Meso

!= is 'not equal to' in SQL code

I recall addressing it. Remember... If God can exist in an infinite state, I can say the original universal matter existed in such a state too. You say that God is exempt from the rules of known science, I can say that the original molecules that created the earth behaved in an unpredictable way much like the lowest levels of particles. We both end up on 0 - 0, I don't disprove yours, you don't disprove mine. But then I've shown that God isn't needed for design and the existence of earth and mankind could have been 'created' without him. So now you can say "Well I have faith that it was God", in which case good for you, you do that. You have faith in a God that has shown no other evidence of existing, that isn't easily explained away, now that the mysterious creation of life has been leveled 0-0 the idea of God becomes almost pointless... And no the bible isn't evidence of his existence in any way, no more so than me writing a book claiming my pancake is evidence of God. PS: I applaud you for that at least. As Christians who care about others, one should try to spread the gospel and to save others from hell if you truly believe, it is the logical thing to do. It is also rarely done though, people would much rather be religious fence sitters who say they are convinced of God, yet they are content with their best friends going to hell. I reason I debate religion is less for selfish reasons and more for the ability to attempt to try free the shackles that religion casts on others. I was religious most my life, a Christian. I just want them to look at things the way I did (clearly without feeling ashamed of questioning) before they throw their lives away to a blind following of Christianity.

That's a statement of faith. In that case, how's these statements of faith. Your heart is going to beat within the next 5 seconds... The sun is going to still exist tomorrow. If you smash your face against a wall hard enough you're going to bleed. Faith != Logic

I thought we've been through this. If God can exist outside the realm of known science then so can anything. If the universe was always there in terms of infinity then maybe the universe we know today originated from matter that doesn't behave in a manner that we know in science. This is the point I tried to pass up with quantum physics... The lowest level of a particle still acts in a way that makes no scientific sense and is unpredictable and doesn't follow other scientific laws such as relativity. And this is exactly why the universe could have developed into what it is today the same way you propose God could have. As for the arrogant and self-centered. Maybe you're content with religion constantly slowing down scientific advancements and banning research based on church talk, basing laws on religious ideals and members of society being ostracized in many cases. Maybe this doesn't bother you, but for someone who actually cares about advancements in the world, both in terms of science and personal freedoms, it's a huge annoyance. Nothing worse than apathy.

Yes, it likely would. But to even consider that premise you need to already make the assumption that he exists. So to use the idea that "God exists because we can't understand his plans and his nature" is no different than to say "Faeries exist because we can't understand the magical world". It just doesn't really solve anything.

While I could go into another debate about relativity and space not playing by the same rules to offer a rebuttal for your statement about things not needing a creator and then needing one, I feel that if you don't catch my drift with the previous sentiments (which seems clear given you're arguing your prior point which I countered), I don't feel the need to explain it again. What I will do though... Is address that... You seem to have mixed up faith with logic. What you're saying is, that if I throw a ball up in the air and I expect it to fall down with the laws of gravity, I am using faith to assume that the ball will return to earth. This is not faith, this is common sense, it's been proved to happen- sure the laws of gravity CAN change given some weird cosmic event but that doesn't make following the rules of gravity faith. You're trying to compare physics to the existence of God, which is frankly an insult to science. You see, the only way in which the existence of God can be compared to let's say, the laws of gravity, was in this scenario: People notice question their origin, they propose a theory of a God. They look for evidence to support this God, they then use extremely weak evidence that could be used to support any theory of a 'higher power' (but let's go with giving them the benefit of logical thinking). So now they consider 'miracles' as evidence of God's presence, the answering of prayers etc. They then tested the existence of God by asking prayers which were answered time and time again with consistency, every time. Only then would his existence be comparable to gravity or other physics. Currently if we have to apply your thinking of what faith is and what science is. And have 'faith' in science... The laws of physics and gravity in this case would look like this: Man notices apple falling from tree... He proposes that gravity exists which is why it fell. He then proceeds to hold an apple above his head and drop it for a repeated amount of times. The apple floats of 99/100 times and falls 1/100. He then continues to state that gravity exists. ^ That would make science involve 'faith'. In science you base you need constant evidence and situations that are replicated time and time again under a set of parameters. God's so-called miracles (which can be explained by logic almost every time) don't occur whenever you call for them. There is no constant evidence to support an existence of God, none-the-less the God depicted in the Christian bible. If he gave everyone what they prayed for, you may have a case. Instead God doesn't do that (how convenient for his followers). And that is the difference between science and religion. Science has the proof for it's physics laws, it has a 100% conclusive result (even if it is 'the past'), religion doesn't even have that. And all of the so-called evidence for God's existence can be used for other theories too with just as much probability. This is not true in science. Calling the laws of physics faith is nothing short than absurd.

