If God came and performed miracles would we believe it was Him?
Believers minds would probably melt and they would turn into a useless mass of fawning glee.
Sinners would poop themselves and try to be good, honest.
Non-believers would not believe it. Would they?I think that many believers would probably shun him as the Jews did. I doubt anyone would even recognize him.
We have to believe one thing. God never try to introduce himself. Religions are exaggerating of fantasy and believe which can not be proved. Religions become a source of business.
No one asked me, " whether I would like to born or not." The sexual joys of parents become the reason of a birth of a baby. Now baby is in problem to learn the parental language and believe. Going to Kindergarten,school ,colleges, job , marriage , babies , grow old and die.
This is the circle of life.
Nothing else. The human created God only to create hate,war,destruction,fanaticism, different way of ritual to disturb the simple way of life. Invisible power does not expecting any thing from us.
It depends on us to watch freely the unique systems of existing things and appreciate, who ever behind these wonders. That's all. Enjoy the life,spreading love, glorifying yourself and listen the music " Father and Son"
God does perform Miracles, they happen everyday.
***When a child is conceived and carried for 9 months, then they are finally born they are a miracle.***The Big Bang Theory did create man.
*** What causes Earth to float through the air without Gravity?*** The planets constantly move, but do not go out of bounds. When an Astronaut goes to space, they have to constantly be grounded or they are gone; But the Earth and other planets are continually rotating without floating away somewhere.
The Big Bang cannot blow life into a human being. It cannot make a person think, speak, walk, or talk. If you believe we were created from an Amoeba, then who or what created the amoeba? Does the amoeba think, walk and talk like man? No.
There are miracles and there is a God. But just because I believe and know there is does not mean you have to.The earth doesn't float through the air, but through space which is a vacuum. The gravitational force of the sun pulls the planets towards it, and their own motion acts as a counterbalance keeping them in stable orbit.
Thanks Don, I was gonna say something but she already yelled at me once.
Actually, if we relied on the gravitational force of matter we can see and measure, everything would fly apart. See 'dark matter' for more information.
Dark matter is worse than the big bang, as there is even less proof of dark matter than there is of a big bang. Both are still just mathematical concepts, no matter how hard the geeks try to act like it is virtual fact.
Don't get me started on dark energyYou treat science like it's a delusion. The point is, we have a gravitational model that predicts accurately how gravity will act in any local situation. Hence things like flight, being able to put up satellites, etc, etc, etc...
But this model doesn't work when you plug in the parameters of a galaxy. Not even close. If that was the model that the galaxy also worked off of, everything would scatter. It's not even close.
Do you believe in neutrinos? Did you know that those were predicted before we could detect them? Contrary to what you seem to believe, science works well for making predictions and testing them. You calling dark matter ridiculous is no different from those who called neutrinos ridiculous.You also don't seem to understand that, while they are just theories, they are not merely predictions. Science doesn't just say 'hey, I think there is something we can't see, let's call it dark matter'. Science says 'hey, for some reason the gravity that works here on the planet doesn't work for the milky way. In fact, we seem to be missing about 80% of the matter needed to make the milky way act the way it does. Let's label this missing matter 'dark matter' until we can figure it out'.
Funny thing about gravity, in the 1920's Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre founded the theory of the big bang and in 1929 Edwin Hubble was measuring stuff and noticed a 'red shift' among the 46 galaxies he was looking at which meant they were moving away from our solar system. He reasoned that if they were moving away from us then they must have once been closer together which supported the big bang theory. A lot of other stuff happened later to support this theory however, if everything was in such a delicate balance, the suns gravity vs ours and the other heavenly bodies, it seems to forget that if the big bang theory did happen that all these planetary systems working together because they were all such and such distances apart that they would have all collided together because they would have been closer to each other and the smaller planets would have smashed into the larger ones and ultimately all colliding into the sun being it is the biggest body around us......interesting isn't it?
Especially as some believe that all those activities acting in perfect unison and essential to the result, happened by pure accidental cause!
We don't know how gravitation per se was created. This obviously relates in some way to how the universe itself came into existence. There are lots of theories, but nothing that has been objectively verified.
gravitation per se? as opposed to gravitation...?
Well . . . in answer to the question "how is the gravitational force created" you could say that gravitons are one possible cause . But given the context of the previous comments, I suspect the next question would have been "how are gravitons created?" So I think the question was really asking about the origin of gravitation per se (in itself) as opposed to the specifics of its nature or effects.
Perhaps it is just turtles all the way down.
Interesting isn't it? But here we are debating miracles. Of course God for many who do not believe cannot be verified, nor can gravitational force. Which tells me it was created by something wasn't it? Something bigger then all of us. Many of us called that God.
So believing or not believing ;so long as there are humans, things will always be analyzed and questioned. For those who believe in God we are at Peace with it and for those who do not believe there are always struggles to find the answers.Sorry, where did you get the idea gravity cannot be verified?
Einstein postulated that the masses of heavenly objects bend space, basically creating a downhill, and so the objects roll toward each other.
The planetary orbits aren't in some perfect balance. All of the planets will eventually fall into the sun as their orbits decay, only it will take hundreds of millions of years. Or so I derive from my reading on the subject.Yet, the moon is moving away from the earth.
Theoretically, that would be true, but the amount of energy lost due to gravitational waves between the Sun and Earth is miniscule compared with the amount of solar wind and electromagnetic radiation being emitted by the Sun at the Earth, hence the Earth is actually moving away from the Sun.How is an object moving away from another object supposed to be evidence against that thought?
Have you ever rolled something through a depression? With enough speed, the object will roll out of the depression, but have a different direction after. The moon just has slightly more speed than it needs to stay in a perfect orbit around the 'depression'.
Mrs.Aevan is very much right the whole system of a birth of a baby after nine months is really a wonder and no doubt is a miracle. The material of eyes,bones,skins,blood,hair,brain and lot of phenomenal organs in all types of babies, say bird,animals fishes etc do not imported from USA or China. A drop of sperm of male, in the womb of female creates a baby is a great miracle of invisible creator.
The question is fully over follow," If the God came and performed miracles would we believe it was him".
God in invisible and no one have seen him and it is not absolute important for him to appear and to perform miracles to prove,he is God.
God's miracles , we can see in each and every creation. He is a great Architect
You can see in my face book a lot about the wonder of Great creator to understand.The miracle I proposed was of the ' make the sun stand still' variety.
I gave it some thought and I came up with this:
I know we are jaded by the cool special effects we see on the tv, but I mean something like making the entire world a desert planet instantaneously, with no food, water or radio waves.
AEvans: Thank you! You are the first one to give a reasonable and proper answer. God performs miracles constantly. The eyes of our spirit see them and recognize him even when our humanity is too busy to take notice.
I guess it would depend on the way some interpret God. I have been told surviving a fatal illness I had several years ago was a miracle, but for me I felt it was just my strong will to live, and I fought with all I had to survive. I don't believe in a God who sits above in the clouds on his throne passing judgement. We make our own miracles by looking within and believing in ourselves. I really have a hard time believing some of these so called miracles of the bible. Why have we not seen some these types of miracles in today's times. If God would happen to appear from the sky and preform miracles then maybe I might believe but I just can't believe any of it now when there has and still is so much suffering going on in this world
Because miracles are so plentiful, I think we take them for granted. When Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, it was a miracle. When we hear stories about someone who was submerged below water for 45 minutes and lived, we wonder about it but seldom think it's a miracle. When ambulance drivers make declarations about how they resuccitate people, we do not consider them to be miracles. When our neice contracts West Nile Virus and survives, we do not consider that a miracle even though so many others have died. We want miracles to be dramatic and impossible to explain. Miracles do not have to be complicated. When Jesus raised Jairus' daughter back to life, someone might have said, "Oh, she was only in a coma." Although we can create a simple explanation for life returned, it is still a miracle. Just breathing is a miracle. Hearts beating every day for many years are all miracles. We can't see miracles in today's world because we look beyond the "little" miracles that are before us every day.
My sister, son, and I survived the onslaught of an 18-wheeler that ripped off the side of our car within an inch or two of two who sat on the side of the damage. We all survived without a scratch, but the car was virtually totaled. Jesus saved us. That was a miracle!
If God were cracked up to be anything He's purported to be by His followers, it would be a very simple and easy task for Him to get us all to know without a doubt He does in fact exist.
If God is real, and he really commanded us to have faith, then why would he make himself known to us without a doubt?
Simple, so that we can alleviate mankind from committing the atrocities and wars in His name and the name of so many other gods who are believed to exist. Or, would you rather the conflicts continue?
Sorry troubled, your argument doesn't address the question. Why would a God command us to have faith, and then make himself known to us? It's a contradiction. Wouldn't he instead just show himself to us, and NOT command us to have faith?
Faith is the assurance of things that aren't seen. How can you have faith in something you see?
And having enough faith to follow a particular path that you believe God is leading you to.
LOL! Like the assurance there is an invisible rhinoceros in my garage?
Not quite. I know you ignore any comments that go into specifics, so I gave you something general. The word that is translated into 'faith' in the NT means an assurance of truth. But, you can't fit all of that into one word, so I used a simpler definition.
Crack open a lexicon to see what the scriptures really mean.I've travelled around the world and graduated college for a couple of examples. That is what I'm talking about. With your attitude you miss the point plus probably alot more.
Proof positive that your god exists? What's your point?
It's called faith and to follow a path takes faith in your belief, whatever that is.
In other words, you have no point. Thanks.
It means without faith or hope, meaning a person believes.
As to your response to me on gravity. You asked who said there was no proof? All of the research I have read only speculates theories. If you would be interesting if you could provide another physics quantum theory.Gravity is actually a fact, not just a theory. General Relativity shows how gravity works with accuracy.
Gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity is an attempt at explaining how it works.
So explain the fact about gravity and provide the theory, back it with quantum physics. Then explain how the ended up with there scientific theory.
Theory means: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
So I don't believe there can be any true fact to back the theory. But I do understand there are those who believe and who do not. I can respect that too.There are no facts to back theories. There are theories to explain facts.
Let me get this straight. You want me to post the entire theory of gravity on here?
If you dont believe gravity exists then jump off a building.I am just messing with you. I am glad you took it so well and by the way love your profile name.
