User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:25:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My wife sure knows God. Always screaming his name when we're together. " Oh why God did you let me marry this man!" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:28:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prove it. You may be correct, but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone.  Prove what? Prove that the early Christians who: -Who did not have the body of works we call the New Testament (a large chunk of which were letters written by Apostles who were trying keep churches from tearing themselves apart). -Who did not have a body of written works from early church fathers the modern church has (which allowed the Reformation to take place centuries later). -Who operated prior to Nicaea (the purpose of which was, among other things, to unify the Church). -Who were still part of Judaism and dealing with the ceremonial issues and conflicts and the inevitable schism that would irrecoverably separate Judaism and Christianity. -Who were still struggling with theological beliefs modern Christians take for granted and had yet to be articulated in detail (i.e. the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, salvation by faith, Resurrection, original sin etc). -Who were living in a time when there was no "established" Christian church and attempts to establish churches were sometimes met with violent protest (from locals and government officials). -Who were living in nations and under governments hostile to their existence (who would execute their leaders and murder their followers in sadistically clever ways). -Who were dealing with the influence of the cultures and religions that were trying to co-opt the early Christian message? ...were less divided that the modern church? For me to "prove that" would first require you had a knowledge of Christianity, the "factions" you seem to place such a high importance on (and why that doesn't mean what you appear to think it means), the history both of Christianity today and of Christianity in the first century A.D. onward and from what I can tell you don't have that knowledge. In other words: you do not know what you do not know. Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:33:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prove what? Prove that the early Christians who: -Who did not have the body of works we call the New Testament (a large chunk of which were letters written by Apostles who were trying keep churches from tearing themselves apart). -Who did not have a body of written works from early church fathers the modern church has (which allowed the Reformation to take place centuries later). -Who operated prior to Nicaea (the purpose of which was, among other things, to unify the Church). -Who were still part of Judaism and dealing with the ceremonial issues and conflicts and the inevitable schism that would irrecoverably separate Judaism and Christianity. -Who were still struggling with theological beliefs modern Christians take for granted and had yet to be articulated in detail (i.e. the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, salvation by faith, Resurrection, original sin etc). -Who were living in a time when there was no "established" Christian church and attempts to establish churches were sometimes met with violent protest (from locals and government officials). -Who were living in nations and under governments hostile to their existence (who would execute their leaders and murder their followers in sadistically clever ways). -Who were dealing with the influence of the cultures and religions that were trying to co-opt the early Christian message? ...were less divided that the modern church? For me to "prove that" would first require you had a knowledge of Christianity, the "factions" you seem to place such a high importance on (and why that doesn't mean what you appear to think it means), the history both of Christianity today and of Christianity in the first century A.D. onward and from what I can tell you don't have that knowledge. In other words: you do not know what you do not know. Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Prove it. You may be correct, but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone. Prove what? Prove that the early Christians who: -Who did not have the body of works we call the New Testament (a large chunk of which were letters written by Apostles who were trying keep churches from tearing themselves apart). -Who did not have a body of written works from early church fathers the modern church has (which allowed the Reformation to take place centuries later). -Who operated prior to Nicaea (the purpose of which was, among other things, to unify the Church). -Who were still part of Judaism and dealing with the ceremonial issues and conflicts and the inevitable schism that would irrecoverably separate Judaism and Christianity. -Who were still struggling with theological beliefs modern Christians take for granted and had yet to be articulated in detail (i.e. the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, salvation by faith, Resurrection, original sin etc). -Who were living in a time when there was no "established" Christian church and attempts to establish churches were sometimes met with violent protest (from locals and government officials). -Who were living in nations and under governments hostile to their existence (who would execute their leaders and murder their followers in sadistically clever ways). -Who were dealing with the influence of the cultures and religions that were trying to co-opt the early Christian message? ...were less divided that the modern church? For me to "prove that" would first require you had a knowledge of Christianity, the "factions" you seem to place such a high importance on (and why that doesn't mean what you appear to think it means), the history both of Christianity today and of Christianity in the first century A.D. onward and from what I can tell you don't have that knowledge. In other words: you do not know what you do not know. Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. Nevermind. You are apparently too dense to even understand my response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:34:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would believe only in a god that manifested itself, not just in front of me, but a massive amount of people at the same time, and clearly stated which belief was correct. As of right now belief is based on where you grew up. A person survives a car accident here (an example given as a miracle constantly on this site) they believe the God they were raised to know granted a miracle. A guy survives a canoe accident in the rainforest he believes his God spared him. An Islamic jihadist kills a US soldier and escapes harm they think Allah is watching their back. It is really luck of the draw where you were born. So my belief would only be given if they appeared. Addressed a large enough group of people (hell why not the world they're supposed to be omnipotent) demonstrated a tremendous amount of power and explained which belief was correct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What level of evidence would it take for you to believe in a different God? Say for example Odin or Athena? The evidence of things not seen. But then again, I happen to believe Odin, Thor, and Loki are the Norse versions of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and Satan. At one point their ancestors likely had some version of the truth but past it down incorrectly/ mixed it with other traditions until it became the Norse mythology we all know and love. Funny dodge. What would