I seemed to have missed this part. Earlier on in this thread I think it was I pasted quotes from the bible in regards to the description of hell. I'm not sure where you get your definition of hell, but the hell as defined in the bible is more often than not referred to as a pit of flames located in the center of the earth.

Where I was going with that statement was nowhere really, I was stating how untouchable faith is because it's something that's immune to logic. Faith is not important. It is the opposite of science, I don't see how you can say people put their faith in science, they don't- not typically. A scientist will attempt to prove something, if science was about faith there would be no need to prove anything, a scientist would propose a theory and that would be that. Instead he will aim to prove that theory. I have no 'faith in science', if a theory lacks logical support or evidence I`m not going to believe it to be true. With God on the other hand it's a very different matter. With God it's more like me saying that unicorns poop rainbows and that is where rainbows come from, and the existence of rainbows is the evidence to my proposition. And then when you say it's the light reflecting, I tell you it was the unicorn who created those particles that the light is reflecting off. There is no evidence to support the presence of God, it's just assumed that because there's no 100% proven method of creation that there must be. I'm Atheist but I don't rule out the existence of a God completely, It's just soooooooo small that it's pointless to even consider (and no that's not Agnostic). God, Easter Bunny, Father Christmas, Unicorns, Faeries... They're all exactly on the same page when it comes to evidence of creation. The only difference between the others and God, is that someone decided to write about God. I'd be glad to change my belief should any evidence actually show, and not require me to have blind faith. I hate the reality of death as an Atheist, but the truth is harsh.

Whoa Nelly, stop right there... From what I understand this is extremely incorrect. I recall that the writers of the bible all wrote what they did from looking at the scriptures of the other writers involved and evolved their books. Much like me writing a story, passing it on to someone else, them adding to the story and passing it along to their friend to write the next, I'm fairly certain I recall historic facts pointing to that. I must admit I`m unsure as to the exact details and I'm struggling to find the single source that addressed it in it's entirety where I heard the details. But I'm almost certain that the authors definitely didn't all write the same types of things by chance. I'm fairly certain there is consensus with the authors using the previous and other writers stories as reference. Some of the Christian arguments I have read have tried to go along the lines of "They may have been acquainted but they may not have known what the other was writing". Yeah that seems very likely. Though this is a topic I`m not 100% sure on, if someone can show me some studies that state that the writers had no previous knowledge of the other writers work I`ll gladly read it.

I hate how religions turn to that. Basically you're just saying what most Christians who can't prove their points say. "God requires faith, he doesn't need logic or physics or science... Just faith", in which case you could have said that in the beginning. It's the trump card, there's no way to dispute it because it can't be proved or disproved. At the same time though, it doesn't make God any more likely to exist. Faeries, unicorns, elves, pixies- They all have an equal chance of existing if you're to use that pattern of thought. It makes whatever anyone want to exist, exist. They are part of a different realm but have their presence here on earth etc (Same as with God/Jesus) I see faith as complete weakness, faith is nothing, yet faith is everything. Faith is making whatever you want to exist, exist. And yet since it doesn't follow logic, it can't be disproved. What you're saying can be applied to my side of the debate too. No one knows all the rules of space, but if God's alternate realm can be host to certain characteristics then space could too since we don't understand it fully. What evidence do you have to support that idea? You didn't offer a rebuttal, again. What hints at anything other than us deciding our morals on what we do affecting other people. I'd like to know what flaws my concept has besides the flaw that it goes against your idea of God. It makes a lot more sense given we know we exist and we are aware that we make decisions. Are there examples of things that are immoral that don't affect other people? I also suggest you just watch this Scott Clifton video on morals: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11161 He addresses what I am saying in the same sense but in a lot more detail and far more articulated. To be honest I was looking for a video I have seen from him before on the writings of the bible to combat your comment on the writing of the bible. But came across this by mistake and I find it interesting that he follows the same view I put forward. (Though I will continue to try to find the other video for the next post when I get time)

