jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (527 posts)

For Emile, to dodge

  1. 0
    jomineposted 4 years ago

    1. God exists
    2. God does not exist
    3. Theist believe 1
    4. Atheist believe 2


    [Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be
    true.]
    Everybody understand the first two. So I'll be the dummy who do not understand. The following are the questions
    1.So where is the agnost?
    2.What is god?
    3.What is 'exist'?

    1. lorlie6 profile image85
      lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi jomine-LOVE the definition of belief, but I don't have any clue about the questions about existence, either.

      PS:  You're no dummy.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks smile

    2. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
      Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Atheists dont believe number 2. They disblieve number one. There is a fundamental difference. Atheism is the lack of belief in something, not a belief in something hence your premise is a false one.




      I believe your argument is based on a false premise and therefore warrants no counter-argument

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You have mistaken my entire argument. Belief is holding a position to be true while existence is by 'definition' as WINSTON points out. So whether anybody believe or not, matter either exist or not. You cannot believe or disbelieve 'something', but only a statement and indirectly you are placing your trust(or lack of) in that person and his opinions
        Say the Theists believe god exists, does that make god exists? The atheists does not believe god exists, does that make god non-existent[if he exists]? So if god exists he has to exist by definition of word exist and not by belief.

        1. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What about the basis of belief? If someone based their belief on what can be widely accept and defined sets of existing objectivities (evidence), then their belief being based on what was actual then how do you define that? Let's say I know for sure that something does or doesn't exist, like god for example, what word would you use to describe me? That's not to say people can't still agree or disagree or completely deny my knowledge in said subject of god.

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Change god to sun. Do you believe sun exists or sun exists.
            What me or you believe or 'know for sure' doesn't change it, does it?
            Let as call it a fact or statement of fact.

            1. artblack01 profile image81
              artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Change god to sun.  When you change a word you change it's meaning as well, God (the fictional creator of the universe), the sun (the nuclear ball of light our world revolves around), both different.  God, has no evidence for his existence...  the sun, we couldn't exist without it, we can see it and feel it, and it can both help and harm us depending on our exposure to it.
              It does change the facts a bit and creates certain fictions.  Belief doesn't change the facts but the evidence changes what we call facts and what we call fiction.

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                We agree to a certain point.
                You say sun exist, so it is the hypothesis
                Now our theory, sun exist hence.......
                Now where is the evidence? We don't need any evidence, but only a rational theory with the object in question. The satellite lo existed even before we could see it.
                Regarding god, no human ever was able to for a theory with god.
                But suppose we are dealing with events, say battle of Waterloo, we need to have evidence to say such an event happened.
                So what I say is simple, to say objects exist  we should be able to explain the presence, while to say events occurred we need evidence.
                We cannot form any rational theory with god, we have no evidence for jesus's life.

                1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                  Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  oh my haha no evidence for jesus's life now where is my straight jacket i keep for special occasions?

                  prove to me that alexander the great existed and by the exact same method i will prove to you that jesus existed only far more convincingly...even the most well know atheists would say that jesus never existed jomine so please...just....stop.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You really need a straight jacket!!

                  2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I would say that proving Alexander the Great existed for sure isn't possible either. At least not in a way that everyone would agree.

                    However, No-one claims he is a god either. Nor do they claim he can take away your "sins", Heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, or sits at the right hand of God. Nor is anyone being told that they are "going to hell" or are a "sinner" if they don't believe he existed either. There isn't 1/3 of the world believing that he will return and "resurrect" his chosen followers or any of the other attributes attributed to Jesus. No-one is killing others in his name or for his glory, nor are they using his "teachings" to condemn others in how they live they lives.

                    He is just thought of as someone who was a King/Ruler during his time.

                    Just thinking outloud...

                  3. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It isn't so important to prove either one of them existed, what is important is the fact that Jesus claimed to be the son of God.

                  4. artblack01 profile image81
                    artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, Alexander the great has much more evidence that he existed than Jesus. Alexander was an actual person of unquestionable existence, the people who wrote about him had lived when he lived. Alexander had direct influence over the area in which he ruled and there is direct physical evidence that he existed. The only evidence for Jesus is the Bible and all other writings about Jesus came 50 years after his supposed death. Jesus was supposedly a carpenter, however there is no object that exists that was ever touched or crafted by Jesus or his supposed family. The shroud of turin is not old enough to be of Jesus, and the image of the man is most likely someone who was punished in a similar method, for many were by and because of Christianity... Alexander has direct evidence Jesus has hearsay. I've studied this stuff that is how I know.

                  5. artblack01 profile image81
                    artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this
      2. lorlie6 profile image85
        lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, folks, but I just have to go off-topic for a minute; Jesus, your polar bear/duck endlessly cracks me up! lol

      3. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        According to this statement, Atheists believe nothing. Bullpuckey. Atheistic beliefs, unless they are held by someone mentally on a level with Einstein or Hawking (or a thousand others) are based as much on faith as any deist. If you can't prove the math, you have to take their word for it! (The 'geniuses') Atheists vest their faith in man, and man alone. Good luck with that.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are mistaken once again, many Atheists (me included) came to their own conclusions. I was a teenager in a Christian home. I didn't even know what an Athesit was so I kept my convictions to myself for about 10 years. I thought I was the only one who thought this way.

        2. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's to assume that someone who studies these people can't understand them because they are geniuses. I understand them and the math, it's not unreachable knowledge, anyone can come to their level of knowledge and make discoveries on par with theirs. All one must do is to think and learn and study and desire to know. Thinking is hard for those that don't try.  Einstein wanted to know, he asked the questions, Hawkings as well, what neither of them ever did was assume ANYTHING. That is what stops us, when something stumps us instead of finding out for ourselves we assume.  I put my faith in no man, I assume nothing and I question everything.  I went to school, I questioned not just what was but what I was taught and told... One of the great things about science class is the labs, where you can test what you have been told as being true or false.

          1. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The only proof christians have of their god, is the agreement of other sky fairy worshippers. They think, that just because there is a body of believers, that what they believe is absolutely true. Just because there is consensus about the belief, does not make it true.

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually believers know that what they believe is truth because they have a personal relationship with God, through Christ.

              Numbers have nothing to do with it, although 2.3 billion believers IS an impressive number.

              This is not an exclusive club, (as 2.3 billion folk know) anyone can have that relationship, but it does mean that SELF and EGO need to be submitted to God and Christ.

              So I can understand why some refuse to even consider what they are missing by their recalcitrance, and need to defend their error by attacking those who do hold that relationship.

              1. mischeviousme profile image60
                mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                One can surrender self and ego without a god, it's called being mindful or better yet, taking stock of one's personal position, attitude, emotional content and whatever other state of being you should wish to add.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Who do you surrender it too?

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    logic, reasoning and rationality. Why does there have to be a reason, can one not be good or right without a christ, a muhammad or a krishna?

              2. artblack01 profile image81
                artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A relationship with one fictional character through a relationship with a person with questionable existence neither of which can be proven without a doubt to have existed to anyone who was not indoctrinated into the religion or who has done his research into whether or not Jesus actually existed.

    3. Matthew Kirk profile image89
      Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Philisophically I have heard an argument that 'exist' is a very difficult term to describe or prove.

      If I believe I see a cow in the woods and the next man to pass by sees a bunch of newspapers blowing around then does my belief that I have seen a cow mean that the cow exists?

      Personally I think that 'exist' is fully subjective, but not on a one to one personaly basis. Just because half the population believe in god doesn't mean that god exists for that half. I think that empiricism is the only way to know if something exists. I think that if we all did a 'critical thinking' course (what we call it in the UK) then there would be no belief in the 'existence' of god, which is obviously what this forum is getting at.

      Those of us who have that knowledge (i.e. how to reason effectively) are the ones who can decide whether anything 'exists' and should decide upon its definition. People who believe in things without using an effective method of reasoning should have no say...

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The only way an object can exist, is if the label is understood by the observer. So then the existance of an object is an illusion, though only in the sense that the object is labelled with words that could mean absolutely nothing, if not attached to something to give it meaning.

  2. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    1. I am here.
    2. I am here.
    3. I am here.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I thought it was something like I am who I am.

  3. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I retract my statement in the other thread. I'm not sure dedicating a thread to me was necessary.

    I realize agnosticism is an enigma to you, but it isn't really rocket science. Billions of people claim the existence of a supreme being. I don't believe their stated explanations are possible. Religion has been proven to be a lie, but I'm willing to concede that some experience has led them to think it is true.  The what remains undetermined.

    Until we have clear evidence that billions of people have been deluded, or until we have clear knowledge as to what force they claim to know....I'm afraid we don't have an answer.

