Atheists are Dull-minded

**InTruth** · 10-01-2010, 05:56 PM

We have seen Jesus so we know. We have seen the testimony of the disciples which show us no naturalistic explanation can account for the origin of their beliefs. We also know the universe always needs a cause by observing trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, so we know the universe needs a cause that must be outside of itself, outside of time and space. There truly are trillions and trillions of causes. Just today, you could list at least 100 things that happened to you through the process of cause and effect.

Obviously nobody cared enough for their claim they saw Elvis alive from the dead since they didn't go check his grave or die for him, and with so many Elvis impersonators that hardly makes a good argument. You are getting sillier and sillier. If silliness was a good argument for your approach you may have something.

We know there is no possible naturalistic explanation to account for the appearances because all have been exhausted. We know they didn't lie because they went to their deaths with this testimony. People don't willingly let themselves be put to death for what they know to be a lie. And Jesus never had a twin brother, thus the person the disciples spent 3 years with could not have been impersonated when they spent time with him up close and personal after His resurrection, ate with, conversed with, touched and walked with. Even if Jesus had a twin brother, his persona would certainly not be the same. Magicians can use twins because the audience doesn't spend 3 years to get to know those twins' personalities, nor is the show that revealing about the twins. Do you see how atheists don't think things through? Very shallow. Hell is for the shallow. God expects more of you.

We know the Bible is not fiction because it has no fictional qualities like exist for fiction. It is entirely a biographical, autobiographical, letters written to certain individuals, logical proofs, prophetic and a book of spirit to touch your inner man. Since there is no evidence of fictional writing, that's not an option. When you add up all the corroborating evidence of first, second and third generation apostles who knew each other, set up churches together, that would just be too many people literally have to be lying for your grand conspiracy to be true.

That's why almost no scholars go that route. So we can say enemy attestation concedes this fact which gives evidence for the Bible.

**Yrost** · 10-01-2010, 06:02 PM

We can't tell if the entire bible is a work of fiction that people took too seriously, just like many other religious books.

We don't know if everything needs a cause, science has not explained a cause for everything.

There are only 4 fundamental forces that we can trace back to every phenomenon we know of, not trillions.

**InTruth** · 10-01-2010, 06:35 PM

We know the Bible is not a book of fiction, because it exhibits no traits of fiction. The burden is on you. Since it is so multiply attested and corroborated by independent sources, we can be confident. Here is your doublestandard then. You would have to accept everything that ever occurred in antiquity as fictional, but what historians take that approach?

Understand why you as of your last post need to think the Bible is fictional is because you know the proof of God and resurrection is so well proven, the minute you begin to investigate to look into it, it will increasingly leave you uneasy if you still refuse to be saved. I get that. That's part of shutting your mind down like a zombie for Satan to spend eternity in Hell with the Devil.

Who is to say science can explain everything? How does science prove itself? Therefore, all you can do is go with the evidence of trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, to know God exists.

You don't need to know everything, for that is a contradiction, since only God could know everything, and obviously, you are not God. False humility is a trait of those who are going to Hell.

We know of 4 fundamental forces, but the forces themselves don't explain themselves, so that blows your theory we can track back to every phenomenon we know of. Your statement is also false because those forces can't explain how the disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

Those 4 forces can explain workings behind the trillions and trillions of causes partially, but not fully, since if there was an finite regress of these causes, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

So you are wrong on all points.

**Yrost** · 10-01-2010, 07:13 PM

The Greeks treated their mythology as a part of their history, but we know what parts are history and what parts are mythology because of the supernatural claims.

Through many cultures historians have a problem being able to determine the difference between history and myth, because of supernatural claims. This is common in studying Japanese history books and Serbian history writings. I do not make the same mistake of favouring Christianity as you do.

Again, there are only 4 fundamental forces, not trillions of causes, so we can't "go with the evidence", because there is none. Also, time breaks down at the quantum level, before you make any arguments about infinite regress you need to explain how quantum time works.

The 4 fundamental forces explain how people wrote fictional books in the past, therefore the disciples actions are explained.

