Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 How We Can Know There Is a God? - Minitokyo

How We Can Know There Is a God?

Do you Believe in the Existence of God?

I Believe that God exist by His Creations & the Bible
66 votes
I believe that God exist but I don't believe in the Bible
26 votes
I don't Believe in God because I'm an Atheist
46 votes
50/50 (I believe in God but I doubt sometimes)
32 votes

Only members can vote.

page 3 of 10 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Next » 228 total items

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Quote by Plunkies 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

(shamayim means dome in hebrew)

ob 9:8, "...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]..."

Psalm 19:1, "The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork."

Psalm 102:25, "...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork."

Isaiah 45:12, "I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine..."

Isaiah 48:13, "...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]..."

Daniel 4:10-11, "...saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."

Matthew 4:8, "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory."

Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..."

Revelation 6:13-16: "...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne..."

"From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch."

In further detail....

There are few examples of passages in the Bible that, without careful analysis, appear to contradict one another. But when carefully examined, keeping in mind the writer's viewpoint and the context, they are not contradictions at all but simply passages that require additional research. Most people fail to put forth this necessary effort, however, finding it so much easier just to say: "The Bible contradicts itself."

By careful examination, seeming contradictions can be shown to have an honest solution. All too often, people who claim that the Bible contradicts itself have not made a thorough investigation themselves, but they merely accept this opinion that is thrust upon them by those who do not wish to believe the Bible or be governed by it...

"When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears [it], that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation."--Proverbs 18:13

"For anyone senseless the lip of uprightness is not fitting. How much less so for a noble the lip of falsehood!"--Proverbs 17:7

You've lack of accurate knowledge in the Bible & you can't understand it with that kind of attitude.... spreading those lies is not good...

"You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]."--John 8:44

So you're calling me a liar but you won't prove me wrong huh? Of course you won't, because you can't. You know it's researched and you know it's taken from the orginal hebrew. It's not just one quote, the Bible repeatedly drives home the fact over and over that the earth is flat and immovable. You can't get around it.

ishimi

ishimi

Mouichido kimi ni Itai!

Hihihi! ^^'
Si plunkies talaga,sobrahh!
Next week na me magcocomment ha!
Mwah! Mwahh! -^.^-

"Do not become wise in your own eyes"

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Quote by PlunkiesSo you're calling me a liar but you won't prove me wrong huh? Of course you won't, because you can't. You know it's researched and you know it's taken from the orginal hebrew. It's not just one quote, the Bible repeatedly drives home the fact over and over that the earth is flat and immovable. You can't get around it.

Bible writers often speak from the standpoint of the observer on the earth, or from his particular position geographically, as we often naturally do today. For example, the Bible mentions "the sunrising."

"And those camping eastward toward the sunrising will be the [three-tribe] division of the camp of Judah in their armies, and the chieftain for the sons of Judah is Nah'shon the son of Ammin'adab."--Numbers 2:3

"The two and a half tribes have already taken their inheritance from the region of the Jordan by Jercho eastward toward the sunrising."--Numbers 34:15

Some have seized upon this as an opportunity to discredit the Bible as scientifically inaccurate, claiming that the Hebrews viewed earth as the center of things, with the sun revolving around it. But the Bible writers nowhere expressed such a belief. These same critics overlook the fact that they themselves use the identical expression and that it is in all of their almanacs. It is common to hear someone say, 'it is sunrise,' or 'the sun has set,' or 'the sun traveled across the sky.' The Bible also speaks of "the extremity of the earth" (Ps 46:9):

"He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; The wagons he burns in the fire."--Psalm 46:9

"the ends of the earth" (Ps 22:27):

"All the ends of the earth will remember and turn back to Jehovah. And all the families of the nations will bow down before you."--Psalm 22:27

"the four extremities of the earth" (Isa 11:12):

"And he will certainly raise up a signal for the nations and gather the dispersed ones of Israel; and the scattered ones of Judah he will collect together from the four extremities of the earth."--Isaiah 11:12

"the four corners of the earth," and "the four winds of the earth" (Re 7:1):

"After this I saw four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth, holding tight the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow upon the earth or upon the sea or upon any tree."--Revelation 7:1

These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square. The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions "to the ends of the earth," "to the four corners of the earth," in the sense of embracing all the earth... ;)

"As I kept seeing the living creatures, why, look! there was one wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, by the four faces of each. As for the appearance of the wheels and their structure, it was like the glow of chrys'olite; and the four of them had one likeness. And their appearance and their structure were just as when a wheel proved to be in the midst of a wheel. When they went they would go on their four respective sides."--Ezekiel 1:15-17

"Furthermore, people will come from eastern parts and western, and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God."--Luke 13:29
__________________________________

If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church say that Galileo's teaching that the earth moved around the sun was unscriptural? Because of the way the authorities interpreted certain Bible verses. Were they correct? >_> Let us read two of the passages they quoted and see...