it take for you to believe in another God? mean fully. Why would you expect others to believe in your's without the same level of proof? No dodge. As I said the evidence of things not seen. What would it take for you? I would believe only in a god that manifested itself, not just in front of me, but a massive amount of people at the same time, and clearly stated which belief was correct. As of right now belief is based on where you grew up. A person survives a car accident here (an example given as a miracle constantly on this site) they believe the God they were raised to know granted a miracle. A guy survives a canoe accident in the rainforest he believes his God spared him. An Islamic jihadist kills a US soldier and escapes harm they think Allah is watching their back. It is really luck of the draw where you were born. So my belief would only be given if they appeared. Addressed a large enough group of people (hell why not the world they're supposed to be omnipotent) demonstrated a tremendous amount of power and explained which belief was correct. That is a model that I believe God has used before. I believe you'll get your wish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:38:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nevermind. You are apparently too dense to even understand my response. Thank you for verifying my suspicions and for living up to my every expectation. Have a great day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:42:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for verifying my suspicions and for living up to my every expectation. Have a great day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nevermind. You are apparently too dense to even understand my response. Thank you for verifying my suspicions and for living up to my every expectation. Have a great day. Just for shits and giggles, go back and read what I actually wrote. Maybe you can get an adult to explain it to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:50:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just for shits and giggles, go back and read what I actually wrote. Maybe you can get an adult to explain it to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just for shits and giggles, go back and read what I actually wrote. Maybe you can get an adult to explain it to you. Which comment should I read? This one? Quoted:
Just a suggestion, but you Christians should meet up somewhere and all get on the same page regarding the whole religion thing, then spread the word. Or this one? Quoted:
Yeah, right! You guys are more divided now than ever!  Or this one? Quoted:
Please save me from the tears of boredom, I'm not going to research the church arguing with itself. Honest question, how many factions were there in the early church, and how many are there today? Truth be told I have read all of them and the only thing I can glean from them is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. To your credit you have typed absolutely nothing of substance so enthusiastically that I cannot help but watch. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:53:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Here, I'll try to make it easier for you.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Prove it. You may be correct, (this would in turn mean I was wrong) but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone. Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:57:43 PM EDT
[#9]
To be sure, to believe that we and everything else in this universe came about solely by chance is pretty ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:05:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here, I'll try to make it easier for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here, I'll try to make it easier for you. Quoted:
Quoted:
Prove it. You may be correct, (this would in turn mean I was wrong) but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone. Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. Here is the actual quote: (not edited): Prove it. You may be correct, but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone. Let me get this straight: You made some bull **** statement about something you knew jack **** about. Then, when called on the bull**** you spouted, you responded with the grade school retort "PROVE IT" on an assertion YOU made. And now you are hanging your hat on the fact you used the word "MAY" saying I may be right as if that somehow does away with the second half of your bull **** statement "but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone" which any thinking adult would take to realize means you are still asserting your position to be true. You do realize the word "may" means "possibility" and when you say I "may" be right you are also saying I may be wrong. Incredible.... just incredible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:05:41 PM EDT
[#11]
The problem is that many rely on what some regard as a book of myths, folktales, legends, and superstition as their sole "proof".
This makes it extremely difficult to find any common ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:08:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is the actual quote: (not edited): Let me get this straight: You made some bull **** statement about something you knew jack **** about. Then, when called on the bull**** you spouted, you responded with the grade school retort "PROVE IT" on an assertion YOU made. And now you are hanging your hat on the fact you used the word "MAY" saying I may be right as if that somehow does away with the second half of your bull **** statement "but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone" which any thinking adult would take to realize means you are still asserting your position to be true. You do realize the word "may" means "possibility" and when you say I "may" be right you are also saying I may be wrong. Incredible.... just incredible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here, I'll try to make it easier for you. Quoted:
Quoted:
Prove it. You may be correct, (this would in turn mean I was wrong) but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone. Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. Here is the actual quote: (not edited): Prove it. You may be correct, but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone. Let me get this straight: You made some bull **** statement about something you knew jack **** about. Then, when called on the bull**** you spouted, you responded with the grade school retort "PROVE IT" on an assertion YOU made. And now you are hanging your hat on the fact you used the word "MAY" saying I may be right as if that somehow does away with the second half of your bull **** statement "but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone" which any thinking adult would take to realize means you are still asserting your position to be true. You do realize the word "may" means "possibility" and when you say I "may" be right you are also saying I may be wrong. Incredible.... just incredible.  God damn, you're fucking hopeless. Go take your heart meds and sleep it off. Don't need you having an attack tonight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:09:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is that many rely on what some regard as a book of myths, folktales, legends, and superstition as their sole "proof". This makes it extremely difficult to find any common ground. That's a great point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:15:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
God damn, you're fucking hopeless. Go take your heart meds and sleep it off. Don't need you having an attack tonight.