I would never make anyone write an entire theory. I am just playing around. (((Hugs))) Could you imagine writing that? lololo! Honestly it is great you took it well and didn't start yelling. Now I know what kind of character you have and it is good. Believe in yourself and your hubs are not bad, you just have to write more. Believe just believe.:::::::
I love you, but how far did you get in school? You have a bit to learn about theory and it doesn't bode well to pop off like that. You have been here seven months and you only have eleven hubs. They could use some improvement. As a certified vocational instructor, may I say that you are off task for this effort and you would do well to spend more time at the shop.
My hubs are terrible and I am proud of them. I was always taught that scientific theories are that which try to explain scientific fact.
Like I said, I love you. You are a quick study. Theory is from observation and is the starting point for establishing scientific fact. We get confused, because our text books are full of theories that are accepted as fact.
From what we've observed, the confusion begins from those who have never read those text books.
Aah I see. I was talking about normal facts being explained by scientific theories. Not scientific facts.
Scientific facts are ones that can be repeatedly tested. As for my original post that scientific theories explain facts, how is that not so?
Since you put it like that . . . it is so. My bad.
And you got me all confused and made me question myself
Gravity is a side note in quantum theory and mechanics. I went to Annapolis. We have a nuclear navy.
I miss the soft shell crabs. They are hard to find around here (although Florida Blue crabs get bigger), and the fishermen don't do the tank thing. Don't get too excited, I quit before I graduated to go out and explore the fabric of life. I was an English major and took the bait thrown out by the transcendentalist and existential beat writers. The retirement benefits are looking pretty good about now.
No problem, start with this and let me know if you have any questions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introducti … relativity
Maybe not to you Troubled...but that is not saying much.
So, how can God command anything if He doesn't show himself? How would you come to know the concept of God other than through scriptures? Where did scriptures come from? God didn't write them, they were written by men with the very same faith you have.
In all of that, how can anyone know God exists?I've addressed this clearly with you multiple times. It is a personal thing, defined by each person's experiences and thinking. You ask for objective proof, but that's not what it's about at all.
You have no way to know if I have seen God or not. You have no way to know if I have talked to God or not. You have no way to know what experiences I have had in my life.It's not about thinking, either.
Institutions are full of people who say the same thing.Personal beliefs aren't about thinking? Wow...
Maybe we should all just be 100% reflex, no thinking...
Seriously?
Logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. Attempting to make my argument look ridiculous by comparing it to people with mental handicaps.
You dodged the point. You have no way to know what I've experienced. You know, I met someone a few weeks ago who was 19 and had never seen snow.
Strangely enough, he didn't think anyone who claimed it exists was crazy...Yes, I can see how that would support a gods existence.
You still don't get it... it's almost incomprehensible. I'm not trying to prove God's existence to you.
All I'm doing is pointing out the logical fallacies in your method of thinking. You define 'reality' by what you think is real. In other words, you can know something isn't real because you think it isn't real.Those would be the logical fallacies you don't understand and use in your posts all the time?
You have failed to point out any fallacies, with an explanation of why the fallacy applies. Burden of proof is on your shoulders. In fact, I usually afterward show why that fallacy DIDN'T apply, but you don't listen and just change subjects.
Next time you say I'm using a fallacious argument, state the fallacy and state why it's a fallacy.In other words, you won't take the time to do learn about fallacies and will keep using them until others point them out. That's not how it works.
The burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim. You claim I am using fallacies, the burden of proof is on you.
You can dodge it all you want, but you only show how little you know about logic by continuing to insist that I use fallacies but it's up to me to know which.Yes. Exactly. Thanks for clarifying. Go to it. Good luck.
It is fallacious to use an argument that is taken out of context. You quoted a sentence turning the object into the subject. Read the sentence again.
Nice try.
He will be doing that soon, when He comes back to collect those who are His.
I think you will have a front row seat to examine the evidence, enjoy (I don't think) and get ready for the 'every knee show bow' bit that comes after that.You had a point?
My answer was totally on subject, what was yours other than an inane quip?
He wants us to have faith in him. If He proves Himself without a doubt, faith won't be necessary. Faith shows love. He wants us to love Him without feeling forced. If a man locked his wife up to keep her from cheating and another man let his wife go free to later find out that she really was faithful, which man is happier? The man with the free wife, of course.
He won't acknowledge an argument of faith. He thinks a God that wants us to have faith would take away all opportunity for faith by showing himself to everyone.
So do all the other gods who are believed to exist. Notice that faith in Him does not work at all in showing his existence.
LOL! That doesn't even deserve a response.
No, it does not and isn't even remotely similar. Faith is faith. Love is love. They are completely unrelated.
But, his followers force us to believe in Him.
Using real world examples to support your faith in Gods existence does not work. Sorry.
What we do today is a miracle to people 50-100 years ago. Therefore, a miracle is an action we cannot do ourselves... yet.
Second, a miracle does not prove divinity. It only proves you can do something that others do not. Flying is not a miracle unless Jesus put people in a spaceship and flew them to the moon 2,000 years ago.
Faith should be based on more than parlor tricks.Hi Keith.
The miracle I proposed was of the ' make the sun stand still' variety.
I gave it some thought and I came up with this:
I know we are jaded by the cool special effects we see on the tv, but I mean something like making the entire world a desert planet instantaneously, with no food, water or radio waves.
He already returneth, his name be-eth Paul Daniels.
Any logical and rational person would be forced to believe the miracles if no explation was possible other then a miracle.
Of course many people aren't logical and rational...Any rational person would believe in their ignorance before a miracle.
Believe in their ignorance?
How can that even make sense?How does it not make sense?
Do you believe you know everything?
I believe that if something happens that I cannot explain, chances are there is something than needs researchign so we can explain it.
I do not think that just because we cannot explain something, it means that we should make up a baseless story to explain it.
A "miracle" is the longest possible line between ignorance and discernment. It is the "explanation" before the fog is lifted. Much like, for example, the Aurora Boralis might be to a pious Daoist who has never seen electrons dance in the upper atmosphere; she might think it's a sign from her goddess or something. It is what belief requires to make the believer feel special, in the sense that the "laws" of the universe must stop for them to make their lives easier or more beautiful.
God has indeed come, he did that through Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our faith, he is the seed of a woman that God made reference to in the garden of Eden, Christ is God in form of man.
to be honest i wouldn't care . if god did exist he is an a#*&hole anyway so why would it matter. i don't care what the reasoning is, but with all the horrible things that happen, any thing that claims to be a loving god needs to give their head a shake. god is a myth , so in reality he will never appear so don't worry about it too much.
Nah! He does not exist, so, anyone claiming to be god would be locked up in the nuthouse.
Probably true, I'm not sure one way or the other, but I am playing the devil's advocate here and just sayin...
god the magician...whats use of god who needs miracle to make people believe???
He made the sun stand still once to prove it was He, why did He have to prove it then, and why can't He do that now?
m not talking about stories man...m talking about practicality...if god needs to prove he is god it is not god to start with....
I think a lot of people would like to see some proof.
god if real would be so magnetic and grand that no proof would be needed...god is positive force and positivity would be enough to move any being ...miracles performances are for magician and fake gods...
It is all around you, how much more proof do you need?
What is all around is proof of something, but not necessarily a god. This basic point is getting really really boring repeating over and over.
If God made the sun stand still again, we would concots some scientific explanation to prove that He is not a miracle worker. The sun sucks up water, and the clouds spew it over the Earth to moisten the soil and vegetation. Every day we get daylight to work and nighttime to sleep. When the rain does not come, the dew forms on plants and trickles down the stems to moisten the soil which supplies the roots. The earthworms cltivates the soil making it conducive to good plant growth. Even chicken droppings add much needed nitrogen to the soil. Nature is like little farmers working 24 hours a day to keep everything in order. What a bunch of miracles!
Deleted
There is no need to try and make things difficult. The story was written at a time when astronomical knowledge was limited. To them, the sun froze in the sky.
I think it is fair to say you understand the meaning of that phrase, why cause trouble over it?Hm? Maybe because he believes the story actually happened? The story claims the sun revolves around the earth.
- Wilfionposted 10 years ago
0If God were to appear before people, then this would suggest that he has a body, so is therefore not spirit. And if God were a "He", then he would belong only to one gender. So, a god with a male physical body, would suggest to me that it was a man standing before me, and not a god. That he would then proceed to perform something which looked like a miracle could suggest that it was merely a magic trick, as performed by any stage magician.
'If God were to appear before people, then this would suggest that he has a body, so is therefore not spirit. '
So then by your logic Jesus was just a man.
'And if God were a "He", then he would belong only to one gender.'
They don't call Him the Lord cuz he's a She, do they?
'That he would then proceed to perform something which looked like a miracle could suggest that it was merely a magic trick, as performed by any stage magician.'
He made the sun stand still once to prove it was He, why did He have to prove it then, and why can't He do that now?Not just by my logic. Logic is using reasonable arguments, as opposed to ones based only on faith. Whilst it is fine for anyone to believe Jesus was a god, it cannot be claimed that such a belief is based on logic, but on faith.
Concerning God's gender. If God exists, and created the universe, He/She must necessarily have existed before the physical universe, and therefore cannot have a physical body, because physical bodies need to live in a physical place. Being male, is a physical reality. How God can therefore be described in physical terms, by describing Him/Her as a male would therefore make little sense.
Also, the Bible says that God created man in His image. Man in this sense refers to mankind. If this were not so, and we are to take it literally that God has a male physical body, and copied that body as a blueprint for making Adam, then God must be human. He therefore cannot be God.
And it should be understood that in the Bronze Age, when the Old Testament was written, it was a male dominated society, so any man writing scripture would obviously think of God in terms of his own gender. And it should be remembered that there is not only one god worshipped in the world. And some of them are actually goddesses.Once again we have a responder that goes off on his own tangent instead of trying to deal with the original premise. You are too busy trying to show how smart you are, and not busy enough thinking.
Answer the friggin question! Everybody knows it is a silly question, but we want to know what people THINK about it, not what people learned in elementary school.If you do not want people to respond to your question, do not ask one. You were the one who asked whether I believed Christ to be only a man. If the answer offends you, then do not start forum topics. Being just another rude angry religious person will not get you anywhere.
haha Good one. I don't believe in god so I guess I'm just another rude non believer, but the statement in question is
'If God were to appear before people, then this would suggest that he has a body, so is therefore not spirit.'
and I said
'So then by your logic Jesus was just a man.'
you said
'Whilst it is fine for anyone to believe Jesus was a god, it cannot be claimed that such a belief is based on logic, but on faith.'
You are going off topic, einstein.