**InTruth** · 10-01-2010, 07:49 PM

Multiple independent sources written at different times all fictional? Multiple independent sources are in favor of authenticity. When Paul wrote to someone about a church he set up previously there is nothing mythological about that. We know it really happened, and we know why he did it, because the disciples did it, as the Holy Spirit led them, gave them strength and conviction, for having seen Jesus alive from the dead.

Your prejudice against Christianity and God of the Bible says it all, because you single out Christianity so you can glean no facts from this historical document, which shows such a strong bias and hostility, that you actually given credence to God's word when you do that. You probably can't even find one scholar who thought Paul didn't set up the churches with other members of the body of Christ.

If there are not trillions of causes in nature then there are not 4 fundamental laws. You can't have it both ways, since laws have origin also. They can't come into being from nothing, nor always have existed. They certainly can't explain how you have free will, how you have a mind and so forth. Nor can they account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Lots of problems with your 4 idols.

As time breaks down at the quantum level into a singularity, you still have a singularity that needs a cause Hawking says. And you don't need to know all things. Man may never know how the quantum level works. But what we do know is there are laws, constants, and variables of nature and trillions of causes and effects, that all need a cause, but if there was an eternity of the past, you would have happened already. Since there cannot be infinite regress and something can't come from nothing, there is only one option, that being, the uncaused cause outside of time and space, logically speaking.

**Yrost** · 10-06-2010, 08:39 PM

The thing about history is there the is often a fine line between what did happen and did not. Myths surrounding Muslim caliphs that did exist, meeting with immortals which likely do not exist, does not make Islam more believable. Just as myths surrounding Christian saints that did exist performing miracles that likely did not happen does not making Christianity more believable.

Besides, the two source hypothesis demonstrates that the synoptic gospels were just copies of each other mixed with another document called Q.

I am not prejudiced against Christianity, I'm just curious why I'm supposed to believe your documents and not the Chronicles of Japan or the Muslim Hadith or Serbian Legends and Norse Books of Mythology because all of those are written as historical claims too, they're not aware that they're mythological claims.

The 4 fundamental forces are the cause of all the "causes" you can think of. So how do we know that they can't come from nothing nor be always existing?

The fundamental forces explain everything. Psychology explains consciousness, which explains free will. Psychology is just applied biology. Biology is just applied chemistry. Chemistry is just applied physics. Physics is just mathematics applied to the 4 fundamental forces, which are the root of everything.

We aren't completely sure how time works at the quantum level, to assume that a infinite regress is required is an assumption. Evidence suggests that time is traversal which means that something may have always existed without an infinite regress in the way we understand.

**InTruth** · 10-06-2010, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Yrost

The thing about history is there the is often a fine line between what did happen and did not. Myths surrounding Muslim caliphs that did exist, meeting with immortals which likely do not exist, does not make Islam more believable. Just as myths surrounding Christian saints that did exist performing miracles that likely did not happen does not making Christianity more believable.

That's why the Minimal Facts Approach is so important, because it helps you not get confused with a million different things. It simply focuses on that which most historians and scholars concede for good reason. I agree with you there is no evidence for some of these things, but we do have evidence for some things such as the disciples multiply attesting to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. Therefore, the burden is on you to find a naturalistic explanation. The reason one can have confidence in the miracles of Jesus is because of the proof He raised Himself from the grave, and likewise, the disciples have more credibility in their works as well, including miracles.

Besides, the two source hypothesis demonstrates that the synoptic gospels were just copies of each other mixed with another document called Q.

Finding commonality is not evidence of other sources at all. If I say I saw a 3 horses walking down my street, but another person only saw two horses, and we each record what we found, we would still both be right, since the third horse came a bit later. If we both saw 3 horses and report having seen 3 horses, there is nothing to infer that we are just reporting what someone else said from another source. The differences in information show there is no common source. All I ask is stop overassuming so much. Stop looking with an evil eye by the evil spirit in your spirit, for the real evil is you by always overassuming so much. Can't you see that is pretentious? You are feeding your fantasy life.

I am not prejudiced against Christianity, I'm just curious why I'm supposed to believe your documents and not the Chronicles of Japan or the Muslim Hadith or Serbian Legends and Norse Books of Mythology because all of those are written as historical claims too, they're not aware that they're mythological claims.

