Atheists are Dull-minded

[InTruth]

Atheists know full well the universe doesn't create itself or could just happen all by itself or could have always been existing because of the intricately fine-tuning of it all. They know there is something beyond except they don't want to bow to it. They even know it has intelligence. What the flesh does is try to rationalize itself no matter how absurd. That is the job of an atheist to come up with ridiculous theories to feed their flesh. It's illogical, unsupported and irrational, but when you are playing a game of delusion, does that really matter? If a mental institution is for the insane and prisons are for the really bad people, Hell is for the truly insane and anyone who commits the greatest crime ever committed, rejecting their Maker. You've seen I Robot. You know what I'm talking about. Fortunately, there is the one who atones for all the others that any who want to be redeemed back to God may do so.

[DD2014]

...They even know it has intelligence.

Intelligence only proves intelligence. Not a deity.

[InTruth]

Intelligence proven proves an intelligent designer, yes. Since the universe is not itself intelligence, but the product of intelligence, the designer has to be a being, this being that is uncreated, always existing. This is whom we call God who is deity. Humans are not deity, for we were created. Deity refers to the uncreated.

[KikoSanchez]

Atheists know full well the universe doesn't create itself or could just happen all by itself or could have always been existing because of the intricately fine-tuning of it all. They know there is something beyond except they don't want to bow to it. They even know it has intelligence. What the flesh does is try to rationalize itself no matter how absurd. That is the job of an atheist to come up with ridiculous theories to feed their flesh. It's illogical, unsupported and irrational, but when you are playing a game of delusion, does that really matter? If a mental institution is for the insane and prisons are for the really bad people, Hell is for the truly insane and anyone who commits the greatest crime ever committed, rejecting their Maker. You've seen I Robot. You know what I'm talking about. Fortunately, there is the one who atones for all the others that any who want to be redeemed back to God may do so.


Christians know full well god didn't create itself or could just happen all by itself or could have always been existing because of the intricately fine-tuning of itself. They know there is something beyond except they don't want to bow to it. They even know it has intelligence. What the flesh does is try to rationalize itself no matter how absurd. That is the job of an Christian to come up with ridiculous theories to feed their desire for an infinite father figure to look over them. It's illogical, unsupported and irrational, but when you are playing a game of delusion, does that really matter? If a mental institution is for the insane and prisons are for the really bad people, Hell is for the truly insane and anyone who commits the greatest crime ever committed, rejecting their True Maker. You've seen I Robot. You know what I'm talking about. Fortunately, there is the one who atones for all the others that any who want to be redeemed back to the true creator may do so.

[InTruth]

Christians don't believe God is fine-tuned, as it were, a term related to creation, for God is uncreated. Therefore, Christians don't believe something is beyond God. We believe in the One who paid the ransom who is God. Since the uncreated is proven to exist and none can compare to Christ by many proofs such as the proof of His resurrection, we know who God is. That would be strange if there was another Savior beyond the Savior which is what I think you are proposing in your argument. That would make null and void the first Savior. How can there be two uncreated beings? Now, if there was something beyond God, hypothetically, it would have intelligence, certainly, but nature doesn't have intelligence as God does; there can only be one uncreated Creator.

[KikoSanchez]

Could you explain how an uncreated being exists? I'm guessing this is something to be taken on very blind faith? How could you reason such an absurdity other than it is something you must believe for your worldview to make sense?

[InTruth]

You can't know how an uncreated Being exists, only the uncreated Being can know that, for He is all knowing. If you knew all things including how an uncreated Being can always existed, you would have to be God. Are you God?

Atheists take on blind faith God does not exist; agnostics take on blind faith they can not know. Theists take on proven faith that God exists: again, see the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God.

[Sitromxe]

You can't know how an uncreated Being exists, only the uncreated Being can know that, for He is all knowing. If you knew all things including how an uncreated Being can always existed, you would have to be God. Are you God?

...Bottom line, you don't know. Just say you don't know. Seriously even we don't know. Just leave it at that and skip the whole god rant.

[InTruth]

Of course we know and you know also. You know that something in nature can't come from nothing, and you know the universe can't always have existed, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. So you know the cause of the universe is outside of time and space and this is whom we call God. Therefore, He is timeless and spaceless since He is not in time or space. We know this. You know it. We all know it. We even know where God has revealed Himself in what religion. Think how illogical it is to ask what caused the uncreated Creator or how He exists, for that which is uncreated has no cause and therefore, needs no explanation. And it would be highly arrogant and pompous to demand of God or man know what we may never know. It is God's prerogative to reveal to us what He chooses to let be known. After all He created us. I'm pretty sure He knows what He is doing. Accepting this is the beginning of humility. There are some things we could never know that are only for God to know. Seems reasonable considering He is infinitely greater than us and always will be. It's amazing how people shut their minds down to such obvious facts, but that is the nature of a rebellious, independent and disobedient heart like a cancer cell that goes rogue, replicating itself like a virus.

[Yrost]

Hello InTruth ^^

I'm a naturalist. I believe that the universe is completely natural and had natural origins and I understand that you dispute that. I'm impressed by your flamboyance and I find myself eager to discuss this matter with you. I'm not going to bore you with pretentious displays of a higher importance or sarcasm, but instead I'd like to get to know more about your opinions as I'm not acquainted with them at all.

Firstly, I'd like to ask, and I assure you that I mean this with all sincerity, why do you claim that we know that nature (or something) can not come from nothing? Uncaused causes are a disputed, yet observable phenomenon in Quantum Mechanics. It is proposed that Quantum events, which may or may not have been uncaused, are what birthed our universe. Seeing as this is disputed, how do you argue that we know it can not happen?

Secondly, are you aware that Quantum Theory teaches that the mechanics at that level works out side of time as we know it?

Lastly, and this may interest you, did you know that some have questioned whether Quantum Mechanics is god?

Thank you,

[InTruth]

You got no evidence. We do have evidence. The evidence is there are trillions and trillions of causes in nature. This is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and no hard evidence for something coming from nothing.

You can assert anything you like, but if you can't prove it or at least provide some evidence, you're just blowing smoke-- certainly, a foretaste of your eternity in Hell.

[Yrost]

There aren't trillions of causes in nature? Essentially everything comes down to simple mathematics and elementary particles.

Furthermore, radioactive decay is evidence of a causeless event. It occurs without any collision with other objects and is completely spontaneous. There is no way to predict or know when any single atom will decay.

[InTruth]

You're asking me if, "There aren't trillions of causes in nature?" I already said "The evidence is there are trillions and trillions of causes in nature. This is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and no hard evidence for something coming from nothing."

Mathematically elementary particles cause one to the next. Two particles collide to form a new particle. A DNA strand drops off that deactivates a switch so some new physical quality is formed or changed. The apple falls because of gravity when it is released. Cause and effect are everywhere. All the constants of nature need a cause, so do all the variables of nature. Every particle needs an explanation. How silly to shut your mind down for the evil spirit and say no explanation is needed all to reject that which is outside of nature that must be the cause since nature can't always have existed.

Radioactive decay decays like bread left out on a table decays. The particles dissipate and is according to the strength of those particles to hold together. Nature works to produce a half-life. Nothing is truly spontaneous: there is always cause and effect. We may not be smart enough to know some things now, but doesn't mean we will never be able to discover any more cause and effects in nature.

I don't see scientists closing up shop, not trying to understand these phenomena more, so they don't agree with you something comes from nothing. How arrogant and presumptuous to think because you don't know the cause for some things that therefore there can't be a cause to them which flies in the face of trillions and trillions of causes in nature. Do you see how mindless you sound? Do you really think God would want to spend eternity with such a belligerent person? Of course not.

Did people say the earth was flat because they could find no other cause? That's what you are doing. You're committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance, special pleading, false dichotomy and appeal to authority, because clearly another option was the earth could be round even though we could not see the cause for this other option It was quite viable. The Bible teaches the earth is round, by a ship merchant looking across the horizon of the ocean and seeing curvature, how objects in the distance dropping off due the curvature of the earth.

In your profile you contradicted yourself. You said of yourself, "I don't have any particular beliefs." You have been stating your beliefs in this thread and when you say you don't have any particular beliefs, that's a belief. That's what you believe. You're not being intellectually honest with yourself. What the Holy Spirit is showing me about you is that you are trying to devoid yourself of responsibility and accountability, but no sin goes unpunished even for eternity like the greatest sin of all of rejecting your Creator. He shows you that you want to be eternity separated from Him, so as you wish, He sends you to Lake of Fire for all eternity. Obviously, you are a bad person.