One passage says: "The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5, The Jerusalem Bible) According to the Church's argument, expressions such as "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" mean that the sun, not the earth, is moving. But even today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer. The Bible writer was doing exactly the same... :D

The other passage says: "You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakeable for ever and ever." (Psalm 104:5, The Jerusalem Bible) This was interpreted to mean that after its creation the earth could never move. In fact, though, the verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. The earth will never be 'shaken' out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm.

"The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it."--Psalm 37:29

"A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time indefinite."--Ecclesiastes 1:4

This scripture, too, has nothing to do with the relative motion of the earth and the sun. In Galileo's time, it was the Church, not the Bible, that hindered free scientific discussion...

Well that was a great job refuting a bunch of quotes that I NEVER MENTIONED. What are you thinking?

Oh and by the way....

Quote: "And he will certainly raise up a signal for the nations and gather the dispersed ones of Israel; and the scattered ones of Judah he will collect together from the four extremities of the earth."--Isaiah 11:12

"the four corners of the earth," and "the four winds of the earth" (Re 7:1):

"After this I saw four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth, holding tight the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow upon the earth or upon the sea or upon any tree."--Revelation 7:1

These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square. The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions "to the ends of the earth," "to the four corners of the earth," in the sense of embracing all the earth... ;)

They actually meant the "four corners of the Earth". It's a figure of speech NOW because it ORIGINATED from the bible, not the other way around.

Quote: If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church say that Galileo's teaching that the earth moved around the sun was unscriptural? Because of the way the authorities interpreted certain Bible verses. Were they correct? >_> Let us read two of the passages they quoted and see...

One passage says: "The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5, The Jerusalem Bible) According to the Church's argument, expressions such as "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" mean that the sun, not the earth, is moving. But even today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer. The Bible writer was doing exactly the same... :D

Again, where do you think the phrases "sunrise" and "sunset" originated from? A time when it was believed that the sun really did rise and set.

Quote: The other passage says: "You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakeable for ever and ever." (Psalm 104:5, The Jerusalem Bible) This was interpreted to mean that after its creation the earth could never move. In fact, though, the verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. The earth will never be 'shaken' out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm.

Then why does the bible say, on many different occasions, that the Earth is immovable? They had words to convey permanence, yet they insisted on repeatedly using the same words, unshakable, immovable, fixed, foundations, firm, etc etc.

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

Quote by PlunkiesThen why does the bible say, on many different occasions, that the Earth is immovable? They had words to convey permanence, yet they insisted on repeatedly using the same words, unshakable, immovable, fixed, foundations, firm, etc etc.

Have you ever heard of the earth moving out of its orbit? The earth moves with a fixed rate and path relative to the sun doesn't it? Do we have the feeling that the earth is moving when we go about our lives? No, our senses tell us that the earth doesn't move. The notion that earth moves only exists if you change your point of perception, like from the sun's point of view.

Quote by Persocom01....like from the sun's point of view....

Or like from god's point of view? OOPS! Lolz! By saying the bible was written from human perspective only supports that it was written by flawed humans who didn't know what the hell they were talking about...

If you want to know if the Creator exists or not, then just look yourself in a mirror. We are creators too. We create and transform ideas in reality, with or without our hands. Our minds change surrounding matter and other people's minds. We still need hands because our matter and time based existence level anchors us. Our Creator, in its (I cannot call the Creator 'he' or 'she' because impersonating such existence form isn't appropriate) higher existence level, has no known limits. Time doesn't exist for the Creator; past, present and future are all in one. The Creator doesn't have matter; it is pure 'mind' (or 'energy', if you prefer). There is no difference between thinking and making. Its creative power is infinitely larger than ours. The part is a scale model of the whole.

I'm an agnostic man who believes in this Creator. Most people call it 'God' or 'Father'. Right.

Mene, mene, tekel, parsin

Plunkies, I admire your dedication in this argument. I'd have given up in exasperation long since.

DarkIngram, I'm getting a kick out of watching you backtrack over your previous words every time you post something new. You claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate and contains timeless truths, and then explain that passages must be interpreted a certain way for their "truth" to become apparent. And you, for some reason, are the one who is fit to decide on the correct interpretation. This amuses me greatly. Please, carry on with your attempts to squeeze certain meanings from words that mean the opposite. In fact, I have a few requests.

"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father." [Genesis 19:32]

"Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh." [Isaiah 16:11]

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." [Ezekiel 4:12]

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." [Malachi 2:3]

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." [Revelation 17:16]

Well, I could keep going here, but this should be enough. Please, do enlighten us as to the timeless truths these passages divulge.