My point with the time debate was that you implied that infinity can only exist outside of earth time. You mentioned that God exists in a world that isn't prisoner to our concept of time and thus how he could have always existed but anything else needs a creator. What I'm saying to you is that if this realm where God exists can exist, whatever form it may be, if infinity can exist there for God then particles could exist there with the same rule (without a creator). Furthermore since there is no single universal measurement and it's all relative you may not believe that infinity is real on earth, but since space doesn't play by the same rules. Infinity may well exist in space, and if you agree that infinity is real, then something can exist from nothing. My point with the particles is an essential one. You base your ideas on what is possible and what is not possible by looking at relativity. You have the idea that creation had to follow these rules too, that earth now exists and nothing just happens randomly without purpose. Though quantum mechanics show that particles do exist in a random form without purpose at it's lowest levels. This would mean not everything requires a set path to exist. At the very core level, randomness does indeed exist. And considering the universe was likely a very small mass, the creation could have been random. This highlights what I am saying probably better than it does with your theory. The reason you stole the candy bar was because you're aware of the implications to the other party involved (empathy an sympathy), you realized stealing the candy wasn't going to hurt anyone, you knew that it would probably not be noticed, so you went ahead. Which is why petty theft is so common. Why do people tend to murder less than they steal? Well probably the jail sentences for starters, but because they realize murder will have far worse effect on the involved party and those around them. Knowing right and wrong is just knowing what can have a negative impact on others and what can't. Acting on your desires is then decided by how harsh the opposite party is affected.

Without this being an attack on you, I can only assume you have little knowledge on theoretical physics and some of the topics you're delving into here. Just because your brain is set to think a certain way, it definitely doesn't mean that it's right. The universe is a lot different than what you're used to here on earth, the universe doesn't play by the same rules. Why do you think Einstein ended up dying without being able to make a conclusive rebuttal against the idea of quantum mechanics. He believed like you that nothing could be random, he believed in God and refused to settle for what other scientists were providing evidence for... He ended up spending decades working on a way to combat it but failed. I don't think you realize the irony here, as this was one of the scenarios which brought forth proof of the atom and later to the idea of quantum mechanics where electrons were shown to exist without purpose and could exist in a 'random' state. A state that would put forth the idea that challenges previously conventional thinking of relativity. You seem to think that time exists in a single universal measurement. If you do, you're sadly mistaken. Time is so very relative and your understanding of how the universe works is so very generic. Earth time is merely a measurement for humans on earth, in the reaches of space your concept of time is, well nothing. So no, God did not create time since there is no universal time. Man created time or the concept of it. Another lovely flaw in your theory which relies so very heavily on the theory of relativity is that if everything follows a set path and nothing exists randomly or by chance. Then you need to address the fact that the universe is constantly expanding and think about tracing it back through it's ages to it's original much much smaller form. That's the long winded version of it... Here's the shortened version. You just said God exists outside of time and outside of our 'rules'... Now the exact same idea can be put forward to particles, and this is where you get quantum mechanics. Particles that exist in a behaviour that seems to contradict our understanding of the normal human world. There's a lot to the world that hasn't been explained yet, but there's also a lot of theories that make a lot more sense than your religious one. Your morality issue is almost too weak to even address... Nothing you said countered my proposal that morals exist, but that they are part of the logical process of thought. Choices that are made by brain not by God. Or are you going against what other Christians say in which case you've got a lot of prior questions to answer. To say that people prior to God's little Jesus creating fiasco had morals because God was still present, is suggesting that these non-believers whom had never heard of the concept of God where having their morals dictated to them by God. The problem with that is that they would then not have 'free will', if God did indeed give 'free will' to man and did not intervene with our thought process then these people in the past, then those peoples morals could not come from him. If on the other hand God somewhere placed the concepts of morality into their heads, he could have placed the idea of his existence there too and saved em from hell. Next you'll say dogs have souls.

You sir, make no sense. How is not believing in him unreasonable? Yes it is. There's 2 points to address here... First, you make the point that one should need a designer. Why does something need a designer? Do you not believe in the concept of infinity, because if you believe in the concept of infinity, things don't need a creator. Also, if in your idea everything needs a creator, who created God? If you have a theory you need to have a logical basis point for it, not "Everything needs a creator... EXCEPT God, he doesn't need one, he always existed". If one entity can exist in terms of an infinite being, any entity can exist in such a sense. Quite simply, you may pick- either there is infinity and things don't need a creator or you may go with the idea that infinity isn't true and that everything needs a creator, in which case your theory of Gods existence is flawed. You tie morality with God. Morals aren't passed down from a God. Tribes people all over the world have shown moral activity people showed it long before the Abrahamic God become popular. Morals are something that comes from your brain, the same area that controls compassion, empathy, sympathy. These aren't religious ideas. They are things which exist in developed brains, dogs have no God yet they show empathy and mourning. These are signs of attributes which contribute to peoples ideas of morals. The bible just included a lot of morals which people already had.