[Yrost]

Interesting InTruth ^^


How arrogant and presumptuous to think because you don't know the cause for some things that therefore there can't be a cause to them which flies in the face of trillions and trillions of causes in nature.I'm curious though, if you say that we should not stop trying to find the causes for things when we don't know what they are, do you think we should stop trying to find the cause for the universe because we don't know what that is either?

Furthermore, stop saying that there are millions and trillions of causes in nature, there aren't. There are only 4 known causes for everything.


Radioactive decay decays like bread left out on a table decays. The particles dissipate and is according to the strength of those particles to hold together. Nature works to produce a half-life. Nothing is truly spontaneous: there is always cause and effect. We may not be smart enough to know some things now, but doesn't mean we will never be able to discover any more cause and effects in nature. Food decays for organic reasons, which are completely unrelated to radioactive decay. The fact that you can't tell the difference between biology and physics is amusing to me, that being said, when you say that we may simply not know the cause of radio-active decay, this is true. We may not. There may very well be a cause that we do not know about, but current science is not developed enough to say what causes it and our current understanding of everything involved demonstrates that it isn't caused by anything. So according to science, it is causeless, this may change in the future, but so might anything else.

However, as science does not demonstrate that there are causes for everything, saying that there are causes for everything is an assumption.


In your profile you contradicted yourself. You said of yourself, "I don't have any particular beliefs." You have been stating your beliefs in this thread and when you say you don't have any particular beliefs, that's a belief. That's what you believe. You're not being intellectually honest with yourself. What the Holy Spirit is showing me about you is that you are trying to devoid yourself of responsibility and accountability, but no sin goes unpunished even for eternity like the greatest sin of all of rejecting your Creator. He shows you that you want to be eternity separated from Him, so as you wish, He sends you to Lake of Fire for all eternity. Obviously, you are a bad person. Well, to understand what I said you have to not ignore what the word "particular" means. Of course I have beliefs, but none that are particular, meaning none that are special to me. What I mean by this is that anything I believe can change at an instant given the correct logic and reasoning to do so. I'm not sure what your holy spirit has to do with that....?

[InTruth]

Interesting InTruth ^^

I'm curious though, if you say that we should not stop trying to find the causes for things when we don't know what they are, do you think we should stop trying to find the cause for the universe because we don't know what that is either?

Furthermore, stop saying that there are millions and trillions of causes in nature, there aren't. There are only 4 known causes for everything.
We do know what the cause for the universe is, it is the uncreated Creator because if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It is illogical to seek for the cause for the universe outside the uncreated Creator when it is proven no such thing exists. That which is uncreated, timeless, spaceless, immaterial and supernatural has no cause.

We know there are quadrillions and quadrillions of cause and effects in nature. I was born because my parents had sex. You argue against God because you prefer to spend eternity with the Devil. Deep down inside that is what you want. I like that comment by the Merovingian in the Matrix who said, "there is only one true reality [in nature], cause and effect," and his wife said "cause and effect my love, cause and effect" when she caught him cheating on her.


Food decays for organic reasons, which are completely unrelated to radioactive decay. The fact that you can't tell the difference between biology and physics is amusing to me, that being said, when you say that we may simply not know the cause of radio-active decay, this is true. We may not. There may very well be a cause that we do not know about, but current science is not developed enough to say what causes it and our current understanding of everything involved demonstrates that it isn't caused by anything. So according to science, it is causeless, this may change in the future, but so might anything else.

However, as science does not demonstrate that there are causes for everything, saying that there are causes for everything is an assumption.Food decays for molecular reasons, same as radioactive decay. Biology is subject to molecules also. That you think biology is not is weird. Our current understanding of everything demonstrates that radioactive decay like other forms of decay have a cause because we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself. Science disagrees with your fanciful something from nothing theory. No, things don't change. 1+1 always equals 2 and nature always exhibits cause and effect, action and reaction; it's really the universe's only one true constant. That which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. A billion pound gorilla can't take you to cinema because he doesn't exist. Energy is needed to cause; all matter can be converted to energy. There is no energy or matter in "nothing."


Well, to understand what I said you have to not ignore what the word "particular" means. Of course I have beliefs, but none that are particular, meaning none that are special to me. What I mean by this is that anything I believe can change at an instant given the correct logic and reasoning to do so. I'm not sure what your holy spirit has to do with that....? Your idol of no God is special to you, but you will go to Hell for your hostility to your Creator. A particle doesn't exist for no reason at all. It is made up quarks and strings possibly. It exists for a purpose for the Grand Designer. How goofy to think it exists and comes into being from nothing. Do you see this idol from nothing theory of yours is absolutely absurd? I can really feel how you are shutting your mind down like a zombie for Satan, to be controlled by the Devil. The universe is as large as it is to produce the full elemental table.

The Holy Spirit is the live of the Father and the Son, who reveals God's mind and will. Praise the Lord! The Holy Spirit reveals you are going to Hell, and may those who read this turn from their ways, seeing you can't overturn the proof, and not end up like you. Praise the Lord, you are leading people to Christ. Amen.

[Yrost]

We do know what the cause for the universe is, it is the uncreated Creator because if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It is illogical to seek for the cause for the universe outside the uncreated Creator when it is proven no such thing exists. That which is uncreated, timeless, spaceless, immaterial and supernatural has no cause.

We know there are quadrillions and quadrillions of cause and effects in nature. I was born because my parents had sex. You argue against God because you prefer to spend eternity with the Devil. Deep down inside that is what you want. I like that comment by the Merovingian in the Matrix who said, "there is only one true reality [in nature], cause and effect," and his wife said "cause and effect my love, cause and effect" when she caught him cheating on her.Why do you say there are quadrillions of causes and effects in nature, there are only 4 known causes for everything. Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Gravity. Where do you get the quadrillions from?



Food decays for molecular reasons, same as radioactive decay. Biology is subject to molecules also. That you think biology is not is weird. Our current understanding of everything demonstrates that radioactive decay like other forms of decay have a cause because we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself. Science disagrees with your fanciful something from nothing theory. No, things don't change. 1+1 always equals 2 and nature always exhibits cause and effect, action and reaction; it's really the universe's only one true constant. That which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. A billion pound gorilla can't take you to cinema because he doesn't exist. Energy is needed to cause; all matter can be converted to energy. There is no energy or matter in "nothing."Molecules are just particles, saying "food decays for particle reasons" doesn't mean anything. Food decays because microorganisms grow on it and eat it. Radioactive decay does not occur because life grows on atoms and eats them, radioactive decay occurs where there is no life. The assumption that microorganisms cause radioactive decay is actually pretty funny, but this is what you are saying when saying that food decays for the same reasons as radioactive decay. Do you have any understanding of science at all?

Again we do not observe trillions of effects in nature, we observe the following simple things, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity.


Your idol of no God is special to you, but you will go to Hell for your hostility to your Creator. A particle doesn't exist for no reason at all. It is made up quarks and strings possibly. It exists for a purpose for the Grand Designer. How goofy to think it exists and comes into being from nothing. Do you see this idol from nothing theory of yours is absolutely absurd? I can really feel how you are shutting your mind down like a zombie for Satan, to be controlled by the Devil. The universe is as large as it is to produce the full elemental table.

The Holy Spirit is the live of the Father and the Son, who reveals God's mind and will. Praise the Lord! The Holy Spirit reveals you are going to Hell, and may those who read this turn from their ways, seeing you can't overturn the proof, and not end up like you. Praise the Lord, you are leading people to Christ. Amen. You'll want to avoid chastising me for not believing the same things you do with punishments of hell. It's tons of times easier for me to ridicule you for your beliefs, but I want this to remain civil. If you can't make your argument without threats, that does your argument a huge disservice.

As a naturalist, I value people because of how they treat and value other people, not because of how much their thoughts are similar to mine, which theism generally teaches. Naturalism gives us a real reason to be connected with the universe because we are a part of the natural universe and not supernatural entities that require supernatural creation. If you consider those dissimilar to you as vile, horrid and disgusting, then I value you as vile horrid and disgusting.

It is unfortunate that when you die, which you will, you will never be able to realise how infinitesimally insignificant your entire life was and is further sad to know that your current existence is based on gratifying yourself with notions of your own importance instead of serving to improve the conditions of life for all.

I know none of these words will penetrate the wall of theology you have built up to protect yourself from true salvation because you know that when you die a 2000 year old Jew from Palestine will take care of you, but I'm curious as to what you think your response will be if it is not your favourite Jew, but Allah, Vishnu or Ahura Mazda that judge you instead? But you will not be able to answer that question.