1/ I believe in a suprem being (Not saying god) because... as a Human... I can't explain everything: so I NEED to believe that somebody or 'something' has control over what I cannot explain. This is purely human, I think...
Like driving like a jerk is purely french... (just kidding ;-) ) anyway... ;-)
2/ I also do believe in Evolution, simply because (I think) I'm open minded (and educated) enough to interpret and also acknowledge when a theory seems logical and truthfull.
3/ I do NOT believe that The Bible prooves the existance of God: simply because it has been written by MAN... humans... --> Do YOU believe in every theory somebody submit to you? even if there is no PROOF which comes with it?
Maybe I'm a little bit too much like St Thomas... I don't know... but if I cannot see (litteraly or physicaly) what somebody explains... I can hardly be convinced ;-)
4/ I also DO believe that in this infinite Univers (and also in all the dimensions which could exist ... why not?!) that we are NOT the only "created", "alive" or "aware of themselves" (depends on your point of view) I believe that randomness is a factor that we can't bypass. Especially when we are talking of infinite spaces... I think evrything is possible.
5/ At last, but not least, I think that life is way too short to think "is there a god? Many gods? a big bang? another theory?" Just live as good as you can :-) I think that's what everybody on Earth and everywhere else and even God himself would like you to think.
Why trying to convince people that God exists? Why trying to convince people that there is no god?
Just respect what your neighboor believe in. Share opinions, discuss about it, try to get some experience out of it. Not to know who's right or who's wrong: but to have everybody gainning something, to make everybody's life better :-)
Why would we loose time and convince people that a book which was written half 8.000 years ago and the other one 2.000 years ago is true or not? --> who cares?! Just read it! And then read another book... that's all ;-)
Anyways, we'll all see what will come after life when we'll be 6 feet under ;-) So... we just have to be patient Xp

I hope you'll all have a great day and a great life

Quote by leonardobarbaI'm an agnostic man who believes in this Creator. Most people call it 'God' or 'Father'. Right.

You're not agnostic....

Agnostic:
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

You say you believe in a creator and you're also listing attributes of that creator. Sorry, you aren't agnostic.

Quote by cheezPlunkies, I admire your dedication in this argument. I'd have given up in exasperation long since.

Eh what can I say, I have a passion for bursting bubbles.

But I do think you're being a bit harsh on your bible quotes. You see the words of god require manipulation, like how you have to squeeze a lemon to get the sweet sweet juices out. Let me help you to see the way....

"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father." [Genesis 19:32]

God certainly doesn't condone sexual relations with your father, so obviously you can't take this quote at face value. To drink wine and lie with your father is just a figure of speech for sipping ginger ale and telling stories. Preserving the seed only means to help your father plant his crops, because without seeds you have no food to eat :( So unless you like starving you need to start having sex with your father.

"Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh." [Isaiah 16:11]

God was just seeing into the future. You don't know what the future holds but God does. He saw that in the year 2093 farting will become the new hello. When someone arrives you no longer wave to them, but fart, and they shalt be pleased.

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." [Ezekiel 4:12]

This is just a mistranslation of the original hebrew text. It really means that thou shalt eat a delicious poopoo platter from your local chinese restaurant. The reference to barley cake is really in reference to egg rolls costing 99 cents each. They called egg rolls barley cakes because they were stupid savages.

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." [Malachi 2:3]

God likes to spread poop on people's faces. I know what you're thinking, this seems like a bad thing right? But it isn't. When you're god you get kind of bored, and the only way to cure that boredom is a hefty pile of feces in an infidel's face. Amen. God is all loving and all good, and if god says putting dookie in a person's face is good, then who are you to argue?

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." [Revelation 17:16]

Eat her flesh really means save her soul, and burn her with fire really means....uh....not burning her with fire. No that's no good....let me think....Oh! Burn her with fire really means the STDs that will be with her for the rest of her life to remind her of the error of her ways. Truly a book of great wisdom.

Quote by motokoI can't explain everything: so I NEED to believe that somebody or 'something' has control over what I cannot explain.

Yes that makes perfect sense! No wait...the opposite of that...no sense...Sorry, I thought I had something there :(

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Is evolution really scientific?
The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened."--The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."--The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199

According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."--June 25, 1981, p. 828

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."--Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?
The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."--By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place--and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."--C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19

The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent."--October 1980, p. 88

What view does the fossil record support?
Darwin acknowledged: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that "numerous species" came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world." (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: "By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages."--(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48

What does the fossil record actually show?
The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."--January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23

A View of Life states: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet."--(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times."--Natural History, October 1959, p. 467

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: "If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best."--Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."--(New York, 1980), p. 29

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?
Science Digest states: "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes." (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory...