    As to the question, what is exist.....I honestly think it is either a silly question, or you haven't explained your stance clearly. It always appears that you are arguing for argument's sake. I'm not dodging. I just don't see the point.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok let me explain, if I ask you what an apple is, what will you do? If I'm an alien who has not seen an apple your only choice will be to show me an apple or its picture.
      Now if I ask you what justice is, you can only define what justice is, can never point to justice or its picture.
      Now take the statements. apple exists, justice exists, heat exists and cold exists. Only apple you can point to an name that is only apple is physical and an object.
      Cold is Absence of heat, so we cannot then say both heat and cold exist. And neither of the three are physical, and all three are subjective while apple is objective. We call all the three concepts.
      Then we'll be forced to make the objective definition of exist as having physical presence.
      Now when we say god exist, it means god is an object and not a concept.
      Now there are different objects in this universe, so how do we decide which one to call god?
      The common supposed qualities of god are creator of everything, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Since the last three are contradictory terms we know god cannot be any of the three. Now for being a creator, we already know from the definition of exist that god has physical matter and Since nothing can self create, at least that matter that is making up god has to exist and then god is not the creator of  that matter.(all creation scenarios are ontological contradictions).
      Then what else do we got? It is the Theists who came up with the idea of god, but the qualities they attribute are not possible. If I say apple is a fruit that is triangular in shape, salty in smell you can make out from my description that such a fruit can never exist. So why the special privilege be given to god?
      Regarding your question whether masses are deluded, I don't think so. Masses do not use critical thinking out of fear. God was the name given to nature and the unknown which humans feared and which later anthropomorphed to be the present god.[history of Hinduism shows it excellentl]
      Now tell me where you differ. [I'll keep the religion question to a later time and be contend with god alone, for fear of losing track]

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        First, you are attempting to limit the parameters of the use of the word exist to ones that suit your argument. I'm afraid I don't agree wholeheartedly. Concepts exist in our minds. Love, hate and injustice exist because we have agreed, to some extent, as to what defines these concepts within our minds. We don't have to be able to point to a concrete form in order to prove their existence because we can feel it.

        But, we both agree that God does not exist within the parameters of your definition. You mention qualities that are normally attributed to the concept of God. Omniscience and omnipresence are easily explained when you remove the concept of time. As we have already agreed; remove time from the equation and you have something that appears to have always existed. If there were truly some form of consciousness that we have yet to quantify, that lives outside of the linear parameters of time, I have no doubt that it would be able to give the impression of being all knowing since it has the attribute of being all present.

        As far as the questions on the 'creator' I honestly believe we have to get a better handle on the optical delusion of our consciousness before we will have a firm grasp on what, exactly, has been created.

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes concepts exist in our mind, that is, a mind is needed for that concepts. When there is no mind, then no concept. Objects are not limited by such constraints, it exists irrespective of mind.
          There is no condition that my definition should be used, you can give your own definition, the only condition is it should be objective.Omniscience is possible the way you explained, then god is seeing our past, present and future that means our future is gods past, then we can have no free will.
          Omnipresence is not possible, for it means god is everywhere, that is god is infinite. There'll be no space left and then we won't be able to move around. An omnipresent god also loses shape which make it exist.
          But at the least, the creator has to exist.
          Now logic says any decision maker need a mechanism to make the decision hence god should have some stuff on his body.
          Now one basic premise universally agreed is that a complex mechanism cannot suddenly come into existence(remember the tornado in junk yard argument). So if we assume this thing is created it'll in ad infinitum and each preceding one had to be more complex which will be a contradiction. Then the only alternative is god has to evolve(by that I only mean assemble from simpler substances).
          So the simpler substances and the space that give shape to this has to be present always.
          So logically and rationally only space and matter are eternal. God or any sentient being are non contingent and has to evolve and are not eternal.
          [creation is an action mediated by one object on another, so we need at least two objects]
          So if we can agree in principle that everything is not created and omnipotence and Omnipresence is not possible and omniscience preclude free will, now what other attribute is there with which we can distinguish god?

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, I don't think something simply existing outside of the parameters of time would negate free will. If an entity does exist, knowing what happens and changing the course are two different things entirely. It's like a Christian told me in another forum that his wife prayed for a new floor. She felt she had been told they would get a new floor. Apparently, shortly thereafter, there was a massive accident (he said explosion) in the bathroom and they subsequently had to replace the floor.

            Taken at face value, assuming she had been given that assurance, what exactly did the entity do...other than let her know she would have a new floor? That's all I'm saying. If I could sit back and see the entirety of your life all at the same time I could certainly make observations that you could believe proved I was omnipotent, without my lifting a finger.

            But, I think the creator argument is a pointless one. On both sides. You are correct in everything you say. But, the church has made foolish claims throughout its existence in its attempt to prove cosmic wisdom. The earth was flat; being one example. We define creation as the mass within the universe we perceive. I'm not so sure that this is the true 'creation'. I know it drives people mad that there are those of us who find the oddities of energy so fascinating on a spiritual level, but I'm afraid this fascination will persist until we have additional information.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              smile
              Its fascinations and mysteries that make life interesting!

        2. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well put.

    2. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      God of the gaps.

  4. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Think it would then be:
    I am who - I am who - I am who.

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ehyeh asher ehyeh : אהיה אשר אהיה : I am who am I .
      literal expressive translation, like kayak, reading the same front to back.
      the connotation suggests a innocuous statement to a innocuous question, else a rhetorical response to a ridiculous question, as in, "Really? you don't know who I am?" kind of thing.

      James

    2. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually it IS:

      I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE Exodus 3:14

      ...and no amount of bleating will change that.

      1. artblack01 profile image81
        artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well the translation could be different and the interpretation of the translation could change it's meaning. The bible is full of changes in meaning based on different interpretations of the translations, that way someone could understand what it says even if the meaning that the author had intended has changed.

        1. aguasilver profile image88
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          559 way·yō·mer וַיֹּ֤אמֶר     said

          430 ’ĕ·lō·hîm אֱלֹהִים֙ God

          413 ’el- אֶל־ to

          4872 mō·šeh, מֹשֶׁ֔ה Moses

          1961 ’eh·yeh אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה I am

          834 ’ă·šer אֲשֶׁ֣ר WHO

          1961 ’eh·yeh; אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה I am

          559 way·yō·mer, וַיֹּ֗אמֶר said

          3541 kōh כֹּ֤ה Thus

          559 ṯō·mar תֹאמַר֙ shall say

          Sorry, that one sems to have stayed unchanged....

          http://interlinearbible.org/exodus/3-14.htm

          1. artblack01 profile image81
            artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Which bibles are you comparing that to? Just yours or all of them?

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually the Hebrew one.

              Those squiggly bits are Hebrew, which it was written in.

              1. artblack01 profile image81
                artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, now we have to determine cultural meaning rather than literal meaning.

          2. artblack01 profile image81
            artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And whether s bible is correctly translated doesn't make it more meaningful to us. That is a different argument.

          3. artblack01 profile image81
            artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Also Elohim is plural.

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ...as in the trinity you mean, yes that makes sense.

              1. artblack01 profile image81
                artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, that is your interpretation, I don't mean the trinity.  Look at the beginning of Genesis, the word Elohim is used.  Before the trinity.

                I find the concept of the trinity silly.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Genesis 1:26
                  BIB: נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩
                  NAS: man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
                  KJV: man in our image, after our likeness:
                  INT: make man our image to our likeness rule

                  Would seem to disagree, in OUR image... so who else was there?

                  We know that the Holy Spirit was, for He 'moved over the waters'

                  Genesis 1:2
                  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

                  and we can know that Christ was there also:

                  John 1 1:3

                  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

                  The same was in the beginning with God.

                  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

                  Anyhow, if you think the trinity is silly, you are not alone, just inaccurate.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not picking, just noting a thought based from how you have worded your response...

                    It sounds as if there is implications of more than one...Multiple...Not one in the same...

                    From a reader perspective only....

                  2. artblack01 profile image81
                    artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    First Jesus came after the fact, in the New Testament, Jesus is also disputed. not just by many in the history and science and atheist community but by most of the Jews, I will however not argue someones fiction with them.  Like you arguing the validity of the Book of Mormon with the Mormons as compared to the New Testament of the Bible, where Jesus says he would be in other lands to teach to others.
                    However, how will your explanation of Genesis differ before the writing of the New Testament?  will there be a Holy Trinity? 

                    The Bible is still written by man, has the errors man makes and is amended by men in the ways men do.  This doesn't make the Bible a valid source for truth.

                    Also when the Bible says God did something, doesn't make it so.

                    And how is the Trinity being silly inaccurate when it comes to the amount of authors even the believers claim it has and the amount of explanations it is necessary to make in order to defend the Bible?  "Oh, you just don't understand what was written" is the defense of works that are badly written.

  5. 0
    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

    Emile R.,

    I hope you don't mind me stepping in here a second as I hope to offer an explanation.

    While it is true that the idea is to limit the scope of the word "exist", the reason to do so is not to "win the argument".  The purpose is establish a precise definition so that there is no confusion as to meaning. 

    While one can certainly say that "thoughts exist", it is equally certain that a thought is a dynamic action, that the action certainly occurs, but there is no single object named "thought" like there is an object named "apple".  The idea of precisely defining exist is so there is no mistaking what is meant when one states "x" exists.

    By this definition only real objects exist.  This is not word play to win a debate.  This definition is applied so that there is no confusion, no ambiguity in our statements.  What this does is to mimic nature - in nature, there are no maybes.  Nature is binary.  Real/Not real.  The only thing we can we can all accept as a starting basis is that reality exists, or, existence exists, meaning matter exists.  Matter is a real physical presence, i.e., it has shape (even if unknown) and a location (even if moving).

    To borrow from an old Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, physical objects are the known knowns.

    This start yields a rational conclusion as long as no contradictions are involved.  It is not about what ifs and possibilities.  It is as objective as is humanly possible, i.e., attempting to remove the observer from the equation if only by imagining him to be gone.

    The entire idea is to separate what is known from what might be possible.  Debating the "might be possibles" is a function of religion and philosophy.  Explaining a rational method to resolve a consumated event is the application of reasoning.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry. You are still asking to be given a handicap.  You post in a Religion and Philosophy forum. The whole d*mn discussion revolves around the might be possible. If your only purpose is to argue the possible uses of a single word I'm not the fish you are looking for.

