can be no debate. All methods for testing the truth of anything become null and void, and the one wielding magic can make anything into anything they want to make it into.

Sorry, but you magical thinkers all disqualify yourselves from rational debate concerning your magical ides.

I doubt he will show up, but I'll give him a couple of days.

If he doesn't, do you want to take his place?

 

[hobelim]

I see evidence of God everywhere I

But again, that's not actually evidence. You see, something isn't evidence merely because you say it is.

Ugh.. Let me try and break this down for you again.

God is the main character in a book that is a collection diverse fantastical stories loosely organized into an awkward narrative. In this book God gave the law. According to the narrative, even God himself, those who violate the law suffer something vaguely referred to as 'the death'.

Back in real life I look for any evidence or confirming sign that what is written in the story is the truth. That is the claim. The stories convey truth about life on earth.

When I see someone dedicated to worshiping the work of human hands as an expression of their love and devotion to God, someone perjuring themselves in the name of God, eating the flesh of swine that do not think deeply, or any clear violation of the law under penalty of the death, I see evidence that what was written in stories that amount to fairy tales is true in real life. The wages of sin are death.

Everyone without exception who violates the command to not worship false gods lacks the ability to think rationally, a fundamental necessity for good mental health,and a fruitful productive and fulfilled life. Many progressively degenerate further into a full blown mental illness, the actual subject of the hell metaphor, the absence of life.

So once you understand that insanity is the state of mind that scriptural depictions of hell refers to, you too will see evidence of hell, the condemnation of God, in front of your nose every single day...evidence for hell that can be independently verified, and is verified every time someone is committed by two psychiatrists who don't believe in hell.

No magical thinking required, no suspension of disbelief required, no special faith required, no "just believe me because I say so" required, no membership required, no portion of your income required.

Not even a belief in God is required. and you can check and double check the evidence for the rest of you life if you want. Maybe after a thousand more years of mind numbing conversations with believers of any irrational religion or ideological belief you will make the connection to what is actually written and warned about in the bible and believe.

All that you have to do is open your eyes, see what is actually there, and believe what you see with your own eyes.

Some con I got going there , eh?

I'm going to trick you into being smarter than you are and you can't do jack shit about it.

 

[cnm]

There aren't too many people that did what Jesus did. Can you think of any?

The 6000 captives from when Spartacus' rebellion was put down?

 

[cnm]

I was referring to the miracles and healings Jesus performed. No one in history has accomplished that. Only the power of God could do that.

So much for Billy Graham.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm always fascinated by athiests. They claim to believe that there is no God,

OF COURSE there is a God. No one can dispute that. God is the original cause that brought about the world (universe). Everything must have a cause. What is at debate but so often misconstrued by most people is whether God is personal (conscious, living, intelligent) or impersonal (and object or force or effect). The Personalist believes that things like wisdom, compassion and love must come from a fount of infinite wisdom, compassion and love, whereas the Impersonalist wants to think that it was all simply a matter of random chance and infinite rolls of a dice. BOTH are true. The universe came from a roll of the dice, but there are MANY universes and many sets of dice and God in his infinite wisdom, compassion and love---- made them all.

Anyone can dispute it and even prove there is no god.

Please, moron, you go right on ahead and PROVE to me there is no God, when I know there is! PROVE to us that the cosmic manifestation is just here and that nothing caused or brought it about! That nothing initiated its formation or supplied the materials to its formation or guided its nature! I can't wait to see what your 9 year old mentality whips up! Even Professor Hawking, an avowed atheist, readily conceded that the universe HAD A CAUSE.

 

[cnm]

I'm always fascinated by athiests. They claim to believe that there is no God, yet seemingly get irritated when someone else does believe in God. Why would they bother with people believing in something they claim is not real?

Perhaps from observing all the bad things that have happened when fabulists are not called out on their fantasies?

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."​

 

[toobfreak]

I'm always fascinated by athiests. They claim to believe that there is no God,

OF COURSE there is a God. No one can dispute that. God is the original cause that brought about the world (universe). Everything must have a cause. What is at debate but so often misconstrued by most people is whether God is personal (conscious, living, intelligent) or impersonal (and object or force or effect). The Personalist believes that things like wisdom, compassion and love must come from a fount of infinite wisdom, compassion and love, whereas the Impersonalist wants to think that it was all simply a matter of random chance and infinite rolls of a dice. BOTH are true. The universe came from a roll of the dice, but there are MANY universes and many sets of dice and God in his infinite wisdom, compassion and love---- made them all.

Anyone can dispute it and even prove there is no god.

How exactly do you prove there is no God?

The only knowledge you have of any god comes from ancient mythological books which we can prove are fictional.

Anything else is simply something you imagine.

Gee, you are even more ignorant than first thought.

 

[cnm]

The laws of nature were in place before space and time were created as they governed the creation of space and time. These same laws predestined being that know and create would eventually arise.

You appear to assume we know all the laws of nature.