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process."--(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742

What about those "ape-men" depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
"The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face--of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men."--The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151

"The vast majority of artists' conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."--Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41

"Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man."--Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304

Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?
"Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science."--The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15

But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says...

Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his "grandfather's day," meaning that one's entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term "day" to describe an extended period of time...

"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."--2 Peter 3:8

Thus the 'days' of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long...

Ingram what are you doing? You completely change the subject and start quoting random people from random places, most of which are mere opinions, about evolution of all things. We were talking about the bible. You haven't answered a single point anyone has made yet. You only dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. Even your evolution stuff is either outdated, misquoted, or outright lies.

1981 1957 1981 1980 1956 1982 1980 1981 1956 1981 1959 1975 1980 1982 1977 1971 1981 1961 1980

I know it's too much to ask for some relevent, up to date information, but how bout something from the last 25 years or so? Hell even a single proof to back up any of these statements would be nice. You can't even discuss the bible with a bunch of atheists, you severely overestimate yourself to think you can debate evolution with anyone who has even a minor understanding about the subject.

Normally I'd rip your post to shreds but I know that's what you want. You want to change the subject and hope people forget about the fact that you just got owned a few posts earlier, so I won't help you there.

I've noticed a lot of religious people love trying to attack evolution or science or the immorality of atheism and whatever else they can find, but the second they have to defend their own religion they soon realize how difficult it is to rationally defend something that's so full of holes, fallacies and contradictions from start to finish. I almost feel bad for you aimlessly flopping around from post to post, never sure of exactly what to do. And the fact that you posted that mess twice in two seperate threads makes it all the more hilarious to me. Some of you guys need to learn to just cut your losses and stop digging yourselves deeper. I bet you've even deluded yourself into thinking if you can somehow disprove evolution that it automatically makes christianity right, as if this victory over science would confirm that jesus really is the son of god. Good luck with that.


Edit: Holy crap! I can't believe I almost missed this...

Quote: Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his "grandfather's day," meaning that one's entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term "day" to describe an extended period of time..."

You have, by far, won the award for weakest argument I've ever seen. Not only do you take a completely different definition of how a word is obviously meant to be used, but it's not even used in the same context. No one says "back in my grandfathers 6 days". Not only that but I'd bet a million dollars that if you look at the original hebrew text it translates to the word "day" and not the word "era".

Most people would just say god has longer days than man, but then I guess you'd have to admit that the bible is supposed to be written from god's point of view, which would blow holes in your defense that the flat immovable earth was from man's perspective.

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Quote by PlunkiesIngram what are you doing? You completely change the subject and start quoting random people from random places, most of which are mere opinions, about evolution of all things. We were talking about the bible. You haven't answered a single point anyone has made yet. You only dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. Even your evolution stuff is either outdated, misquoted, or outright lies.

1981 1957 1981 1980 1956 1982 1980 1981 1956 1981 1959 1975 1980 1982 1977 1971 1981 1961 1980

I know it's too much to ask for some relevent, up to date information, but how bout something from the last 25 years or so? Hell even a single proof to back up any of these statements would be nice. You can't even discuss the bible with a bunch of atheists, you severely overestimate yourself to think you can debate evolution with anyone who has even a minor understanding about the subject.

Normally I'd rip your post to shreds but I know that's what you want. You want to change the subject and hope people forget about the fact that you just got owned a few posts earlier, so I won't help you there.

I've noticed a lot of religious people love trying to attack evolution or science or the immorality of atheism and whatever else they can find, but the second they have to defend their own religion they soon realize how difficult it is to rationally defend something that's so full of holes, fallacies and contradictions from start to finish. I almost feel bad for you aimlessly flopping around from post to post, never sure of exactly what to do. And the fact that you posted that mess twice in two seperate threads makes it all the more hilarious to me. Some of you guys need to learn to just cut your losses and stop digging yourselves deeper. I bet you've even deluded yourself into thinking if you can somehow disprove evolution that it automatically makes christianity right, as if this victory over science would confirm that jesus really is the son of god. Good luck with that.

Just wait, I'll answer some of your questions... I'm still researching & studying you know... I'm not avoiding those questions...

Btw, I'm not attacking science, I'm only attacking the "false science" that contaminate this world....

I post my reply in evolution thing that I haven't answered last-last weeks... so don't complain if I've skip one question... don't worry, I'll answer them...

One thing that makes me sad that most of you people are insensitive, likes using abusive words to insult others & hurt feelings of other people... -_-

Some say that atheist have morals, if you've morals, what kind of morals you have if you're insulting others with your offending words like your fellow atheists? -_-

Quote by Plunkies Are you insane? You just stated that abiogenesis is impossible? How exactly did you come to this staggering conclusion before all of the scientists on the entire planet? Those kooky scientists seem to be under the impression that studying abiogenesis isn't futile at all, but I guess they haven't spoken with you yet huh?