Logic and reason are not your "thing" are they? I suppose those are as boring as history to some. Too bad. I'm out of this thread. Enjoy your attacks upon a religion you don't understand using comments you think sound clever that were pulled from a reservoir of ignorance you proudly display. Have a good evening.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:17:43 PM EDT
[#15]
Tachyons..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:17:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Logic and reason are not your "thing" are they? I suppose those are as boring as history to some. Too bad. I'm out of this thread. Enjoy your attacks upon a religion you don't understand using comments you think sound clever that were pulled from a reservoir of ignorance you proudly display. Have a good evening.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
God damn, you're fucking hopeless. Go take your heart meds and sleep it off. Don't need you having an attack tonight.
Logic and reason are not your "thing" are they? I suppose those are as boring as history to some. Too bad. I'm out of this thread. Enjoy your attacks upon a religion you don't understand using comments you think sound clever that were pulled from a reservoir of ignorance you proudly display. Have a good evening.
You're out huh? That whole reading thing is a little hard for you. Sorry man, I even highlighted in red and then added an explanation. Oh well, get some rest, take your meds and try again tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:29:58 PM EDT
[#17]
I chose "something else" because I believe that
Michio Kaku is describing a "force" that we don't quite understand... that changes the laws of physics that we are aware of. I am not sure this proves an intelligence, or the existence of a being. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:45:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To be sure, to believe that we and everything else in this universe came about solely by chance is pretty ignorant Lots and lots of folks before you felt just as adamantly about their supernatural creation stories passed down from ancient people. A small sample of hundreds... http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html Do you summarily dismiss those as ignorant? Or do they stand on equal footing to your creation story? If your story has more validity to you....what makes it so compelling compared to all the others? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 12:02:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
headline doesn't match the video. he doesn't claim to have found evidence for god. Said this last page lol... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 12:14:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Sorry, if I had a direct in person encounter with "God," I'd check myself into the loony bin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 1:17:58 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Saw this today. http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/ I'm already a believer via the evidence of things not seen... "The evidence of things not seen" is an oxymoron. Non-evidence is not evidence. ...but I'm curious to know what level of empirical evidence would be sufficient for those who don't have faith to say: 'Yeah, ok. God Exists.'
What would tip you from non-believer to agnostic to 'Yeah, ok. Supreme being is there.' Me, personally? I have a form of arthritis that's permanently deformed my spine; an incurable neurological disorder that has caused extreme muscle weakness and loss of ability to walk; loss of vision in one eye from cancer; and last year I had a colectomy. I think I'd be convinced if I woke up tomorrow morning to find the arthritis gone and my spine restored to normal; the incurable neurological disorder cured and my muscles restored to normal strength and functioning; my vision restored to pre-tumor level; and my intestinal tract restored to normal configuration with the surgically-removed parts regenerated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 6:33:56 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's be honest though; even if Kaku and a quorum of scientists had come to the conclusion that god exists, it wouldn't change your mind nor the mind of any atheist. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: His opinion is no more or less valid than the thousands of other scientists who don't believe in god. Also, we've been told by GDers that scientists are all corrupt liars who only work for grant money, and thus, can't be trusted. Also they are stupid. So why the hell would you believe them? ETA::Also, watching the video, the title of the OP, and the article, are completely wrong. He did not say "definite proof that god exists". Rather, it seemed to me he was talking about god in the abstract sense, he said the "mind of 'god' is superstrings resonating in hyperspace". He did not say it was an intelligence. He did not say we were specifically created. He did not say any of that shit that the article implies. He may be a believer. He may not be. Its not clear from the video. The only thing that is clear is that website is complete and utter shite. Let's be honest though; even if Kaku and a quorum of scientists had come to the conclusion that god exists, it wouldn't change your mind nor the mind of any atheist. If it was "string theory has the potential to explain everything, even though we have never tested it, therefore an intelligence controls the universe", as the story in the OP implies (not the video mind you, but the story), then you're right, its not going to change my mind. I suspect if the shoe were on the other foot, and a majority of scientists said "string theory has the potential to explain everything, even though we have never tested it, therefore there is not an intelligence controlling the universe" it wouldn't change a single believer's mind. And they wouldn't point out the logical flaws with that argument, rather, they'd call the scientists stupid, and clearly biased, and trying to get grant money, or usher in communism. I see no reason why that same logic shouldn't be applied to someone whom you think is supporting the belief in god (even though its not apparent that he actually is). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 6:38:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: really? to each his own i guess... hes a brilliant man. i have enjoyed his theories for many years. too bad hes a big time lefty / global warmer.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The video doesn't imply proof of god, or a supernatural intelligence, in any way. really? to each his own i guess... hes a brilliant man. i have enjoyed his theories for many years. too bad hes a big time lefty / global warmer. We know that whenever a scientist who accepts the theory of man made climate change, whenever they talk about god, evolution, or literally anything else they are lying assholes and shouldn't be trusted. Again, logical consistency says this guy is a "loon who should be dismissed out of hand", just like all the scientists who says things the theists don't like. Got to love people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Attack scientists for all sorts of reasons when you don't agree with something they say. Ignore these same reasons when a different scientist says something you agree with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 6:43:49 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "The evidence of things not seen" is an oxymoron. Non-evidence is not evidence. Me, personally? I have a form of arthritis that's permanently deformed my spine; an incurable neurological disorder that has caused extreme muscle weakness and loss of ability to walk; loss of vision in one eye from cancer; and last year I had a colectomy. I think I'd be convinced if I woke up tomorrow morning to find the arthritis gone and my spine restored to normal; the incurable neurological disorder cured and my muscles restored to normal strength and functioning; my vision restored to pre-tumor level; and my intestinal tract restored to normal configuration with the surgically-removed parts regenerated. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Saw this today. http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/ I'm already a believer via the evidence of things not seen... "The evidence of things not seen" is an oxymoron. Non-evidence is not evidence. ...but I'm curious to know what level of empirical evidence would be sufficient for those who don't have faith to say: 'Yeah, ok. God Exists.' What would tip you from non-believer to agnostic to 'Yeah, ok. Supreme being is there.' Me, personally? I have a form of arthritis that's permanently deformed my spine; an incurable neurological disorder that has caused extreme muscle weakness and loss of ability to walk; loss of vision in one eye from cancer; and last year I had a colectomy. I think I'd be convinced if I woke up tomorrow morning to find the arthritis gone and my spine restored to normal; the incurable neurological disorder cured and my muscles restored to normal strength and functioning; my vision restored to pre-tumor level; and my intestinal tract restored to normal configuration with the surgically-removed parts regenerated. Wouldn't be proof that said religion is 100% correct, but man, it would sure as hell go a long way in proving that there is some insanely powerful force at work in the universe that science has missed, and I should probably devote much of my free time trying to figure it out. ETA::Of course this assumes there is a god that actually gives a shit if you believe in it. There could be any number of gods that do not care one bit if you believe or not. Even if you could disprove the existance of a personal god who cures miracles (you can't, but just hypothetically), it wouldn't disprove the existence of gods in general. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 8:34:06 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The evidence of things not seen" is an oxymoron. Non-evidence is not evidence. Me, personally? I have a form of arthritis that's permanently deformed my spine; an incurable neurological disorder that has caused extreme muscle weakness and loss of ability to walk; loss of vision in one eye from cancer; and last year I had a colectomy. I think I'd be convinced if I woke up tomorrow morning to find the arthritis gone and my spine restored to normal; the incurable neurological disorder cured and my muscles restored to normal strength and functioning; my vision restored to pre-tumor level; and my intestinal tract restored to normal configuration with the surgically-removed parts regenerated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Saw this today. http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/ I'm already a believer via the evidence of things not seen... "The evidence of things not seen" is an oxymoron. Non-evidence is not evidence. ...but I'm curious to know what level of empirical evidence would be sufficient for those who don't have faith to say: 'Yeah, ok. God Exists.'