Also, you used the word 'whilst', which is dumb.'whilst', Why dumb? Perfect English used in the right context.
Referring to both the Oxford English and Universal Dictionaries, "Whilst" is described as an older version of the word "while," which is chiefly used in British English, but rarely in American English. The problem of the Internet is that everyone, no matter where they are from in the world is expected to use only American English. However, as an Englishman, I refuse to, and shall continue to use British English.
After all, it was our language originally.Jolly well said, and perfectly correct to state that.
They may have kicked us out, but we still own our language and the Queens English still 'roools' to place it in the modern idiom.
No wonder we don't understand each other!
Toodle Pip Old Chap!
By the way your comment to Wilfion was quite rude and not necessary. I would recommend you play nice when responding.
You asked the question of how we would respond were God to appear and perform miracles. I responded that should God appear before us, he would have to be in human form. Therefore I would not believe that it was God. As part of your question mentions that non-believers would not believe, then my answer is a direct one to your question. I can't help it, if you had preconceived answers in your mind, and that ones which do not meet your approval are therefore "off-topic." Good Lord! The whole idea of asking a question, I would have assumed would have been to receive responses. If you only wanted one type of answer, you should have stated so in your original post.
Got Proof? Why would God 'have' to take human form?
How would you see him otherwise? Did not Jesus, need a body to perform miracles?
He needed a body whilst performing miracles? Was He not disembodied whilst He performed the miracle of The Coming Back From The Dead?
Also, God performed all kinds of miracles in the old testament without showing himself.
I'll take the question you supplied instead of an answer to be the answer: 'No, you don't have proof.' Evidently you believe God is somehow 'limited' therefore your unstated belief that God is not 'all-powerful' would make the assumption, 'How would you see him otherwise?' seem logical when in fact it is a combination of accumulated conclusions based on fallacies.
Since we are discussing Christian Beliefs we must use the Christian Definition of the God concept.
All-Powerful being foremost among them.I thought power had nothing to do with the definition of God? You insist in your proof of God that you only have to prove that God is the highest life form.
God has no problem, we have the problem, it called being human and humans have problems relating to spiritual entities, we perceive them rather than see them.
When you come to faith (prophesy?) you can get familiar with perceiving God in Spirit, because your spirit is awakened (and that works for the enemy team as well) but to a spiritually dead secularist.... blindness is normal in spiritual things
haha It would be cool if God showed himself and he looked like that caveman that gets upset cuz no-one thinks he can use a phone.
Here is your statement.
I see sarcasm and hoping to pick a fight. I believe this topic can be handled more in an adult manner. Lashing out will cause a ridiculous argument and someone will end up being banned. Mmmmmm..... Maybe you are a sock puppet. I have seen this tone before. lololo! 
Once again we have a responder that goes off on his own tangent instead of trying to deal with the original premise. You are too busy trying to show how smart you are, and not busy enough thinking.
Answer the friggin question! Everybody knows it is a silly question, but we want to know what people THINK about it, not what people learned in elementary school.No, but swearing at them, insinuating that their response denotes a lower level of education, suggesting that should think as opposed trying to be smart, when they were merely trying to respond in an appropriate way, is extremely rude. Perhaps you're the one that was off topic.
@ Hollie: perhaps.
Hey you with the 'e' on your profile pic, does that 'e' give you the right to try to intimidate writers? You saw sarcasm in my post, so what? I'm a bit contentious, but I wasn't lashing out, as you try to insinuate, I was telling someone who posted a response that they were speaking gibberish, and I know gibberish when I see it. I'm sorry I made whatsisname go 'wah' and I'll try not to do it again, he's so sensitive.
BTW you called me a sock puppet, that is very insulting, as it makes me seem like someone is talking through me, that I don't have my own thoughts, and that I probably smell like feet. WAH!!!!!!
I try to keep it light, if you look around at most of my responses you will see that I go out of my way to get a chuckle out of all this.
I don't worship anything, but if there is a god then I believe he has a sense of humor, so we need to lighten up a little.Ummm...
Hollie doesn't have a little 'e'. Just Saying.
OHHhh I got it, 'perhaps' was addressed to Hollie, the rest @ AEvans.... Gotcha.
Eagle Eye out.Right, the one with the 'e' on her profile, just like I said in the post. You know, the important one, with the 'e'.
Then what's the @ Hollie about, you are f'in rude. There are better ways to put your argument forward. Wilfion, was trying to answer you, he wasn't being a smart arse, he's had problems with religion too you know. Stop trying to be a smart arse, chill a bit. I'm not A.Evans or Wilfion, but somehow, you have managed to piss me off too. However, I recognize this was probably your intention. You are a bad ass.
All I said to you was 'perhaps, that was my response to your statement.
All the rest was directed at AEvans.
.I know, but you're still a bit rude. You're still a bad ass, although somewhat lenient when it comes to me. I have yet to work out why.
Firstly, the original word that God is translated from can be singular or plural. That can in and of itself take care of the gender thing.
Secondly, what proof do you have that this is the only universe? Imagine an infinitely immense nothingness, in which our universe lies. Outside of our universe, there would still be an infinitely immense nothingness, which is plenty of space for other universes. And, if our universe were just created by chance from nothing, then statistically, there should be an infinite number of universes in the infinitely immense nothingness, so that argument doesn't hold water.
in His image doesn't mean an exact copy. It can easily mean the same form... flesh, bone, head, feet, etc... Also, some believe that the paradise during creation, including Adam and Eve, were in an immortal state before they sinned. Only when they fell were they changed into mortals. Flesh and bone(but not blood) that Christ had after resurrection. We have the same, but we have blood, which makes us mortal, and makes us age.
Again, about the gender, the original word can be singular or plural.Oxidation, at least that's one theory.
If you take an apple and leave it in a room with oxygen, it will spoil. If you put the same apple in a storage room with low levels of oxygen, it will last much longer.
- Emile Rposted 10 years ago0
Depends on the miracles and the mindset. It isn't outside of the realm of possible that someone with superior powers could confuse people. It wouldn't be a precedent. If the miracle worker expected blind obedience I wouldn't be compelled to follow.
I'm talking about the 'making the sun stand still' variety of miracles. Miracles that would be believable enough to make us doubt ourselves.
Hmmm. That's a mighty big miracle. In that case, sure, I'd give that being the benefit of the doubt. I think I'd still be a little scared to jump to any conclusions. Great power might make a god, but great wisdom and compassion would have to be evident for me to add a capital G.
I guess the question (for those of us still on topic) could be re-stated as:
At what point does respect for a superior being morph into worship?
(Was this is the kind of 'worship' that Romans had for Caesar, who could divert rivers or have thousands slain with a word?)Love. He'd have to love us first. Every action would have to be a testament to that. Across the board. I could worship that.
Would you need to love Him back?
I'll answer that, no, not at all, Gods love is unconditional, it's humans that put conditions on God, or try to.
When we return that unconditional love, we start understanding God.
People really do make too much of the hell equation as a stick to beat God with.
Firstly it appeared rather late in things, it's an RCC invention in the format we know and see expressed, and yes there are plenty of folk who use it as a threat even if their intention is good, and I also agree that there seem to be many folk who take some pleasure in thinking that all the unbelievers will suffer for not listening.
Not me.
In a hub I wrote on writing hubs for non believers, this was my summation on hell:
"It's not that believers WANT people to go to Hell, it's not even that God wants people to go to Hell, but it's a fact that God MUST provide some place where people who refuse to be in relationship with Him can go to on their return to the spiritual plain, and by necessity that place MUST be a God free zone, i.e. by His Grace God will allow them to exist for eternity in a place where He does not exercise His authority."
...and you can draw your own conclusions what being in a place where God chose to give people their wishes and never went to or exercised authority over would be like.Acceptance of your post requires acceptance of the assumption that we must 'conform'.
I don't believe God seeks conformity, I believe God loves 'Diversity'.
The fact that everything 'created' by God is unique seems to lend weight to my perspective.
Our belief in the justness of punishing people that do harm to other people, is the basis for the argument that punishment of people that do harm to God (sin) must also be punished. Acceptable levels of punishment (let the punishment fit the crime) lead to our concept of hell and why that place must exist.
If God is all-powerful, you cannot harm God, therefore you cannot sin against God. You can only break the man-made rules put in place by humanity to create obdience and conformity. Fear is used to enforce this obdience and conformity. A failure to obey and conform are punished by eternal torture in 'hell'.
I believe God uses the consequences of actions to enforce God's rules, not punishments. Though, I must admit, according to the Christian mind set it follows that disobedience and non-conformity's consequence is an eternity in hell. The only way I have of rebutting that is a feeling/understanding of the nature of God. Eternal punishment (eternal torture) seems unfair no matter what the 'sin'. The punishment does not fit the crime.i do not like to be labeled. That being said, sin is able to be forgiven. Some get upset with me because I say if there is a heaven, Adam and Eve will have the same chance as being there as anyone. The way I see it, eternal punishment is for those that refuse to believe in a higher power, God, or whatever label you choose to put on it.
I don't call Him God, as that is only a label a descriptive noun. Noone knows His name and by calling Him by anything besides His name, in my opinion, would be blasphmy.
But to answer the OP question. I doubt many people would believe it. In the world we live today, miracles happen every day. Most think nothing of them. Just like cutting trees. Most everyone will say cut the tree in respect to progress. I wonder, could clear cutting our trees have any affect on the development of many of the breathing problems many have today. I mean, trees do provide ?????????????
I feel so much of truth is just being neglected today.Provide some, honestly, if you could it would not be neglected.
The Bible refers to Him as God, Father, Abba, Jehova, Rock of Ages, and many other names. Some people call a male parent Father, Pop, Dad, Poppie, Chief, My Old Man, Daddy and many others. A father knows his child's voice and answers him. Jesus called God Father and other names. If you are referring to the Almighty, you are not blaspheming. Some call Him Righteous, Healer, Judge, Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, and so on. God judges the heart. He knows your meaning. There are many good proper adjectives that the Bible uses to describe and labeled God, and that is OK. The Bible labels Him many names. He is not as hard as we think. He loves and sympathizes with us.
In the old tesament, He told Moses to tell His people that His name is I AM. Another part of the Bible says His name is Jehovah. Another says Jehovah Jireh, and many more. Whatever you call Him, He will know your reference. He won't be confused or angry. He is better than your or my father. Will our loving fathers behave better than the Almighty? Hardly not!