      We say thoughts exist, yet we understand they are actions. We say love exists, although we know it is born of an emotion within us. I doubt there is an adult alive in America today that isn't aware of this.  None believe these are concrete. None are unaware of the nuances of the meaning of the word. I realize you believe you have a valuable lesson to teach and I believe you are being purposely obtuse.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think He is being obtuse. You are right any English person can know love, thought and justice are concepts but what about the concepts in physics. How many can differentiate the following, energy, field, force, universe,  dimension, wave?
        Coming to think about it even the word cause is treated as an object as 'uncaused first cause'

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We base our deepest concerns on nouns...

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So we make nouns out of verbs!

            1. lorlie6 profile image85
              lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nouns out of verbs?  Seriously?  What's the world coming to?  We Are Doomed.

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                smile

      2. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, Emile, I am not being obtuse but clear, as you cannot tell me how it is that love, morality, or any other concept exists.  I can tell you how real objects exist - by definition.  We define something is a real physical presence if it has shape and occupies a location.

        How does one define exist when pertaining to both love and rocks?  What definition is equally viable?  And keep in mind, definitions explain why something is what it is instead of being something else and a definition is not simply a negation or synomym, exist = to be doesn't work, and dark = absence of light doesn't work.

        Some try to solve this dilemma with some claim like, well, if it can be thought of it exists - but that would mean that if it weren't thought of it would not exist - existence would rely on brains to think.  I am sure that the fact that no one was there to think them up and therefore they did not exist would be a surprise to the bacteria that predated man. 

        See, it's not that easy of question.  However, one can at least resolve the question to what a basic parameter: object+location=exist.

        Everyone accepts the idea that matter exists, and it can be reasoned that the moon existed before any human cast eye on it.  Real physical objects can exist outside of man's knowledge or understanding - concepts, i.e., thoughts, are dependent upon man's brain to exist.

        That is the separation.  That is the entire point.

        Rocks are real.  Love is not real but an idea that expresses a conceptualized action or feeling or some combination of both.

        That we acknowledge that humans think of things like love does not make them real.  It makes them human inventions.

        Thanks.

        1. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I learn a lot from you. Or rather, I realize a lot because of you. That's a way that I've never thought before, and puts things into perspective.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you.  The idea is not to debate.  The idea is to offer rational explanations that are not dependent on what ifs and maybes.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You had a pretty good point, until you ascribed emotions to humans, only. Which made me think about animals who display love, anger, loyalty etc.. Do animals feel these emotions, or do we simply think they do because the behavior patterns imply it. And there it is Winston. Emotions do exist because we not only feel them, we see them. They become real when a being becomes the embodiment of that emotion in our eyes. And when we also become the embodiment of the emotion to the observer through our actions. They take on substance through our actions.

          So, love and a rock are not the same; but both exist in the eyes of the observer. Love is sometimes fleetingly observed in the same place, sometimes over long periods. But, it exists just like that rock does.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't get why this is so difficult to understand.  Whether or not something exists or not is solely a function of definition: what does it mean for something to "exist".

            How do emotions exist?

            Real objects exist pursuant to this definition: exist=physical presence, that which has shape and location.

            How do you define exist so that emotions are said to exist? 

            (Emotions do exist because we not only feel them, we see them. They become real when a being becomes the embodiment of that emotion in our eyes)

            So, to a blind person there is no such thing as emotions?  If you are alone on the dessert with no one else, how can you see your own emotions? 

            Sentience does not cut it as a definition for exist.  The only way to answer the question is through pure reasoning.

            The answer is not an emotive one.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm in complete agreement. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Emotions live on several levels. You feel them, you act on them, so others perceive them.

              The blind guy argument is bogus. People with handicaps find ways to compensate. Not being blind, I don't know how the mind's eye works in that situation.

              Being in a desert is the same question as, 'if a tree falls in the woods with no one there, would it make a sound?'

              You say exist = physical presence. When acting out emotions they have a physical presence. You. The observer sees it in you. It may be emotive on one side or both. I can dispassionately observe behavior.

              Anyway. You disagree and I concede that you've presented a better argument. I simply don't find it convincing.

            2. kess profile image60
              kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It not difficult to understand just difficult to accept...

              Exist is a term used as to reference all things, both physical and non physical.....this is the general understanding of most.....including you based on your statements.

              So when you define it as you did to propose your argument it is onesided and does not incorporate the other persons view point ...in which their argument lies.

              If the argument was merely about words and their definitions then your position in valid.

              But the discussion goes way beyond the words...the discussion from the beginning is about Ideas perceptions of the human mind, by which words  are used to communicate.

              It appears now that the word has become the topic rather than the Ideas....

              We understood your position but do you understand ours.....

              If the discussion was meant to be along the lines you presented ....there would have been no discussion/argument....for all have already agreed to this.

              BTW
              The discussion is about the existence of God and God is also provable  through  physical manifestations...just as any and everything else.

              It is just that ones unbelief would cause  that one to reject it, and it is the same reason why they are unable to see this side of the coin.

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It is not about incorporating the opposite idea, it is about expressing oneself clearly.
                Proofs are opinions, if your god has to depend on opinions, its a poor show for an omnipotent.

                1. kess profile image60
                  kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So then you do discuss with one eye closed, yet you ask for proof....

                  No wonder youre still debating.....

                  Trust me you would never know unless your mindset changes.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So asking "what did you say" is one eye closed?
                    Trust me, I never asked proof, if I want an opinion, I can form it myself.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If you have can prove the existence of God through physical manifestations, I'll listen and so will most. Don't assume because your attempt at proof is not excepted that other have a closed mind. Someone praying for a new floor and getting it does not prove the existence of God. It does prove how small minded some people are.

                1. kess profile image60
                  kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Everything is true if you take it from the perspective of the observer....

                  It takes a closed mind not to see this.

                  And even more so when you know exactly what Truth is.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Why the observer see what he sees is the study of neurology and psychiatry. We certainly are not discussing that.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It takes a closed mind to think this.
                    I know exactly what the Truth is. You should listen to me, I'm right. I believe God exists in a tiny box in my pocket. That must be true according to you because it's from my perspective.
                    Just because you think you know what the Truth is don't make it true.

                    You must have forgot to include your proof of the existence of God through physical manifestations?

        3. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting and I agree, but what if we find feeling and consciousness can be attributed to a specific space in ones brain? From what I remember of the study of split brained individuals, consciousness lies in the left hemisphere. The left brain is responsible for the play by play is you will. Some associate the soul with consciousness. If we know which part of the brain is responsible for consciousness, does not consciousness exist while the brain is alive or intact? If we know where feelings come from (part of brain) are they not real? We certainly know why we have feelings from an evolutionary stand point, and if we know what part of the brain they originate from, they must be real while the brain is alive. The definition of the soul changes for individuals, but if the soul is a product of the brain and the brain dies so will the soul.

  6. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    AKA Winston wrote
    The entire idea is to separate what is known from what might be possible.  Debating the "might be possibles" is a function of religion and philosophy.

    = - = --

    me
      "Might be possible" is what science is all about.  To establish a list of  known possibles which are more or less what we believe them to be, thereby establishing a given set of probabilities which is little more than a posibility, each having varying degrees of probality. 
       It sometimes requires many words to say nothing and sometimes just a few words to say much.
       
       Good mornin  AKA, Emile R and all.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is the neo-religion of new science.  I agree.

  7. kess profile image60
    kessposted 4 years ago

    All things ultimately exist internally merely as a peception or concept of mind with or/and without one or more sensory external attributes.

    So without the mind there is no existence...
    So then what is no existence to the mind?

    Existence itself is merely a mind concept and if in it's definition as a word, it incorporates only a portion of that which is is expected to incodporate, then it is made what it is not...

    So we see the true nature of a mind concept being limited by written letters. For the letters have the  appearrance of incorporating the whole of existence, which is an ippossibilty because it is merely a part of it.

    In the discussion, the goal supposedly is to assess so as  to discover Truth.
    But truth again is merely a mind concept of which each has their own personal interpretation...

    So I say unless there is a common understanding of these three, Mind existence and Truth, there can  be no fruitful discussion.

    Emile I also put it to you that more information (knowledge) is not needed for all it will do is add to the confusion.

    What is actually needed is an understanding of how all these things work together seamlessly.

    So as long as there is a division in any ones mind about the concept of Truth, Mind, and Existence that one would be as if he is totally ignorant.

    But to the one who do not have such a division, to him it is as if he knows all things.

    So it not a matter about what you know but a matter of how one thinks.

  8. Scottye Davis profile image71
    Scottye Davisposted 4 years ago

    Dreams have no substance, Nor is there proof. Yet they exist in our memories and thoughts. Prove that you had a dream. You cannot. Yet here they are.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Define exist!

  9. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    We can not prove what life exists.

      We can observe something that we believe has life in it.
    We can observe things which we believe doesn't have life in it.
       
       Based upon these unproven beliefs we can observe the differences in the actavities of these things and make assumptions as to the existance of life.
      We can even build equiptment which measures different actavities of these things which we assume contains life against the actavities of these things which we assume doesn't.
      But we can not measure life itself. I have never even seen a picture of life.
      Has anyone held this thing called life in their hands?  NO they haven't. They may have held something in their hands that they assume contains life.
       But life itself ...  no one has ever seen, yet we know that it does exist,

       Cause if it doesn't ...  We don't

      I was going some place with this ... BUT  ??

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is quite accurate as the basis for existence is not one of proof but of definition.  Existence can only be defined.

      Proof is subjective.  Proof to the theist that god is real is no proof at all to the atheist.  The only way to resolve this dilemma is with reasoning.  Reasoning begins with precise definitions of key terms.

      Nothing can exist until we understand what it means to exist - in other words, until it is defined.