What would tip you from non-believer to agnostic to 'Yeah, ok. Supreme being is there.' Me, personally? I have a form of arthritis that's permanently deformed my spine; an incurable neurological disorder that has caused extreme muscle weakness and loss of ability to walk; loss of vision in one eye from cancer; and last year I had a colectomy. I think I'd be convinced if I woke up tomorrow morning to find the arthritis gone and my spine restored to normal; the incurable neurological disorder cured and my muscles restored to normal strength and functioning; my vision restored to pre-tumor level; and my intestinal tract restored to normal configuration with the surgically-removed parts regenerated. Not an oxymoron. Evidence is that which convinces. There are different kinds of evidence. I'm so sorry to hear of your health challenges, and hope things begin to go better for you. Healing is definitely a model God has used to convince people that He's there. That is an excellent example of the evidence of things not seen, as it would be unexplainable by science. It does happen but typically for those who already believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 8:37:57 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ooo, the plot thickens. We know that whenever a scientist who accepts the theory of man made climate change, whenever they talk about god, evolution, or literally anything else they are lying assholes and shouldn't be trusted. Again, logical consistency says this guy is a "loon who should be dismissed out of hand", just like all the scientists who says things the theists don't like. Got to love people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Attack scientists for all sorts of reasons when you don't agree with something they say. Ignore these same reasons when a different scientist says something you agree with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The video doesn't imply proof of god, or a supernatural intelligence, in any way. really? to each his own i guess... hes a brilliant man. i have enjoyed his theories for many years. too bad hes a big time lefty / global warmer. We know that whenever a scientist who accepts the theory of man made climate change, whenever they talk about god, evolution, or literally anything else they are lying assholes and shouldn't be trusted. Again, logical consistency says this guy is a "loon who should be dismissed out of hand", just like all the scientists who says things the theists don't like. Got to love people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Attack scientists for all sorts of reasons when you don't agree with something they say. Ignore these same reasons when a different scientist says something you agree with. Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 8:42:51 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The video doesn't imply proof of god, or a supernatural intelligence, in any way. really? to each his own i guess... hes a brilliant man. i have enjoyed his theories for many years. too bad hes a big time lefty / global warmer. We know that whenever a scientist who accepts the theory of man made climate change, whenever they talk about god, evolution, or literally anything else they are lying assholes and shouldn't be trusted. Again, logical consistency says this guy is a "loon who should be dismissed out of hand", just like all the scientists who says things the theists don't like. Got to love people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Attack scientists for all sorts of reasons when you don't agree with something they say. Ignore these same reasons when a different scientist says something you agree with. Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? What would it take for you to believe ANY OTHER GOD exists other than the Christian God? What sort of "proof" would you need to sware obedience to, say, Odin? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 8:52:14 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The video doesn't imply proof of god, or a supernatural intelligence, in any way. really? to each his own i guess... hes a brilliant man. i have enjoyed his theories for many years. too bad hes a big time lefty / global warmer. We know that whenever a scientist who accepts the theory of man made climate change, whenever they talk about god, evolution, or literally anything else they are lying assholes and shouldn't be trusted. Again, logical consistency says this guy is a "loon who should be dismissed out of hand", just like all the scientists who says things the theists don't like. Got to love people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Attack scientists for all sorts of reasons when you don't agree with something they say. Ignore these same reasons when a different scientist says something you agree with. Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? a) That some very powerful intelligent force at work in the universe that we don't understand exists? The answers have been given in this thread previously. A sufficiently set up miracle that I personally witnessed would do it. b) Convinced that a certain religion is probably true? I am not sure what level of evidence would be required for this. But a) would have to be proven before b). So I'll cross that bridge if I get there. c) Convinced that a certain vision/intrepretation of god is definitely correct without a doubt? Nothing. I believe true certainty is myth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 8:56:33 AM EDT
[#29]
This option makes no sense. "Scientific consensus of a majority of scientists".