[InTruth]

Why do you say there are quadrillions of causes and effects in nature, there are only 4 known causes for everything. Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Gravity. Where do you get the quadrillions from?
Each of these are exhibited in action going back in time in cause and effect.


Molecules are just particles, saying "food decays for particle reasons" doesn't mean anything. Food decays because microorganisms grow on it and eat it. Radioactive decay does not occur because life grows on atoms and eats them, radioactive decay occurs where there is no life. The assumption that microorganisms cause radioactive decay is actually pretty funny, but this is what you are saying when saying that food decays for the same reasons as radioactive decay. Do you have any understanding of science at all?

Again we do not observe trillions of effects in nature, we observe the following simple things, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity.Life or no life, particles act and react. I don't recall saying microorganisms causes radioactive decay. That's funny you think I said that. Science is not sinning bearing false witness. We indeed do so trillions and trillions of causes in nature abiding in these various laws.


You'll want to avoid chastising me for not believing the same things you do with punishments of hell. It's tons of times easier for me to ridicule you for your beliefs, but I want this to remain civil. If you can't make your argument without threats, that does your argument a huge disservice.

As a naturalist, I value people because of how they treat and value other people, not because of how much their thoughts are similar to mine, which theism generally teaches. Naturalism gives us a real reason to be connected with the universe because we are a part of the natural universe and not supernatural entities that require supernatural creation. If you consider those dissimilar to you as vile, horrid and disgusting, then I value you as vile horrid and disgusting.

It is unfortunate that when you die, which you will, you will never be able to realise how infinitesimally insignificant your entire life was and is further sad to know that your current existence is based on gratifying yourself with notions of your own importance instead of serving to improve the conditions of life for all.

I know none of these words will penetrate the wall of theology you have built up to protect yourself from true salvation because you know that when you die a 2000 year old Jew from Palestine will take care of you, but I'm curious as to what you think your response will be if it is not your favourite Jew, but Allah, Vishnu or Ahura Mazda that judge you instead? But you will not be able to answer that question.Since the uncreated Creator is proven and who He is in Christ and you couldn't overturn it, necessarily you will go to Hell, because you refuse God's love and mercy. If you shut your mind down to this evidence, how is that civil? I would be threatened too if I couldn't overturn the evidence and just shut my mind down to it, with the resulting consequence.

I don't think you value people because of the way you treat people, for if they have faith in God you don't appreciate that even though God is proven to exist and wants a relationship with us. But if they never mention God that's what you value because you are hostile to your Creator and desire that in others. And that belief is similar to your own. As long as people behave like you and think like you, everything is ok. Your doubletongue is hard at work I see, not treating others as you would like to be treated.

While you don't consider murder, rape and crime vile, horrid and disgusting, you can see why I consider you vile, horrid and disgusting. Christians consider nature parture of God's design and integral to it, so we are part of it and to take care of it. Atheists are connected to nature in another way, a vile, horrid and disgusting way, because nature is just natural selection, so who is to say killing someone is wrong if in improves your natural selection? What you consider being connected we consider just a sinner's heart that binds itself to Hell since you want an existence without God.

It is unfortunate that you don't see with God you value life and don't debase it by considering it insignificant. By considering it insignificant and meaningless you contradict yourself by claiming you want to improve life for all. Gratifying oneself flows from an insignificant life, for what does it really matter since everyone just ceases to exist anyway. Perhaps that's why atheists have the highest suicide rates and killed the most people in wars, e.g. Stalin, Pol pot, Mao, and Hitler who was effectively behaving according to naturalism even though he may have claimed to be a theist.

Fortunately though, there is accountability and consequences so that what is not paid for in this life gets paid for in the next. In this life you want to be eternally separated from God. So you will be for forever as you wish. Pretending you will cease to exist is escapism. You may have great success in this life with your naturalism, but is it really worth it since you will spend eternity in Hell?

Hypotheticals are silly when it comes to impossibles. Since the resurrection is proven and there is no evidence for your other gods, how are they even in the running to worry about? There is substantial evidence against them. For example, Allah of Islam proves to be a lie six centuries later, claiming Jesus didn't die on the cross or even go to the cross, with no evidence to support such a claim. Do you really want to trust a faith built on just asserting with no evidence and nothing to overturn all the evidence that we do have?

[Yrost]

Each of these are exhibited in action going back in time in cause and effect. Why should we regress forward if we know that these are the root causes and therefore the actual cause?


Life or no life, particles act and react. I don't recall saying microorganisms causes radioactive decay. That's funny you think I said that. Science is not sinning bearing false witness. We indeed do so trillions and trillions of causes in nature abiding in these various laws.There are no demonstrable reactions involved in radioactive decay.

You said radioactive decay decays like bread decays. Bread decays as life grows on it and eats it. How is this like radioactive decay?

You can continue chanting your trillions and trillions of causes mantra like a child if you want, but this simply is not the case.



Since the uncreated Creator is proven and who He is in Christ and you couldn't overturn it, necessarily you will go to Hell, because you refuse God's love and mercy. If you shut your mind down to this evidence, how is that civil? I would be threatened too if I couldn't overturn the evidence and just shut my mind down to it, with the resulting consequence.

I don't think you value people because of the way you treat people, for if they have faith in God you don't appreciate that even though God is proven to exist and wants a relationship with us. But if they never mention God that's what you value because you are hostile to your Creator and desire that in others. And that belief is similar to your own. As long as people behave like you and think like you, everything is ok. Your doubletongue is hard at work I see, not treating others as you would like to be treated.

While you don't consider murder, rape and crime vile, horrid and disgusting, you can see why I consider you vile, horrid and disgusting. Christians consider nature parture of God's design and integral to it, so we are part of it and to take care of it. Atheists are connected to nature in another way, a vile, horrid and disgusting way, because nature is just natural selection, so who is to say killing someone is wrong if in improves your natural selection? What you consider being connected we consider just a sinner's heart that binds itself to Hell since you want an existence without God.

It is unfortunate that you don't see with God you value life and don't debase it by considering it insignificant. By considering it insignificant and meaningless you contradict yourself by claiming you want to improve life for all. Gratifying oneself flows from an insignificant life, for what does it really matter since everyone just ceases to exist anyway. Perhaps that's why atheists have the highest suicide rates and killed the most people in wars, e.g. Stalin, Pol pot, Mao, and Hitler who was effectively behaving according to naturalism even though he may have claimed to be a theist.

Fortunately though, there is accountability and consequences so that what is not paid for in this life gets paid for in the next. In this life you want to be eternally separated from God. So you will be for forever as you wish. Pretending you will cease to exist is escapism. You may have great success in this life with your naturalism, but is it really worth it since you will spend eternity in Hell?

Hypotheticals are silly when it comes to impossibles. Since the resurrection is proven and there is no evidence for your other gods, how are they even in the running to worry about? There is substantial evidence against them. For example, Allah of Islam proves to be a lie six centuries later, claiming Jesus didn't die on the cross or even go to the cross, with no evidence to support such a claim. Do you really want to trust a faith built on just asserting with no evidence and nothing to overturn all the evidence that we do have? Wow... That's a nice body of text. A few questions:

1) Why do you think I don't appreciate that people have faith in god? What proof do you have of this?
2) Why do you think I am hostile to my alleged creator?
3) What suggests that I don't consider murder rape and crime vile?
4) You obsessively claim that your god's existence is proven, but fail to explain how. How is god's existence proven?

Some things I want to correct you on too:

1) Religious people have killed the most amounts of people in wars not Atheists. If you study history, you'll find that most of the people killed by Mao Zedong and Stalin were not due to war, but due to famine. Whether intentional or not, the amount of deaths caused by their actions does not compare to amount of people killed by religious people in the 20th century.
2) Hitler wrote that he was effectively behaving according to God's will. He was baptized by the catholic church and they never excommunicated him. Nor did he denounce it.
3) There is absolutely no reason to believe in accountability or consequences after death even if there is a god.
4) Muhammed split the moon in half to demonstrate that he was a prophet of god and performed miracles in his life time which have many testimonies to back them up. The Quran says that Jesus was not killed or crucified, but it was made to seem that way. The gospel of Barnabus backs this up also. Muslims use the bible to support their claims.

[InTruth]

Why should we regress forward if we know that these are the root causes and therefore the actual cause?
Regress forward? Regress means backward. Time is a root cause, for without time, you couldn't have come into being in time. But time can't always have existed because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.