***Actually after having thought a little bit about it, the Hell concept to me seems even more ridiculous. In my opinion if a being is 'unworthy' of being with God, God would simply un-create that entity. Why make a useless thing suffer, especially for all eternity. NAAW, hell is a tool created by humanity to enforce obedience and conformity. That's the only thing that makes sense.
What if Hell isn't an eternal punishment, but an eternal reward?
What if God can't un-create us?
Do you think God created us for Him, or for us? And why?If god can't un-create us then he is not omnipotent.
It depends on how you define omnipotent. The greek word that is translated in the NT in 2 Corinthians and Revelation as 'Omnipotent' or 'Almighty' is:
In the OT, the following is used:
If you have never studied the Bible with the companionship of a lexicon, I highly recommend it. You can delve much more deeply into the meaning of the words. Unfortunately, in translation, much meaning is lost.
Both of those terms could easily be translated into the concept of 'Being able to do anything which is able to be done.' It doesn't necessarily mean God can do anything.Actually 'uncreating' someone would be the ultimate indifference and insult, and you could just as easily state that He may as well have simply NOT created those who reject Him.
But He created us to allow us the choice of being with Him, or not, and although God has seen the in he end we turn out, He still gave us the choice, and the guidance and the love to persuade us.
Some folk however are just ego driven and stubborn.
God created us for His good pleasure, to love us, and for us to love Him. He wants us and wants us to want Him.
Mikel G. Roberts,
the Bible says that the lost will be consumed, ashes under the feet of the righteous, destroyed forever, NOT burned forever. God is merciful and would not allow a being to suffer forever! He must destroy sin in the most final way. This is referred to as His strange act.Which version of which bible?
"The Lost"? What makes an entity become one of "the Lost"?
Anytime I hear someone say "God Must", God is obligated to, God is forced, God has no choice in the matter, etc I think: "If God is all-powerful" then God always has a choice and can do whatever God deems to be appropriate. My next question is invariably: "What would God deem to be appropriate?"
Since we are discussing the Christian Concept of Hell, that concept being eternal torture, suffering in unbearable pain for all eternity.
I have stated I don't believe in the Christian concept of Hell. This concept is to me an obvious attempt at control, through fear/terror, created by members of humanity attempting to gain power over other people. Which is why I have a hard time believing in this concept.
The un-creating of an entity that is found by God to be unacceptable, which I posted earlier in this thread, seems to be closely aligned with the definition you provided here.
The bottom line for me however will remain that we simply don't know what happens next. Trusting in the character of God is the only thing that brings me comfort.
Your subtle change to the definition of hell is more inline with my thoughts of acceptable punishment, or just consequences.The bible doesn't say that much about hell. God does not want us to respond in fear. Somewhere, it says, "Perfect love casts out fear."
wtf is an RCC invention? Are we supposed to know what that means?
If God is OMNIPOTENT, then who put the saddle on Him when:
"It's not that believers WANT people to go to Hell, it's not even that God wants people to go to Hell, but it's a fact that God MUST provide some place where people who refuse to be in relationship with Him can go to on their return to the spiritual plain, and by necessity that place MUST be a God free zone, i.e. by His Grace God will allow them to exist for eternity in a place where He does not exercise His authority."The words 'God MUST provide' presumes that God cannot refuse to do this. Am I the only one confused here?
God is just, He puts His own 'saddle' (as you so politely call it) on Himself in order to finally satisfy your desire to be without Him.
You want separation, you get it.The Bible does not say that the lost will exist in hell for eternity. It says that the lost will be consumed, forever lost or destroyed, ashes under the feet of the righteous. Ashes denotes that something has completed the burning process. God has to destroy sin and sinner, but He is merciful.
Lew Sethics, you said, "I'm talking about the 'making the sun stand still' variety of miracles. Miracles that would be believable enough to make us doubt ourselves."
An eclipse is a miracle. A hurrican that brings much peace and plenty is a miracle for some. My insurance paid me X dollars for Hurricane Katrina damage to my property. After getting all repairs, we had a nice amount of money left over. I got peace of mind, improved property, and money in the process. A hurricane did this! that was a miracle. So, what if we Can explain it. A miracle is something that humans cannot do. We can't send hurricanes. A hurricane is destructive, even evil, but God can take a wrong and make it work for good. That's the miracle.
Doctors told my family that my grandson was dying, so they moved him from ICU to critical ICU, literally a death room. He was just being observed. I prayed and receive peace that I had never before experienced, to the point that I went home and had a restful night. Ordinarily, I would not have left him. I would have camped out at the hospital. I went back to the hospital at mid-morning the next day with assurance and calmness. I was told again that he would not live. He was swollen, with shallow breathing, and still. He had been given a cocktail of antibiotics. Nevertheless, they said that his intestines were dead. I waited patiently for his recovery. He recovered and is a fine healthy boy today. Try convincing me that this was not a miracle. I have not had faith like that since. I want it, I crave it, I pray for it. Why was it so unexpectedly strong then? I do have faith, but it seems a little more relaxed than the time in the hospital.
Given that God is meant to be omnipotent-- if he actually existed, actually appeared and wanted us all to believe, presumably we would.
Good point, if God WANTS us to believe, then that should be it, like gravity or something,( if God were omnipotent, the goofiest word ever.)
physcheskinner, I have to disagree with you.
He gives us free will. To either believe or not. He is not of a forceful nature.
Jesus was placed in this world as a result of people not believing in something they could not see. many overlook that point.
If God came and performed miracles would we believe it was God?
No. God allows us freewill, the ability to choose and decide for ourselves.
We would simply examine the miracle until we found some tiny detail, an infinitely small triviality and we would use that doubt as proof that the miracle was not a miracle. If we came to understand how the miracle was done we would call it science and obviously science isn't miracles that is just nature.
We would then ask for another miracle not like that one a 'true' miracle, and then we would start the process again.Trying to determine one way or another whether or not we would believe him is futile. Nobody can speak for the entire human race.
A better question would be, would I believe him, or would you believe him.
I believe him already.the other day my stepdaughter baked an apple pie and did a fine job i will add. she had one piece and went to a freinds house for a few hours . When she returned she went to eat another peice and it was all gone. HEY! shw said I spent two hours making that pie and only got one piece. the fact is her mother and I have spent countless hours working baking unselfishly for her and her siblings and for the same result but she does not understand that she is a child .Isnt that the same standpoint you are with God. he is God .You are not.He can come to earth in a physical body if he chooses male or female or both he can do as he pleases. the real problem is people want to be God and that will never happen.
We judge everything with our own standards, rather than seeing through God's standards.
When he fails to cope up with our rules we then believe God doesn't exist. Science believes the probability and possibility that it must be. It seems funny for people to hear that God created us, but it not funny when science say, world formed from organic soup, where things came for the big 'bang' ( bang means to clash). Science says smaller things evolved to form bigger then how Uranium formed from Hydrogen?
Job was faithful, so his sun of faith never saw sunset even in the midst of difficulties, so God made the sun stand still. There are various tricks to perform magic in every religion and man made Gods. But there is a true miracle maker to whom we should seek. So we should walk by faith and not by sight.Believers judge everyone else and fail to see how they never live up to their own standards.
When we see the actions of believers who do one thing and say another, we can't accept anything they say.
The question has already been answered! Jesus did come once and performed numerous miracles. Did the people believe Him? Some believed, but most did not. Now in our present world, more people believe Him. As a matter of fact, world records have it that Jesus had, and still have, more followers than any man who has ever lived. His followers are called an army, His Word is their sword, and He will be our victor! So, He has manned the largest army of all leaders of all armed forced who have ever lived anywhere in this universe. No man has ever equaled Him. How can a broke man not sent of God do all of this considering His few years of ministry? Many world leaders spent years, even most of their lives attaining the little, compared with Jesus, they got. I tell you, He was a miracle sent by His Father, God Himself. What power!
If God wanted every body to believe he exists, all he would need do is to shout from the skies and no one would ever doubt him again. Besides, how can a father allow his own children to wander in confusion over whether he exists or not? My own father was always around me. He did so many substantial things for me and also made me know he was the one who did them. Therefore, if i had suddenly grown up to say my father did not exist; it would amount to insanity!
If God wants you to think he exists, there are a million and one ways by which he can do that. He can shout from the skies, he can solve your problems and make you see he did it, he can do so many other things which i can't even begin to list!
And as for those of you who think miracles occur all around the world, i wonder what kind of miracle occurs in your world because when i look around me, i see injustice, suffering and full blasted wickedness. Let God start by giving succour to the billions of homeless kids on the streets and i'll have no doubt as to whether he existsMy guess is that most people will not believe it. Revelations claims that they will deny it regardless of the worst consequences. Scarier still is the false or anti Christ they will believe in and so it offers proof that they will believe in something any way. So if God even showed up we must be prepared to question it any way, before we can recognize it as God.
Larry Okeke,
as I read your comments, I was searching for something that I had never felt before. I did not find it. I have been so angry at God because I felt that He left me alone and defenseless, so, I stopped praying and did not acknowledge Him for five years. Then, I began to have experiences that were so consuming that I thought that I would die. When I called upon the Lord, I began to experience peace and hope. Things that I thought could not happen began to happen. My faith was renewed. Now, I hold on to it because it is the best I have ever had. I have listened to many others with different opinions, but they have not been able to give me a faith and hope that heals like that I have.
My nature craves a higher Power, a need to believe in something that can give me what I cannot give myself--love, peace, faith, a reason to anticipate and live with hope. If this desire has always been within my soul and spirit, then, it must be there to perform a necessary function. So, I embrace it like a loving wife would embrace a good and faithful husband.
Last Saturday night Mom cooked up a traditional feast, along with 2 chocolate cakes for dessert, and invited all 9 of her children over to enjoy it. What an odd hour for supper, but it was an unbelievable blast!
That sounds believable because we expect to hear surprises like that. It sounds human, so we have no problem believing. If someone says Jesus worked miracles when He walked the Earth and still does today, that would vex the belief system of some. Why? We cannot connect. We only believe in our powers and what we see us doing. Go into the woods and find a hammer and nails near a tree. Would we have a problem believing that a person left them? Of course not. We allow ourselves to connect.
By the way, my mom is not able to cook anymore, and I would not be caught in a state of insanity coking a meal at 11:00 A.M.! BUT, it's believable. The human mind does just what it wants to do.Correction: . . . cooking a meal at 11:00 P.M.