In science, sometimes there is one smart guy is is right and all the other idiots take decades or centuries to figure out he was right. The use of the word consensus is a figment of the Global Warning idiocy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:09:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't waste your time. The video doesn't imply proof of god, or a supernatural intelligence, in any way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol sure he did. cant click link on phone. no worries if it was worth reading it would be unavoidable to hear about it. Proof of God would be a pretty significant, big and unavoidable topic.. just imagine how that would effect faith Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This. Very misleading title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:19:18 AM EDT
[#31]
God is real. It just doesn't care about us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:28:10 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just a suggestion, but you Christians should meet up somewhere and all get on the same page regarding the whole religion thing, then spread the word. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Either you believe the Bible or you don't. Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’." Luke 12:8-10: "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." Those quotes are dealing with the "unforgivable sin." That doesn't discount what I wrote. Those people, according to Christian theology, didn't deserve salvation to begin with thanks to their own actions. Salvation itself was meant as a gift. Are you surprised that turning your nose up at gift, a gift that involved the death of another in your place, in the way described in those passages would be unforgivable? Psalm 14:2-3 "The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." Ephesians 2:1-3 " As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath." Ephesians 2:5 "Even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" Just a suggestion, but you Christians should meet up somewhere and all get on the same page regarding the whole religion thing, then spread the word. Really ? I see there are between 6 and 17 forms of atheism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:29:05 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What would it take for you to believe ANY OTHER GOD exists other than the Christian God? What sort of "proof" would you need to sware obedience to, say, Odin? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The video doesn't imply proof of god, or a supernatural intelligence, in any way. really? to each his own i guess... hes a brilliant man. i have enjoyed his theories for many years. too bad hes a big time lefty / global warmer. We know that whenever a scientist who accepts the theory of man made climate change, whenever they talk about god, evolution, or literally anything else they are lying assholes and shouldn't be trusted. Again, logical consistency says this guy is a "loon who should be dismissed out of hand", just like all the scientists who says things the theists don't like. Got to love people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Attack scientists for all sorts of reasons when you don't agree with something they say. Ignore these same reasons when a different scientist says something you agree with. Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? What would it take for you to believe ANY OTHER GOD exists other than the Christian God? What sort of "proof" would you need to sware obedience to, say, Odin? Already asked and answered in this thread. Almost verbatim. The evidence of things not seen. The fascinating thing about many responses here is the reliance on empirical evidence for verification. Yet many admit that even seeing personally would not be sufficient. I would posit that the evidence of things not seen in sufficient quantities is more powerful than that which is seen. More compelling. That that is indeed why there is so little empirical evidence; because it is insufficient, and because faith serves multiple purposes that benefit man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:31:37 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He probably thought he was posting in his Safe Space. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well op you've opened up another new can of worms for sure. For most of the atheist that will reply, there is nothing that will change them. Sad but true. They will rebuttal with misguided ignorance, avoid answers, and dance around everything thrown at them. They will ignore a large number of scientist that believe there is a God, like we even need scientist to prove it, and then throw a bunch of inane answers from some "Supreme Atheist" at this thread. Good luck to all and God Bless everyone. I thought you couldn't get any more off kilter than in the last religion thread. Yet you up the ante again. He probably thought he was posting in his Safe Space. I will never need a safe place from an atheist. I have God and Jesus Christ on my side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:36:14 AM EDT
[#35]
I'm already a believer, but I'm an agnostic theist. I don't believe it is possible for a human being to completely understand the mind of God.
I would be converted to a strong theist (definitively saying God exists, not just that I believe) if God did something that isn't currently possible and couldn't be the placebo affect. Regrowing the limb of an amputee for instance. Cancer going into remission, not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:42:27 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nevermind. You are apparently too dense to even understand my response. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Prove it. You may be correct, but "because I said so" doesn't work with everyone. Prove what? Prove that the early Christians who: -Who did not have the body of works we call the New Testament (a large chunk of which were letters written by Apostles who were trying keep churches from tearing themselves apart). -Who did not have a body of written works from early church fathers the modern church has (which allowed the Reformation to take place centuries later). -Who operated prior to Nicaea (the purpose of which was, among other things, to unify the Church). -Who were still part of Judaism and dealing with the ceremonial issues and conflicts and the inevitable schism that would irrecoverably separate Judaism and Christianity. -Who were still struggling with theological beliefs modern Christians take for granted and had yet to be articulated in detail (i.e. the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, salvation by faith, Resurrection, original sin etc). -Who were living in a time when there was no "established" Christian church and attempts to establish churches were sometimes met with violent protest (from locals and government officials). -Who were living in nations and under governments hostile to their existence (who would execute their leaders and murder their followers in sadistically clever ways). -Who were dealing with the influence of the cultures and religions that were trying to co-opt the early Christian message? ...were less divided that the modern church? For me to "prove that" would first require you had a knowledge of Christianity, the "factions" you seem to place such a high importance on (and why that doesn't mean what you appear to think it means), the history both of Christianity today and of Christianity in the first century A.D. onward and from what I can tell you don't have that knowledge. In other words: you do not know what you do not know. Of course there is also the slight problem that you are the one who made that claim in the first place and you are the one who maintains that claim to be accurate despite the fact you have not shown any evidence to support your assertion. Nevermind. You are apparently too dense to even understand my response. That's the weakest reply I've ever seen from an atheist. You and HitManMonkey need to go have a chat so he can enlighten you some. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:44:53 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which comment should I read? This one? Or this one? Or this one? Truth be told I have read all of them and the only thing I can glean from them is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. To your credit you have typed absolutely nothing of substance so enthusiastically that I cannot help but watch.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just for shits and giggles, go back and read what I actually wrote. Maybe you can get an adult to explain it to you. Which comment should I read? This one? Quoted:
Just a suggestion, but you Christians should meet up somewhere and all get on the same page regarding the whole religion thing, then spread the word. Or this one? Quoted:
Yeah, right! You guys are more divided now than ever! Or this one? Quoted:
Please save me from the tears of boredom, I'm not going to research the church arguing with itself. Honest question, how many factions were there in the early church, and how many are there today? Truth be told I have read all of them and the only thing I can glean from them is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. To your credit you have typed absolutely nothing of substance so enthusiastically that I cannot help but watch.
