Atheism, and ignoring Jesus

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Prove that the universe has always been in existence. Show me it there was not beginning to it or it had no creator. Prove that all life on this plant crawled out of some primordial goo to form from a single cell. show me how that cell was formed. show me how man the animal with the lest natural abilities to survive in nature (little to no protective fur/hair, claws not designed for the tearing apart nor basic defense form other beast. to big ans slow to scamper away ans hide from the carnivorous hunters) came to be at the top of the food chain instead of being eliminated be all the other things in nature.

there are those that say they do not believe in the super natural. I say that God is not super natural He is the source of nature. The one thing that God will not do is break his own Laws. You know people ask for proof of God 2000 years ago he became a man and people still do not believe. So as I have said there is nothing more to show you than you have already seen Now it is up to the unbeliever to open their eyes and see. whats the quote, there is non so blind as he that will not see.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Why do you doubt it? You believe the same exact thing, but with a different name!

Gump you are so very mistaken the truth of God is all around you it is there for you to see to read to feel and experience. It is only that you refuse to do so, and that is sad.

As for gumpism *" may the force be with you" *

 

[1holycatholic]

Interesting thoughts; I’ve discussed it a little with others, and come up with the idea of a circle laid upon itself, but it’s still in the works.

Others have attempted circular time arguments in failed attempts to disprove the ex motu and ex causa arguments from the Quinquae Viae.

Would you consider infinity in general to be impossible?

Infinity, by definition is unachievable.

To qualify what I meant - I used the word “universe” to mean “the totality of all existence”. It would be a closed system in that nothing “out of existence” comes into it.

Then the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn’t applicable.
But the “universe” just means “the system you’re looking at PLUS its surroundings, i.e., everything that’s close around it”. System plus surroundings.
Non-existence doesn’t constitute surroundings.

 

[Gump]

Gump you are so very mistaken the truth of God is all around you it is there for you to see to read to feel and experience. It is only that you refuse to do so, and that is sad.

As for gumpism *" may the force be with you" *

OGOC you are so very mistaken. The truth and presence of Gump is all around you and it is there for you to see, read, feel and experience. It is you that refuses to do so, and that is sad.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Hume’s position is easily disproved:
Hume’s argument in a nutshell is that a miracle would be a violation of scientific law, but scientific laws are more certain than miracle stories, so we should reject these stories. But Hume himself supplies his own refutation: according to Hume induction never gives us certain knowledge, because it’s always possible that we will observe a violation of the pattern that has held so far. Therefore scientific laws, which are all based on induction, are not absolutely certain, and miracles are possible.

At a deeper level, this argument demonstrates that atheistic naturalism is self-refuting, and therefore false. Consider the principle that all knowledge is obtained by induction applied to sensory data. Call this the epistemological principle of induction, that is, induction as a general theory of knowledge. But it is clear that induction applied to sensory data can never prove the epistemological principle of induction itself. How could it, when induction only draws probable conclusions of a statistical nature, whereas the epistemological principle of induction makes a statement about all knowledge?

Therefore if the epistemological principle of induction is true, then it must also apply to itself, in which case it is false because it cannot be validated inductively. If it’s true, then it’s false. And if it’s false, then it’s also false. Therefore the epistemological principle of induction is simply false. Not all knowledge is obtained inductively from sensory data. Knowledge of God is therefore possible.

He didn’t say that miracles were impossible. He said that since natural laws were highly confirmed (which leaves open the possibility of miracles), an alleged miracle must have at least as much supporting evidence as one of the natural laws it appears to violate.

Jon_S:

If I tried to tell you that “the lack of evidence is my evidence” for proving that God exists, how convincing would that argument sound to you? Obviously it would carry no weight, so why are you trying to use it on me?

Because I am assuming you use it with regard to fairies, teapots orbiting Saturn, crocodiles in your pants, and the like.

Jon_S:

I disagree. I can’t prove it, but then neither can you.

You said that the universe was evidence of a God. Can you justify this?

Jon_S:

But what it does do is illustrate how hypocritical this “In your face” atheism is. You’ve demanded proof for the existence of God several times, yet here you are clearly admitting to something that you have no empirical evidence for.

It’s not really hypocritical. When a scientist tries to convince me of the Big Bang theory, I grill them just as hard as I would any theist. My natural position is one of skepticism.

Jon_S:

So does a person who says something does not exist. If you are going to make a claim, and make it absolutely, then you need to back it up. You seem to absolutely believe that there is no God. Why is it that you can demand proof from me, but I can’t demand proof from you?