There are no demonstrable reactions involved in radioactive decay. You said radioactive decay decays like bread decays. Bread decays as life grows on it and eats it. How is this like radioactive decay? You can continue chanting your trillions and trillions of causes mantra like a child if you want, but this simply is not the case.I don't know if scientists know the cause of radioactive decay fully or partially. Decaying organically is not so different than decaying non-organically. They are still just particles. It simply is the case we can if we wish recount one causal relationship after another and come up with quadrillions of them since the beginning of time and no evidence for something coming from nothing. It would seem quite illogical then to insert something from nothing all because you reject God. We go with the evidence. Try it some time. It's very liberating. The truth will set you free.


1) Why do you think I don't appreciate that people have faith in god? What proof do you have of this?I would suspect one reason is because we know you are going to Hell and you may not like us knowing this about you. The proof I have that you don't appreciate those who have faith in God is because you narrowly define what you appreciate which in a conversation like this you certainly should have included those who have faith. As long as we don't talk about God, you can tolerate us.


2) Why do you think I am hostile to my alleged creator?Because you don't want to receive salvation from Him, that much is clear.


3) What suggests that I don't consider murder rape and crime vile?You said you don't take issue with those who differ from you. I presume you are not a murderer, rapist or criminal.

And you being a naturalist there is no reason why murder, rape and crime are not acceptable since these may very well aid in your natural selection.


4) You obsessively claim that your god's existence is proven, but fail to explain how. How is god's existence proven?
You obsessively avoid the proof for God, so what can I do but repeat the very simple proof for God we all know intuitively.

I have already explained it over and over, so asserting that I haven't doesn't make sense. Why ask for it again after it has already been shown many times over? Clearly this is a case of willfully shutting your mind down. I'll just give the link from now on instead of always typing it out...
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476


1) Religious people have killed the most amounts of people in wars not Atheists. If you study history, you'll find that most of the people killed by Mao Zedong and Stalin were not due to war, but due to famine. Whether intentional or not, the amount of deaths caused by their actions does not compare to amount of people killed by religious people in the 20th century.I totally disagree. Not only were killings by atheists under these oppressive regimes in the hundreds of millions, but the types of deaths were horrific. Christians simply don't do that. As to other killings of other religions, well that make sense since they are not Christians. If you are trying to make yourself feel better because you don't kill as many people as other religions (who also reject Christ), which I can't find the data to help you your wishful thinking, I am not sure how that makes you sleep well at night in any case.


2) Hitler wrote that he was effectively behaving according to God's will. He was baptized by the catholic church and they never excommunicated him. Nor did he denounce it.Since the Bible calls the the Roman Church the great harlot who makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications and Hitler reviled Christians and denounced Christianity in his speeches (not sure how you could overlook that fact), do you really think you are making much sense? Here are some quotes,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?2901


3) There is absolutely no reason to believe in accountability or consequences after death even if there is a god. As it is on earth so it is in heaven, for earth is fashioned after heaven. There is accountability here, how much more in heaven! Accountability exists because God exists. God doesn't want to fellowship with an atheists for eternity. That would make Him sad to be faced with someone who always rejects Him. So you will go to the Lake of Fire as you wish devoid of God's presence.


4) Muhammed split the moon in half to demonstrate that he was a prophet of god and performed miracles in his life time which have many testimonies to back them up. The Quran says that Jesus was not killed or crucified, but it was made to seem that way. The gospel of Barnabus backs this up also. Muslims use the bible to support their claims.Let me know if you can find those eyewitness in ancient documents multiply attested. And I don't think there was any rocket technology then to confirm it so it would be an illusion anyway at best. At worse just legend. The moon isn't split so I guess he never did split it. Therefore, someone lied. Were you able to find any specific miracles by Muhammad in the Koran? Let me know. Someone told me he performed no miracles but said of himself he was a greater prophet than Jesus. How can he be a greater prophet if he never performed any miracles?

The Gospel of Barnabas is false to me because it can't resolve a contradiction it is faced with. If Jesus didn't die on the cross yet presented himself to the disciples as having done so, he would be a liar. But then he would not be a great prophet. And for the disciples to teach that they had seen Jesus resurrected in various group settings and willingly died for this testimony, means they truly believed it, yet nothing can account for this.

Why would God want to deceive the disciples to think they saw Jesus resurrected if He really didn't? Makes no sense. That sounds like something Satan would do. Are you saying the god of the Koran is actually Satan? I would believe that. Thus, we can conclude since the gospel of Barnabas presents no evidence to overturn the evidence we do have for Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and deity, we can be confident Jesus is God. The evidence really provides no possibility other than Jesus is God. Amen.

[Yrost]

Regress forward? Regress means backward. Time is a root cause, for without time, you couldn't have come into being in time. But time can't always have existed because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

No... Time doesn't really cause anything. That's like saying space is a root cause. Things happen inside space and time. They don't cause things to happen at all.

Look at it this way: Effects happen inside space and time to particles because of causes.


I don't know if scientists know the cause of radioactive decay fully or partially. Decaying organically is not so different than decaying non-organically. They are still just particles. It simply is the case we can if we wish recount one causal relationship after another and come up with quadrillions of them since the beginning of time and no evidence for something coming from nothing. It would seem quite illogical then to insert something from nothing all because you reject God. We go with the evidence. Try it some time. It's very liberating. The truth will set you free.

You claim that micro organisms consuming, reproducing and excreting on a certain food type isn't that much different than a carbon-14 atom spontaneously emitting ionizing particles that transform it into a nitrogen-14 atom? What kind of nonsense are you selling here?

They're just particles? What are you talking about? Cars and Planets are just particles, does that make them "not so different" too? Bears and Chainsaws are just particles too, does that make them "not so different" also?

I can't believe I started this discussion thinking you had some capability of intelligent thought.


I would suspect one reason is because we know you are going to Hell and you may not like us knowing this about you. The proof I have that you don't appreciate those who have faith in God is because you narrowly define what you appreciate which in a conversation like this you certainly should have included those who have faith. As long as we don't talk about God, you can tolerate us.

Well your suspicions would be wrong and your proof isn't very lucid or demonstrable at all. In truth, I have no problem with religious people, I used to be very religious myself and most of my friends are too religious. I gave up religion because no one I could not find any reason why I believed a god existed and no one could provide me with one either. What I do have a problem with is people that devalue others because of their own beliefs, like you do. You spontaneously assumed that I didn't consider murder, rape and crime as bad and said that atheists are connected to nature in a vile disgusting way, you have prejudices against people because of their thoughts and because of your own fears, this kind of anti-social repugnant behavior is disgusting to me and I know many Christians that would dislike you for your baseless ideals.


Because you don't want to receive salvation from Him, that much is clear.

I would love to receive salvation from him, but I know so little about him.


You said you don't take issue with those who differ from you. I presume you are not a murderer, rapist or criminal.

And you being a naturalist there is no reason why murder, rape and crime are not acceptable since these may very well aid in your natural selection.

Your delusions are getting worse by the second, I didn't say that at all. The fact that your brain isn't capable of realising how rape, murder and crime happening to people around me works against my survival, demonstrates that no debate can open your eyes to true salvation.


You obsessively avoid the proof for God, so what can I do but repeat the very simple proof for God we all know intuitively.

I have already explained it over and over, so asserting that I haven't doesn't make sense. Why ask for it again after it has already been shown many times over? Clearly this is a case of willfully shutting your mind down. I'll just give the link from now on instead of always typing it out...
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476 (http://biblocality.com/showthread.php?3476)

Avoid it? I gave you evidence that nature does not show that everything has a cause and effect. Radioactive decay has no known cause, to make a claim that everything has a cause means that everything has been shown to have a cause, we do not know if everything needs a cause. For example, what are the causes of electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force?

Everything has not been shown to have a cause-effect relationship, this is a false premise!

Also, infinite regress only applies to real-time that we experience. At a quantum level time itself breaks down. It has no beginning nor end.






I totally disagree. Not only were killings by atheists under these oppressive regimes in the hundreds of millions, but the types of deaths were horrific. Christians simply don't do that. As to other killings of other religions, well that make sense since they are not Christians. If you are trying to make yourself feel better because you don't kill as many people as other religions (who also reject Christ), which I can't find the data to help you your wishful thinking, I am not sure how that makes you sleep well at night in any case.

Now you're just fabricating information. Here's a list of Atheist crimes.