Quote by xandmanblablablablabla! Booooooring! So much bullshit in this thread it makes my eyes go sore. But still...

people have been asking that question over and over for 2006 years now, and if they didn't get an answer then, what makes you think we'll get an answer now? Especially on a sub-site like Minitokyo. Also, God is Dog backwards, says pretty much, heh

Quote by tobiast88You are hilarious in your utter ignorance. Scientifically accurate? Jeebus walks on water, bushes burn and talk, people come back from the dead, get miraculously healed or get their sight back, water parts for Mosy to pass, water turns to blood, to wine, bread and fish multiply... need I go on with the idiocies your book presents as truth? If these things happened, how come we can't do the same today? Scientifically accurate? Buddy, you have no clue of what science is.

Quote by tobiast88What's really funny and pathetic about you is that you try to prove goddy through your idiot book, and then your idiot book through goddy. And then you act satisfied about the conclusions. Try to argue with something else, like a mildly intelligent person such as Persocom01, because you are just spouting verses from your idiot book and aserting them to be truth, because it is goddy's word, because it is written in your idiot book, which is the word of goddy, etc, ad nauseam. (and believe me, ad nauseam comes very quickly when reading your hallucinogenic posts)

Quote by xandmanhahahaha! I'm not gonna prove anything i don't believe in, hAHHA! You're one funny person You prove to me that there's a God and i'll believe you when i see it. And i don't want it proven by written means, i want to witness it. If you can do that, then you're not a hypocrite.

and no, believing a big fat book full of bullshit doesn't count as proof. I fell asleep reading the blank page, that says alot about what i think of the Book of Ultimate Boredom.

but you know, i've got honor. So i'll say that you can believe in whatever you want, you have the rights to do as such, and i respect your beliefs. But i swear to my goddess lady luck as my holy witness, do not drag me down into your boring bullshit

Quote by Plunkies There's nothing wrong with my perception, you're just crazy. Unfortunately the insane never actually know they're insane (or else they wouldn't be insane anymore).

Quote by Plunkies Are you high? It's not scientifically accurate at all. Dinosaurs existed, animals evolved, people don't live for 150+ years, a god doesn't involve itself in our everyday lives, snakes don't eat dirt, angels don't live in the sky, the earth is round, there was no global flood, etc etc etc. The damn thing isn't even historically accurate, let alone scientifically.

"he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions,"--1 Timothy 6:4

"But these [men], like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed, will, in the things of which they are ignorant and speak abusively, even suffer destruction in their own [course of] destruction,"--2 Peter 2:12

"Yet these [men] are speaking abusively of all the things they really do not know; but all the things that they do understand naturally like the unreasoning animals, in these things they go on corrupting themselves."--Jude 8

Have you read the last sentence in my thread? I ask the members of MT to post their thoughts in a good manner...

Quote by DarkIngramPost your thoughts in a good manner... I'll appreciate your "good" reasoning

Can you reply in my thread without using your abusive & offending words? I know that most of you people don't know how to respect...

I warn all of you to change your behavior now...

"Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap; because he who is sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh,"--Galatians 6:7

Quote by DarkIngramJust wait, I'll answer some of your questions... I'm still researching & studying you know... I'm not avoiding those questions...

Yeah you have time to pick out every mildly insulting word ever thrown at you but no time to answer any of the reasonable questions or arguments that you've been presented. You're not fooling anyone...

Quote: Some say that atheist have morals, if you've morals, what kind of morals you have if you're insulting others with your offending words like your fellow atheists? -_-

First of all xandman isn't an atheist he's just a troll. Second, who are you to talk about morals? All you do is lie and perpetuate ignorance. And you know as well as I do that the immoral actions of christians, let alone religions in general, are far worse than anything you could possibly come up with against atheists. Even priests are known as scumbags now. So you can keep that sanctimonious moral garbage to yourself and stop changing the subject.

Quote: I warn all of you to change your behavior now...

"Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap; because he who is sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh,"--Galatians 6:7

Don't bother threatening an atheist with god and empty bible quotes. That simple minded dreck only scares those that aren't smart enough to know better. It's like me telling you if you don't believe in unicorns one will trample you in your sleep.

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Quote by PlunkiesNo. Louis Pasteur demonstrated "that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution."

Quote by PlunkiesYou just stated that abiogenesis is impossible? How exactly did you come to this staggering conclusion before all of the scientists on the entire planet? Those kooky scientists seem to be under the impression that studying abiogenesis isn't futile at all, but I guess they haven't spoken with you yet huh?

