Originally posted by Great King Rat
[b]I suspect something else is probably fueling your objection.
I know you do. By changing "atheists" into "scared, or angry theists pretending to believe God does not exist" you are simply strengthening your own belief - or rather guarding it from being weakened.
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true though.
I lack a ...[text shortened]... are no emotions involved in that. No matter how much you may protest, it remains the only truth.[/b]
I lack any belief in one or more gods. There are no emotions involved in that. No matter how much you may protest, it remains the only truth.
Okay.
Would you like it if God existed then ?
I am not going to bludgeon you. I would like to you honestly answer Yes or No.
If No ... what turns you off that you PREFER No ?
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59
But they are both false.
Ford had nothing to do with the invention or development of the internal combustion engine.
But they are both false.
Ford had nothing to do with the invention or development of the internal combustion engine.
Just substitute Mr. Ford's name for the name of an inventor of the internal combustion engine. The analogy still holds.
But I notice you have a point that Ford was the industrialist who developed assembly line manufacture of the automobiles. Its a minor point.
The major point I make is that by burying ourselves in the details of design we can hardly escape the logical conclusion that there was a Designer of some kind.
Now, some complaints are raised that we only need to further probe back to find a reason for some infinitesimal singularity which fired off the "Big Bang".
I do not object to scientists probing as far down and as far back as they are able. I also am fascinated by what they may propose. I do not suggest speculation should end.
I think that no matter how much you slice and dice the universe down to the most minute quantum thing, the REASON for its existence is OUTSIDE of itself.
Outside of nature is the supernatural.
Originally posted by sonshipDo you mean "a god", as in "a creator"? I would be fairly indifferent to that, although I would be fascinated by it, since it would add a whole new level of existence.I lack any belief in one or more gods. There are no emotions involved in that. No matter how much you may protest, it remains the only truth.
Okay.
Would you like it if God existed then ?
I am not going to bludgeon you. I would like to you honestly answer Yes or No.
If No ... what turns you off that you PREFER No ?
Or do you mean "God", as in the being that you and Suzianne and RJHinds believe in? In that case, no, I would not want a being like that to exist.
In the many stories that exist around God, he has been portrayed as a murderer of billions of people, throws people in eternal hell because he is petty, can but doesn't stop horrendous things from happening and has unlimited powers. Let's be very glad such a being is only an imagination.
Who needs the devil, when God exists??
2 edits
Originally posted by Great King Rat
Do you mean "a god", as in "a creator"? I would be fairly indifferent to that, although I would be fascinated by it, since it would add a whole new level of existence.
I think what I wrote was self explanatory. If I meant to write gods [plural] I would have written that. I'm going to assume that there is no confusion on your part when I ask, in essence - "Would you like there to exist God?"
The answer you give is "indifference".
But then, "indifference" is followed with what seems a positive expectation of some fascination with "a whole new level of existence".
So, I kind of take that as "Indifferent but ... kinda Yes."
I said I wasn't going to bludgeon you or grill you about it.
So we'll leave it at that.
Thanks
Or do you mean "God", as in the being that you and Suzianne and RJHinds believe in? In that case, no, I would not want a being like that to exist.
So the answer seems to be "It depends".
In the many stories that exist around God, he has been portrayed as a murderer of billions of people, throws people in eternal hell because he is petty, can but doesn't stop horrendous things from happening and has unlimited powers. Let's be very glad such a being is only an imagination.
Let's say God as the Bible reveals from Genesis 1:1 and ON.
Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, ..." . At what verse in the Bible does the red flag go up and you immediatly say -
"Now THAT God I hope does not exist" ?
Maybe you could identify your point of intense disinterest within, say, the first several or so chapters of Genesis. Where do you draw the line that you don't wish that such God exists ?
Would it be when He creates man in His own image ?
Would it be when He warns man about taking into himself a forbidden content?
Would it be when He says man will die?
Would it be when Cain and Abel brought an offering?
Would it be when God scolded Cain and promised that no one should kill him?
Would it be when wickedness grew in the earth more and more?
Would it be when He brought in a flood and saved Noah and family for a new start ?
Where do you draw the line that the Bible's portrayal of God turns you away ?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipIt depends on the definition of 'God'. I would like it if the God generally described in the Christianity I was brought up in existed. I would certainly like eternal life if it was a happy one. I am less enthusiastic about some of the descriptions I have heard on this forum.
Would you like it if God existed then ?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI check with the source document.
It depends on the definition of 'God'. I would like it if the God generally described in the Christianity I was brought up in existed. I would certainly like eternal life if it was a happy one. I am less enthusiastic about some of the descriptions I have heard on this forum.