If you can show me that God does not exist, I’ll quit going to Church right now.

All I say is that given the lack of evidence of crocodiles in your pants, it is reasonable to assume that there are no crocodiles there. Is it logically possible, involving cloaking/shrinking devices, memory modification, and the like, that they actually are there? Sure it is, but I would think that to be somewhat unlikely. The same applies to God. I cannot see any direct evidence of a God, so I find it reasonable to assume that he probably doesn’t exist.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Prove that the universe has always been in existence. Show me it there was not beginning to it or it had no creator.

I cannot prove that it had no beginning, but I can certainly argue against a creator, in that however unlikely the universe is, the creator of said universe would have to be at least as unlikely, if not more so, than its creation.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Prove that all life on this plant crawled out of some primordial goo to form from a single cell.

The evidence seems to show a beginning of life somewhere around 3-4 billion years ago. I don’t know the specifics of how it happened, yet it wouldn’t really be such a difficult thing.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

how me how man the animal with the lest natural abilities to survive in nature (little to no protective fur/hair, claws not designed for the tearing apart nor basic defense form other beast.

You forget Man’s brains. We had fire, and tools. The other animals did not.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

2000 years ago he became a man and people still do not believe.

Gee, thanks God. You allegedly appeared to some people 2,000 years ago, had them write down their stories, get mixed up with countless others who all told variations on the same stories, and be chosen (and edited) by Constantine and his bishops. 1,700 years after that, I’m supposed to take ancient writings as a universal truth.

It might be easier if God simply appeared to me, and proved himself, if he really wanted me to believe.

1holycatholic:

Others have attempted circular time arguments in failed attempts to disprove the ex motu and ex causa arguments from the Quinquae Viae.

Ah, the old “unmoved mover” and “uncaused causer” arguments, eh? Why is the unmoved mover immune to its own laws? And even if this argument is valid, it does not necessarily mean that the God of the Bible is the unmoved mover - it could be a purely physical process.

1holycatholic:

Infinity, by definition is unachievable.

Perhaps infinity isn’t the word I want to use. Well, what I’m trying to convey is that out of nothingness, nothing will ever come. Therefore, there must have been something that has always existed, perhaps outside of time.

 

[1holycatholic]

Perhaps infinity isn’t the word I want to use. Well, what I’m trying to convey is that out of nothingness, nothing will ever come. Therefore, there must have been something that has always existed, perhaps outside of time.

This all men speak of as God.

 

[Jon_S]

Because I am assuming you use it with regard to fairies, teapots orbiting Saturn, crocodiles in your pants, and the like.

You knwo what they say about assuming don’t you?

You said that the universe was evidence of a God. Can you justify this?

It seems reasonable to me that everything has a source. Ecosystems are very fragile and they require a certain “order” to maintain themselves. The fact that existence of things requires some sort of order hardly suggests that the universe is random.

It’s not really hypocritical. When a scientist tries to convince me of the Big Bang theory, I grill them just as hard as I would any theist. My natural position is one of skepticism.

Yet your less skeptical of your own assertion that the universe has no beginning, even though you have no evidence for it.

All I say is that given the lack of evidence of crocodiles in your pants, it is reasonable to assume that there are no crocodiles there. Is it logically possible, involving cloaking/shrinking devices, memory modification, and the like, that they actually are there? Sure it is, but I would think that to be somewhat unlikely. The same applies to God. I cannot see any direct evidence of a God, so I find it reasonable to assume that he probably doesn’t exist.

Where do you see evidence that the universe has always existed?

I don’t see any direct evidence that suggests the universe is random, so I find it reasonable to assume that God exists.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

OGOC you are so very mistaken. The truth and presence of Gump is all around you and it is there for you to see, read, feel and experience. It is you that refuses to do so, and that is sad.

And to comments as this we are to try and have intelligent conversation?
I will submit that if you wish to acknowledge God by the name gump I can not say if you are right or wrong there as He many titles over the centuries: ADONA, EL SHADDAI, ELOHIM, EL, Yahweh, “The Self-Existent One,” “I AM WHO I AM” or 'I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE" , Jehovah,EL ELYON, ABHIR, KADOSH, PALET,
YESHUA, (Yeshua)
GAOL,
MAGEN
STONE

EYALUTH
TSADDIQ
EL-OLAM,
EL-BERITH,
EL-GIBHOR:
ZUR:

'Attiq Yomin (Aramaic)
MELEKH: “King”

KURIOS
DESPOTES
THEOS: (yeos)
I AM:

THEOTES
HUPSISTOS
SOTER. God has reveled himself to many people by many names so if he has come to you and reveled his name as gump then as along as your not being lead wrong by a demon I would say go with gump better read up on scripture to confirm that this gump is not ling to you.