Consider also the question: How did life get started? People have been taught that life came about without any intervention by God. But this contradicts a well-established scientific principle. At one time it was believed that beetles came from cow dung, worms from rotten flesh, and mice from mud. Even during the last century, scientists taught that microorganisms come from lifeless matter. But ideas like these were disproved by Redi, Pasteur, and other scientists. The World Book Encyclopedia (1990 edition) states: "After Pasteur's experiments, most biologists accepted the idea that all life comes from existing life."

Nevertheless, scientists theorize that things were different in the distant past. They say that the first one-celled organisms arose by chance from a lifeless mixture that they call a primeval soup, which contained the chemicals needed for life. "Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man," declares Christian de Duve in A Guided Tour of the Living Cell...

Speaking of God, the Bible says: "With you is the source of life." (Psalm 36:9) This statement is truly in harmony with what has been observed--that life can only come from preexisting life...
_______________________

Life Comes From Life
From antiquity, the most fanciful ideas had been proposed to explain the appearance of insects, worms, or other creatures in decomposing matter. For instance, in the 17th century, a Belgian chemist boasted that he had made mice appear by stuffing a dirty blouse into a jar of wheat!

During Pasteur's time the debate in the scientific community was heated. To confront the proponents of spontaneous generation was a real challenge. But as a result of what he had learned in his research on fermentation, Pasteur was confident. So he undertook experiments intended to put an end to the idea of spontaneous generation once and for all.

His experiment using swan-necked flasks is one of his most famous. A liquid nutrient left in the open air in an open-topped flask is quickly contaminated by germs. However, when stored in a flask that terminates in a shape like a swan's neck, the same liquid nutrient remains uncontaminated. Why is this the case?

Pasteur's explanation was simple: On passing through the swan-neck, the bacteria in the air are deposited on the surface of the glass, so that the air is sterile by the time it reaches the liquid. The germs that develop in an open flask are not produced spontaneously by the liquid nutrient but are transported in the air...

To show the importance of air as a transporter of microbes, Pasteur went to the Mer de Glace, a glacier in the French Alps. At an altitude of 6,000 feet, he opened his sealed flasks and exposed them to the air. Out of 20 flasks, only one became contaminated. He then went to the foot of the Jura Mountains and repeated the same experiment. Here, at the much lower altitude, eight flasks became contaminated. He thus proved that because of the purer air at higher altitudes, there was less risk of contamination...

Through such experiments Pasteur demonstrated convincingly that life comes only from previously existing life. It never comes into existence spontaneously, that is, by itself.

The debate on the spontaneous generation of life, in which Pasteur was involved and in which he came off victorious, was not just a scientific quibble. It was more than an interesting point for a few scientists or intellectuals to discuss among themselves. It had much greater significance--it involved evidence that had to do with the existence of God...

Francois Dagognet, a French philosopher specializing in the sciences, observes that Pasteur's "adversaries, both materialists and atheists, believed that they could prove that a unicellular organism could result from decomposing molecules. This allowed them to take God out of creation. However, as far as Pasteur was concerned, there was no possible passage from death to life."

To this day all the evidence from experimentation, history, biology, archaeology, and anthropology continues to show what Pasteur demonstrated--that life can come only from preexisting life, not from inanimate matter. And the evidence also clearly shows that life reproduces "according to its kind," as the Bible's account in Genesis states. The offspring are always the same "kind," or type, as the parents.--Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25

Thus, knowingly or not, through his work Louis Pasteur provided powerful evidence and testimony against the theory of evolution and for the absolute necessity of a creator for life to have appeared on earth. His work reflected what the humble psalmist acknowledged: "Know that Jehovah is God. It is he that has made us, and not we ourselves."--Psalm 100:3
_____________________

Is Evolution the Intellectual Choice?
From its beginning, notes the book Milestones of History, the evolution theory "appealed to many people because it seemed more truly scientific than the theory of special creations."

Moreover, the dogmatic statements of some evolutionists can be intimidating. For example, scientist H. S. Shelton asserts that the concept of special creation is "too foolish for serious consideration." Biologist Richard Dawkins bluntly states: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane." Similarly, Professor Rene Dubos says: "Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos--from heavenly bodies to human beings--has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."

From these statements it would seem that anyone with a measure of intelligence would readily accept evolution. After all, to do so would mean that one is "enlightened" rather than "stupid." Yet, there are highly educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. "I found many scientists with private doubts," writes Francis Hitching in his book The Neck of the Giraffe, "and a handful who went so far as to say that Darwinian evolutionary theory had turned out not to be a scientific theory at all."

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a highly acclaimed British scientist, takes a similar position. "There's no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution," he says. "It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since."

T. H. Janabi investigated the arguments put forth by evolutionists. "I found that the situation is quite different from that which we are led to believe," he says. "The evidence is too scarce and too fragmented to support such a complex theory as that of the origin of life."