What I may hear second or third hand or what I may read here or there, I check against the Scriptures.
I tend to do this regardless of whether I like or dislike what comes to me from someone. In fact I also check my personal experience with the Bible as well.
Originally posted by sonshipYes - don't let facts get in the way!
Just substitute Mr. Ford's name for the name of an inventor of the internal combustion engine. The analogy still holds.
[/b]
And your ignorance in thinking Ford invented the internal combustion engine is
astounding. Most people would surely answer Benz (although not strictly true)
who was making automobiles in the 1880's ... 20 years before the Model T.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Conformed to the image of Christ, made like Him, transformed into His likeness we will enjoy eternity.
The reason you offer your foolish fear of boredom is because you fail to grasp that you will be changed.
"Because those whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)
Your dread of boredom is just an extension of the emptiness you presently dread as an untransformed sinner.
"Yuck!! This for a 100,000 years ?? Yuck !"
You are quite right that remaining untransformed into the image of Jesus Christ as a fallen corrupted man would be hell.
God says His eternal purpose is to produce many brothers of Christ the Firstborn Son of God. It is meaningful to see salvation as a fulfillment of God's plan.
If we seek His kingdom all other things will be added to us.
" ... For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:32b,33)
4 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59
And your ignorance in thinking Ford invented the internal combustion engine is astounding. Most people would surely answer Benz (although not strictly true) who was making automobiles in the 1880's ... 20 years before the Model T.
It is relatively a very very small matter concerning Henry Ford.
You're making a big fat deal out of a tiny matter.
You really should be "astounded" at missing the obvious fact that the DESIGN of the Model whatever had to have had a DESIGNER.
And burying your mind in the manuals of how the machine works doesn't work to evade the matter of WHY it is and WHERE it came from. Who designed such a thing ?
Many atheists are doing just this. That is medicating themselves by burying the mind in the material details of the operation of the universe to avoid contemplation of the Author of it.
Originally posted by sonshipI really fail to see how anything you have said could be described as 'astounding', nor do I see any evidence that he missed the fact that internal combustion engines were and still are, designed. There is no good reason however to think that the physics that makes them possible was designed.
You really should be "astounded" at missing the obvious fact that the DESIGN of the Model whatever had to have had a DESIGNER.
Many atheists are doing just this. That is medicating themselves by burying the mind in the material details of the operation of the universe to avoid contemplation of the Author of it.
Yes, its always easy to talk about what 'some atheists not present' might or might not do. I could also talk all day about what some theists do. I could even talk about theists that you actually know such as RJ. But I fail to see how this is relevant. I for one do not 'bury my mind in the material details of the operation of the universe to avoid contemplation of the Author of it'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I really fail to fall for is how every time you seem to come around saying something like " Don't you remember? We won that argument."
I really fail to see how anything you have said could be described as 'astounding', nor do I see any evidence that he missed the fact that internal combustion engines were and still are, designed.
[b]Many atheists are doing just this. That is medicating themselves by burying the mind in the material details of the operation of the universe to avoid con ...[text shortened]... e material details of the operation of the universe to avoid contemplation of the Author of it'.
This constant reminder approach of your past victories just doesn't work.
There is no good reason however to think that the physics that makes them possible was designed.
In your next post, I hope you will explain how the laws of physics were legislated ?
The laws of physics exist because ___________________ ?
Originally posted by sonshipI say it because it is true. I notice that you still haven't admitted the points I listed earlier that were clearly won.
What I really fail to fall for is how every time you seem to come around saying something like " Don't you remember? We won that argument."
In your next post, I hope you will explain how the laws of physics were legislated ?
The laws of physics exist because ___________________ ?
Why should I do that? You seem to believe that if someone disagrees with you about something then they must believe in and defend whatever strawman you make up. Sorry, but that tactic doesn't work.
I never said anything about knowing why the laws of physics exist, nor did I say I could explain how they were 'legislated'. In fact I strongly implied that I didn't think they were legislated, and essentially stated that there is no good reason to think that they were.
Perhaps you could explain why you think I would be able to complete that sentence. Do you honestly believe that it follow from what I said that I can answer it? Or were you being dishonest? See, I can make dichotomies too.
Originally posted by sonshipThe real reason I do that is because I tire of having to rehash an argument that has been won in the past and that you stubbornly bring up again as if you have forgotten that you were wrong last time. I also find your inability to admit when you are wrong to be a really despicable practice that I hope you will try to correct.
What I really fail to fall for is how every time you seem to come around saying something like " Don't you remember? We won that argument."
This constant reminder approach of your past victories just doesn't work.