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did you say, "Nothing can exist until we understand what it means to exist"
         
           Why didn't you just say that in the first place.  Now I understand?   
        =- = - =
        Did you say,- in other words, until it is defined.

          in other words, once we have determined how we want to describe something    it doesn't exist? 

           I need some help with this,

        1. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Until one can find a concrete meaning of what it means to "exist" can one discuss "existence." Otherwise, you'll be talking in circles, possibly using "exist" in different ways. (Not only "exist," but words in general)

        2. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, but have you got any comprehension problem?
          Unless you define the word 'exist', what are we to understand when you say love or rock exist?
          Love is an emotion that need a being to occur while the rock is there and is not contingent on any being to appreciate or form!

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I may have some  comprehension problems but this isn't one of them.

              Things DO exist whether we know what exist means or not.
               "      "   "     "      "  are aware that they exist or not.

              Many things existed long before humans existed.  How did that happen?

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The question is What do you mean when you say something 'exist'?

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That is a little different than what was said.

                  I might say that my comprehension of something doesn't exist unless I can define what IT is.
                  But to say that IT doesn't exist unless I can define what exist is, is a bit of an overstatement.
                  This is how false understandings are created.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What was said was if something exist, it is contingent upon the word exist. You can say love exist or rock exist, love is a concept which need a being to conceive while rock is an object that is there irrespective of the being. That is concepts are mere thought, an action while objects have shape and is not thought, but physical.
                  Now if you use exist for both love and rock, then how do you differentiate between object and concept?
                  So it is the proper meaning and use of word 'exist' that differentiate object and concept. It is simply about the proper conveyance of idea.

                  1. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I must have missed something by not reading every post.

                      But I would think that the thing itself can exist apart from our understanding of it.
                      When we are discussing mankinds perseption of a thing, that is another matter.
                      A rose is still a rose regardless of our consepts.
                    An eagle is an eagle regardless of what the rabbit thinks.

                      You are right though, the rabbits concept can not exist without the rabbit.

  10. justuhmaina profile image59
    justuhmainaposted 4 years ago

    GOD.THE ALL MIGHTY..THE HIGHER POWER...THE ONE....THE CARPENTER.....ALPHA......GOD.......There is a more powerful one that we all have watching over us.That is, the mind that carries the soul through the dark times of life in which every individual is molded from. The choice that a single person on this big dot called Earth makes is based on history of the person making the choice. No matter how pushy the word GOD has become, it is up to the person making the choice to believe in some Higher Power to save the person that really believes in a Savior coming to that believer. So as the 6 billion plus fight over the truth of GOD, what the mind believes is up to the soul to to help guide the body through the dark times in life to find the Faith that makes a sense if reason for all three to be in Harmony.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Spam/trash.

    2. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      justuhmaina, only Christians believe this, you could easily replace your god with any other god of any other religion, the people will still agree or disagree with such a statement. One thing that statement will never have is truth, and one day it may even come under the total view of mythology, Zeus did.

  11. Scottye Davis profile image71
    Scottye Davisposted 4 years ago

    ex·ist
       [ig-zist] Show IPA
    verb (used without object)
    1.
    to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
    2.
    to have life or animation; live.
    3.
    to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
    4.
    to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
    5.
    to achieve the basic needs of existence,  as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So when you say heat exists does that mean heat has got life?

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi,

      With your post you are displaying your personal psychological makeup rather than making any type of valid point.  It is obvious your are of the authoritarian/totalitarian type personality.  What you are posting with your dictionary response is your considered opinion of an "authority" on language.

      Critial thinkers do not blindly accept "authoritative" opinions but look more deeply into the subject.

      Unfortunately, you have missed the entire discussion about "existence" - you simply seem not to "get it" at all.

      Curious, as you are not alone.  Seems many cannot grasp this very simple notion.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's OK if you don't get it Winston. We still enjoy reading your posts. smile

      2. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I were to be able to so elequently descripe the faults that others are carrying ...   I must have a personal experience with them myself.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are completely correct, Jerami.  I have had the exact same faults I describe and learned (in my late forties) how to overcome those foibles to become a better person by abandoning irrational beliefs.

      3. lorlie6 profile image85
        lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello, AKA Winston-As a 'critical thinker'-IMO, I would argue that the term 'existence' is not so very simple, if that's what you are truly implying.  In my Philosophy courses in College, all definitions of 'existence' were questionable.  Agreed? wink

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lorlie,

          There are two (at least) types of languages used - everyday speech and what I will call "critical" speech, or scientific speech.

          Philosophy and religion adopt common everday language to express their ideas, but that leads to nothing but opinions being stated.  Precise critical speech needs something more.  It starts with the default position and builds with
          definitions.

          The default position is this: existence exists, meaning the one thing we should all be able to agree with is that we are here, i.e., our bodies and all other matter exists.

          So, how can we define exist so that it explains this reality?  By using reason, we can determine that all matter has some type of shape, even if we don't know that that shape is or cannot see it.  We also can reason that at any given instant, matter occupies a position, even if we do not know what it is or where it is.  Thus, we have defined how our default position must be: exist = physical presence, that which has shape and location.

          It turns out that physical presence is a synonym for objects.  This is all we know for 99.9% certainty of our default claim, that existence exists, that matter exists,  and matter is objects.

          We can reason that matter exists regardless of knowledge of it or belief in its existence.  We can reason that matter is completely objective, meaning it exists irrespective of an observer.

          Everything past this point is describing a relationship between or among those objects - descrptions are determined by brains, so they cannot be objective and must rely on an observer.  Anything reliant upon an observer is dependent upon the lifetime of that observer and could not have preceded the observer.

          That is simply sujective information - observer dependent.

          Reality (nature) is a binary system: exist/don't exist.  There is no other option available.  Objects exist objectively (without observer).  Nothing else can be said to fulfill this initial criteria (existence minus observer.)

          Hope that helps.

          1. lorlie6 profile image85
            lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Your comment is brilliant, AKA!

            "That is simply sujective information - observer dependent."

            "Reality (nature) is a binary system: exist/don't exist.  There is no other option available.  Objects exist objectively (without observer).  Nothing else can be said to fulfill this initial criteria (existence minus observer.)"

            For example, the old adage about "...does a tree truly fall in the forest if no one is there to hear it?", or "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"  The binary system is absolute truth, no question, IMO.  Subjectivity/objectivity are the complications inherent in such a 'debate'.
            Thank you for your clarification.  I do believe we agree here.
            Laurel

          2. aguasilver profile image88
            aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Does love exist?

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Does 'walk' exist?

              What is 'love'?
              What is 'exist'?

              1. aguasilver profile image88
                aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                AKA gave a good description of exist which seemed to my primitive mind a fair comment, excepting that in his version I got the impression that for anything to exist it MUST have substance:

                "Reality (nature) is a binary system: exist/don't exist.  There is no other option available.  Objects exist objectively (without observer).  Nothing else can be said to fulfill this initial criteria (existence minus observer.)"

                My question was simple, by this criterion, does love exist?

                Perhaps in your great wisdom you will answer it.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps in your advanced wisdom you will define "exist" objectively.

                  Concepts does not exist, it is conceived, that is, it is an action like run, an action which is performed by brain. At least you have the ability to tell whether love is an object or a concept, I wish.

                  1. aguasilver profile image88
                    aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So love is a concept and does not exist?

                    I wish you would just answer the question?

                    Was AKA correct in his findings, does love not exist???

                  2. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    does love exist? and what is exist?

                    i think that this in itself is a good case for god because exist is what god made us and love is what god gave so thanks

            2. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              aquasilver,

              Why would you ask me when I provided a precise definition of "exist" and explained why in critical speech one should use such a precise definition.

              Let's apply our definition to the word "love".  Does love have shape?  No.  Then it is no an object - it does not exist per the definition of exist.

              Love is not objective - love requires an observer; ergo, love is subjective and describes a relationship between objects.

              The easiest way to think about the structure is this: objects or concepts.  Concepts are subjective - they have no meaning without an observer to create their definition.  Real physical objects exist irrespective of an observer.

              1. Matthew Kirk profile image89
                Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Personally I think that many people would benefit not from asking the question 'does god exist?' but instead asking 'why WOULD god exist'?

                Ask yourselves some of the questions brought up here: http://matthewkirk.hubpages.com/hub/Why … -not-exist

                Would love to see someone question their faith out of the above.

                1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                  Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You just want us to read your hub haha

                  1. artblack01 profile image81
                    artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Why not?

                2. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
                  EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Reminds me of what Jefferson said.

                  "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." ~Thomas Jefferson

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You mean what the self-admitted Christian said?

                    I'll post the quotation if you like.

                    Honest.

                    smile

    3. lorlie6 profile image85
      lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      For Shame, Scottye! lol  Dictionary definitions don't always hit on the 'truth'!  You know?  Still, great reference!

  12. penofone profile image59
    penofoneposted 4 years ago

    Believing the cross of hatred exists propounds the evidence in proportionate terms of endearment. What casually is admired by the passerbys is vaguely administered as a propagation of terms that are described as follows:

    1. God exists in the temple of our bodies

    2. God is unbiased in his judgement of good character

    3. Gods undying wish is for his dearest devotees only.

    4. God doesn't discriminate on the basis of a mindset or form of gods.

    5. God is good to those that follow scriptures

    6. God loves all his children

  13. Eaglekiwi profile image74
    Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago

    I think the English language has too many words lol sometimes there are several words to describe the same thing ,or one word used over another can be perceived  quite differently.

    Whatever happened to the 5 main senses?