Mao Zedong 20,000,000 - 43,000,000
Stalin - Holodomor Famine - 2,500,000 - 10,000,000
Pol Pot - Genocide - 1,700,000 - 2,500,000
Nuon Chea - Famine -1,700,000 - 3,000,000


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler

Hitler was likely Christian, so I'll include him in the Christian section with question marks, here we go:

Crusades - War - 1,000,000 - 2,000,000
French War of Religion - 2,000,000 - 4,000,000
Thirty Years War - 3,000,000 - 11,500,000
Napoleonic Wars - 3,500,000 - 6,500,000
World War I - 15,000,000 - 65,000,000
Genocide of Hitler - 4,500,000 - 11,000,000 ????
Colonisation of Americas - 2,000,000 - 10,000,000
African Slave Trade - 3,500,000 - 4,000,000
Swedish Deluge - 3,000,000 - 4,000,000
Rwandan Genocide - 500,000 - 1,000,000
German Expulsian WWII - 500,000 - 3,000,000
Belgian Exploitation of the Congo -8,000,000 - 10,000,000

The amount of death, torture and belligerence involved in Christian history is appalling, what Mao Zedong and Stalin did was atrocious, possibly the worst form of neglect or perhaps heinous political planning, but it does not compare to the appalling behavior of Christians over the last Millenium, who were very ready to physically kill millions of others relentlessly and given enough reason they would even kill each other.


Since the Bible calls the the Roman Church the great harlot who makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications and Hitler reviled Christians and denounced Christianity in his speeches (not sure how you could overlook that fact), do you really think you are making much sense? Here are some quotes,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?2901 (http://biblocality.com/showthread.php?2901)

Interesting, considering that Hitler eventually spoke against the Catholic Church when it went against his political aims. He must have been a true Christian.

Careful with your quotes there, many of Hitler's quotes are actually fabricated.



http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

To be honest, he was probably neither, but there is enough evidence to say that he was.


As it is on earth so it is in heaven, for earth is fashioned after heaven. There is accountability here, how much more in heaven! Accountability exists because God exists. God doesn't want to fellowship with an atheists for eternity. That would make Him sad to be faced with someone who always rejects Him. So you will go to the Lake of Fire as you wish devoid of God's presence.

Yeah, you've been saying this for a while, I'm starting to seriously think that maybe you really believe it.


Let me know if you can find those eyewitness in ancient documents multiply attested. And I don't think there was any rocket technology then to confirm it so it would be an illusion anyway at best. At worse just legend. The moon isn't split so I guess he never did split it. Therefore, someone lied. Were you able to find any specific miracles by Muhammad in the Koran? Let me know. Someone told me he performed no miracles but said of himself he was a greater prophet than Jesus. How can he be a greater prophet if he never performed any miracles?

The Gospel of Barnabas is false to me because it can't resolve a contradiction it is faced with. If Jesus didn't die on the cross yet presented himself to the disciples as having done so, he would be a liar. But then he would not be a great prophet. And for the disciples to teach that they had seen Jesus resurrected in various group settings and willingly died for this testimony, means they truly believed it, yet nothing can account for this.

Why would God want to deceive the disciples to think they saw Jesus resurrected if He really didn't? Makes no sense. That sounds like something Satan would do. Are you saying the god of the Koran is actually Satan? I would believe that. Thus, we can conclude since the gospel of Barnabas presents no evidence to overturn the evidence we do have for Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and deity, we can be confident Jesus is God. The evidence really provides no possibility other than Jesus is God. Amen.

The eye witness accounts are attested for in the books of Bukhari and Sahih Muslim dating back to the 7th and 8th centuries, they contain in themselves countless testimonies from people who saw the moon split with their own eyes and come back together.

And from the point of view that there was no rocket technology to confirm it. You have to understand that rocket technology can't confirm that the moon is broken in half and flying away from each other and then coming back together any more than the actual light reflecting off the moon will.

Furthermore, there was no one around to test Jesus's cranial nerve reflexes to see if he had really died or not. You shouldn't apply something to another religion that you don't apply to yours.

[InTruth]

No... Time doesn't really cause anything. That's like saying space is a root cause. Things happen inside space and time. They don't cause things to happen at all.

Look at it this way: Effects happen inside space and time to particles because of causes.
Yes time and space are causal, for without time you could not exist. Same with space. The body is formed from the dust or particles of space just like the Bible says (Gen. 2.7). All the necessary ingredients are needed. No space, matter and time, then no you.

Look at it this way: for effects to happen in space and time to particles you need space and time. The atheist is always wrong because he always shuts his mind down, short of the glory of God.


You claim that micro organisms consuming, reproducing and excreting on a certain food type isn't that much different than a carbon-14 atom spontaneously emitting ionizing particles that transform it into a nitrogen-14 atom? What kind of nonsense are you selling here?

They're just particles? What are you talking about? Cars and Planets are just particles, does that make them "not so different" too? Bears and Chainsaws are just particles too, does that make them "not so different" also?

I can't believe I started this discussion thinking you had some capability of intelligent thought.It is all taking place on a molecular level. I can't believe you don't realize that? What nonsense are you selling thinking otherwise? All things in nature have these building blocks: and all exhibit cause and effect. It is inescapable and undeniable. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you come back to reality.


Well your suspicions would be wrong and your proof isn't very lucid or demonstrable at all. In truth, I have no problem with religious people, I used to be very religious myself and most of my friends are too religious. I gave up religion because no one I could not find any reason why I believed a god existed and no one could provide me with one either. What I do have a problem with is people that devalue others because of their own beliefs, like you do. You spontaneously assumed that I didn't consider murder, rape and crime as bad and said that atheists are connected to nature in a vile disgusting way, you have prejudices against people because of their thoughts and because of your own fears, this kind of anti-social repugnant behavior is disgusting to me and I know many Christians that would dislike you for your baseless ideals.I don't think the reason you are not religious is because you can't find a reason, since I have given you a reason which you could not overturn, so the reason must be your heart condition. You want to be eternally separated from God and so you will be. I think my reason is quite clear and demonstrable because all that we are talking about has been proven and all you can do is bear false witness instead.

I don't devalue you. You are made in God's image just like I am, but then after that we part ways because you want to spend eternity in Hell like someone who commits a crime and must spend the rest of their life in jail, knowing that jail is the consequence. When you bear false witness against others, you are devaluing them. That's abusive behavior. You're like Satan the great accuser when you do that.

What matters is what can be proven. You could not prove your accusations, but I proved you are going to Hell. If proof matters then really you are just projecting your own conditions onto others by accusing them falsely. The reason you don't give your life to Christ is because you are afraid to let go of self and place your trust in Jesus. It is more painful for you to give up control of self for God's guiding light than for you to spend eternity in Hell. That's the choice you have made for yourself. From the sin of rejecting God all sorts of sins follow. So you become anti-social; and murder, rape and crime are fair game if they aid in your natural selection myopic radar. These are all obviously baseless ideals of yours, all the result of your hostility to your Creator, like a person who rejects their parents for no good reason at all. What love is that?


I would love to receive salvation from him, but I know so little about him.That's an invalid excuse for the Bible has been set before you all your life. All you need is right there. God is not going to smack you over the head with it. You got to pick it up and read it. God loves relating to us as sovereign free willed beings.


Your delusions are getting worse by the second, I didn't say that at all. The fact that your brain isn't capable of realising how rape, murder and crime happening to people around me works against my survival, demonstrates that no debate can open your eyes to true salvation.But for naturalism if you murder someone and nobody finds out about it to pocket 10 million dollars so can start building your empire, why in naturalism is that not a good thing for you? Who is to say that is not valid since there are no objective moral values in atheism!


Avoid it? I gave you evidence that nature does not show that everything has a cause and effect. Radioactive decay has no known cause, to make a claim that everything has a cause means that everything has been shown to have a cause, we do not know if everything needs a cause. For example, what are the causes of electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force?

Everything has not been shown to have a cause-effect relationship, this is a false premise!

Also, infinite regress only applies to real-time that we experience. At a quantum level time itself breaks down. It has no beginning nor end.Just because we don't know the cause to something, it would be highly arrogant and presumptuous to assume that it has no cause just because you are not smart enough to figure it out. For you to prove your beliefs are not delusional, you would have to actually prove something comes from nothing, that which has no space, time, matter, energy, antimatter, etc. Not sure how you would do that though. You would have to be able to replicate it. Since you have failed to do so, realize you are on the road to perdition and will burn in the lake of fire for all eternity.

We don't need to be all-knowing like God would be to know the universe always needs a cause, for once you see there are trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence for something coming from nothing, you can be confident nature always needs a cause. We can be assured that all the variables and constants of the universe need a cause in such fine tuning.

You're contradicting yourself, because you demand to be God to know if God exists, but are you God? You'll never be God. You're like the Devil who erects himself as God. Think how pretentious it would be if you knew everything except for one last thing but held out that it could somehow disprove God and prove something comes from nothing. Does that not strike you as false humility to the most ridiculous level possible?