What evidence do these others have? Present the evidence, let's consider them. I see evidence in the testimony of the disciples' beliefs, so they truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. No naturalistic theory can account for this, so Jesus is God. Be satisfied with the evidence, for nothing can counter this evidence.

The 4 fundamental forces are the cause of all the "causes" you can think of. So how do we know that they can't come from nothing nor be always existing?

"All the causes" you speak of are trillions and trillions of causes, showing there is always a cause in nature, so the fundamental laws also need a cause since they are in nature. Since that which doesn't exist can't cause anything, it can't cause the fundamental laws of nature. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics would be violated. Doesn't science mean anything to you? If your causes always existed, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so again your proposition fails. Think how silly it is for your timeless non-existing state to have brought into being the universe ad hoc when you admit without time it could not have happened. Why the doublestandard? This is a major hole in your theory. I really think that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, people who invoke this or that into nature from nothing. I am going to invoke a one billion pound gorilla who is going to put me on mount Everest. This is allowed because according to your theory it can happen from nothing. When are they letting you out?

The fundamental forces explain everything. Psychology explains consciousness, which explains free will. Psychology is just applied biology. Biology is just applied chemistry. Chemistry is just applied physics. Physics is just mathematics applied to the 4 fundamental forces, which are the root of everything.

Psychology doesn't explain consciousness or free will, for psychology doesn't explain where these come from. It only analyzes their working, not their origins. Psychology is all there is to do with the mind and since the mind can't be derived from just nature alone, the cause is God. The same goes for biology, for the cosmos alone can't produce replicating life. Empirically this is proven time and again. One scientist puts the odds at 1 to 10^40,000 chance. Chemistry can't produce the first replicating life. Physics can't produce the simplest replicating life either. So none of these can be the root of everything. God did it! There is no other possibility than that which is outside of nature, who is therefore, immaterial, timeless and spaceless.

We aren't completely sure how time works at the quantum level, to assume that a infinite regress is required is an assumption. Evidence suggests that time is traversal which means that something may have always existed without an infinite regress in the way we understand.

I am just saying if there is an infinite regress, you would have happened already. That's reasonable. If you want to take the position there is no infinite regress, you're still stuck, because if there is no time, then this universe would not exist according to you because you would need time for your laws of nature to work through to bring the universe into being. Moreover, it is ad hoc and arbitrary. Your "traversal" theory fails because that which has no mind can't produce that which does. The universe does not have self-consciousness and God-consciousness, free will, feelings, ability to think, intuition, ability to commune or possess a conscience. Silly nonsense.

**Churchwork** · 10-06-2010, 09:35 PM

I think when you come right down to it, you want nature as the always existing uncaused cause, but it can't be, obviously, since no mind and no heart, so we would not have a mind and a heart. It is as simple as that. The lesser is unable to form the greater. What you are doing is erecting an idol, a big fat assumption (proven false herein), to reject God, so God has to send you to Hell if He is a righteous and holy God. You are saying to God you want to be in Hell for eternity. God would be unjust in letting you out of Hell if you will always want to be in Hell.

He can bring time into existence because with a free will He has that prerogative, but nature has no such mechanism; nature is not even outside of time and/or space. If you want to invoke a natural primordial timeless uncaused cause to the universe, nothing would exist but that timeless uncaused cause, because without time nothing comes into being, says you. Since you reject God on this basis, you would have to reject your theory too. A double standard exposes you as purposefully fraudulent. Since one is definitely true and the other is definitely false, there is not a third option. Since your idea fails, you prove God exists. And you prove Jesus is God because you have no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. No other religion has such substantial evidential testimony.

Besides, you really wouldn't want to live in an undirected world, for who knows, it could all vanish at any moment, so life under that kind of pressure is really meaningless. Perhaps that's why atheists such as yourself have the highest suicide rates. Your very faith is suicidal from the get go. You're carrying a really big monkey on your back unnecessarily. Let it all go and give it up for Jesus who created all things; nothing that exists would exist without Him. You ask why shouldn't you give it up for another instead? Well compare! Discern. Jesus trumps all.