If someone was walking around now performing miracles and professed to be God I pretty sure the world would turn upside down. I for one would be against such a person. Christ warned me about those who would come doing miracles.
I would be against such a person also, but I do believe that God works miracles today.
If God came and performed miracles would...
Jesus was no god; he is not to come again in this world in literal and physcial terms; the personage who was to come is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promises Messiah; Jesus died naturally and peacefully in Kashmir, India at the age of 120 years.7,203 posts in 19 months with 2 whole hubs to your name.
OK, think we have your mark.
Time to write 380 comments a month, mostly inane and the same!
I think you should consider working or getting out more, because you are certainly wasting your time and bandwidth here.But, he has hubs, which appears to be your modus operandi in evaluating members here, which seems to be the only thing you know how to do as opposed to sticking with the subject matter and forming an argument.
So, tell us, how many hubs does one need to have in order to meet your personal specifications?
I think the mere fact that one name gets the world in an uproar proves there's something different about that name. You either want to believe or don't. If you're not sure, read "The Case for Christ" by Strobel. From an investigative reporters view, you can see the evidence is abundant. Any court would have to accept the proof. There's no question Jesus was/is special. Read this, then decide.
In answer to your post, it depends on how he came back. If it's in the sky, yes. If it's like last time, probably most wouldn't see him as any different.Faith is the path that many righteous persons have treaded on and have been suceesful in achieving the purpose of life; they are a witness to it; treading on the same by a new person with certainty that they will accomplish the same results; it would be a faith, in my opinion.
If you were employed by a company in your country owned by an old billionaire in another country, yet, he issues orders to his CEO's of the company. You have never met Mr. Rich, but you receive his orders from the CEO's. Would you have a problem working for this company even though the owner is unseen and sends messages through other men to be sent out to various employees? Probably not. You would believe that Mr. Rich exists.
God's Holy Scriptures were recorded by holy men inspired by Him. I believe these Biblical scriptures are His because they are effective, so effective that Jesus, along with the scriptures, have impacted mankind and world history and literature in a way that no other person has, can, or ever will. The Bible is the most recorded and talked about book in all of earth's history. It is a book that is like the horn of plenty. It cannot be mastered. No matter how much a person reads it, there is always something new to learn. It is everflowing spiritual food.
Jesus' ministry was very short, yet, He reached more hearts and attention than any world giant ever has, no matter how long they worked at their professions. His short ministry was further proof that He is the real power. What man can do what he did in a few years. That's miraculous. The Bible and Jesus are miraculous. They do things that no one, object, or event has, can, or ever will do. Jesus died, rose, promised, ascended, and still, he commands a Christian army that has existed before He left, down through several thousand years, and is still going strong. What makes all of these souls respond to Jesus and the Bible like no other existence in the entire world? Something is commanding and urging us on. I say Jesus/God and the Spirit that they left to influence all willing mankind. What other man commands an army like Jesus? No man! He stands out above the whole world because He IS God!
He has given us enough to know that He exists, His Son being the main proof. He gives us an undeniable desire to be loved, to perceive a higher power, and experience a desire to worship.
When we sincerely invite Him into our hearts--He does not force Himself on us--He will respond and dwell there if we allow Him. He will begin working within us to perfect our characters and ready us for His purpose for our lives, and further prepare us for His everlasting kingdom.
We also have free will that He gave us. We exercise it daily, and are able to stock our own belief and value systems. Yet, He invites us to invite Him into our lives. He wants us to trust Him and operate on faith. He shows evidence of Himself through our natural desires to connect with a higher power. Further proof are His many miracles, nature around us, and heavenly bodies beyond Earth. If God shows Himself to us, we would die. He wants us to live now and forever.
If we pray fervently and patiently for an experience with Him, He will grant it. When I had an experience, I said, "Lord who am I that you would prove yourself to me?"Mr. Rich could be a pseudonym for that company, like Aunt Jemima or Johnnie Walker, hence he might not exist and his words are contrived by other men.
Or, God is just a pseudonym and the Holy Scriptures are just words contrived by men, just like the CEO of that company.
Yes, our history is replete with Holy Wars, Inquisitions and Witch Burnings as a result of Scriptures.
It's been around for a very long time, but that doesn't give it credibility.
It's already has been mastered, but a number of other books. From a literary point of view, it is weak by comparison. From a moral and ethical point of view, it is lacking entirely.
You mean like Islam? The internet? Cell phones?
Yes, that's what really bothers me about Christianity, it's always about armies, swords, shields and conflict.
But, his followers are relentless.
Yet, he allegedly showed Himself to others, and they lived. Odd, isn't it?Yes, Chrisrianity is about armies, sword, conflict, but these are only symbols for something better. For example, the sword is the word of truth.
He came without His Heavenly splendor or glory. He became man, flesh, in order to live among men. He took on sin although He never sinned. In a sense He dropped rank for man's sake. Therefore, no one died in His presence.
Christianity is about ending conflict, and the greatest conflict is between Christ and Satan. Those who follow Christ are part of the army to end conflict. No real guns or swords are involved. You know that.
Why do you exert so much energy trying to get people to not believe in Jesus Christ? Christians love Jesus, accept him, and find hope and peace in Him. Why are you trying to take that away? What better do you have to offer?
If you do not believe in Christianity, why does it bother you? I think that God is working with you.LOL! When you explain concepts in military terms, only conflict and war can come from it.
Millions have died since in senseless bloodshed for His name.
LOL! I only know of the conflict, wars and genocides that Christianity has started, committed and finished entirely on its own. You know that.
LOL! Christians are free to wallow in their fantasies in their homes behind closed doors, but they bring their nonsense to the streets, evangelizing and shoving it down our throats.
I would offer you to keep your faith behind closed doors where it belongs. That would be much better for all."LOL! Christians are free to wallow in their fantasies in their homes behind closed doors, but they bring their nonsense to the streets, evangelizing and shoving it down our throats."
Oh that you would obey the rules you wish to inflict on others.What rules would those be? Certainly, not or anywhere near the ridiculous, violent or insane rules your religion would have me follow?
"Secularists are free to wallow in their fantasies in their homes behind closed doors, but they bring their nonsense to the streets, evangelizing and shoving it down our throats."
Those rules you wish to enforce on believers....
Try to show the tolerance you demand.Gee, I can't remember the last time some 'Agnostic Witnesses" knocked on my door and started telling me that I have to believe what they say or I will suffer the consequences.
You are doing it now, in a religious forum, you do it on the TV, in the media in general, in courthouses, in every area where your 'whispers' can be heard.
Okay, lets start by getting rid of the "Secularist rule" regarding religion and create a religious state, instead.
Which religion will be the dominant religions and what atrocities are we to commit on the other religions followers for their blasphemies? Thumbscrews? Burning at the stake? Tar and feather?
What tolerance will that religion show towards others when it is in complete control? What will become of gays? Schools? Judicial Law? Freedom?
Did you keep your beliefs behind closed doors? You are all on the internet, but I don't mind at all. You have freedom of speech, and I am able to read or not read what you have to say. I know how to respect people whether I believe them or not. You are arrogant, angry, and mean. You poke fun at people and put up a smiley face when you think you have scored a stab at others' intelligence. That's morally wrong, and it is a turnoff.
You are hurting, and it has nothing to do with Christians. You have a conflict within. Your avatar is indicative of that. You fight people who are doing exactly what you are doing--exercising freedom of speech. You are trying to force others to be miserable and without a Saviour. It is so peaceful and such a blessing to be wrapped up in Jesus. It Jesus is nobody, why are you fighting? "Nobody" cannot do anything to affect you, but Jesus can. He is worthy to be praised and loved.I don't share religious beliefs so the question is moot.
So much for respect.
Morally wrong? Such nonsense. But hey, you know how to respect people.
Every things is well and good. Every religions are monotheistic.
If a person started to believe a super power through miracles. What's wrong on it. Is it important to belong with a religion ? The system, the existing things, the life and death. The garden of God is a miracle and I have to find God through these miracle and become a good human being without any attachment of religion. What's wrong on it .
If you believe Jesus or Mohammed or Hinduism, Buddhist well and good.
But I believe in Agnosticism.Is there a God ? I do not know. Is man immortal ? I do not know and that is , neither hope nor fear, belief,nor denial.
Can change the fact ? It is as it is and it will be as it must be.
A good human being and love to all existing things in the world is enough.
No one dislike such a person, even the religious God.
The examples with the Bosses with employees are relevant. Mr.or Mrs
Bronterao says. If God shows himself, then we will die. How you know it ? Religion confuses people to put such a question and live in frighten.
If you believe a God. Accept him as a friend. Love with him and his creation, automatically he love you. No need to go in exaggeration."Religion confuses people to put such a question and live in frighten."
The fear is used to create obedience and conformity. Without that they lose thier power and influence over the peasants. (and the money, don't forget the money)
GOD is every where.When we can ready to see GOD .
Childs are using mobile for games.
People are using their body for games.
Both are in lacking of knowledge.The Creator God is everywhere with his attributes; He is neither physical nor spiritual; all things physical and spiritual are His creation.
Use anything but a religious book to verify that and the world would believe it.
Try speaking with Him?
Works for believers, could work for you, but if you do seriously ASK CHRIST, you may be surprised.Nice spin job. You're usual tactic.
Only the gullible need apply for that task.Well, I can point out your BS tactics of spin control. So, I guess not.
Oh I do not doubt your ability for sarcasm, that has never been in question, you are magnificent in the art of one liners, it's your belief in yourself that leads me to the fact that you are gullible.
You're up late....You denote sarcasm where there was none. Good show.
Apologies, my discernment must be slipping
That should tell you something, but I'm sure you'll dismiss it.
Like I said, I figured you would dismiss it.
It just goes to show your bad perception. Nothing new I guess.OK, now you are getting seriously out of order, I'm in a good mood, so cannot be bothered to respond to your one liners, have a good day!
You must have an unrealistic image, or at least the way you are coming across to others. There is no glory in being an irritant. But then again . . . no irritant . . . no pearl.
And you make the mistake as per usual, making this about me, as a person. Good show.
What glory? Not seeking glory, but if that's what you perceive, then I must inform you that your perception is screwed up.There you go. You made it about me as a person. Good show.
Okay Mr.Testosterone he isn't being dishonest, he is just placing an opinion. Geez.
Whatever is clever. I'm coming straight at you. Have you taken up your own honest cause and helped anyone, like a forlorn starving child, lately?
My purpose in life is helping people. What's yours?
It isn't apparent. Feed that child!