It's an interesting area of debate we enter into now, I had the same debate with a Jehovah's witness who wanted to convert me in the main road a couple years ago. You see, if God is all knowing and all powerful he understood perfectly prior to his creation of man that they wouldn't follow (not all, not even majority). He understood man's actions despite the idea of giving them free will, so I will say to you what I said to the man on the street. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be pre-programmed by God to follow his orders than have free will and burn in hell because he never showed me enough evidence. A analogy I used was- if you had a child and you were aware prior to having this child that they would be born deaf, dumb and blind with a painful disease (sounds about equal to the torment hell carries according to the bible) and suffering in the process. Would you still want to have the kid? Would you choose to have it suffer terribly just so you could have that child? I know I wouldn't. Also if that were the case, what about all the suffering that occurred in the world prior to the birth of Jesus Christ? If God understand buy desired for people to know him and understand him, why did he wait thousands and thousands of years before providing any evidence of him or his existence or teachings. The existence of Jesus and teachings of your God definitely didn't stop a huge crime rate or the suffering of man, in fact if anything it made it more prominent due to the religious wars that followed. Why would God create a society knowing they would kill in his name. Surely if you can see that your creation will cause so much damage to each other, if you have any compassion you'll rather not be praised than have that.

My concept of hell is based on the bibles. I think that 'ignorant little child' would be quite right in calling their father a bully if the father kicked him and beat him. And God is doing much worse to his beloved children than a swift beating in the face. Translated: I have no logical rebuttal to your statement so I'll use the untouchable, God works in ways your puny human mind can't understand. Got it, no points for you there. That's always the last resort for Christians who have nothing of essence to put forth. But considering he created us, he would have created that desire to want to serve him since he was the creator of human behaviour. Your statement has no effect on his narcissism and desire to watch people suffer just so he can get his ego raised. The verse is: "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" Which makes little sense since the trinity is meant to be in essence one. But apparently you can say what you like about that Jesus guy, just don't touch that holy spirit.... Hey wanna see me do something cool and guarantee my place in hell?! Fuck the Holy Spirit.... Oh no I didn't! Now no one even has to pray for me since I've sealed my fate. You saying I shouldn't sleep with other Gods? :/ I don't remember this deal! God is jealous in that he wants no one else but him to be praised. You're right I never experienced God, when I was young I really really wanted to. I opened my heart, went to the front of the church, watched everyone else talking in spirits and felt nothing... But I remember mumbling random words because I wanted to pretend I did. I believed for years after that, but I definitely didn't feel anything special, that special feeling I believe, is what people want to be feeling so they create it for themselves. And you're right as noticed about with my unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, there is no saving me. I just like to debate.

http://www.wcpt850.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/victory.jpg

No temper at all.. I was merely summing up some of the personality traits that could be associated with the behaviour of God. Though it seems it touched a nerve with your response. You see, it's not about being unappreciative, I could say the opposite about you. That you state things that sound like they're coming from someone whom is obsessed and blinded by 'love', idolizing something so much that you refuse to see the flaws in it (wait, you're not allowed to say God has flaws right?). If I did believe in him, I'd hope he'd at least be good for something besides dying on a cross to smite the not so naive creations of God. Are you denying that he isn't everything I stated there? Bully: He threatens people to believe in him by stating that if they don't worship him they'll face eternal suffering. Unjust: He doesn't care about how good of a life a person lives and rather just cares about people who believe in him. You can be a serial rapist and ask for forgiveness and you're A-Ok in the eyes of God, all is forgiven. While the non-believer who worked in charity his whole life burns in hell. Egotistical: He creates man-kind for the sole purpose of worshipping him, and according to him that's the reason for our existence. Possibly the most narcissistic thing I have ever heard. Spiteful: He claims denying him in public is unforgivable. Seems as though he wants to make sure no one dares think something different. (see jealous) Jealous: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God" Sly / Underhanded: He makes sure all of his miracles are very small, so it will test people's faith. He wants to test their faith? Wow, that's very loving of him. If they fail the test it's only eternal suffering of his beloved children which he loves equally. Makes sure never to make his existence clearly evident, no blatant miracles, rather things that can happen to anyone when one looks at the odds. No line between anomolies and miracles. That's pretty sly and underhanded. Vengeful: See Unjust and Bully Malevolent Dictator: Do I even need to explain this one. He forces you to live a life according to his rules and if you stray you best apologize or else you burn in hell. There has never been more of a dictator. Sorry to spoil the pretty little picture of your perfect God with the reality of his traits. Being forgiving and merciful is hardly a good trait when you only forgive those who submit themselves to you. That's not being forgiving at all, it's just keeping you from being a complete ass. Maybe you'd like to tell me that he is great too because he created us and gave us life. Again, that would only be a positive thing if he created our lives for a purpose other than to serve his narcissism. Let me guess, you're the kind of guy who sees an empty glass and refuses to admit it's empty, and would turn to 'it's full of air' in order to quash the thought that it's empty?