    The of course at why does anything need to be proved to be believed?

    i.e I know a certain Boeing flight will touch down in 3 hrs and 10 mins, because someone told me and I believed them.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Believe me, if you give me 1 million dollars you will have eternal life and anything you wish for.
      PS: you can paypal me, and Hope you do it in one or two days.
      I'm not providing any proof because you said you don't need any.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image74
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No witnesses
        No Holy Spirit to testify (Its a Spirit thing)
        No evidence as seen in changed lives.

        God doesn't have to prove anything,yet His creation testifies new life every day.


        No, your offer has already been dupiclated by the 'Self Help' industry to the tune of billions.


        I will stay with the real deal smile

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The church industry!

  14. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago

    Atheist "beliefs" are in fact, not beliefs because they are supported by evidence.

    1. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Which atheists choose to believe are accurate, despite the fact that they change regularly as some expert points out why what he presents is now 'evidence' that trumps the 'evidence' which ruled until then.

      Sure I can see that basing ones life upon 'evidence' which is shifting sand makes sense, over basing it on personal experience and 'evidence' that has never changed.

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
        Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's a point if I'm understanding you correctly.
        Evidence for evolution changes based on the times and also wether or not they dig up a new set of bones which contradicts their whole theory so they change it and now the  evidenceis replaced whereas with the bIble it has been unchanged since it was made and is still just as true today as it ever was?
        If that's what you meant I like it and aim to use plagiarise it as my own:D

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So we should still be killing witches and homosexuals?

          "You should not let a sorceress live."  Exodus 22:17

          "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  Leviticus 20:13

          How many homos have YOU killed today?

          1. vector7 profile image59
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Old law sweetie pie..

            You DO know what "Testament" means right?

            Oh wait.. I see your post. Nevermind.

            smile

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But be careful because it shows you have no understanding of evolution or science, so quoting it makes you look silly.

          The theory of evolution has not changed since Darwin. The theory is the same and all evidence points to it being correct. Science by it's nature is critical and looks for flaws, but none have been found. New finding don't change the theory of evolution it just supports it. When science finds another missing link, lets say "Lucy" it supports the theory of evolution. What may change is that perhaps we thought humans evolved one and it turns out we evolved another. But Evolved is the key word.

          1. vector7 profile image59
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution cannot exist in harmony with entropy..

            And entropy is fact.

            Don't attempt the science lesson.

            Irreducible complexity too, just so you know there are still others.

            "evolved" nothing..

            Never been replicated or repeated. [no body transformations, PERIOD]

            And if it can't or hasn't been replicated or repeated [now, not when you didn't exist] then it ain't science.

            Epic 'fail' is the key word..

            Hoccus pocus.. 

            ::poof::

            DNA written language magically appears!

            lol

            Go evo team!

            Man, this popcorn is SO goood..

            smile

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Are you Okay? Because you didn't complete one sentence and nothing made any sense.

              1. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm fine.. A little on the sore side from lifting, but I'll manage.

                Thanks for asking. tongue

                And it seems some others have disagreed by way of their actions.

                smile

            2. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
              Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes it can



              Of course, because you wont listen due to your closed mind.



              That old fallacious argument? I wonder how many times that has been disproven to date? The bacterial flagellum was my personal favourite.



              Did you type that by accident?



              Did that make any sense in your head becuse it didnt in mine.



              Still dont know what you are talking about.



              LOL, the irony. lol



              Is that what god did? wink



              DNA has no language. You do like your magic though. smile



              Well as long as you're happy.

              1. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                DNA HAS NO LANGUAGE?

                Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

                lol lol lol

                WOW..LOL, i guess the problem is worse than I thought.

                Go genius go..

                You got me there!

                lol

                Please do keep going!

                I certainly am happy, and beginning to understand the problem..

                I'll be laughing at this one for eons!

                lol

                1. artblack01 profile image81
                  artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  As if you could even argue for or against such a premise, Vector 7, you have shown no knowledge for such concepts and you understand none of it.
                  You are little more than a troll.  Laughing and joking about things that you not just disagree with but you have a media induced understanding of.  And the Media never gets science right.

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, thank you, but your approval is something not required.

                    And yes, I did intend to keep from letting people think they were looking high and mighy with incorrect information - yet refuse to waste my time getting into depth of lecturing.  [as if it would change your mind? I think not]

                    And I am indeed laughing, as I think it's hilarious and if the mkre I read the more I laugh.

                    If you weren't in it to 'win' well it might not matter if I laughed, which is why what you think you've got in opposition to me doesn't matter an ounce.

                    And I don't particularly base my studies from television, but I can see the - assumption/inccorect conclusion - relationship that landed you where you stand.

                    As I don't watch television much at all, so I suppose I'll let everyone reading conclude on what that means exactly.

                    I need to show YOU something?

                    I so, so don't.

                    smile

                2. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Language;

                  1    The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.
                  2    Any nonverbal method of expression or communication: "a language of gesture and facial expression".

                  Indeed, DNA does not have a language, but, as long as you're happy.......

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Take it to the bank hippy!

                    You've got me running, I can't touch your mighty brain!

                    lol

                    What is DNA FOR buddy?

                    lol lol lol

            3. artblack01 profile image81
              artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Vector 7,
              Entropy doesn't contradict Evolution in fact they have very little to do with each other.  One describes matter and energy and the other describes organisms....  if Entropy contradicted evolution it would also contradict human development in technology.

              And if it can't or hasn't been replicated or repeated [now, not when you didn't exist] then it ain't science."

              You have no idea what you are talking about here or what it is in reference to, you are no scientist nor do you understand science, your understanding of science is laughable, a complete comedy.  Almost too entertaining to comment on.  It would be better not to try and correct you and just watch the comedy unfold.

              If Evolution is wrong and creationism is right then why has Evolution always won in EVERY court case it's been subjected to....

              Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
              Edwards v. Aguillard
              Scopes trial

              Intelligent Design, aka creationism, has been debunked and shown to be wrong in every aspect.  Including "Irreducible complexity"...

              Say more, I dare you, you just make a joke of yourself every time.

              1. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No formal addressing of my points, and side steppjng doesn't count.

                Entropy involves every system in the known universe.

                Dare me?

                Oh well, looks like I'm not so afraid after all.

                Your little threat/dare is quite amusing really.

                And I know plenty.

                Your assertion is a lie, as are both of your claims involving my points.

                ::poof::

                Magically replicating first cell from nothing!

                lol

                Go evo!

                smile

                1. artblack01 profile image81
                  artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You can do nothing but ridicule, you have no basis for your assumption or your assertions.  You also have no evidence to the contrary, you have no evidence of anything you believe for that matter.  Your only defense is to persist in ad hominem attacks....
                  you are a very sad person.
                  Why don't you take Evolution to court?  Because you will lose.

                  "Magically replicating first cell from nothing!"

                  This statement shows your complete lack of understanding of the concept of not just evolution but of biology and chemistry and physics and so on.  You neither understand entropy nor what it refers to or how it works in what it's original intended argument was used for... it had nothing to do with evolution to begin with it was an argument against the Big Bang, not evolution, that was a whole different argument.  Entropy?  You know nothing.
                  Yet you want people to believe that a whole population of people came from just two people?  Incest? 
                  Come on now, more ad hominem attacks, that's pretty much all you are good at and I have seen NOTHING remotely intelligent from your small mind.

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There is much you lack sight to see.

                    Court? You think that is where 'God" would be?

                    Sigh.. Well, someone has to stop replying.

                    I guess I'll do it. [ go on and tell'em you 'won'. lol ]

                    You are a very hostile fellow.

                    smile

              2. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You are assuming too much. You are assuming a psychotic is going to understand you!!

                1. artblack01 profile image81
                  artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ha ha!

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jollies off I see..

                    lol

            4. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's like saying bowling cannot exist in harmony with woodworking. Completely nonsensical.

              1. aguasilver profile image88
                aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hi TM, sorry to say I have actually missed you, were you away on vacation or just taking a rest?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks aqua. I was banned for saying something, but I have no idea what that was.

                  1. aguasilver profile image88
                    aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wasn't me! smile anyway, good to see you back, you may be a pain in the rear end sometimes, but you do keep it interesting wink

                  2. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I wish they would tell us, but they have a god complex and judge us heathens, remaining as intangible as any invisible sky fairy.

        3. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
          EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wait wait wait, you actually believe, that in over 1,000 years, through the hands of 10's of thousands of scribes, as well as an oral tradition in which things indefinitely change, you believe the bible never changed at all? Your either wilfully ignorant, or a liar. Either way I can't really fault you for it. In proverbs your bible tells you that you must not have an understanding for it runs counter to God.

          If you would like examples of how it's been changed in just the last 15 years or so I can give you at least one off the top of my head. Job 3:8 said "Rue those who Rue the day who art skilful to rouse leviathan." Currently this passage reads "Mourn those who mourn the day who are skillful to raise up their mourning." These passage have two COMPLETELY different meanings, both in ancient times and now. Wanting something not to change doesn't mean that it doesn't.

          1. vector7 profile image59
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            Keep going..

            I'm not done with my popcorn..

            smile

          2. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
            Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            findings such as the dead sea scrolls confirm that although some of the wording might have changed slightly the sentences and points are the same

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              DannyTaylor,

              But even assuming the translations were adequate, the message about who Jesus was and how he obtained that position disagree - even the means to salvation do not agree.

              Protestantism is an amalgamation of slightly different views into a comphrehensive view that is not supported independently by any single gospel, but requires cherry-picking from each gospel to make it appear as a whole.

              In reality, the theology you claim to believe is based on a 5th gospel that was never written.

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I agree that the message of who Jesus was changes from religion to religion but the bible itself is clear on the matter that he is the son of god and inferior to god...he is the mediator between humans and god....so screw you pope!