 

[Gump]

[Moderator Note: Added website credit for source. As per copyright policy.]

godisimaginary.com/i41.htm
You just don’t quit, do you?

Fine. Here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

Take a coin (or anything with sides, like a credit card or wallet) out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:

• Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra’s name I pray, Amen.
  Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won’t get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails. What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra’s most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.
  Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:
• Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.
  Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability – one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statistical analysis.
  If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus… something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:
• It is not his will
• He doesn’t have time
• I didn’t pray the right way
• I am not worthy
• I do not have enough faith
• I cannot test the Lord like this
• It is not part of Jesus’ plan for me
• And on and on and on…
  One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: “Well, of course Jesus doesn’t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, “don’t pray to me about coin tosses.” Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

 

[1holycatholic]

Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray.

The existence of the planet is radically contingent. Is that enough of an effect for you?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I cannot prove that it had no beginning, but I can certainly argue against a creator, in that however unlikely the universe is, the creator of said universe would have to be at least as unlikely, if not more so, than its creation.

                             You can except the creation, but not the creator? That is interesting. Lets say the since we can not prove that the universe has a beginning then should we just go with it has always been back into infinity? From your arguments if there is no proof of its beginning then it has non.

The evidence seems to show a beginning of life somewhere around 3-4 billion years ago. I don’t know the specifics of how it happened, yet it wouldn’t really be such a difficult thing.

I think the key word there is seems. and you really find that the cosmos and life is a simple thing that just came but random chance.

You forget Man’s brains. We had fire, and tools. The other animals did not.

From the beginning man had fire and tools really? As for mans Brain why do you suppose the brain of man developed to high levels than that of other animals or even other primates? could there even be the most remote possibility of some intentional design on this animal (man) to raise it above the others?

Gee, thanks God. You allegedly appeared to some people 2,000 years ago, had them write down their stories, get mixed up with countless others who all told variations on the same stories, and be chosen (and edited) by Constantine and his bishops. 1,700 years after that, I’m supposed to take ancient writings as a universal truth.

I do believe that Constantine was more like 300 give or take a year or 2 after Christ not 1700. Also the Bishops were of the Church not the emperor. has far as edits more and more of the original scrolls of both old and new testaments have been found and guess what they confirm what we have been given today. You may want to check out info on the dead sea scrolls. as well as a History book if you think that Constantine was around in the 1700’s.

It might be easier if God simply appeared to me, and proved himself, if he really wanted me to believe.

Sounds like the Apostle Thomas. He would not believe either till he saw the Risen Christ himself. Not saying it not going to happen for it most certainly can But I have a feeling that when you do see him it will be to late then.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You just don’t quit, do you?

Fine. Here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

Take a coin (or anything with sides, like a credit card or wallet) out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:
Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra’s name I pray, Amen.
Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won’t get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails. What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra’s most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.
Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:
Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.
Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability – one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statistical analysis.
If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus… something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:

• It is not his will
• He doesn’t have time
• I didn’t pray the right way
• I am not worthy
• I do not have enough faith
• I cannot test the Lord like this
• It is not part of Jesus’ plan for me
• And on and on and on…
  One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: “Well, of course Jesus doesn’t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, “don’t pray to me about coin tosses.” Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

Your right I don’t quit.

I can not do your little test for I do not pray to pagan gods even in trying to prove God. I do not know if RA is real or not I do know he,it or what ever RA is is not God. The Bible also clear state that we are not to Test God

Gospel of Luke 4: 9-12

9] The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, "throw yourself down from here. [10] For it is written:

" ‘He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
[11] they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ "

[12] Jesus answered, “It says: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

And as we have covered earlier God does not say yes to all prayers. An example would be look to as a football game I amd sure at every game at every level people on both side are praying for their team to win. Now If the answer to every pray was yes both teams would have to win. Now I don’t mean to say that God choose one team over the other I am saying that for the most part God allows us to do for ourselves. Does that mean that he does not answer prayer no id does mean sometimes the answer is no.