When and if you do let go, it will be the greatest feeling you ever had no longer clinging to your self life. These feeling may not be instantaneous, it may even take several months to be recognized, but it will surely come! If you don't want to have a feeling and deep intuitive knowing you never thought you could have then continue to get what you always got--the very definition of insanity. No more need to rationalize the flesh. It can not be refined. Its verdict is death, but with Christ He brings you to sure death with Him to put your old man out of a job, so you can put to naught the deeds of the flesh, both the noble and ignoble, righteous and unrighteous, the good self and petty self. If your flesh has died with Christ on the cross, what does Satan have to work with?

The problem then is whether the Christian appropriates this accomplished fact or lives as a non-overcomer who will lose the reward of returning with Christ to reign with Him during the 1000 years. He has eternal life which can never be lost, an ability to know God and have a relationship with Him, as well as eternal blessings, but if he wants to be tied down to the world like a balloon, surely he will lose the reward temporarily. He will experience gnashing of teeth and sorrow for his loss in outer darkness like a brightly lit house but is not allowed to enter for a time.

The deepest part of your being will come alive (regenerated) which is your spirit, quickened with God's uncreated life when you are born-again. Right now your spirit is dead to God--there is no communication there. That doesn't have to remain. You will be born again by the 5th chapter of The Spiritual Man if you come to God with an honest heart. This is page 77 in the soft cover. Read with the intent to receive it as intended.

**Yrost** · 10-12-2010, 02:02 AM

But again, how do we even know that the disciples existed? Seeing that there are also multiple attestions of the Immortal Al-Khidr existing. This isn't enough reason to believe that he did exist.

The Two Sources hypothesis is not my idea. You can argue with them, but their argument is that the synoptic gospels have way too much in common to be considered independant, I completely agree with this.

Here is all the information you need of the splitting of the moon By Muhammed

You'll also want to account for the Japanese Attestations of their own mythical history:Nihon Shoki

Kokki, 620
Tennōki, 620
Teiki, 681
Iki no Hakatoko no Sho, a historical record used as a reference in the compilation of Nihon Shoki
Kojiki, 712
Takahashi Ujibumi, ca.789

Also you'll have to naturalisticly explain the miracles of Baba Ram Rai

Here's a fascinating list of historic, linguistic and geographic evidences that the book of Mormon is true.

I could go on...

You say that the fundamental forces need a cause, because everything has a cause, but scientifically the fundamental forces are the "trillions and trillions" of causes of everything. So what proof is there that they need a cause if they are the trillions of causes themselves?

I'm a determinist, so I don't really believe that there is such a thing as free-will, not in the way you understand it anyway. It seems apparent to me that our minds give us the illusion of having free-will, by telling us that we wanted to do something after we do it. The reason I think this way is because there is no evidence to suggest that humans can manipulate the laws of nature with our minds in anyway and seeing that there is no evidence that we are supernatural beings and that there is only evidence that we are natural, then we do not have control over the natural laws of our minds. However, we still have to explain the illusion of free-will, which is what personality psychology does.

I want to point out that saying that a scientist says that the chance is 1/10^40,000 and then saying that it's not possible is a paradox. If the chance is 1/10^40,000 then there is a chance, but it's only very small. That's how probabilities work.

Again, as fundamental interactions are the causes of everything, we'll need to understand how time works at that level before we can make any assumptions about infinite regress. This article is a study on how time actually works at the quantum level. Currently the theory on how time works at that level is called Imaginary Time. Imaginary Time runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space.

**InTruth** · 10-12-2010, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by Yrost

But again, how do we even know that the disciples existed? Seeing that there are also multiple attestions of the Immortal Al-Khidr existing. This isn't enough reason to believe that he did exist.

Bring in the evidence, just don't assert it. The record of the writers in the NT are multiply attested in 27 books which is a better record than for anyone in antiquity, so if you are going to throw out the evidence of the NT, you will have to throw out all of antiquity. That's why no credible historians use your approach. You're on the fringe and considered of no account.

The Two Sources hypothesis is not my idea. You can argue with them, but their argument is that the synoptic gospels have way too much in common to be considered independant, I completely agree with this.