                1. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, Danny, based upon which gospel you read, the bible is not clear on who Jesus was and his relationship to god.  Only in the gospel of John is Jesus declared to be equivalent to god, i.e., the word, having been with god when the world was supposedly created.  In the gospel according to Mark, if you know anything about scriptural study, Jesus was basically shown to have been adopted at his baptism.

                  These two versions are not even close. 

                  In Mark, Jesus states that to get into heaven a believer must keep the Jewish laws.  But the apostle Paul says the law doesn't matter.

                  Which version do you believe, Danny?

                  I know - you believe the invented version of your own holy book - the 5th unwritten gospel, the compilation gospel according to popularity.

                  This is like someone making up a new story from four different books, about a girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas with her dog Toto and how a tornado carried her and the dog through a looking glass to Wonderland, and how in Wonderland Toto got rabies and trapped a woman inside her car and how Dorothy developed multiple personality disorder and changed her name to Sibyl and lived happily ever after.

                  The gospel according to The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Cujo, and Sibyl, amen.

        4. aguasilver profile image88
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Feel free to, that's exactly what I meant, it's a good posit, and one which they choose to ignore with their inane rants.

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            IGNORANCE!
            DECEPTION?

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              OK, I accept your confessions.... but it's still not to late for you to repent and get right with God! smile

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                God BS!
                God the opiate of ignorant masses!

      2. artblack01 profile image81
        artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, evidence doesn't change.  Evidence is collected and a model is formed for the evidence collected.  Findings are reported and tested giving science a chance to fix the errors in the conclusions...  the media however, will report on it even if the conclusion is not yet made and will often wrongly interpret, quote mine, or even change the meaning of the findings to make more sensational headlines on the science. 

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk

        I am sure you get your science from TV and not from the source so I am sure everything you know about any science, whether evolution, climate change, or medicine is completely skewed, inaccurate or even an out and out lie.  I also don't expect you to say anything accurate about science due to your prejudices towards it because it contradicts your beliefs, that goes for every single believer here. 

        One thing I can tell you for sure is I was raised a Christian and I was not always an atheist, I came to my conclusions through much thought and research and struggle and ridicule.  Because to the believer, it is wrong to even question God.

        1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
          Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Evidence does change when it is masqueraded as evidence but is later found to be a lie, just think of the countless skulls that were tampered with to make them look more monkey than human

          1. artblack01 profile image81
            artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The only case I know of (and I have looked into this issue as it interests me greatly) is Piltdown Man, which was a hoax created by someone trying to get fame for a new discovery, but this can be expected in religion as well, the only difference is that religious hoaxes never get caught until someone drinks the cool aid.

  15. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago

    mhmmm and we who believe in god of course have no evidence and we all have down syndrome and are deluded of course

    1. FlowOfThought profile image61
      FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You have no physical evidence, in fact, all evidence points to the bible being largely fictitious, the stories about Jesus in particular, are contradicted in the bible itself. Don't insult people with down syndrome.

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
        Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        are you sure your not making the contradiction yourself to suit your beleif? now as for the stories of jesus being fictitious a nice little fact for you is that there is more evidence that jesus did the things he did than for alexander the great doing the things he did...by using the exact same method you use to prove he existed the same can be done for jesus only much more convincingly....sorry about the down syndrome comment it was a bit thoughtless....also you say there is no physical evidence but we as human beings are the evidence the fact that we are alive is inconceivable to science....richard dawkins is quoted as saying a good case for a deistic god could be made so if the worlds biggest atheist has to conceed that there is a good case for it what chance do you have?
        FYI i do NOT advocate religion so no need to go there with me my argument is for my creator.

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Argumentum ad verecundiam.
          Have you noticed that the thread is about the meaning of the term 'god' and the definition of the term 'exist'?

          1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
            Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            yeah but thats a pointless question because we dont know...simple really the rest is philosophical jibberjabber

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If you don't know then what you mean when you say 'god exist'? Then aren't you stating gibberish?

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                you never said the term 'god exist' you said the term 'exist' we dont know how we came about which is a nice argument for 'god exist' actually because thats the only way we can 'eixst'.
                then theres the argument then who made god...which i dont know the answer to clearly god is beyond the law of everything comes from something...but i dunno really so what i just said is jibberjabber im not smart enough to know the answer to that one

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You may not be smart, but have you come here to prove it?
                  I didn't ask from where anything came, what I asked was what did YOU mean when you said 'god' and 'exist'?

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    'god' is what makes things 'exist' and im not the nly one not smart enough to answer the question nobody is

  16. artblack01 profile image81
    artblack01posted 4 years ago

    http://artblack01.hubpages.com/hub/Aski … -God-Exist

    This started out as a response to your question and a response to other people responding here but it became a hub.

  17. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago

    ok jomine whatever you say lol clearly you believe that there is only physical and nothing else so anything other than physical is imagination which is fine if thats what you believe but it just means that you wont be able to go further in your thinking in terms of what 'exist' means.

    even if i turn out to be wrong and there is no god then i dont care because if the physical did just 'exist' then that is even more amazing and inconceivable than it having a creator...its magic in fact, unfortunately you can seperate the question of is there a god from existance.

    1. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      God is questionable, he is a character in a story, he is merely a product of a humans inability to look for answers to the hard questions.
      If it's too hard, all one must do is say "God did it" no more thinking required.

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good one... lol

      2. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
        Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        yeah so just because its the easiest solution to a problem its wrong...stubborn child tongue

        1. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, it's not wrong because it's the easiest solution, it's wrong because everything we have discovered about our universe leaves out the need for such a being.  All the evidence we collect about our universe has God as an explanation for it shrinking away.
          God is of the gaps and nothing more.
          There was a time we attributed all sorts of things to God that we no longer do, solar eclipse, earthquakes (though Pat Robertson and other religious nuts still do), rain, snow, lightning, hurricanes, volcanoes, the tides (sorry Bill O'Reilly, we can explain that), what all matter in the universe is made of so far, how big and far away and how old most objects in space are, how old the known universe is, how old the Earth is, and more.
          God is not in there and the Bible is wrong in all those discoveries. 
          God isn't the easiest solution, he is not a solution at all, he is the product of our inability to actually look for a solution, he is a product of laziness, the easiest solution doesn't even actually include God in it.

          1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
            Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why is it that atheists say every discovery we make takes us away from god but every religious person says the opposite? By even saying that you are proving your bias and are just playing the dogmatic atheist role.

            Also I'd like to hear the evidence we collect in the universe that draws us away from god

            1. artblack01 profile image81
              artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Why is it that atheists say every discovery we make takes us away from god but every religious person says the opposite?" Why does the seeker find things while the person just standing there says the opposite?
              Dogmatic atheist role?

              If you want to hear the evidence then maybe you should take more science classes in school.  Hey, I took Christian study classes as a kid and theology in College, it's only right that you shouldn't ask me to be your unpaid teacher.  You shouldn't ask me to confirm the knowledge you are too lazy to look for on your own.

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's a fair comment but I was pointing out that what you consider taking away from god others consider as drawing to god....for example the big bang theory, some view this as an argument against god while others view it as an argument for god.
                Don't imply that people who believe in god don't seek for understanding that's just silly and I got a B in science so there!

                1. artblack01 profile image81
                  artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ha ha, okay, fair enough, but the people who point to something science has found as being "of God" or proof there of have little to no understanding of what it is they are attributing to God or of God.  You can pretty much point to anything and say that it's proof for something without it actually being proof for anything.  What science did you take?  There is more than one.  When I say science that's just general...  because an anthropologist is not an expert or may not have any knowledge in Astrophysics, and vice versa.  So saying you got a B in science doesn't say much... I studies Christian History, I studied other religions, and did many papers on the subject, without any sort of bias towards the possible existence or nonexistence of that particular religions deity.

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    i got a dual award GCSE in chemistry and physics smile but my own personal stud of science is largely on evolution because its the most interesting i find. lets say evolution did explain everything there is still a need for god and still a need for someone to make the 'law' of evolution because evolution isnt random on an adaptive level it follows a pattern

              2. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No one needs you to teach them anything.

                As far as you are concerned if no one replies they all silently agree.

                I think I'll stick with logical reasoning rather than your illogical.

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The same logic and reasoning that led you to post that evolution and entropy cannot exist together?

                  LMAO lol

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Four legged ducks..

                    Got more than one leg to stand on huh? [got the norm beat by two!]

                    smile

                2. artblack01 profile image81
                  artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "As far as you are concerned if no one replies they all silently agree.

                  I think I'll stick with logical reasoning rather than your illogical."

                  That's your assumption, but it's wrong on both counts.
                  And as far as logic?  I have yet to see anything, logical, rational, or even remotely intelligent, much less "Christian"... if someone were to ask me what religion you were I couldn't for the life of me guess, you don't qualify to be anything but a creatard, with no definite idea of what your God is.

                  You have been rudely dismissing and making fun of everyone who believes in evolution with no basis but religious wishful thinking and a flawed idea of what science says about something.
                  You sir are not just illogical but idiotic.

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not sure if that's aimed at me or not but I hope I haven't given that impression, I think evolution has many strong points and that Darwin has opened our eyes in ways we never thought where possible

    2. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You were serious when you said you were not smart?
      So, let me try once more(and the last time)
      It is trough the means of language we communicate.  A word has several meanings, and in common parlance the meaning is contextual. But when we critically analyse, the key terms cannot be contextual, the meaning should be clearly defined so that the audience will understand exactly what we said. So the purpose of definition is to restrict the meaning of a word that it can be used consistently and unambiguously.So what me or you believe has nothing to do with the matter at hand, it only matters whether the key word "exist"can be objectively defined. So have you got an objective definition for "exist", if not you said nothing.