Thus, those who object to the evolution theory should not simply be brushed aside as "ignorant, stupid or insane." Regarding opinions that challenge evolution, even the staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson had to admit: "It would certainly be a mistake merely to dismiss these views with a smile or to ridicule them. Their proponents were (and are) profound and able students."

A Matter of Faith
Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God...

"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him."--John 1:18

"for we are walking by faith, not by sight."--2 Corinthians 5:7

Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated...

For example, scientists have never observed mutations--even beneficial ones--that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began...

Such lack of evidence causes T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory "a mere 'faith.'" Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it "the Gospel according to Darwin." Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. "I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist," he says...

Other experts agree. "When I contemplate the nature of man," admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, "the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin."
__________________________

For other MT members:

The Earth--Was It "Founded" by Chance?
To avoid extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct distance from the sun. In other solar systems, planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the 'habitable zone'--that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water. But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable for human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the right size...

If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?

Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."

Or consider just oxygen, which fuels combustion. If its level were to increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break out more frequently. On the other hand, if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept increasing, we would suffer the consequences of an overheated earth...

Quote by PlunkiesFirst of all xandman isn't an atheist he's just a troll. Second, who are you to talk about morals? All you do is lie and perpetuate ignorance. And you know as well as I do that the immoral actions of christians, let alone religions in general, are far worse than anything you could possibly come up with against atheists. Even priests are known as scumbags now. So you can keep that sanctimonious moral garbage to yourself and stop changing the subject.

True Christians are very different from others.... as I've said in this thread, Jesus said that the true religion would be evident in the lives of the people who practice it. "By their fruits you will recognize them," he said. "Every good tree produces fine fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17) In other words, those who practice the true religion would be recognized by their beliefs and their conduct. Although they are not perfect and they make mistakes, true worshippers as a group seek to do God's will...

Quote by PlunkiesDon't bother threatening an atheist with god and empty bible quotes. That simple minded dreck only scares those that aren't smart enough to know better. It's like me telling you if you don't believe in unicorns one will trample you in your sleep.

It's your life... I'm not forcing you to believe, you're the whose responsible for your own salvation... I'm just helping others, it's up to you, but try to open your mind my friend...

I'll answer some questions after I finish my research... ;)

Great job replying to a 2 week old post. Also a great job of repeating the same garbage that was refuted in the quote you pasted. Louis Pasteur disproved SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. Rats and bugs appearing out of dead animals and worms born out of the ground. Animals slowly evolving from lesser organisms over millions and millions of years does not fit that description now does it? Cmon buddy lets try using that brain just a little bit before you post paragraph after paragraph of useless unsupported garbage and arguments of authority from 1982.


Let me ask you, what good does creationism and intelligent design do for us? Does it have any useful or practical applications? Does it predict anything? Does it help cure diseases? Does it help manage food sources? Does it help create antibiotics? Does it massively increase the ability to grow crops for poorer countries? No. Creationism is nothing but useless ignorance. It does nothing, helps nobody, and hurts humanity by telling people to stop looking for answers lest they disprove some stupid old religion full of fairy tales and myths. Evolution has practical purposes, makes predictions, and it pushes science and humanity forward.

Quote by DarkIngramThe Earth--Was It "Founded" by Chance?

Blah blah blah blah......

Yeah way to blather out more garbage that's already been exposed as faulty in other threads so you don't have to address anything relevant. We evolve to fit the conditions of earth, not the other way around.

Quote: True Christians are very different from others.... as I've said in this thread, Jesus said that the true religion would be evident in the lives of the people who practice it. "By their fruits you will recognize them," he said. "Every good tree produces fine fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17) In other words, those who practice the true religion would be recognized by their beliefs and their conduct. Although they are not perfect and they make mistakes, true worshippers as a group seek to do God's will...

No True Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge

Stop using platitudes and copouts and post something real for once in your life. On second thought, just go preach, the events of reality are not your forte.

Quote: It's your life... I'm not forcing you to believe, you're the whose responsible for your own salvation... I'm just helping others, it's up to you, but try to open your mind my friend...

Why don't YOU open YOUR mind and start believing in the invisible unicorns. It's not my fault if you get trampled in your sleep, I'm just trying to help.

Quote: I'll answer some questions after I finish my research... ;)

So far your research sucks. Try harder.

Whether our universe was "created" or not, I have no intention of worshipping this "god" person. If this god exists, then he/she/it is cruel, egotistical, and uncaring. Thankfully, I'm an atheist and don't have to worry about all that.

as long as u believe that there is a god
but u know im not much a believer coz there is a time that i hate him coz his unfair

Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

...Just one of the reasons why I believe.

"SING like no one's listening, DANCE like no one's watching, LOVE like you've never been hurt."