Infinite regress necessarily must exist if naturalism was true, for all things in nature need a cause even your imaginary admittedly unproven imaginary time. At the quantum level cause and effect never break down; there is both beginning and end. Since you can't show otherwise, realize you are living a lie.


Now you're just fabricating information. Here's a list of Atheist crimes.

Mao Zedong 20,000,000 - 43,000,000
Stalin - Holodomor Famine - 2,500,000 - 10,000,000
Pol Pot - Genocide - 1,700,000 - 2,500,000
Nuon Chea - Famine -1,700,000 - 3,000,000Those numbers are a fraction of the published numbers. And even if it was only this few, how does that make it right? Your argument is because you are less murderous than perceived other murderers that makes you good?


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf HitlerObviously he fashioned God in his own image. Lots of people do this. Surely you can see that. Maybe not. And time and again he rejected Jesus and Christianity in his quotes. So there you have it. Like that article said, you are a holocaust revisionist. You might want to reconsider how evil that is.


Hitler was likely Christian, so I'll include him in the Christian section with question marks, here we go:

Crusades - War - 1,000,000 - 2,000,000
French War of Religion - 2,000,000 - 4,000,000
Thirty Years War - 3,000,000 - 11,500,000
Napoleonic Wars - 3,500,000 - 6,500,000
World War I - 15,000,000 - 65,000,000
Genocide of Hitler - 4,500,000 - 11,000,000 ????
Colonisation of Americas - 2,000,000 - 10,000,000
African Slave Trade - 3,500,000 - 4,000,000
Swedish Deluge - 3,000,000 - 4,000,000
Rwandan Genocide - 500,000 - 1,000,000
German Expulsian WWII - 500,000 - 3,000,000
Belgian Exploitation of the Congo -8,000,000 - 10,000,000
What makes you think these were Christians for where would Jesus do that? So you see you can be like the Devil and accuse the brethren day and night (Rev. 12.10), but just like Satan you can't prove it. You concede your atheist brethren above were murderers; I do no such thing with members of the body of Christ. It's like night and day by comparison.


The amount of death, torture and belligerence involved in Christian history is appalling, what Mao Zedong and Stalin did was atrocious, possibly the worst form of neglect or perhaps heinous political planning, but it does not compare to the appalling behavior of Christians over the last Millenium, who were very ready to physically kill millions of others relentlessly and given enough reason they would even kill each other.I am glad they weren't Christians just because you say they are. Thank God the universe does not resolve around what you say. Since the Bible says they are not Christians, then what gives you the right to redefine what the Bible says? Seems disingenuous.


Interesting, considering that Hitler eventually spoke against the Catholic Church when it went against his political aims. He must have been a true Christian.

Careful with your quotes there, many of Hitler's quotes are actually fabricated.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

To be honest, he was probably neither, but there is enough evidence to say that he was.Speaking against the Catholic church automatically makes you a Christian? You got weird ideas. Since Hitler spoke against Jesus and the body of Christ, that is why he is not a Christian. You're not too bright are you?

Think for yourself. If someone at one time called themselves Christian and at another time denounces Jesus and the Church then that person is just talking out the side of his face. Barack Obama does this. He denounces Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Matthew, yet he calls himself a Christian. He speaks for Muslims defending their faith as a holy and righteous faith. And so likewise with Hitler, in all those quotes I gave you of him speaking against Jesus and the body of Christ, you know the guy was just playing the political field and likely too exhausted to keep putting up the act, so just blurted out what he really believed that he was effectively an atheist like you and antichrist, engaged in natural selection as the only real truth.


Yeah, you've been saying this for a while, I'm starting to seriously think that maybe you really believe it.Amen. How can heaven's standards be less than our own?


The eye witness accounts are attested for in the books of Bukhari and Sahih Muslim dating back to the 7th and 8th centuries, they contain in themselves countless testimonies from people who saw the moon split with their own eyes and come back together.

And from the point of view that there was no rocket technology to confirm it. You have to understand that rocket technology can't confirm that the moon is broken in half and flying away from each other and then coming back together any more than the actual light reflecting off the moon will.

Furthermore, there was no one around to test Jesus's cranial nerve reflexes to see if he had really died or not. You shouldn't apply something to another religion that you don't apply to yours.Name the individuals who saw Muhammad split the moon like we have for the Bible who saw Jesus alive from the dead. Is it not proven the moon never split since it is not split now? And surely something so far away hardly compares to Jesus up close and personal. Even if there was multiple testimony of moon spitting, surely that is just an illusion. If they believed it, so what? If they didn't lie, what it does say is they truly believed it, maybe even died for it, since they would not willingly die for what they knew was a lie. Likewise the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead, but no naturalistic explanation can account for their testimony. But we can account for moon splitting as just an illusion which occurs with objects in the far off distance. I personally would get far more excited seeing a person alive from the dead than seeing the effects of clouds and light and other natural effects upon the moon.

We would have some trace of the moon split in half today, even if it reconstituted itself, but we don't, so you can be silly if you like, but if the best argument you have is silliness, then what does that say of your faith? It's all a big joke.

John places himself with the 3 Mary's at the cross in the book of John. Since he lived long after this writing was produced and he never recanted the testimony, then it is true. You don't even need anyone at the cross. For think about it. If Jesus presents himself to the disciples as resurrected from the grave, he would be a liar, but Islam says he was a great prophet. And a Roman crucifixion is not something you just make up. It is well established. Think. If Jesus is going around and claiming he was risen from the grave, obviously he was put to death on the cross. Or if the disciples were saying our Messiah has died on the cross by Roman crucifixion but now is alive from the dead for we have been with Him, you would think someone would say, they didn't recall any crucifixion of Jesus? What are you talking about, people would say? Pilate would come forth and say, such claims are false, that he never put a person names Jesus, King of the Jews, to death. Instead, the Jews argued someone stole the body from the empty tomb; nobody was contesting the death of Jesus on the cross. They were making excuses for what happened to the body to try to invalidate the appearances to the disciples.

So in conclusion it is readily apparent the atheist always shuts his mind down at some point to reality, which makes him look goofy.

[Yrost]

I see you've mastered keeping up your delusion, so I'll keep this brief.

Ridiculous, space and time are not causes, they are dimensions. Needing is not causing.

Infantile, that All things take place on a molecular level is plain wrong. Atoms are not molecules.

You deceiver, you have given me no reason to be religious, you have simply repeated the same rant continuously without understanding anything about what your claims mean, which is why you can't understand how I've continuously destroyed it.

You liar, you said "I consider you vile, horrid and disgusting" and now you're saying "I don't devalue you.". No wonder the bible has so many contradictions if it's followers can't be consistent.

Childish nonsense, saying "I proved", "proof" and "proved" doesn't prove anything, even though you think it does.

How ignorant, I've never had a bible set before me my whole life.

You understand nothing, you're saying that the only reason why people shouldn't kill people is because someone will see you. If you think this way, I can't help you.

Are you illiterate? there is no such thing as nothing.

You are in denial, Christians have killed millions throughout the ages. There is no argument against this.

You're too funny, Hitler was a Christian. Whether he denounced it later is up for question, but many supposed quotes of him denouncing Christianity are fraudulent or unproven, however we know he was Christian at one stage during his life and even praised it and likened his killing of the Jews to it.
Hitler was one of your buddies. This is what your religion does to people.

There were many people that saw the splitting of the Moon from Muhammed, but the main narrators are as follows:

Anas bin Malik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anas_ibn_Malik)

Abdullah ibn Abbas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Abd_Allah_ibn_%60Abbas)

Ibn Masud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Allah_ibn_Mas%27ud)

This is much more amazing than Jesus, because clearly the moon is so much larger and no naturalistic explanation can account for the moon splitting in half and flying far away from itself and then coming back together as one. This is more amazing than someone that could have nearly died and then simply recovered. The people that witnessed these events fought with their lives for Muhammed, because they knew he was the true prophet of god come to correct what the phony disciples of Jesus that forsook him to the cross had told lies about later to gain fame and reputation from what he did in his life.

Muhammed is the true prophet of god!

[InTruth]

Of course space, time and nature need a cause for they just can't come into being from nothing. That which doesn't exist can't produce anything. How contrary to the evidence we have of trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing. These dimensions can't always have existed, because if they did there would be infinite regress, but we know that to be impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So clearly you are delusional.