      What is this balderdash all about? What is this 'just exist'? Objects exist. You me the sun and moon all exist? When you assume creation, it is a past act. A past act can only be explained, so make it a rational, ie, plausible explanation.

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
        Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh man I've entered into the world of wanna be philosophers this argument is stupid, let's take it away from the definition of a word and use some good old common sense.
        If I place bricks, mortar and a trowel on the floor and leave it there that isn't enough for a wall to be made, those individual parts can't do anything on their own they need someone to put it together. Why is it different with the earth, universe, living things when they are much more complicated than a wall?
        Stop using language as a veil and just answer the fucking question normally lol

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ever heard of logic?



          Yo can do that with your god!!

          1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
            Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            thanks i will smile

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hope f*¤¤ing your fairy will be Good!

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ouch that was a bit much...so instead of answering you type obsenities....thats one up for believers in god!

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Liars for Jesus (TM)

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    hmm thats funny i dont remember even mentioning jesus i mentioned god? i do find your age to be rather deceptive because your not very wise...

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  dannytaylor02 wrote: and just answer the fucking question
                  jomine wrote: You can do that with your god
                  dannytaylor02 wrote: Thanks I willl
                  jomine wrote:Hope f*¤¤ing your fairy will be Good
                  dannytaylor02 wrote:ch that was a bit much...so instead of answering you type obsenities....thats one up for believers in god



                  j: haven't you heard,"as you sow, so you reap"?

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    haha...you got me sad

  18. A Thousand Words profile image80
    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago

    And to think that this whole forum was dedicated to Emile R. LoL

    1. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ...and she has sensibly avoided being here! smile

  19. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
    EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago

    Apparently you missed number 4 on that last in favor of number 6. Number 4 shows clearly the point that was being made which went completely over your head.



    Was wondering how long it would take you to come over here as well. You never seem to miss one of these discussions after all. As for keeping on going, I don't really need to. There's a whole team of people who have dedicated themselves to correcting mistakes in the Bible. You can read more about it here: http://blog.themonastery.org/2011/08/bi … olars-say/



    Which quote would you be talking about? Would it happen to be one of these:

    "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    "I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

    "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

    "They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

    "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    "The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

    "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

    "As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

    Would you like some more?



    So what your saying is that God is NOT the supreme authority. That the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God all exist as 3 distinct beings instead of 1 being with 3 faces? That's the only way your argument is holding water.

    1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
      Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your right that jesus is not god he is son of god and the holy spirit is just a spiritual beings active force, I commend a non believer who has the common sense to see this and yet people who say they devote their lives to god can't see it ....that one up for common sense

      1. artblack01 profile image81
        artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JI-0py- … AAAAAAAGAA

        With this I add that one can, just from the testimony and from the accuracy of a grape vine, turn a character into a man into a son of God into a God or a man into a character that is the son of God that is God....  but what it doesn't do is prove that the man was...  anything said of him.
        Ever play the grape vine game, get 20 people together, one person whispers a set of information of some kind to the next person so that only he can hear it, that person does the same, to the next and so on... eventually when you come full circle, the information has changed so much it doesn't even describe the original statement.
        And this, supposedly, before the Bible was even written.

        1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
          Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          if the game represents religion then yes i agree however the bible itself is pretty watertight and unchanging

          1. artblack01 profile image81
            artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Watertight and unchanging?  In what respect? Sorry someone redirected my response.  The Bible itself after it was written of course cannot change, but supposedly many of the stories came after the fact and from questionable sources.  Take the Gospel According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...  most scholars have shown that someone wrote these down in reference to these four people but that these four people did not write down these Gospels...  "according to" now, can you remember word for word and name for name stories about someone from four different people and then accurately write them down?  I have an awesome memory for stories but couldn't accurately tell you names and dates for the life of me of people that I never even met, just told to me... 
            Many stories were of oral tradition, so I have been told by many Bible Scholars.
            And what of earlier times?  So a story is told to your family, that has been passed on from generation to generation, information is bound to be changed and events exaggerated.
            This is what I mean by the Grape Vine Game.

        2. vector7 profile image59
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Supposedly this, and supposedly that..

          Supposedly I am not suprized at the dramatization [drama queen approach]

          Out of context. False analogy. Miss the entire point of the Bible anyhow.

          It doesn't need science to prove it. The proof is in the completed understanding, which you don't regard. You study "who wrote the pages"...

          Well done..

          Your turn.

          [Here, I'll help you]

          "vector is so ignorant and his mind is so small."

          Hmmm. Guess since you said it, it HAS to be true...

          smile

          1. artblack01 profile image81
            artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Considering you haven't shown any proof to the contrary of anything I have ever said then I need not say it.
            Vector 7, if you can not prove any of your claims then you have nothing but ad hominen attacks and hearsay opinions of absolutely no value, except to make us all see you for what you are, a troll clown. I have respect for many people of faith, especially for the well educated ones, but I have lost all respect for you and you are nothing more than an ass clown.

  20. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    What in the heck is this about? Yes, I still have not read and refuse to do so. Jeez, let it go.

  21. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
    EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago

    Proof outside of the bible that Jesus existed? Without that you have no FACT that he existed, only belief that he did.



    It's quite apparent Danny that you started the Obscenities.

    1. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have always found it funny that people get so offended by the use of certain words they refer to as obscenities. It's not exactly even biblically a sin yet the use of certain words even offends the people they aren't even directed towards. People will go so far as to try an insult the people's intelligence who use them as if that had any sort of true statement. Even the most intelligent person in the world use these words but the most sensitive to this concept of "obscene". What difference does it really make? It doesn't reflect a persons "morality". Take the word shit, if I use the word worthless or crap or poop, it still reflects the same meaning. Words like shit or fuck merely emphasize a certain amount of disrespect towards the object the word is being used.
      In other words, who cares that he used obscenities?

      1. artblack01 profile image81
        artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Funny that even here they get bleeped.

    2. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
      Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      your right i did start them so im sorry lol jomine got me there....the quran talks about jesus im sure.
      im really not going to get into a discussion about wether jesus existed or not because your just trying to refute what almost every bible scholar or expert in that field have told us (atheist or non atheist)

      if you want to go down that route then alexander the great didnt exist, napoleon, genghis khan, aristotle....in fact everyone that we dont have skeletons of according to your logic dont exist

    3. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
      Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I will say this which I forgot to mention.....my obscenity wasn't directed at anyone in particular I added the ing at the end whereas jomine said i was fing my god so chew on that:D

  22. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS

    An atheist was walking through the woods.

    "What majestic trees!"
    "What powerful rivers!"
    "What beautiful animals!"
    He said to himself.

    As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot, grizzly bear charging towards him.

    He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even closer.

    He tripped and fell on the ground.

    He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw that the bear was right on top of him; reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him. At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"

    Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.

    As a bright light shone upon the man a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you really expect me to help you out of this predicament?"

    The atheist looked directly into the light, and said, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"

    "Very well", said the voice.

    The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:

    "Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from Thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I laughed, +1.

    2. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LoLL

    3. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good one +1

    4. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I heard that story before. Wishful thinking on the part of the faithful that an atheist would react in this way. It really shows their mentality in regards to people who believe different to what they believe.
      I have been in many life threatening situations where I probably could have or should have died, not once did I pray to any sort of god for help.
      That is the difference between the believer and the atheist. The believer will ask god for help and guidance while the atheist will just use his head. You can solve any problem with your brain.... Use it or lose it.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image90
        paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I can personally attest that I have asked God for help. And that no help was forthcoming. Leastwise not yet. smile

      2. paradigmsearch profile image90
        paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I certainly hope so. However, that hasn't worked yet either. Still trying though. smile

        1. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You can always ask for help from someone else real or imaginary, but in the end you are responsible for your own personal well being mentally or physically.

          1. paradigmsearch profile image90
            paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            True.

        2. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have even heard the believer say, "God helps those that help themselves".

          1. paradigmsearch profile image90
            paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And true.

      3. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
        Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I believe in god and if a bear came at me I would be asking my atheist friend for a gun so I could kill it not god haha

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Funny, but I would be willing to bet that less atheists than christians have guns. Just saying.

          1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
            Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            hilbillies dont count

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why not, they're christians aren't they? Are you discriminating against rednecks? The back bone of this fine country. LOL

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                your country im british big_smile our equivalent are those silly welsh people they dont count either.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Even better I'm Canadian. We've got nothing that compares to hillbillies. We do have trailer types, but you need to be able to read to read the bible. All in fun.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ever been to New Liskeard?  *smiles*  It apparently produces hillbillies.

          2. artblack01 profile image81
            artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I know many atheists and I don't know anyone who doesn't at least own one gun....  and I live in the city.

            1. artblack01 profile image81
              artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Guns are fun.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't own a gun and the only one I know that has one is a born again.

              1. artblack01 profile image81
                artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I must admit that I don't know all atheists in my area, and though all of us have fired guns. There probably are some of us that don't actually own our guns... Meaning, there isn't really a need for anyone to own a gun.  I don't feel it's important, they are just fun to shoot.

  23. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
    EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago

    So I give you two sentences that mean two entirely different things, that come from the same book and the same exact verse, and your argument is that the wording changed but the meaning is still exactly the same? That makes no sense what so ever. Words make the meaning of a sentence, a sentence doesn't denote the meaning of words.