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Quote by glassreflectionRomans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

...Just one of the reasons why I believe.

Your right...

Still another reason why atheists are without excuse: They have the Bible, God's revealed Word. Its prophecies and fulfillments alone prove that this is a Book whose authorship could not be of men. Before the mighty empire of Babylon fell, the Bible foretold it. (Jeremiah 51:37) The Bible foretold the successive rise of Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the Anglo-American empire. (Daniel 8:3-25; Revelation 17:10-14) One Bible scholar counted 332 distinct prophecies that were fulfilled in Christ. A mathematician figured out that the chance of one man's fulfilling all those things was one in eighty-four followed by ninety-seven zeros! These and other prophetic accuracies prove beyond any question that a superhuman Intelligence was behind the Bible. That Intelligence is the Author, Jehovah God...

The arguments of atheists show that they have not really studied the Bible. Rather, they have listened to the clergy of Christendom who have taught lies concerning Jehovah God, such as the one that he is the proprietor of a roasting compartment for human creatures called "purgatory." This hell of literal fire and other false doctrines such as trinity and immortality of the soul have turned some people away from God even before they investigate his Word. The Bible does not teach such unreasonable doctrines. They are taught by false religion, not by true Christianity. The atheist has erred in that he has wrongly assumed that the false religions of Christendom are of God. Rather, they are of the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

So it does no good for the atheist to point to the ghastly persecutions, inquisitions and wars for which the so-called Christian religion has been responsible. The Bible declares such religions false: "They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works. (Titus 1:16, NW)

Many atheists claim that the world always existed, that it never started. But science has proved such reasoning wrong. The discovery of radioactivity has proved that there could be no past eternity of matter. And the confirmation by Palomar's 200-inch Hale telescope of the expanding universe also proves the atheists wrong. Life magazine in its issue of December 20, 1954, featured a major article on the expanding universe. It presented the latest scientific opinion: "All the clues of science point to a time of creation when the cosmic fires were ignited and the vast pageant of the present universe brought into being. And this time was five billion years ago."

In these "last days" of Satan's world there is a very special reason why atheists are without excuse: the Christ-foretold preaching of the good news of God's kingdom by Jehovah's witnesses and the demonstration by Jehovah's witnesses that true Christianity does exist. (Matthew 24:14) Christendom has not lived by Bible standards; this should be plain to the atheists. That Jehovah's witnesses do should be equally plain. Further, the news of Jehovah's new world and how it will end pain, sorrow, suffering and death shatters basic atheistic teaching. (Revelation 21:1-4)

Atheists boast of being men of reason and vision. So did the ancient philosophers. Today's atheists think in much the same foolish manner in which even the wisest of ancient philosophers discoursed about God, not excepting Socrates or Plato. Who can read their works without being struck with the empty-headedness of their reasonings, as well as with the stupidity of their nonsense when speaking about God? The Bible well says: "They did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened." So like the ancient philosophers of yesterday are the atheistic philosophers of today: "They are in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensibility of their hearts." Who says there is no God? "The fool said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Romans 1:21; Ephesians 4:18, NW; Psalm 14:1, AT)

Since there is compelling and overwhelming evidence that Jehovah is the true and living God, Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the universe, the plea of ignorance cannot be admitted in its full latitude except for idiots. The atheists cannot plead ignorance. The agnostics cannot plead ignorance. The evildoers cannot plead ignorance. The idolaters cannot plead ignorance. For if they are willing to exercise their faculties and employ their minds in diligent search, men have within their reach the means of coming to know Jehovah God. So God's decree is: "They are without excuse."

This'll be my first time posting on MT.

I'm gonna go kill some things about creation just for the heck of it and to stop some of the arguments.

I can't believe no one has posted this yet but I'll just intervene and kill a lot of ideas.

If there's to be a creator to create something, who created the creator? Simply enough, if god created everything, who created god? So the chain continues, who created god's creater. I personally, have not read the bible, but as I've read, I would say this will kill a lot of theories from the bible.

Also, there's a lot of stuff that Plunkie has stated that I have to state is correct.

The only thing that I know will create matter and anti-matter out of nothing is a two strong energy beam colliding against each other (also known as the big bang). One problem is, the big bang can't be true because nothing created the two energy beams.

To me, I have to say (I don't know if this'll sound weird or not) we're all living a dream. That is all.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

EarthAngel1

EarthAngel1

Hero's Aren't born their made

I think i'll keep mine short but to the point Yes their is a GOD somebody breathed LIFE INTO YOUR Parents and therefore gave life to YOU. But beleive what you want to beleive i believe you should live the way you want as long as you don't tell me how to live my life to each HIS/HER own.

you just have to beleve

page 3 of 10 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Next » 228 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.