Yep and I wonder which of the 17 types of atheism he believes in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:46:57 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is that many rely on what some regard as a book of myths, folktales, legends, and superstition as their sole "proof". This makes it extremely difficult to find any common ground. You really should get out more and read about life and how wonderful it is. Start with the Bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:51:22 AM EDT
[#39]
May my friends in Christ have a great day, and the atheist on this site, I wish you the same. Adios y vaya con Dios.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:52:11 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would posit that the evidence of things not seen in sufficient quantities is more powerful than that which is seen. More compelling. That that is indeed why there is so little empirical evidence; because it is insufficient, and because faith serves multiple purposes that benefit man. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: really? to each his own i guess... hes a brilliant man. i have enjoyed his theories for many years. too bad hes a big time lefty / global warmer. We know that whenever a scientist who accepts the theory of man made climate change, whenever they talk about god, evolution, or literally anything else they are lying assholes and shouldn't be trusted. Again, logical consistency says this guy is a "loon who should be dismissed out of hand", just like all the scientists who says things the theists don't like. Got to love people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Attack scientists for all sorts of reasons when you don't agree with something they say. Ignore these same reasons when a different scientist says something you agree with. Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? What would it take for you to believe ANY OTHER GOD exists other than the Christian God? What sort of "proof" would you need to sware obedience to, say, Odin? I would posit that the evidence of things not seen in sufficient quantities is more powerful than that which is seen. More compelling. That that is indeed why there is so little empirical evidence; because it is insufficient, and because faith serves multiple purposes that benefit man. I would respectfully posit that is total nonsense. ^^^ If that is in fact the case, maybe you can explain why the greatest discoveries in all of human history entirely defy this "logic". Seems this "faith" exception is nearly exclusive to religious assertions. To assert "faith" as a serious explanation in pretty much any other discussion would get one laughed out of the room....yet in respect to religion "the unseen" and "faith" are positioned as the lone exception and are somehow expected to be taken uniquely seriously despite being discarded as ludicrous in pretty much every other context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:57:05 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You really should get out more and read about life and how wonderful it is. Start with the Bible. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The problem is that many rely on what some regard as a book of myths, folktales, legends, and superstition as their sole "proof". This makes it extremely difficult to find any common ground. You really should get out more and read about life and how wonderful it is. Start with the Bible. Read it. Went to church. Had plenty of exposure to the Bible. Not impressed. That being said, I get out a LOT and think life is in fact wonderful. Stunning, I realize.....and Him is correct in the quote above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:45:12 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[Evidence is] Not an oxymoron. Evidence is that which convinces. Quote HistoryQuoted:
[Evidence is] Not an oxymoron. Evidence is that which convinces. Evidence can be independently examined. Religious experience cannot, therefore is not evidence. I'm so sorry to hear of your health challenges, and hope things begin to go better for you. Unlikely. They're all incurable by medical science, and God (if he exists) obviously isn't going to fix them. Healing is definitely a model God has used to convince people that He's there. That is an excellent example of the evidence of things not seen, as it would be unexplainable by science. However, just because the cause cannot currently be explained by science, does not necessarily mean that God is the explanation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:55:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
May my friends in Christ have a great day, and the atheist on this site, I wish you the same. Adios y vaya con Dios. You again?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:59:34 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well op you've opened up another new can of worms for sure. For most of the atheist that will reply, there is nothing that will change them. Sad but true. They will rebuttal with misguided ignorance, avoid answers, and dance around everything thrown at them. They will ignore a large number of scientist that believe there is a God, like we even need scientist to prove it, and then throw a bunch of inane answers from some "Supreme Atheist" at this thread. Good luck to all and God Bless everyone. The interesting thing here is that Kaku *IS* one of the greatest scientific minds of our generation. And has quite a lot to lose if he isn't absolutely right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:08:50 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will never need a safe place from an atheist. I have God and Jesus Christ on my side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well op you've opened up another new can of worms for sure. For most of the atheist that will reply, there is nothing that will change them. Sad but true. They will rebuttal with misguided ignorance, avoid answers, and dance around everything thrown at them. They will ignore a large number of scientist that believe there is a God, like we even need scientist to prove it, and then throw a bunch of inane answers from some "Supreme Atheist" at this thread. Good luck to all and God Bless everyone. I thought you couldn't get any more off kilter than in the last religion thread. Yet you up the ante again. He probably thought he was posting in his Safe Space. I will never need a safe place from an atheist. I have God and Jesus Christ on my side. That was a reference to a comment YOU made in the Religion Forum regarding why it was better to post a thread about ..........wait for it........ evidence of god ........ in the Religion Forum instead of GD. Quoted:
Actually it's the perfect place to put it. In G.D. it would bring out the basement morons that think owning a black rifle makes them a big shot and tough guy and that God isn't important. Should you troll there instead of here. Quoted from this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_135/1867458_60_Sec_Proof_God_Exists__By_a_Kid_.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:12:49 AM EDT
[#46]
LOL, no.