    Apparently you don't understand what it is I'm saying. Outside of the earliest manuscripts that we have, which include the dead sea scrolls, and only date to the 4th century A.D, there is no support for a man named Jesus. In a world ruled by Rome, when everything was recorded and filed, we have no evidence of this persons existence. There are no records, not even the record of this person being executed exists. We have records from outside of Alexandria that Alexander the Great existed. We have Roman records that talk about Genghis Khan, we have the writings of Aristotle himself, who existed before Jesus btw, that say he existed. We have the writings of Napolean himself, the other governments, and even the modern sewage system that show Napolean existed. There is no such support for Jesus. The only supposed support comes 4 centuries after his supposed death. I have a hard time buying that.



    There are at least two of us still waiting for the Bible quote where Jesus directly says he is the Son of God.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lets just say that if Jesus did exist and was the product of God and a women that would make him just like Hercules. I've read this story before. In the old testament God tell us to only pray to one God, they he changes his mind and divides in three?

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
        Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        nope he doesnt the trinity is a religious doctrine not a biblical one...

        as far as your comment about him being like hercules is concerned im not sure what your point is, unless you mean the nephilim of genesis? where angels from heaven breed with women from earth and create superstrong humans, the men of fame?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nope I was referring to Greek mythology and how the stories of the bible mirror that of older stories. Hercules was a son of a god and woman, just like Jesus. There was a time when Greek mythology was a real belief system. It was as real to those people as christianity is to some today. Makes you think about the next few thousand years don't it?

          1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
            Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            dont mean to burst your bubble but the bible is older and its the other way round greek mythology has copied the bible, ironically the nephilim i was talking about is where the greek mythologies come from notice that it says 'men of fame'...genesis was made well before greek mythology

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hate to burst your bubble, but Greek mythology predates the NT by almost 1000 years and it's the NT we are talking about.

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ok lets go with that then

                jesus is in no way like hercules, with the legend of hercules its all about his might and physical appearence but with jesus its all about what he taught and not a mention about his physical appearence so your comparison is like comparing arnold swarchzenegger to ghandi...

                as i have said in genesis the story of the nephilim is exactly like hercules...angels (gods) come down from heaven and have intercourse with women and they produce a breed of hybrid humans called nephilim who are described as the 'mighty ones' and 'men of fame' so really who is copying who if you where to use a little bit of that good old common sense? smile

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You forgot about the part with his "almond collored eyes"... That seems like a partial physical desrciption, not enough to go on to believe any of it though.

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    pedantic as always....

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Jesus and Hercules both were the product of a God and a human and did spectacular things, but according to you were nothing alike. Well, having a God as parent does make them somewhat alike. Kind of. LOL.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then the christians will say how far fetched it is, that zeus came in the form of a bull. They'll try to discredit it, as being an old fantasy. But then, what is the bible?

                  2. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
                    Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    but the main point is it still copies the bible so whatever lol.
                    i cant imagine you guys have read the bible because it isnt written as a story at all it gives the names and dates of places and it correctly predicts the destruction of ancient cities so at the very least the bible is an incredible history book

    2. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
      Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      well he calls him father numerous times thats a bit of a hint huh?

      its simply not true that romans didnt accept jesus's existance, they did, dont forget that during that time rome saw jesus as an enemy and so naturally they would try to blot him out however they couldnt because of all of the eye witness accounts that he actually lived where so numerous, if that many witnesses appeared in court and all coherently said that you where there at the scene then the defense wouldnt even get a chance to speak! unless of course...you know richard dawkins himself says that jesus probably existed so i dunno what your argument for jesus not existing is based on...there is no way someone who didnt exist could have such a massive influence on so many peoples lives...he even has a major influence on yours considering how much you talk about the subject (im not saying that in a negative way)
      i cant comment on your comment about that scripture you showed me because in honesty i dont know, not sure if they are in fact from original sources or just different versions of bible

  24. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
    EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago

    You are in serious need of a history lesson. The Old Testament was written between 1200 B.C and 400 B.C (yes the actually spent that long writing it down). Which means Hercules, the youngest of the Greek Mytho's predated just the Old Testament by at least 1800 years.

    As for your previous comment about Rome blotting things out, why didn't they blot out Genghis Kahn? They beat him back several times yet we have all accounts of those? History shows that Rome, no matter the enemy, always Documented them. Trying to make an excuse for Jesus not being there with directly countered lies, doesn't with stand. As I have said before, I can give that certain documents may have gotten lost, but to say Rome directly made him not exist is just stupidity.

    I've never once said that Jesus never existed, all I've said is give me proof other than the bible that he did. Thomas Jefferson even said that Jesus may have existed, but that the Bible itself was an embellished lie of the mans life.

    To your point of him influencing my life based on how much I talk about him, you could say that. But then you could say the exact same of Nostradamus, Madame Blvatsky, Buddha, Hercules, Anubis, and many others. I am open to discussing all these people, but I'm always sure to put in my own hard research into the subject first. I don't work with assumption and what others told me.

    1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
      Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i never said the old testament i said genesis..and im pretty sure your time line is wrong but thats irrelevant for this subject
      as long as you dont deny the fact that jesus exists i dont see the need in working out the finer details with you but romans did write about him quite early on.

  25. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    EinderDarkwolf wrote:

       ".... As for your previous comment about Rome blotting things out, why didn't they blot out Genghis Kahn? They beat him back several times yet we have all accounts of those? History shows that Rome, no matter the enemy, always Documented them. Trying to make an excuse for Jesus not being there with directly countered lies, doesn't with stand. As I have said before, I can give that certain documents may have gotten lost, but to say Rome directly made him not exist is just stupidity. ..."

      = - = - = -

      ME
      Don't forget that the Western Roman Empire soon became the Holy Roman Empire.
    And all of the Records of such that they could find are hidden in the basement in Vatican City. 

       I gotta go again for a while, had some company come and go,  now they are back.

  26. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Genghis Khan invaded in 1232 A.D. They virtually rolled over every adversary. Roman, as in Imperial Rome no longer existed. The Holy Roman Empire was based in Germany at the time. Jesus wasn't mentioned by Imperial Rome because, out of the thousands who were crucified by Rome, he, to them was just another criminal. By the time of Nero (66 A.D.) the followers of Jesus were becoming problematic. Rome never once tried to suggest that Jesus never existed. Josephus, the first century historian does mention him, and his accounts have generally been accepted. (Although, he was said to have been prone to exaggeration.) The only other man who was crucified, again, out of thousands of crucifixions, was Spartacus. I believe that suggesting Jesus never existed is a totally unprovable position.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LOL

      Spartacus was crucified? That is news to me.
      How many thousands were crucified again?
      Josephus mentions followers of and it is widely accepted that his accounts were doctored by later Liars For Jesus.

      Do you make this crap up or are you simply uneducated?

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thousands were crucified in the Spartacus rebellion. Josephus was the authority whose version of the attack at Masada is generally accepted. He has never been discredited and is often cited. Nero believed in the followers....if there were no followers....then how'd they all get here.. Who widely accepts this "doctoring"? You make a lot of unsupported statements. You must think everyone but yourself is stupid. Just what do you think is made up? Being insulting isn't a very good debate method. Obviously bad parenting.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I see you did not answer my question - just spouted more lies.

          I will have to go with uneducated. Sorry if making an observation is being insulting, because you are clearly uneducated.

          I am the one making unsupported statement? You post drivel and lies and when I point out actual facts - not Hollywood facts - you attack my parents?

          No one knows what happened to Spartacus.
          Josephus made no mention of Jesus and his writings were probably doctored by later Liars for Jesus.
          There is 100% no evidence outside the majik book for the existence of Jesus.
          The attack at Masada has nothing at all to do with the Sun God, nor was it contemporary.

          So - it is all made up. I don't think you are stupid - just lazy and uneducated.

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image86
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You keep saying there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Jesus. You keep saying it over and over and over and over. Even your good bud A Troubled Man wavered a bit when he appeared to admit Jesus may have existed, but it doesn't matter.

            Most Jews believe Christ existed based upon the historical evidence. Most Muslims likewise believe Christ existed. Of Christians believe it.

            But they are all wrong, and you are right?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Based on what historical evidence?

            2. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Wow. You know what most Jews believe? Based on historical evidence huh? Most Muslims believe what they are told to believe. I seen them - they believe women are chattels to be owned.

              In any case - what historical evidence is this?

              If enough people believe that the holocaust did not happen - does that mean it did not happen?

              Now show me the historical evidence.

              1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image86
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You and A Troubled Man would still believe the earth is flat even if you played "Spin the Globe."

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Then that could be based on the bible!

      2. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He was crucified in the movie version. lol

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He was crucified in the historical version, too. Crucifixion was a common punishment. The Carthaginians al;so crucified their criminals. Only one single heel bone has ever been found that evidences crucifixion. One heel bone.

        2. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What? If facts are inconvenient, you just ignore them. Fine scientific method you've got there.

          1. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Where is the evidence for the fact? And don't bring up stories about modern miracles, God's no more responsible for it than the sheer chance. On the off chance God could not be responsible, the devil's to blame. When an occasion is favorable, God did it. There is a level of accountability and reasoning missing from this picture...

            1. Druid Dude profile image61
              Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What in blue blazes are you rambling about? Talking about crucifixion and the Roman records, which they were quite obsessive about keeping. Crucifixion by chance? What a concept!

              1. Druid Dude profile image61
                Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ooopsie. We crucified you by accident! My bad.

              2. artblack01 profile image81
                artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Roman records also doesn't have a mention of a Jew named Jesus.  If they did this whole "was Jesus real" wouldn't even be an issue, especially not for me.

  27. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Piltdown man was crucified? Live and learn.

  28. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    When we are ignoring the basic facts ...  there is no sense in discussing it amy further.  That would be just running in circles.

    1. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok I'm done with my rant ...   going to BBQ now  ... 
      see Ya Later.

 
working