"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
No!... Please, no! I just find you funny! Unlike others here, I don't expect you capable of understanding much. They are optimists, I am a realist!Kenny wrote:Would you like me to give you an example of "what's true for me is not true for you"; that you might agree with?
Oh I get it you are' not here for actual conversation; you're just here to insult. Wow! And for a moment there I thought you were better than thatFurstentum Liechtenstein wrote:No!... Please, no! I just find you funny! Unlike others here, I don't expect you capable of understanding much. They are optimists, I am a realist!Kenny wrote:Would you like me to give you an example of "what's true for me is not true for you"; that you might agree with?
FL
I love it when you put your foot in your mouth! I told you that I thought you were funny. And, no, I'm "not better than that" ...nor are you but I doubt you have the insight to see that yet.Kenny wrote:Oh I get it you are' not here for actual conversation; you're just here to insult. Wow! And for a moment there I thought you were better than that
Yes evidence is very important to meabelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny
Don't you value evidence for what you believe or reasons to believe what you do that are not just opinions?
I agree!abelcainsbrother wrote:I mean sure you can have your opinion and you can choose to believe it,but what good is it without real substance behind it?
Can you give an example? I mean I have refuted many claims for God, but I can’t remember ignoring any of them. And it does go both ways too; I try to respect the opinions of others, but I would also like my opinions respected as wellabelcainsbrother wrote:Many here have explained to you why they believe in God and have given you logical,rational and even evidence for God and yet you seem to ignore the substance
If you are referring to the last person I conversed with; I can assure you he had no interest in civil conversation. He provided no substance, he only provided insults. I suspect he was only looking for a fight. I chose to ignore him insteadabelcainsbrother wrote:and instead focus on what you think are insults and you focus on this instead of the substance of the argument.
again; can you provide any examples?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yet when it comes down to what you believe it is nonrational,non-logical with no reason to really believe it,but you do anyway.
I wouldn’t use the term “force” or “trick” but I have no problem with Christians trying to convince me to change my mind; as long as they show me the same respect and courtsy I show them. Is that too much to ask?abelcainsbrother wrote:Don't you know that Christians will not intentionally trick you or force you to change your mind?
Are you suggesting I shouldn’t express my opinion? Would you prefer I pretend what you say makes sense to me even though it does not? Would you prefer I pretend to convert to your beliefs when I actually do not? Would you prefer I lied just to make you feel better? Or would you prefer the truth.abelcainsbrother wrote:Yet no matter how much we give you,in return we get a hard-headed opinion.
I don'tabelcainsbrother wrote:Nobody can or will change your mind for you but I would just like to understand how you can believe what you do based on an opinionated decision to reject God at all costs.
I do.abelcainsbrother wrote:Even if you reject God at least find substantive reasons to believe what you do without just a misunderstanding of God and his word.
The founder of Greek philosphy firmly answered this with 'there is no difference'. It would seem more appropriate to have Thales in your sig explaning there is no difference between life & death, and that inanimate objects are living souls. The intro to the Stanford entry on life states:Jac3510 wrote:Of course. But what better way to demonstrate to passersby who might be inclinced to believe claims that the monkey can play than let him play and act out his nature. I realize that folks like you and me benefit nothing whatsoever from this conversation, but there are others who do read this material. I put up with his shenanigans--in large part, I give him the stage to act them out--to give those other people a chance to see it and think, "Oh Lord, please God, don't let me end up like that!" On another board I post at from time to time, I had a resident atheist's quote in my sig box just for that effect. It went something like, "Well how do you KNOW that a rock ISN'T alive?!?" The quote spoke for itself. People with stupid worldviews say stupid things. You know, knowing a tree by its fruit and all that.Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.
FL
If you're talking about Jac, I find his signature very funny - it gave me a good giggle.Proinsias wrote:The founder of Greek philosphy firmly answered this with 'there is no difference'. It would seem more appropriate to have Thales in your sig explaning there is no difference between life & death, and that inanimate objects are living souls. The intro to the Stanford entry on life states:Jac3510 wrote:Of course. But what better way to demonstrate to passersby who might be inclinced to believe claims that the monkey can play than let him play and act out his nature. I realize that folks like you and me benefit nothing whatsoever from this conversation, but there are others who do read this material. I put up with his shenanigans--in large part, I give him the stage to act them out--to give those other people a chance to see it and think, "Oh Lord, please God, don't let me end up like that!" On another board I post at from time to time, I had a resident atheist's quote in my sig box just for that effect. It went something like, "Well how do you KNOW that a rock ISN'T alive?!?" The quote spoke for itself. People with stupid worldviews say stupid things. You know, knowing a tree by its fruit and all that.Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.
FL
"It must be remembered that evolutionary phenomena are an inextricable aspect of living systems; any attempt to define life in the absence of this diachronic perspective will be futile."
Combined with your view that the earth is relatively young, ie not in the billions of years, you can surely see the difficulties in disussing life and rocks with somone who seems content to dismiss much of the past 500 hundred years or so of philosophy, geology & biology in favour of scholastic metaphysics alongside a holy book.
Signing off posts with an example of someone questioning your knowledge..and bragging about it...and just incase we missed it* spelling out how stupid they are......please Lord don't let me end up like that
*which i would have done as I turn off sigs on message boards.
So you think the question of whether or not rocks are alive is legitimate?Proinsias wrote:The founder of Greek philosphy firmly answered this with 'there is no difference'. It would seem more appropriate to have Thales in your sig explaning there is no difference between life & death, and that inanimate objects are living souls. The intro to the Stanford entry on life states:
"It must be remembered that evolutionary phenomena are an inextricable aspect of living systems; any attempt to define life in the absence of this diachronic perspective will be futile."
Combined with your view that the earth is relatively young, ie not in the billions of years, you can surely see the difficulties in disussing life and rocks with somone who seems content to dismiss much of the past 500 hundred years or so of philosophy, geology & biology in favour of scholastic metaphysics alongside a holy book.
Signing off posts with an example of someone questioning your knowledge..and bragging about it...and just incase we missed it* spelling out how stupid they are......please Lord don't let me end up like that
*which i would have done as I turn off sigs on message boards.
If you're ever castaway, then you'll realise it's true! Just ask Wilson.Jac3510 wrote:Again, to everyone, please, just take note of the fact of where modern atheism is driving people: rocks might be alive! YOU NEVER KNOW!!!11!1!11
Lets see now, this is the charming statement of someone who believes that there really-really was a world wide flood.Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.
FL
I thought you were tougher than that, Chinadoll! I really didn't see you as a delicate pink flower, sorry!Audie wrote:Lets see now, this is the charming statement of someone who believes that there really-really was a world wide flood. Regardless, thanks for expressing your true feelings toward me and others who dont share your views. Respond for lurkers as you wish, you are on ig.
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Download a copy of Jac's book, Making Divine Simplicity Simple - Rediscovering Who and What God is. You can find the link in the thread entitled Simplicity Book FINISHED in the Resources forum.
It is well worth the read.
FL
The above was your original post. The following is your latest post:Yrreg wrote:Here is my concept of God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.
Since the universe exists and it has a beginning and everything we we know to exist has a beginning, then it follows that God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning exists.
What are your comments to my take on God, from concept to existence?
Proinsias, RickD and I have suggested you read Jac's Making Divine Simplicity Simple yet you haven't yet done so. Read it, come back and we'll talk...or forever hold your peace.Yrreg wrote:I need your very own self-thought out ideas, based on facts and logic.