I am a four year old in a cowboy suit and my purpose in life is facing scary tigers.I didn't say it was apparent, but then again things that usually are, are oblivious those who choose not to bother looking in the first place.
Well, you're doing a job at being a four year old.What about "feed that child"? You didn't have a lame, self satisfying comback for that. If you are a helper of people, why don't you help some people instead of bushwacking strangers with nonsense?
You missed the point. They didn't and neither do you. Not my problem.
I wonder what type of miracle it would really take to convince some people... after all, for some people, it's not a matter of 'I don't think that's rational', or 'I don't believe'. No, no, it's a matter of 'I know for a fact that it didn't happen, and it won't happen!'.
I wonder where these people get their crystal balls/seer stones/reincarnated knowledge?The greatest miracle is breathing life into a heart of stone.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
It wouldn't take a miracle to convince people, that's the problem in a nutshell, people require reality to be convinced, not miracles. Miracles have been spouted far too long to have any effect on the intellectual.
'Miracle' and 'reality' aren't mutually exclusive. Miracle is just a word for something we can't explain, usually attributed to God or the paranormal.
If God appeared and re-grew a limb, we would call it a miracle. If he then showed us how to do that through medicine, we would no longer call it a miracle.- Yes, I know you have yet to distinguish your god from reality. <--- the coveted double laughie. Well deserved.
At this time, if God could just feed the starving and cure cancer, that would be a start for any atheist to believe in Him.Are you trying to address the actual point I made? A miracle is something we can't explain. Many things that would have been called miracles before are now simple technology.
So, are you denying that if God re-grew a limb we would call it a miracle?
Or, are you denying that if we knew how to re-grow limbs, we wouldn't call it a miracle?
It has to be one or the other for you to 'double laughie' what I siad.It is neither, but I know you don't understand that and probably never will.
It is neither...
Ok. Here is the truth everybody. Straight from 'A Troubled Man':
If God appeared on the earth and re-grew the limb of an amputee, it would not be a miracle.
If God taught us how to re-grow limbs, it would not be medicine.
Thank you troubled, crystal clear now.I would love to watch you in a real debate format.
FACILITATOR: A Troubled Man, you have 2 minutes for rebuttal.
A Troubled Man:Me too, it would be entertaining to see you start your debate with...
"If God appeared..."
... and not see the other debaters laugh their heads off.I wouldn't start an argument off with 'If God appeared...'. I would only use that argument if my opponent showed he didn't know what a miracle was. You introduced the argument that miracles and reality are mutually exclusive.
No, you fallaciously began from a position of irrational belief in order to make your point.
"A miracle often denotes an event attributed to divine intervention. Alternatively, it may be an event attributed to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature." wikiDon't start with the 'fallacy' thing again Troubled. You have only shown your own lack of understanding and ability to back up your claims.
1 - The man who uses Wikipedia as his source for a debate.
2 - There is nothing in that about miracles being mutually exclusive with reality.Yet, another fallacy.
I used wiki to show you the definition of miracle. It was not a debate.
Yes, you have made it clear that your invisible sky fairies are part of the reality you have conjured for yourself.Exactly my point. Not only do you fail to even define my 'fallacy', you also fail to provide any evidence. Burden of proof is on you, so your argument is hollow.
Who uses wiki for definitions? You do know that wikipedia entries can be changed by anyone, right?
And, as I said, there is nothing in that definition of miracle that says miracles are mutually exclusive with reality. It says a perceived interruption of the laws of nature, but our perception of what is a 'law of nature' changes, nature doesn't. Like I said, when we learn how to do something that was considered a miracle before, it is no longer a miracle.
'invisible sky fairies' - arguing against a point by making it appear ridiculous.Okee dokee.
Then, change it to suit your own definition. Who is stopping you... oh wait!
Of course, you don't. Your contrived reality includes miracles, as defined.
Granted, our understanding of gravity changed from Newton to Einstein, but that didn't dramatically change such that it was a miracle.
Again, feel free to change the definition of 'miracle' in wiki and see how far you get....
I have no interest in trying to moderate the truthfulness of a community encyclopedia.
'Of course, you don't.' <--- I don't? Don't what? Please try to be clear in your arguments.
No, not really. It did allow for things like GPS though.
2,000 years ago, being able to talk to someone who was 1,000 miles away, face-to-face, would have been considered a miracle(or magic). Healing somebody who had 'demons' would have been considered a miracle(now we just call one example of doing such 'antibiotics'). Holding an object and it suddenly emitting light would have been considered a miracle.
There are many, many things which are simply fact today, that would be considered miracles in times past. Similarly, there are many things today that would be considered miracles, that will be simple fact in the future.
I already pointed out that the wiki definition doesn't put 'miracle' and 'reality' at odds with each other.Are you saying there's a problem with the definition, that it isn't true?
And yet, they were just issues of ignorance and not miracles or magic at all, after a simple explanation of how they worked. That does not support your argument at all.
And, if those things were considered miracles due to divine/magical influence, then that would follow the definition in wiki. If not, then it's just plain ignorance.
Yes, in your contrived reality based on fairy tales and invisible sky fairies.Not necessarily, I'm saying Wiki isn't a good resource for definitions. Dictionaries are better. We can use that definition if it makes you feel better.
How do you know what is 'ignorance' and what is 'magic'? That's the entire point. A miracle is something we can't explain. It doesn't mean we won't be able to some day. That's why I tried to get you to think a little bit with the hypothetical situation of God teaching us how to re-grow limbs. If he showed us how, we would no longer be ignorant to the process, and it would no longer be considered a miracle.
You seem to think that a miracle has to break the laws of the universe. That's not the case.
'divine/magical influence' is just one part of the definition of miracle. If that's all you want to use, then I recommend that you only quote that part.
Think about it, prophets who heard the voice of God, that was considered a miracle. How could God speak to someone from who knows where? Well, now we can speak to people on the other side of the planet.
Nope, simple logic. Something happens that we 'perceive' to be against the laws of nature, but then we learn later that it wasn't, goes from being a miracle, to being science.Like this one...
A marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent
By the definitions, of course.
And, is asserted to be of a supernatural act of a divine agent.
No, believers like yourself believe miracles break the laws of the universe. These forums are filled with such beliefs.
It is the one definition relevant to these forums and the most widely used term for divine/magical influence. If an event has an unknown explanation, do you think scientists are going to label it a miracle? Believers will.
Yes, considered such by the gullible and indoctrinated.
I could easily come up with a scientific explanation that didn't break any laws of nature, and in fact, require the laws of nature to work on how God could speak to us.
Yes, via the Marconi Magic Box.
Really, I would suspect that it would go from something happening we don't yet understand to something happening we do understand.
You wish to call it a miracle. Enjoy and flaunt it. Who cares.Ok... so you are changing your definition?
Ridiculous. You can't know if something that we don't know is ignorance or magic. Otherwise, we would know.
Typically, yes, but you won't let us talk about any divine miracles without just laughing, so I try to use examples you can understand.
I believe miracles break the laws of the universe? News to me... care to explain?
I have seen scientists and doctors use the word miracle, yes.
See? You can't just dismiss any argument you don't agree with my ridiculing it. Appeal to ridicule. You are so fond of your fallacies, why do you have to use that almost every post?
Exactly. Until we understand it though, it's still considered a miracle. Thank you for arguing my point for me What point are you trying to argue?
Exactly! Something we don't understand, we label as 'supernatural' or 'magical' or 'miraculous'. When we understand it, we change the label. You actually get it!(but, I'm afraid you don't realize it)
Obviously, you care.Nope.
Yes, I know you believe you can make any claim you want and expect others to take you seriously.
Yes, miracles, what's not to laugh at? What's to understand about magic?
Your belief in spirits, for example.
LOL! I'm sure you have.
Not true, pointing out that the gullible and religiously indoctrinated believe others have heard voices in their heads as being a miracle is not ridicule, it's merely an explanation.
LOL! No, it's considered gullibility until you show otherwise.
No, something we don't understand we label it as, "Something we don't understand."Is that because you can't understand how others are able to agree on reality, you must assume they are all one and the same person?
Excuse me mam, that is not a reasonable assumption.
Thank you for your faith based assertion. Well done!
No it's because you sound like someone who changes their persona every few months in order to evade another ban by the Hub Police Trolls Squad.
Same vacuous comments with no substance, just designed to detract from normal discussion and disrupt the forum....
Ok, I just didn't know if you wanted to use that definition or not. I notice how every resource that uses that definition uses it as the second definition, but you conveniently leave out the first.
Not that it matters, even with your definition you are still wrong.
Don't avoid the issue. I want you to tell everyone how you can tell the difference between:
1 - Something we don't know, but is knowable, and we are ignorant.
2 - Something we don't know, and isn't knowable, so it's just magic.
Again, tell us how you know the difference between something we don't know because we haven't discovered it and something we don't know because it doesn't exist. Surely you have some kind of crystal ball, or you know everything that there is to know...
First, that's not an explanation, that's an example.
Secondly, how does the belief in spirits break the laws of the universe? Please, I'm all ears!
And... your point is? You said scientists wouldn't, I said they have... what's so funny?
To be able to say that everyone who believes so is gullible and indoctrinated means that you know everything that everyone who professes to be a believer has ever experienced.
You don't know that, so you calling that group of people gullible is just a feeble attempt to discredit anything they say or think. You don't know what I've experienced in my life. You have no way to know. Trying to discredit everything I've ever experienced without knowing it is arrogant, and frankly, irrational.
You're off topic. You said you could come up with something that requires the laws of nature for it to happen. That is exactly my point. Things are called miracles when we don't understand them, and science when we do understand them.
I'm not saying every 'miracle' actually happened or happens. I'm saying that, unless you know everything mankind will ever know, you have no way to know what we will know. It's very simple logic.
A perceived interruption of the laws of nature. Remember that? When something seems to break the laws of nature, we call it a miracle. We don't understand it. I'm using YOUR definition here!
If we learn more about the laws of nature, and figure out what happened, then we don't consider it a miracle anymore.
How can you not realize when you argue the same point as me?That is a lie. Here are both definitions for you to peruse and explain the differences...
"A marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent
A miracle often denotes an event attributed to divine intervention"
If you say so, I know believers never change their minds in light of evidence.
1 - Reality
2 - Religious claims
See how easy that is?
Don't call me Surely.
Duh, the beliefs are real, the spirits are not. More hand holding or are you just doing that in light of not having an argument?