I see no reason to believe that. You would expect there to be much in common since they are suppose record a lot of the same events because they spent a lot of time together.

Here is all the information you need of the splitting of the moon By Muhammed

You'll also want to account for the Japanese Attestations of their own mythical history:Nihon Shoki

Like I said, put up the evidence. If you think someone else has a strong a case as we have for the accounts in the New Testament, then show it. Until then you're just blowing smoke.

Far off in the distance illusions can account for moon splitting. That is a legitimate naturalistic explanation. No such naturalistic explanation fits the data for the eyewitness appearances of Jesus. The disciples died for their eyewitness testimony, so they truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead.

Kokki, 620
Tennōki, 620
Teiki, 681
Iki no Hakatoko no Sho, a historical record used as a reference in the compilation of Nihon Shoki
Kojiki, 712
Takahashi Ujibumi, ca.789

Also you'll have to naturalisticly explain the miracles of Baba Ram Rai

Here's a fascinating list of historic, linguistic and geographic evidences that the book of Mormon is true.

Show me where these things are as well multiply attested like we see in God's word as well as any claim of being the uncreated Creator. Anyone can believe in any god they like, but that doesn't make it true. Your links provide such sparse information it's hard to believe anyone could hang their hat on that.

Joseph Smith was shown to be a liar when he interpreted an Egyptian burial as a sacrifice. There are no ancient historical links to the Jews. Comprehensive sampling of DNA from North American Indians show unequivocally that American Indians are of Asian descent, not Jewish. Nobody ever saw the gold plates. Those that said they did later said they made it up and eventually left Mormonism. His prophecy failed for when Jesus would return. His temple did not get built where he said it would. His criminal activities, scamming people and adultery are not characteristic of a man of God. And his disagreeing with God's word on so many points, even exalting himself above Jesus, seals his everlasting torment in Hell.

You say that the fundamental forces need a cause, because everything has a cause, but scientifically the fundamental forces are the "trillions and trillions" of causes of everything. So what proof is there that they need a cause if they are the trillions of causes themselves?

The problem with your theory of claiming there was an always existing set of fundamental laws that cause everything is that you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Whereas God is outside of time and space, thus able to bring the universe into existence without being subject to the problems of infinite regress.

I'm a determinist, so I don't really believe that there is such a thing as free-will, not in the way you understand it anyway. It seems apparent to me that our minds give us the illusion of having free-will, by telling us that we wanted to do something after we do it. The reason I think this way is because there is no evidence to suggest that humans can manipulate the laws of nature with our minds in anyway and seeing that there is no evidence that we are supernatural beings and that there is only evidence that we are natural, then we do not have control over the natural laws of our minds. However, we still have to explain the illusion of free-will, which is what personality psychology does.

Since we have proven God exists who necessarily must employ His free will to create the universe, and He makes us in His image, then we have free will also. Nature gives us a number of options in any given scenario.

I want to point out that saying that a scientist says that the chance is 1/10^40,000 and then saying that it's not possible is a paradox. If the chance is 1/10^40,000 then there is a chance, but it's only very small. That's how probabilities work.

You're misunderstanding. If there is only 10^110 interatomic interactions in the history of a universe 30 billion years old, twice as old as our known universe, yet there is only a 1 in 10^40,000 chance of life spontaneously coming into being, then this showing it is impossible for life to come into being without the hand of God. No chance whatsoever!

Again, as fundamental interactions are the causes of everything, we'll need to understand how time works at that level before we can make any assumptions about infinite regress. This article is a study on how time actually works at the quantum level. Currently the theory on how time works at that level is called Imaginary Time. Imaginary Time runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space.

Whether imaginary time is real or imaginary is irrelevant, because it could not have always existed. Why? Because a mind is needed to create a mind. That which has no self-consciousness or God-consciousness could never give life to self-conscious, God-conscious beings. Therefore, God supersedes your imaginary time. You can't even admit it into evidence anyhow because it is admittedly unproven anyway.

Realize you will spend eternity in Hell. Just be honest with yourself that is what you want. These people are real. You're shallow in your thinking.