Well the Southern Baptists declared the bible a true factual word of God.

[Colin norris]

Stuartbirdan2
Do you still believe that biblical rubbish?

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

“I think, therefore I am”: Descartes on the Foundations of Knowledge
26 NOVEMBER 2018~ 1000-WORD PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY
Author: Charles Miceli
Category: Historical Philosophy, Epistemology
Word Count: 994

If you are reading this, then you are probably looking at a screen or a piece of paper. Think to yourself: “I have some paper in my hand,” “I am in front of a computer” or whatever fits.

Is your belief here certain? Is there any way that you could believe this, yet your belief be false? Is there any possibility that you are mistaken about this belief? René Descartes (1596-1650) argues you could: this belief, and almost all other beliefs, are not certain

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

What did you just say?

That God exists and is the source of the material world.

Thanks.

I have had many remarkable coincidences in my life that showed up in times of terrible trouble just in the nick of time.

I think I am blessed... or receptive or both. Its not something I fully understand. This must be God.

God works for good for those who love him.

 

[Colin norris]

ding
How arrogant are you?
How could you possibly know or have unique access as to what God does?
You don't know. You fabricated it. You are a liar.

 

[ding]

ding
How arrogant are you?
How could you possibly know or have unique access as to what God does?
You don't know. You fabricated it. You are a liar.

I can't possibly answer the first two questions until I know what it is that you think I fabricated. What did I fabricate?

 

[Colin norris]

ding
You said you know that God works etc.
You don't know. You can't possibly know even if there were a god, which there isn't.
THATS way you fabricated. Stop lying.

 

[ding]

ding
You said you know that God works etc.
You don't know. You can't possibly know even if there were a god, which there isn't.
THATS way you fabricated. Stop lying.

That's not what I said, dummy. Quote what I said.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

It seems astonishing that after this defeat the Israelites could stay faithful to their god.

Why does it seem astonishing to you?

Not to me. To my source

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2
Do you still believe that biblical rubbish?

Yet, that does not mean that the atheists are right to crow, and that Einstein only ever spoke of God idiomatically, meaning nothing more by his frequent references to the divine. Our star witness here is Einstein himself. A global celebrity and known for his willingness to talk God as much as physics, he was frequently asked, in private and public, to pronounce on his beliefs. In as far as these can be summed up, they appear to be deistic. “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist,” he once said when asked to define God. “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” he told Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogues of New York, “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.” All the finer speculations in the realm of science “spring from a deep religious feeling,” he remarked in 1930. In the order, beauty and intelligibility of creation, he found signs of the ‘God’ he also heard throughout his life in music

Did Albert Einstein believe in God? - Prospect Magazine

A letter from the scientist which goes on auction this week is a New Atheist's dream. But the reality of Einstein's faith is complex

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.


My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

“I think, therefore I am”: Descartes on the Foundations of Knowledge
26 NOVEMBER 2018~ 1000-WORD PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY
Author: Charles Miceli
Category: Historical Philosophy, Epistemology
Word Count: 994

If you are reading this, then you are probably looking at a screen or a piece of paper. Think to yourself: “I have some paper in my hand,” “I am in front of a computer” or whatever fits.

Is your belief here certain? Is there any way that you could believe this, yet your belief be false? Is there any possibility that you are mistaken about this belief? René Descartes (1596-1650) argues you could: this belief, and almost all other beliefs, are not certain

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

What did you just say?

That God exists and is the source of the material world.

Thanks.

I have had many remarkable coincidences in my life that showed up in times of terrible trouble just in the nick of time.

I think I am blessed... or receptive or both. Its not something I fully understand. This must be God.

God works for good for those who love him.

Not according to the bible

 

[Wyatt earp]

progressive hunter
The proof is in DNA and fossils, and carbon dating. That is fact.
There's not a single item in that filthy bible which can be verified to include the above three benchmarks.