Your posts, of course.
If you say so, however most would reject that fallacy. Yes, and I'm just going to sit here and swallow everything a religious believer claims based on their personal experiences with God.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. LOL!
Actually, that's a very simple fallacy.
Yes, you call what is not known to be a miracle while others do not. If scientists don't see what appears to be the laws of nature being violated, they will not refer to it as a miracle. But, you would. Yeah, I get that.
Because, I'm not.I said the new definition you quoted is just one of 2(or more) definitions listed in the dictionaries that have that definition. I didn't say anything about wikipedia.
TheFreeDictionary:(or, if you got it from a different source, let me know).
Noun 1. miracle - any amazing or wonderful occurrence
happening, natural event, occurrence, occurrent - an event that happens
2. miracle - a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent
Evidence? What evidence? Your wikipedia definition says "A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature.". There have been things that happened that we thought were interruptions of the laws of nature, until we learned better. It's happened before. It's fact.
Can you read? I said:
"I want you to tell everyone how you can tell the difference between:
1 - Something we don't know, but is knowable, and we are ignorant.
2 - Something we don't know, and isn't knowable, so it's just magic."
You did no such thing. Tell me how you tell the difference.
Nice way to avoid the issue. Can't explain how you know things that aren't known?
How do you know the spirits aren't? You said that belief in spirits breaks the laws of the universe. Explain.
Ah, me pointing out that what you said was false is funny to you?
What fallacy? The fallacy 'appeal to masses' that you just used?(most would reject).
You really don't get it do you? You have no evidence to back up your claims. You have never provided ANY evidence for how beliefs and reality are mutually exclusive. I'm still waiting
Your logical reasoning and ability to present rational thought are astounding.
Stop with the 'that's a fallacy' comments. Really. To argue a logical fallacy you have to explain it. Your arguments show cowardice.
Try and follow. I said 'when something seems to break the laws of nature, we call it a miracle'. You said 'if scientists don't see what appears to be the laws of nature being violated, the will not refer to it as a miracle'.
You are saying the exact opposite of what I said, which is the same point. If it seems to break the laws of nature, we call it a miracle. If it doesn't, we don't. You are arguing my point!
I've shown quite clearly that you are. Although, I'm sure you will say 'that's a fallacy' soon to prove me wrong.Well done. Can we move on, now?
Like what?
We've already been down this road and you veered away from it while I was trying to get an answer from you. Yank my chain once, shame on me...
One of many you continue to ignore and refuse to learn.Right. Just wanted to make sure you admitted that there is more than one meaning of the word.
Like, hearing someone's voice from more than, say, a mile away.
No, you never showed how spirits violate the laws of the universe. You just change subject or say 'they do'. No explanation.
Really? You're going to do this again? Burden of proof is on you if you claim a fallacy. To fail to do so is fallacious. Either back up your claims of fallacies or stop using them.
Thank you for showing, yet again, your inability to provide any actual reasoning or evidence for any of your claims.That was your claim, not mine.
Oh yes, convincing example.
Another lie. I was asking you questions that you did not answer.Your claim was the definition of the word. I simply showed that you tried to choose a definition that would best fit your argument, while not allowing others.
You asked for one. Laugh at it all you want, but it's an example.
If I missed a post, then I apologize, but all I have from you is unsubstantiated claims. Care to ask again?
I still see no evidence that spirit is contradictory to the laws of the universe.Yeah, and I got that, however you felt the need to beat that to death along the way while ignoring the fact that the definition used here on these forums by believers is the definition regarding divine intervention.
But, continue beating that dead horse, if you must.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, I know. You are a believer, so that would stand.I told you I didn't have a particular problem with that definition. The problem is the source. I'm just trying to help you out here my friend
Well, luckily for you you can go back and read previous posts if you got lost.
Right... once again you fail to provide any evidence for your claim. Until you do, your claims that spirit is against the laws of the universe are hollow.There's nothing wrong with the sources and I doubt you're trying to help.
Or, I'll just ignore it as another belief on your part.
Okee dokee. Here we go again. Spin round and round.
You have a lot of endurance for a female. You have been at this all day. You remind of my ex-wife. She never had anything to say. She only wanted to contradict me. It was some sort of weird control thing. Who will get in the last word?
Troubled will make some glaring contradiction at some point and drop out of the thread when I point it out.
Are you worried about it? You shouldn't take that lady seriously. I don't even have an ex-wife. I know how men respond, and that ain't no dude. She probably got hurt by all the clamoring that she hears on TV about gay marriage, or whatever. She probably got snubbed in a church along the way. I have. She needs love, but sets it up where you don't want to give her any. She must be independently wealthy. She sure doesn't have time for work.
It just hit me! She is a stay at home Mom with an anal retentive, grey suit, red tie, rigid, legalistic, evangelical stick in the mud who is about as passionate as a wet brick. When he gets home, he expects dinner on the table and she drops the thread to cook dinner and rub his feet.- <--- coveted double laughie
You guys are hilarious. Nothing to say, so you turn to focusing on the individual and spitting venom, showing your true colors of not having intellectual honesty and integrity.
PLEASE keep posting this stuff and we'll watch what's left of your credibility spin round the drain.
Or, dropping out after you've beat to death the same inanity or fallacy over and over again.
If that's how you see it.
Like I've said before, if you want to make a claim of fallacy, burden of proof is on you to explain why. You constantly fail to do that, so all of your claims of fallacy are, in and of themselves, fallacious.
I'm sorry for constantly asking you to provide some kind of argument or evidence to back up your claims. If you just did that, I wouldn't have to 'beat you to death' with my requests.- Yes, and I'm sure you'll never learn them and continue using them.
LOL! Yes, by shifting the burden of proof to me, your fallacies turn into requests. Funny stuff.How can you claim I'm using them if you can't even name them?
I'm not shifting the burden of proof! If you say I said something fallacious, the burden of proof is on you by default! You have to back up your claims, as I have to back up mine. You really have no idea how this works, do you?Beating this to death again?
Let me try again and for the last time. If you wish to forage into forums for debate, you should at the very least understand the requirements ahead of time before foraging, like understanding logic, critical thinking and of course, the use of fallacies, as a few examples.
If you didn't do that, then you have yet to meet the requirements for debate and no one here should have to hold your hand to tell you that. It is YOUR obligation, not ours. Understand?
*sigh* Yeah, I have no idea how this works.I do. You don't. I've shown this over and over. You claim my arguments are fallacious. That is a claim YOU make. If YOU make a claim, burden of proof is on YOU. I don't have to back up your claims of fallacy.
You're being very funny. Your argument is 'you are wrong because you use fallacious arguments but I won't even explain why because you don't understand because you're wrong'.
If you're really such a great debater, why don't you back up your claims?
You don't. Until you man up to your claims and try to explain what is wrong with my arguments, anything you say is meaningless. Anyone with sense knows you can't just say 'you're wrong' and expect that to be a valid argument.Yeah, I had little expectation you would get it. Oh well.
What makes you expect me to be the one to disprove my claims? Why can't you just back you your claim that I'm wrong?
See, you don't read a word I say. The expectation is you understand the criteria for debate. Period.
I didn't say your claims were wrong, I said you were using fallacies to support them. So, go away and learn about fallacies so you don't use in making your claims. Simple.
Why is that so hard to understand?Yes, you say I support them with fallacies.
What fallacies?
I've read them, I try to avoid them.
YOU are the one claiming a fallacy, so you have to back it up. You are still trying to shift the burden of proof on me.
It's apparent who has the better understanding of debate. Go back and look at our interactions. I respond to your comments with evidence, with real arguments, hypothetical situations to stimulate thought, etc... You, on the other hand, respond with things like '', 'that's a fallacy', etc...Exactly my point. And yet you tout
'The expectation is you understand the criteria for debate. Period. 'I just finished reading a couple of your hubs on dark matter, spirits and proving gods. Full of fallacies and little more. Elementary and one dimensional.
Did I present anything in those hubs as a fact? No, I presented ideas. The only thing I presented as fact is the inability to prove/disprove God objectively.
Once again, instead of calling something a fallacy and hoping people believe you, why don't you try forming a rational, logical argument?That's a fallacy. And, it contradicts your own personal philosophy about the existence of such things.
For crying out loud Troubled. When you claim something is a fallacy, burden of proof is on you to show why.
No, it doesn't contradict my personal philosophy. Maybe you should go read it again. The point is that there is no objective way to test 'God'. Using the scientific method, there is no experiment that we can currently perform to test the existence of God.
Do you care to show me the supposed contradiction? Or, are you going to back out of your responsibility to back up your claims again?Yes, by using fallacies, you can make that claim.
Are you serious? More hand holding?
Aren't you the one stating we shouldn't make conclusions about the existence of something and the ability to show it?I'm saying there is no way to scientifically prove it. Scientifically <--- that word right there, you know, 'scientifically'? Did you see the title of my hub? Did you read my hub? The entire hub is on scientific proof of God.
Nowhere did I say that science is the only method of discovering truth. Nowhere did I say we shouldn't make conclusions about things that can't be proven scientifically. In fact, I encourage the journey of trying to discover truths that are subjective and personal.
Seriously Troubled, your attempts to discredit arguments, without providing your own arguments are getting pathetic.Yes, that is a logical fallacy.
I laughed till I cried, and then I laughed some more.
You need to form an argument without the use of fallacies before it one can attempt to actually argue it.That's what I thought troubled. Your posts are still 100% lacking in any real substance. Try forming an argument of your own for once.
Is it possible for you to create a post without parroting everything I say to you?
emrldphx, you have completely exposed whoever this troll is as incapable ot unwilling to provide whatever evidence you are referring to (I lost track pages ago) and I doubt you will ever get a straight answer from him or her, so I suggest just ignoring him or her like most others do.
He or she is a complete waste of energy.- Showing your true colors again? Still unable to curb the hatred and are compelled to spit venom in light of forming arguments? Now, you want to censor me by telling others to ignore me. How utterly childish. LOL!
No hatred, stop being emotional and exaggerating, just making a statement of fact, you ARE a waste of anyones energy to try and get a straight answer from, you are only good for inanities and light amusement, but quickly become boring and repetitious.
Ah, now you are really beginning to make Mark noises, your true identity is showing, nice to see you have the ability to mask yourself for a short while before your normal venom starts to seep through the thin veneer of your words.
Welcome back Mark, let's see how long you last this time before you sliver out of this identity and slip into something new!You can believe whatever you want about me, it matters not.