Everything you say is so dumb. How do you bear it? Molecules are made of atoms. To disagree with that is just asinine. Now if I don't respond to some vagaries in your accusing, just realize it is because vague accusations are worth nothing. Suffice it to say though you still can't overturn the proof why the universe can't always have existed and why it can't come from nothing, thus proving you are delusional.

Of course I consider you vile and disgusting, for you are made in God's image and yet throw it all away for eternity in Hell. You defile yourself and blame me for your choice? You can't ask me to respect that about you. You are valued to God, for He wants to spend eternity with you, but you reject Him. I would be happy to spend eternity with you if you receive God's redemptive design, but not if you don't, for why would I want to hang around someone as delusional as you claiming God does not exist when He would be standing right in front of you in the New City.

The proof is given over and over and over. Here it is again,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/4stepproof.htm

Sure you have had a Bible accessible to you your whole life. It's the freest book in the world and most accessible book too.

In naturalism I still don't see why you don't kill people to get ahead in life since you have no objective moral values. Animals kill animals in nature so why shouldn't you if it gets you ahead?

That's right, there is no such thing as "nothing" so your imaginary "nothing" can't produce anything and thus, the universe can't come from "nothing".

I don't know of a single Christian who murdered anyone. You weren't able to cite any either. You would have to show where Jesus did that or would do that. So you are just like the Devil sinning bearing false witness. God hates that sin, he places it right up there next to murder.

Since the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved, then if Hitler every denounced Christianity he was never a Christian to begin with. The Bible says the Jews are our little brother, so Christians don't attack Jews. You're delusional. Hitler is just like you, he walked like a duck and sounded like a duck, for naturalism, killing Jews and whoever else he thought was in his way. And Catholics aren't even Christians, in case you thought he was Catholic.

10th October, 1941, midday Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).


"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?2901-Hitler-Despised-Jesus-Christ

See, you and Hitler are close buddies since you think alike. It's amazing how you delude yourself. Crazy is as crazy does.

Sorry but couldn't find the word "moon" in any of your links for eyewitness testimonies of the spitting on the moon illusion. Up close and personal is always better then far off distances since the latter are subject to illusion playing tricks on one's eyes.

Fortunately with the aid of science we know the moon never split centuries ago so that invalidates Islam. I can't find one scientist in the world who makes that claim, so clearly you are delusional. But all you really needed to know was six centuries later the Koran says Jesus didn't die on the cross or even go to the cross, without any evidence to support their claim. Historians simply don't do history that way. That is completely delusional.

People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, so we know the disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Since you can't account for this with some naturalistic explanation, then realize you are delusional. Hope this helps.

[Yrost]

Okay child, let's take this one step at a time shall we.

You claim there are trillions and trillions of causes, but science tells us that there are only 4. According to your claim, you should be able to give me at least ten.

You don't know of a single Christian that ever murdered someone. Are you saying that there has never been any Christian nation throughout all history, no Christian king or leader or just very few? Is Christianity, the smallest religion in the world according to you?

The links I gave you weren't about their testimonies of the moon splitting, their testimonies were written in the books of Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I can link you to those if you want. It's amazing, the miracle that Muhammed made for us to know that he was indeed a prophet of god and that the Christians had been lying about Jesus all along. It's so much easier to pay a bunch of Romans to fake your death than it is to split the moon.

Besides with the aid of science we now know that people can't really die and come back to life, that's just stupid. Brain death is irreversible, so this invalidates the Bible. I can't find one scientist that makes this claim so clearly you are delusional. I mean all you need to know is that the Bible claims that Jesus was the son of god with no evidence to support their claim. Historians don't do history that way. That is completely delusional.

People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, so we know the companions of Muhammed truly believed they had seen the splitting of the moon. Since you can't account for this with some naturalistic explanation, then realise you are delusional. Hope this helps.

On a side note:

The book you quoted Hitler's Table talk is poorly translated from French instead of the German original. Any English rendering of the text is completely unreliable. The criticism of Hitler in the book were directed at Catholicism, not Christianity in general.

[InTruth]

No need to be condescending by calling people "child" you exalt yourself over because you are frustrated your theories are not working out.

In Hugh Ross' book, he gives something like 800 variables and constants necessary for life. But I don't deny they may all adhere to your 4 laws. I'm not referring to causation specifically in either sense, but in a personal way, when you drive your car, one of the causes is it needs gas, and so on and so on, so everyone can know the proof for God.

That's correct, I have never known a Christian to kill someone in cold blooded murder.

Sure go ahead, after all you are making the claim there were several eyewitness testimonies to moon spitting, so you should be able to come up with their testimonies. Remember though, that is not enough because we can account for it by a naturalistic explanation such as illusion like thousands of people seeing Mary off in the distance due to lighting, clouds and other natural phenomenon. Muhammad was so desperate for a miracle, jealous of Jesus. Today, scientifically, we know the moon was never split anyway, so this proves Islam to be from Satan.

Again, the problem you are faced with is people don't willingly die for a lie, so the disciples didn't lie but truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings, so they are the only ones who would be motivated to pay the Romans off, though not sure where they would get their money from. It is not possible anyway, because they died for their testimony. People just don't willingly let themselves die for what they know is a lie when they could have saved their lives. The disciples knew they would eventually go to their deaths as martyrs for Christ as Jesus predicted. Where did Jesus go for those 40 days since according to Islam, he never died? He would have been part of the lie giving the impression he was resurrected, but then how is that a great prophet? You see nothing you say makes any sense at all, because you are delusional and hellbound.

People can't die and come back to life naturally. That is stupid, just as stupid as saying Jesus came back to life naturally when Jesus never claimed to nor the disciples claimed that is what happened. Since Jesus is God, He resurrected supernaturally. You're not too bright are you? Surely, God who created this universe and Hades below, could traverse these domains no problem. He is omnipresent. He can be both above and below simultaneously. That's what God can do because He is outside of time and space (remember before we proved the uncreated Creator outside of time and space). Accepting this is the beginning of humility.

Since you have been unable to overturn the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach&p=4195#post4195) for the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God, realize you are delusional by still refusing the Lord Jesus as your Savior. Jesus said if you are not for Him, you are against Him. Therefore, you will surely go to Hell as Jesus said since you are unwilling to confess Him as your Lord and Savior to others, He will deny you before the Father in heaven. This reflects the kind of person you are. Grotesque and vile!

If people really testified to seeing Muhammad split the moon (still waiting on that information from you) and they willingly died for it, doesn't make it true, because it can qualify as an illusion, whereas the appearances to the disciples' cannot since Jesus was up close and personal, not thousands of miles away to get a glimpse of. Jesus was seen multiple times in multiple settings with multiple different individuals each time. Now people can die for lies. Obviously then if there were Muslims who died for the lie of spitting on the moon, since science shows the moon was not spit on to break it in two, they were clearly delusional.

You would have to show there is another more feasible interpretation that radically differs with what Hitler said. Until then you are just blowing smoke. Hitler said Christianity. He meant Christianity over and over. Where he said Catholicism, he meant Catholicism, for example, in one famous chant, the Hitler youth would shout, "I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic, I go with the SA[tan] through thin and thick." A Christian wouldn't make the mistake of mingling Catholicism and Christianity though Hitler may have, further showing his unsalvation. Either way he was not a Christian for would Jesus do that? Think how dumb you sound. Someone with a dumb argument really exposes the fraudulent nature of his conduct. How you get from Jesus who never hurt a flea to one of the greatest mass murderers of history is quite funny. Do you realize you are leading people away from atheism, Islam and Catholicism with your dumbness? Praise the Lord God uses your evil for good!

14th December, 1941, midday "Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120) Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). If Hitler meant only Catholicism and not Christianity he wouldn't have said "The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation...." Since Paul is central to God's word, this is a direct attack on 1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 1 & 2. There is no way around it. You and Hitler are in bed together as evil personified.

Since you and Hitler think alike, you and Hitler will go to Hell for all eternity. More quotes,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?2901-Hitler-Despised-Jesus-Christ

[Yrost]

I'm not being condescending, you have a child-like inconsistent mind. I can't help this. Only you pull yourself out of the abyss.

Firstly, ask yourself this: Why does a car need gas?

Also you contradict yourself, you believe in a fantastical world where a guy in the sky is going to take you and put you in a happy place and all the people you dislike will go to a bad place. Which is different than what we observer over here in the real world where all people die and go into the ground.

A long time ago a bunch of people made up this crazy story about a Jew in Palestine that could walk on water (which science shows is impossible) and that he died and came back to life, but we now know that the minds at that time were too primitive to even understand what life and death was and easily duped into believing things. That being said, there are people today that are still easily fooled and continue to be fooled by this 2000 year old story from the bronze age.