What the fuck you fucking dick

That filthy bible?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

“I think, therefore I am”: Descartes on the Foundations of Knowledge
26 NOVEMBER 2018~ 1000-WORD PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY
Author: Charles Miceli
Category: Historical Philosophy, Epistemology
Word Count: 994

If you are reading this, then you are probably looking at a screen or a piece of paper. Think to yourself: “I have some paper in my hand,” “I am in front of a computer” or whatever fits.

Is your belief here certain? Is there any way that you could believe this, yet your belief be false? Is there any possibility that you are mistaken about this belief? René Descartes (1596-1650) argues you could: this belief, and almost all other beliefs, are not certain

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

What did you just say?

That God exists and is the source of the material world.

Thanks.

I have had many remarkable coincidences in my life that showed up in times of terrible trouble just in the nick of time.

I think I am blessed... or receptive or both. Its not something I fully understand. This must be God.

God works for good for those who love him.

Love Your Enemies
…44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same?…

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

progressive hunter
The proof is in DNA and fossils, and carbon dating. That is fact.
There's not a single item in that filthy bible which can be verified to include the above three benchmarks.

What the fuck you fucking dick

That filthy bible?

God has thick skin

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

progressive hunter
The proof is in DNA and fossils, and carbon dating. That is fact.
There's not a single item in that filthy bible which can be verified to include the above three benchmarks.

What the fuck you fucking dick

That filthy bible?

He has anger issues

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

progressive hunter
The proof is in DNA and fossils, and carbon dating. That is fact.
There's not a single item in that filthy bible which can be verified to include the above three benchmarks.

What the fuck you fucking dick

That filthy bible?

You are supposed to forgive him

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Love Your Enemies
…44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same?…
So we can learn about God by observing nature

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

progressive hunter
The proof is in DNA and fossils, and carbon dating. That is fact.
There's not a single item in that filthy bible which can be verified to include the above three benchmarks.

What the fuck you fucking dick

That filthy bible?

You want to riot?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

progressive hunter
The proof is in DNA and fossils, and carbon dating. That is fact.
There's not a single item in that filthy bible which can be verified to include the above three benchmarks.

What the fuck you fucking dick

That filthy bible?

Many atheists are angry. I think it is because they are a minority

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2
Do you still believe that biblical rubbish?

Vatican celebrates big bang to dispel faith-science conflict

The Vatican is celebrating the big-bang theory. That's not as out of this world as it sounds. The Vatican Observatory has invited some of the world's leading scientists to a conference as it honors a Jesuit cosmologist considered one of the fathers of the idea that the universe began with a gigantic

apnews.com

The Tuesday-Friday conference honoring Monsignor George Lemaitre is being held at the Vatican Observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 to help correct the notion that the Roman Catholic Church was hostile to science. The perception has persisted in some circles since Galileo’s heresy trial 400 years ago, even though the observatory and Catholic universities around the globe have produced top-notch science over the centuries.

In 1927, Lemaitre was the first to explain that the receding of distant galaxies was the result of the expansion of the universe, a result he obtained by solving equations of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Lemaitre’s theory was known as the “primeval atom,” but it is more commonly known today as the big-bang theory.

“He understood that looking backward in time, the universe should have been originally in a state of high energy density, compressed to a point like an original atom from which everything started,” according to a press release from the Observatory

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2
Do you still believe that biblical rubbish?

Lemaitre himself was very careful to remind people — including Pope Pius XII — that the creative act of God is not something that happened 13.8 billion years ago. It’s something that happens continually,” Consolmagno said Monday.

Believing merely that God created the big bang means “you’ve reduced God to a nature god, like Jupiter throwing lightning bolts. That’s not the God that we as Christians believe in,” he said.

Christians, he said, believe in a supernatural God who is responsible for the existence of the universe, while “our science tells us how he did it.”

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2
Do you still believe that biblical rubbish?

Also, I think, the Vatican accepted the big bang theory because it implied that the universe was not eternal, it had a beginning, a Genesis