Michio Kaku is about as "scientific" as that big-haired guy on Ancient Aliens. He is on pretty much every alien and UFO show out there because he's one of the few people with a catchy title like "physicist" that will actually talk about a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense. Nearly everything that comes out of his mouth is just a hare-brained "what if..." You wonder why people ridicule all of the "evidence" religious folks try to use to "prove" there's a God... it's because you point to "scientists" like this guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:15:29 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't change is accolades or make him full of shit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That scientist is full of shit. Is he now? Besides being a well respected scientist and one of the inventors of string theory...I'm sure your contributions to the scientific world are far superior. Maybe you should do some research into Kaku before you try and make him a poster child for anything. Beyond that, theories aren't "invented" and Kaku isn't even close to one of the early researchers to propose string theory. Doesn't change is accolades or make him full of shit. Yes it does. Kaku is a well-known conspiracy nut and likes to bring up off-the-wall shit just for the purposes of conversation and getting his face on TV. Nobody will take you seriously if he is the only "scientist" you can point to that's postulating about a particular theory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:18:08 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The evidence of things not seen" is an oxymoron. Non-evidence is not evidence. Me, personally? I have a form of arthritis that's permanently deformed my spine; an incurable neurological disorder that has caused extreme muscle weakness and loss of ability to walk; loss of vision in one eye from cancer; and last year I had a colectomy. I think I'd be convinced if I woke up tomorrow morning to find the arthritis gone and my spine restored to normal; the incurable neurological disorder cured and my muscles restored to normal strength and functioning; my vision restored to pre-tumor level; and my intestinal tract restored to normal configuration with the surgically-removed parts regenerated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Saw this today. http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/ I'm already a believer via the evidence of things not seen... "The evidence of things not seen" is an oxymoron. Non-evidence is not evidence. ...but I'm curious to know what level of empirical evidence would be sufficient for those who don't have faith to say: 'Yeah, ok. God Exists.'
What would tip you from non-believer to agnostic to 'Yeah, ok. Supreme being is there.' Me, personally? I have a form of arthritis that's permanently deformed my spine; an incurable neurological disorder that has caused extreme muscle weakness and loss of ability to walk; loss of vision in one eye from cancer; and last year I had a colectomy. I think I'd be convinced if I woke up tomorrow morning to find the arthritis gone and my spine restored to normal; the incurable neurological disorder cured and my muscles restored to normal strength and functioning; my vision restored to pre-tumor level; and my intestinal tract restored to normal configuration with the surgically-removed parts regenerated. I think the stock answer is along the lines of "How dare you presume to dictate to the supreme being what he should do?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:20:03 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really should get out more and read about life and how wonderful it is. Start with the Bible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem is that many rely on what some regard as a book of myths, folktales, legends, and superstition as their sole "proof". This makes it extremely difficult to find any common ground. You really should get out more and read about life and how wonderful it is. Start with the Bible. I've read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:22:18 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, no. Michio Kaku is about as "scientific" as that big-haired guy on Ancient Aliens. He is on pretty much every alien and UFO show out there because he's one of the few people with a catchy title like "physicist" that will actually talk about a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense. Nearly everything that comes out of his mouth is just a hare-brained "what if..." You wonder why people ridicule all of the "evidence" religious folks try to use to "prove" there's a God... it's because you point to "scientists" like this guy. He is a legit scientist. You cannot downplay that, but he never said his theory is proof of god though. Op lied about/misrepresented the content of his finding in the thread title. Take your pick of which. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