With the disciples it's difficult to determine whether they were actual people or if they were based on people or they thought they could get famous by telling stories and failed or if the whole thing was a hoax invented by the church later to garner more followers. In real history it's difficult to determine anything about anyone and when it gets religious a lot of lies get mixed in with truths until it's hard to tell what happened at all.

But the burden of proof is not on me to prove what happened. It's on the claimants. You claim they existed, what proof do you have? Anyone can write a book, writings do not prove anything.


I don't believe Jesus was a great prophet, I believe he was phony, just like Muhammed. I'm simply making the same arguments for Islam as you're making for Christianity. They both apply very well.

Some Hitler quotes:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)




Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Note: "Their sword will become our plow" appears to paraphrase Micah 4:3 about beating swords into ploughshares, but his tears of war more resembles Joel 3:9-10 "Beat your plowshares into swords."

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Only a handful of Germans in the Reich had the slightest conception of the eternal and merciless struggle for the German language, German schools, and a German way of life. Only today, when the same deplorable misery is forced on many millions of Germans from the Reich, who under foreign rule dream of their common fatherland and strive, amid their longing, at least to preserve their holy right to their mother tongue, do wider circles understand what it means to be forced to fight for one's nationality.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

[InTruth]

I'm not being condescending, you have a child-like inconsistent mind. I can't help this. Only you pull yourself out of the abyss.
Sure you are being condescending since you accuse but don't back it up with evidence.


You contradict yourself, you believe in a fantastical world where a guy in the sky is going to take you and put you in a happy place and all the people you dislike will go to a bad place. Which is different than what we observer over here in the real world where all people die and go into the ground.The proof is given which you couldn't overturn. I like evidence. By the way heaven and earth come together on the new earth. The New City is actually a physical city. And God is not in the sky, but outside of time and space as the proof was given to you over and over. You want to be eternally separated from God, so naturally you will go to that place of eternal separation devoid of God. Christians believe when people die their bodies go into the ground, but our souls and spirits are saved, just like when you turn off your computer, the 1's and 0's, bios or operating system (spirit) which can later be restored and the software kicks in (soul). How much easier for God to do this! You're not too bright are you?


A long time ago a bunch of people made up this crazy story about a Jew in Palestine that could walk on water (which science shows is impossible) and that he died and came back to life, but we now know that the minds at that time were too primitive to even understand what life and death was and easily duped into believing things. That being said, there are people today that are still easily fooled and continue to be fooled by this 2000 year old story from the bronze age.We don't say Jesus walked on water naturally, but supernaturally of course. Sure people knew what life and death was. Not sure how a person gets duped into seeing the person alive after they died. Still waiting on that explanation from you. It looks like you are fooled because you believe Jesus never resurrected even though you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Guess you are not too bright.


With the disciples it's difficult to determine whether they were actual people or if they were based on people or they thought they could get famous by telling stories and failed or if the whole thing was a hoax invented by the church later to garner more followers. In real history it's difficult to determine anything about anyone and when it gets religious a lot of lies get mixed in with truths until it's hard to tell what happened at all.Historians don't vague out like you do. They can glean some facts from most historical documents. We have Polycarp and Clement of Rome who said they knew Peter and John. We have Papias who knew those who knew the disciples personally. And we have Paul who said he spent 15 days with Peter. He also spent time with John and James. To think these are not real people after this multiply corroborating testimony seems quite odd to say the least, after all, Jesus is the most well documented person in antiquity. Nobody even compares, so really you are just not being honest with yourself. Watch a little William Lane Craig vs. Bart Erhman if you know what's good for you.


But the burden of proof is not on me to prove what happened. It's on the claimants. You claim they existed, what proof do you have? Anyone can write a book, writings do not prove anything.We have 27 books of the New Testament and a total of 45 ancient sources about Jesus within 150 years after his death, 17 of which are non-Christian. In none of those sources do we find anything about the disciples or Jesus not being real people, so if you are going to deny the life of the disciples and Jesus you are going to have to throw out all of history. Historians simply don't do history that way, so you are just shutting your mind down. Open your Bible and start reading from beginning to end. That would be a good first step in the right direction in coming to God with an honest heart. He says if you search Him out with all your heart and soul you shall surely find Him. Obviously you are too selfish to do so, so far. My prayers go out to you.

[Yrost]

You've provided no proof at all. I overturned your claim of "trillions of trillions of causes", science tells us there are only 4 causes and Nitrogen-14 atoms spontaneously form from Carbon-14 atoms. No cause. Your claim is false.

We can't tell if the Papias, Paul, Clement or Polycarp were completely honest people. We don't know if they were fooled or led to believe these things. What we do know is that people do invent Myths and people do believe these myths and that these myths are often based on real events and mixed with folklore. This is apparent in legends and history from all over the world. Historians have great difficulty in determining myth from history, because we can't even tell if the people that supposedly wrote their stories did write them or if it was someone else that wrote it and put it in their name. We can't even tell these things about people in modern history, especially with sightings of Elvis, Bigfoot, UFOs and sayings attributed to Einstein that are completely unproven. In the Chronicles of Japan, which details the founder of the country and past leaders and kings that ruled over the country, it often relates that their kings had supernatural powers and abilities. This is normal in history....

But you don't understand history.

[InTruth]

Science tells us there are more than 4 causes, since the 4 causes you give don't explain how the universe could always have existed. Therefore, what necessarily follows an infinite regress would mean you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Assuming atoms have no cause despite the trillions of causes in nature seems quite disingenuous for that which does not exist can't cause anything. Think how arrogant you are just because you are not smart enough to figure out the cause, so you assume it has no cause. That would be like saying $5 appeared on the ground from nothing because you can't see how it got there. Dumb. I feel the pride of the Devil in you, for he is just as arrogant. I am glad I don't have to spend eternity in the New City with such a pompous mindset as God would never allow such evil hearts in His presence or to harm His elect.

We know the disciples truly believed in what they were doing because they willingly died for their claims. Was Paul fooled by Peter when he spent 15 days with him and Peter told him he saw Jesus alive from the dead with James, John and the other disciples? But how could have Peter lied about this since he died for his testimony. You have no answer.

We know the accounts of the disciples was not a myth since Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. Legend theory doesn't work because not enough time passed for legend to develop. Within 5 years after the cross, Paul spent 15 days with Peter, and with James. Those first churches were built on the resurrection, so how do you legend that up?

We really do know Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. For all the epistles we know these 3 chapters were his central message flowing through to all the other epistles. The other epistles wouldn't make much sense in him setting up all the churches if they were not grounded in these 3 chapters.

The person who wrote Revelation, 1,2,3 John and John have some phrases that are common to just John. We know Mark wrote Mark who worked closely with Peter. And Luke certainly wrote Luke, for he said Acts was part two of his former work. He made no mention of Paul's death which is important to mention in a biography. Paul died around 65 AD, so that places Acts around 55 AD. Luke can be placed around 45 AD yet still. And since Luke took from Mark, that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross.

Nobody cares enough about Elvis to go check his grave and with so many Elvis impersonators the odds, again, are stacked against you. Bigfoot could have been a large man with hair all over his body, since this is a rare medical condition. UFO's are explained by natural phenomena like aircraft, weather balloons, even secret government aircraft like hovering disks that I have seen on Youtube. They are always seen at a distance too, never up close and personal so that is hardly convincing. If you watch some amazing magic tricks, when they show you how they are done, it is embarrassing how obvious it is. They are just using lighting. They black out light when they want a person to move from one spot to the next, then bring that lighting back on. Other times they have mirrors or pictures to make it appear as if something is there when behind the scenes they are moving around from one box to the next. Twins are used a lot too. There are just too many things to produce illusions between the UFO and the person observing far off in the distance.

Hope that helps.

[Yrost]

Science can only demonstrate what we see and know, we can't teach what we don't see. We are always learning. However, saying that there are trillions of causes is not what we see. It is a lie.

I didn't say Elvis was alive. I'm saying that it can seem that way to some people, just like it seems to you that the disciples existed, but it could simply have some other explanation, like lies or impersonations.

How do we know that the new testament is not an amazing work of fiction that people took too seriously?

[InTruth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis) demonstrates that the synoptic gospels were just copies of each other mixed with another document called Q (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source).

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]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis) demonstrates that the synoptic gospels were just copies of each other mixed with another document called Q (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source).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]

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 (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm) 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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfpgOKtiZDM&feature=player_embedded

[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.

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]

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 ShokiLike 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.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvDDc5RB6FQ&feature=player_embedded

The power of not relying on our own strength! But the strength and life of the one who created us.