 

[Gump]

Sounds like the Apostle Thomas. He would not believe either till he saw the Risen Christ himself. Not saying it not going to happen for it most certainly can But I have a feeling that when you do see him it will be to late then.

Why would it be too late?

Someone posted similarly in this thread that you do not have to believe in order to be accepted into heaven. If you live a life of morals that would be considered holy, but do not actually believe, you should still be accepted into heaven. Don’t quote me on that, though, I’m going on their word.

 

[Gump]

You make a good point.

However, why is it that prayers like curing cancer go unanswered?

Thousands upon thousands of people pray every day and every night for diseases like cancer to be cured. Why have they not been answered yes?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Why would it be too late?

Someone posted similarly in this thread that you do not have to believe in order to be accepted into heaven. If you live a life of morals that would be considered holy, but do not actually believe, you should still be accepted into heaven. Don’t quote me on that, though, I’m going on their word.

there is a belief in the baptism of ignorance. A person that has never heard of God or Christ but live a life in accord with what the faith teaches even thought they are not aware of it would enter heaven. Dont think you fall i to that group.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You make a good point.

However, why is it that prayers like curing cancer go unanswered?

Thousands upon thousands of people pray every day and every night for diseases like cancer to be cured. Why have they not been answered yes?

I do not know Gods will so I can not give a absolute answer to that. I lost my grandmother th cancer I do not know why God did not cure her. But I do know that many in family have become more self reliant and so maybe it was for them to grow up. All that appear bad is not and all that appears good is not.

Example man is fired from his job and prays God this is my last dollar I’m going to by a lottery ticket please Lord let me win. the guy wins and and in celebrating drinks to much stumbles out into traffic and is killed by a car. Would he not have been better served if God had said no you do not win the lottery but will find another Job.

 

[Shredderbeam]

1holycatholic:

This all men speak of as God.

Let’s be careful. I do not know whether or not it is an intelligent being, or a singularity as the Big Bang Theory would have us believe. To have an intelligent debate on this, we must get the definition of God out of the way: Creator of the universe, loving, powerful, etc. That is what I mean by God.

Jon_S:

You knwo what they say about assuming don’t you?

Educated guess, then.

Jon_S:

It seems reasonable to me that everything has a source. Ecosystems are very fragile and they require a certain “order” to maintain themselves. The fact that existence of things requires some sort of order hardly suggests that the universe is random.

Ecosystems stand up due to the constant pouring in of free energy in the form of sunlight. I don’t see why the universe must have a source, or sustainer.

Jon_S:

Yet your less skeptical of your own assertion that the universe has no beginning, even though you have no evidence for it.

Nothingness begets nothingness - that much is certain. Therefore, something must always have existed. Whether this is the universe, God, a singularity, or some other thing, I do not know.

Jon_S:

I don’t see any direct evidence that suggests the universe is random

I do not assert that the universe is inherently random. To the contrary, I assert the opposite, that everything is determined (due to causality).

1holycatholic:

The existence of the planet is radically contingent. Is that enough of an effect for you?

Can you specify what you mean?

oneGODoneCHURCH:

You can except the creation, but not the creator? That is interesting. Lets say the since we can not prove that the universe has a beginning then should we just go with it has always been back into infinity? From your arguments if there is no proof of its beginning then it has non.

Well, the “creation” I can certainly see right before my eyes. Yet, however improbable it is, its creator would have to be at least as improbable, if not more.

Actually, from my arguments, if there is no proof of the universe beginning, then it is reasonable to assume that it never did. I prefer to speak of existence, rather than the universe, however.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

I think the key word there is seems. and you really find that the cosmos and life is a simple thing that just came but random chance.

Life is a bit more than random chance. The formation of a replicator would probably be chance, but from that point on, it would be natural selection.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

From the beginning man had fire and tools really? As for mans Brain why do you suppose the brain of man developed to high levels than that of other animals or even other primates? could there even be the most remote possibility of some intentional design on this animal (man) to raise it above the others?

Man did not have fire and tools from the beginning - it was the development of these that allowed us to conquer the planet.

I am puzzled by your logic. From what it seems, you are saying: “Man has a highly developed brain. I cannot think of why this might happen. Therefore, God is responsible.” This does not seem very rational to me.

Of course, there is always the possibility of intelligent design - just as there is always the possibility of fairies.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

I do believe that Constantine was more like 300 give or take a year or 2 after Christ not 1700.

…

My mention of 1700 years was a reference to the amount of time that passed between Constantine’s era and ours.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Also the Bishops were of the Church not the emperor.

The Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire had a rather large amount of influence. Personally, I just keep that in the back of my mind.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

as far as edits more and more of the original scrolls of both old and new testaments have been found and guess what they confirm what we have been given today. You may want to check out info on the dead sea scrolls.

As far as I’m aware, the Dead Sea Scrolls validate Hebrew writings.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Sounds like the Apostle Thomas. He would not believe either till he saw the Risen Christ himself. Not saying it not going to happen for it most certainly can But I have a feeling that when you do see him it will be to late then.

“Believe, before it’s too late!”

Such logic will not work upon me, sir.

Gump:

However, why is it that prayers like curing cancer go unanswered?

Also amputees go unanswered.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Well, the “creation” I can certainly see right before my eyes. Yet, however improbable it is, its creator would have to be at least as improbable, if not more.

However improbable a thing maybe is does not make it impossible,

Actually, from my arguments, if there is no proof of the universe beginning, then it is reasonable to assume that it never did. I prefer to speak of existence, rather than the universe, however.

OK so the existence had no beginning I can give that a it place in the debate.

Life is a bit more than random chance. The formation of a replicator would probably be chance, but from that point on, it would be natural selection.

Not talking about how it continued as talking about the whole start of it all. a random gathering of just the right element in just the right amount at just the right temperature gathered to make just one cell. then apply that it had to happen like that over and over again to have all that is in our world alone. A you say it just happened without a creator. I say only God can make a tree.

Man did not have fire and tools from the beginning - it was the development of these that allowed us to conquer the planet.

Then I go back to my original statement how me how man the animal with the lest natural abilities to survive in nature (little to no protective fur/hair, claws not designed for the tearing apart nor basic defense form other beast.

I am puzzled by your logic. From what it seems, you are saying: “Man has a highly developed brain. I cannot think of why this might happen. Therefore, God is responsible.” This does not seem very rational to me.

But just because seems rational?

Of course, there is always the possibility of intelligent design - just as there is always the possibility of fairies

.

You are correct sir there is the possibility of fairies, I dismiss them
no more than I do any pagan god. I have my thoughts on what they are or maybe, Nor do I dismiss the possibility of life on other planet. just because I have not seen something or can i prove it does not mean it is not real.
…

My mention of 1700 years was a reference to the amount of time that passed between Constantine’s era and ours.

In you quote you said and edited by Constantine 1700 years later. But, I chalk that up to a typo and not that you actually meant that he was around in the 1700’s

The Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire had a rather large amount of influence. Personally, I just keep that in the back of my mind.

I also keep in mind that the Apostles were all killed for preaching the Gospel. Now if I am going around telling everyone that there was this man and he did all these thing and they nailed him to a cross till he was dead, then that same man rose from the dead stuck around a talked with us for 40 day the rose up to heaven . If its is a lie and I being one of the Apostles know it a lie and am told if you don’t quit telling these stories we are going to kill you. guess what if it was me I would quit telling lies. the fact that they went and met execution to continue telling the Gospel a testimony of is validity.

As far as I’m aware, the Dead Sea Scrolls validate Hebrew writings.

they have found copies of new testament writing as well recently

“Believe, before it’s too late!”

Such logic will not work upon me, sir.

You stated for God to show himself to so that you may believe I mere stated based solely on our discourse here that by the time you see God it will be to late.

Also amputees go unanswered.

see my respone to Gump

 

[Gump]

I do not know Gods will so I can not give a absolute answer to that. I lost my grandmother th cancer I do not know why God did not cure her. But I do know that many in family have become more self reliant and so maybe it was for them to grow up. All that appear bad is not and all that appears good is not.

Example man is fired from his job and prays God this is my last dollar I’m going to by a lottery ticket please Lord let me win. the guy wins and and in celebrating drinks to much stumbles out into traffic and is killed by a car. Would he not have been better served if God had said no you do not win the lottery but will find another Job.

Why is it that small prayers from complete believers go unanswered? Ones that could not possibly be harmful?

 

[COLOS]

Gump:

[copyrighted text snipped]

It may be much easier to just go to the websites where the arguments are being copied from:

God Is Imaginary

© Copyright 2007-2008. All rights reserved

.

You need to provide appropriate credit to the sites and persons who hold the copyrights for the arguments that you’re copy-pasting.

Judging by the amount of copy-pasting that is done here, I doubt that you have a real, personal grasp on the fundamentals of this perpetual argument. No offense.