What does matter is how you're showing your lack of integrity and intellectual dishonesty in focusing on the individual rather than trying to form arguments.That, coming from you, is ironic. I'm still waiting for your arguments about the fallacies in my hubs, the fallacies in my claims, and how spirit is contradictory to the laws of the universe.
I'm still waiting for you to learn something about fallacies and the laws of the universe.
What arguments?
You pose nothing to argue about, and all you have presented is inane comments and lots of stupid emoticons showing your lack of regard for anyone, and for as long as I can remember you have been off topic and avoiding any attempt to bring you back to topic.
Sad.Yes, focusing on me while spitting venom is a great way to get me back on topic.
earnesthub? Is that you in all of your koala splendor and platypus wisdom? Do I detect the stain of bunt oil on your fingers? Why are there no hubs? Alas, all is vanity and striving to catch the wind and paint it green. The fate of the wise man and the fool are alike, yet I sit to talk with a woman who says she is a troubled man. See? I take my time to sit with a fake. There is trouble enough for one day, why fret about tomorrow? We rest in the Lord, for he alone is our Sabbath rest, not a day. The day is short. Lets take rest, for tomorrow we will have a new endeavor . . . we will write a hub, add capsules and suggest links.
Have you written a hub yet? Hub pages . . . get it? I'm sure you don't understand that, and probably never will. You have no hubs! Get busy, slacker.
I just made a hub. I hope it is controversial enough to make me some money on adsense. I think I only made 20p in the last 6 months.
It isn't controversy, it is interest and volume. Say you do a hub on how to prepare for and survive a category 5 Hurricane. You load it to the brim with advertising, ebay products, books from amazon and suggest links on every line of the hub.
A category 5 hurricane that fills the Atlantic threatens to ravage the East coast of North America from Mexico to Iceland. No one else has specified category 5 on their web site only plain old hurricane. You will have millions of hits on your hub and advertisers sell millions in products. Then you'll make enough for a good meal at nice restaurant. Maybe even a car payment or bail for your crazy uncle. You need a lot of hubs set tight to generate some income. 200 would be a good number. You can also explore local advertising ops., like Tommie's Pub where they drink warm beer. Tommie will want to see how many followers you have. 4,000 would be enough to impress him. Maybe he'll give you a few quid and some warm beer.
It could all be for naught. When the hurricane threatens, a Panda in China could set loose his scam, divert all of the traffic to the computer in his basement, cash out the pay account and be dining on dog meat, drinking plum wine, and watching awkward pole dancers while he is laughing at you.
If you are up for it, get busy. Otherwise, you might as well sit in the corner and play with yourself. You will be accomplishing just as much and it will feel better.
Yet, another believer who focuses on the individual due to no apparent skills at forming arguments of the subject matter.
Sorry, but the "miracles" that are spouted here on these forums refers to magic, not ignorance.
Oh... it all makes sense now... I've been so foolish.
Everything I thought I had experienced was a lie... I now see the truth that science, even though it hasn't shown how the universe was created, or how life is created, has proven that there is no God.
Why couldn't you have shown me this image 20 years ago so I could have enjoyed my life?The great thing about what I believe is that what I think is true is based on observations, deductions, and testing.
If there was evidence of a greater being my opinions would shift, however there is a lack of supreme beingness abound in this world.
Of course there would always be a niggling doubt that what the person showed me would have been akin to a caveman seeing a lightning storm.
"Einstein postulated that the masses of heavenly objects bend space, basically creating a downhill, and so the objects roll toward each other.
The planetary orbits aren't in some perfect balance. All of the planets will eventually fall into the sun as their orbits decay, only it will take hundreds of millions of years. Or so I derive from my reading on the subject."
Fairly accurate, the timescales are vast but my understanding is that things will eventually collapse.
My romantic scientist side likes to think that there have been universes before and after this one, each one collapsing and imploding in to a fresh new universe. Maybe there are more than just our universe floating through a vast space of nothingness, with only the occasional escaped weakly held balls of matter managing to traverse the systems.
It is hard for humanity to perceive time this vast, it is also a human weakness to assume that there was a beginning. Infinity is something that cannot be viewed and can hardly be understood.
Maybe one day we will be able to find the original point, following back an inummerable number of cycles of a universes lifespan until we reach an originating spark, some antimatter reaction or electron implosion that causes a chain reaction through the planes of nothingness.
Until we can find out I am happy to theorize while knowing that the truths of things so vast are imesurable by our technology, and probably will be for lifetimes to come.
My solace is in the fact that I don't feel it is necessary to make up some garbage simply because my current intellect and observational tools are inadequate to measure something as vast as the universe and it's timeline.
I don't claim to know how the universe sprang in to existance, big bang, maybe, maybe not. But just because we cannot verify our theories does not lead me to religion, it leads me to the knowledge that I am ignorant.
What I can do is simply live my life day to day with advances made by those who questioned what lightning was, who explored the tempering of metals and the secrets ebhind chemical reactions. Those who persued vaccinations, who built the microscope and found that illnesses may have been caused by the microscopic, not the hand of god.
My point?
The creation of the universe is a miracle so vast that it cannot be compared to a stationary celestial object, I can explain neither with a huge certainty. Should I simply assign my ignorance to the name of God, or should I persue the knowledge to explain why the sun had ceased to move?Well it would seem that time is not on your side in finding out what the universal outcome may be, whereas God is approachable by any individual and can establish His bonafides for any who will listen.
Really? When did he establish his bonafides with you? Did he meet you down at the local pub?
Come on, you can do better than that. Give it more thought next time.
Yes, in a manner of speaking He did, but it was when I was sober that He started working on and with me to build a new life and bring others to His gates.
May the Lord bless you Laptop Cooler, with such a meeting.
John
It very interesting to see scientists who rely on data and cause & effect to find something or events that have no other explanation than God or out of this world.
I doubt if non-believers would change their mind. Many so-called believers might try to kill Him because they see the miracles as a sign of the devil.
God performing miracles on Earth would prove to be counterproductive.
The intent of Homo sapiens, civilization and religion is to rid us of ego, and allow our spiritual reawakening. Flashy miracles would only attract ego like BS attracts flies.
And no, we're not talking about "ordinary," cause-and-effect "miracles" like babies being born.Touche' . . . end of discussion . . . start another thread.
I'm looking forward to another one of those in a few months!
Are you a good dad? Good dads change poopie diapers. It is actually a blessing of bonding. It will sure turn you off to cling peaches, though.
Yes, I'm a good dad... at least I try to be
I change all the diapers right now... when they are little my wife and I fight over who gets to change them.(I got to change the first poopie diaper in the hospital last time )You fight over the privilege of changing a poopie diaper? That is just so wrong. On so many levels. Whoever is holding the baby gets to do the dirty deed in our world.
Are you serious? To us, every second with our children is precious.
That may be a second with your child, but it feels like an eternity with the diaper. I know, for a fact, that the moments I didn't change the diaper have had no negative effect on the development of my son, and our relationship.
Interesting concept for a forum topic. Thank you for presenting the opportunity for free-flowing discussion.
Tell them to leave. They will. I could think of worse things to have standing on my doorstep. Rude people are everywhere. I know rude agnostics, and some of them just might not leave when asked. Not defending anyone here. Just pointing out that rudeness knows no particular group exclusively. I'll bet you a dime to a dozen apples that robbers, muggers, killers. rapists, chomos etc. have just as many members of their respective clubs who claim agnosticism or atheism as their belief, probably more. Now, consider. If miracles are what it would take,then what you need is tickets to see a good magician. Chris Angel is pretty freaky. Maybe if you could foster belief in him it might get you on the "A" list. Have a nice day!
Tell me something you science people, you see the proof through your statements that there is a God. Things did not just happen. Look around you at the beauty of the falling leaves or the colors of different flowers. How can you deny that there is a God?
If Christ came today instead of when he did, he would still have been rejected by modern day religion just as he was by the Jewish leaders. It was predicted that the things that happened to Him would happen regardless of what day and age He came.
Miracles do happen every day. Ask anyone who has received a miracle healing and try to tell them it wasn't of God. It is written in the Bible that some non-believers will never accept Him. A dark cloud has been put over their eyes, it has also been said by Jesus Himself that we will be hated for being Christians and persecuted.
We should praise God when someone questions what we believe for it is an opportunity to share Him even if it is rejected.Easily. Leaves and flowers only show evidence of evolution with no God required.
He would probably be put away in an institution where he could do no harm to others instead of being beaten and tortured to death.
If the "dark cloud" is that which has us acknowledge the evolution of leaves and flowers in favor of magical invisible friends, then you might have a point.
Related Discussions
- 63
Do you believe in the miracle of Jesus Christ?
by Frank Anok 11 years ago
i want to know, do you believe that someone with the power of Jehovah through his son Jesus Christ (for example, a pastor, prophet etc)can heal someone with incurable disease like HIV AIDS, Cancer and also have the power to chase out evil and demonic spirits?
- 218
Who here believes in Angels?
by Money Fairy 9 years ago
I have had several experiences that I can only catagorize as angelic or heavenly interventions. Years ago I was saved from a major car accident. I don't know how it happened but it did. Just wondering if any of you have had angelic experiences?Would love to hear your stories.
- 18
You believe in God but does God in believe you?
by Bede 3 years ago
Suppose there’s a man who ignores his wife all week long. He doesn’t speak to her or even think of her, if possible. Then, at the end of the week, he says in passing, “You know honey, I really love you.” What is her likely response? “Right…right!”So now, suppose you never pray to God or think of...
- 81
Why no more great miracles?
by Hokey 12 years ago
Splitting the Red Sea!!!! Walking on water!!!!!Raising the !!!! Have you ever wondered why All these and more monumental miracles were performed in the ancient days and the more educated man has become how the miracles stopped....
- 104
What is your standard for belief in a miracle?
by AKA Winston 11 years ago
The Scottish philosopher David Hume turned religion on its head with this reasoned and well-expressed thought on the miraculous:"That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it...
- 38
“I’m an atheist, but one who believes in miracles”: Dr. Jacalyn Duffin
by paarsurrey 12 years ago
Hi friendsAn interesting article from Holy Post, titled “Saintly ‘science’: When doctors and doubters are called upon to prove miracles”Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, a hematologist, lapsed Anglican and firm atheist,“Catholic audiences go nuts when I say I’m still an atheist,” said Dr. Duffin, who laughs a...