Hey, We have definitely thought about working at a forum template for mobile users. The product in question doesn't look to support our forum that we use, but we are still considering possibly implementing a special mobile template for the forums and looking into options.

That depends, do you get to burn them in the sense of a BASE object, or with fire? Because the latter seems a bit of a waste.

Says the same thing that has been evident since the concept of his being began... If he does exist, he just doesn't give a damn about anything other than being praised, egotistical may be the right word to describe him. He claims to have the power to do anything, yet he is quite content with watching his beloved 'children' be raped and killed. Well I guess it makes sense given he is also okay with sending them to eternal damnation just because they feel there isn't enough evidence to worship him. God is quite clearly one for promoting being gullible, so much so that he makes sure most of his so-called miracles are easily explained with logic and alternate circumstances. Nothing like tricking your beloved children into an eternity of suffering right? That seems good punishment for not accepting a far fetched claim. The irony is this: When God lets someone die or be raped, the Christians will say that it was God's will and that God doesn't intervene, rather allowing humans to face their own actions and suffer from the acts of others around them. Yet when they win some money or fall pregnant... God has suddenly intervened and provided them with that blessing. Apparently he doesn't care about blessing people with an escape from death though, especially given that there's no change in death ratios between religions. In the assumption that God did exist. He would be a bully, unjust, egotistical, spiteful, jealous (self proclaimed), sly, underhanded, vengeful and malevolent dictator. Makes me glad I don't believe in his existence, I'd feel like a total ass falling inline for someone with those characteristics, nevermind idolizing and worshipping him.

I see what you're doing here.

My experience was somewhat similar... Except instead of the house it was a skate ramp, instead of the Southern Comfort it was a 750ml bottle of Russian Bear Vodka (cheap as all hell) and instead of 1/3 of a bottle, it was 1/2 a bottle. A night with my head in the toilet at a strangers house where I had landed at 3km away somehow was enough for me to make my mind up about drinking.

From what I've read about this and seen in documentaries (the book of revelation was always my favourite when I was religious) the most likely translation of who the anti-Christ is was one of the old Emperors who spoke and acted out against Christianity. Either Nero or Domitian. For some reason this is denied by many Christians and they refuse to believe that the anti-Christ has already been or that the writings of beasts and horns are symbolic and not literal. Again one oh those cases where the religious seem to decide which parts of the bible were meant to be literal and others symbolic. Even when the writings of the time often spoke of the ruling individuals the same way as the bible did. Not in an attempt to foretell the future centuries ahead, but rather just speak of what was happening at the time in a different way.

And thank god for that. I've spent most of my past 6 years at punk shows, where nihilism, drugs and alcohol are pretty much mandatory. But I haven't touched alcohol since 2004. But I also would rather grab a coke or fanta instead. This also saves me a lot of money, as you only need 1 or 2 when you're out. Apparently people have this insane idea that because the government legalizes something, that it must be less dangerous than that which is made illegal. People somehow, despite the blatant evidence and studies- seem to think that alcohol isn't dangerous.

Currently I'm doing stationary bike exercise, it's a lot more effective than running for cardio, need to spend like half the time for the same results. Best way to do it is 12 seconds of normal pedalling followed by 8 seconds of sprinting and repeat for desired distance. If you want to push yourself though, I can say that the most hardcore cardio I've done were 6 minute rounds in kickboxing training. 6 minutes may sound easy but it killed me. It's highly intense and fast with no breaks in between- We typically started with situps for 2 minutes, doing as many as you could do in that time, then you went onto 2 minutes of non stop jab/cross punches (jab jab, cross cross) on the bag or partners training gloves after which you go into 2 minutes of kicks (left, right, left, right etc). Depending on one's fitness, starting with 3 minutes (1min each) is typically done.