Atheism - Paradox

[Lilyflower]

At the very most all that shows is that Jesus existed. Not that he was the son of god. And you are treating a christian website as a legitimate source for historical fact. If you can show me that text from a legitimate historical source I would be more inclined to believe you.

You would not believe me if I introduced you to Him in Person.

Read the opening Gospel of St John.

You have ridiculed my experience and accused me of being mentally ill, now you ask me asif you had not made that condescending accusation.

By your very statement, you do not want proof, your mindset is already made up. You have condemned Christ.

I have experienced the Awsome Holy Spirit of Almighty God which you have already condemned as hearsay and evidence pf mental illness.

You ask me to give you evidence where Awesome Almighty God has been put under the microscope, disected and analysed to satisfy your insatiable greed for knowledge of new ways to attack Him.

I can tell you that if I had that information, I would not share it with you. I am a mere created thing, yet having experienced Him from all Eternity, will not betray Him to be re-crucified again as you would wish.

Go tell your father that they will not be provoked to succomb.

Blessings and peace

 

[kingtego]

John’s Revelation was written during Nero’s persecution before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., probably about 67 A.D., because it foretells the Judgment of God with His coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

**
This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus.**

Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archko_Volume

The Archko Volume or Archko Library [1] is a 19th century volume which contains what purport to be a series of reports from Jewish and pagan sources contemporary with Christ, which relate to the life and death of Jesus Christ. The work went through a number of versions and has remained in print ever since. The texts are unknown to scholarship, and the author was convicted of plagiarism.

The following description of Jesus Christ was written by Publius Lentrelus, a resident of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

Are you referring to Publius Lentulus?

Publius Lentulus is a fictitious person, said to have been Governor of Judea before Pontius, and to have written a letter to the Roman Senate, concerning Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Lentulus

This is amazing:

to be continued…

interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/8/3.php

Your own religion does not accept these as acceptable records.

 

[kingtego]

Gods Who Disagree with the Data

1. A God who is responsible for the complex structure of the
   world, especially living things, fails to agree with empirical
   fact that this structure can be understood to arise from
   simple natural processes and shows none of the expected
   signs of design. Indeed, the universe looks as it should
   look in the absence of design.
2. A God who has given humans immortal souls fails to
   agree with the empirical facts that human memories and
   personalities are determined by physical processes, that no
   nonphysical or extraphysical powers of the mind can be
   found, and that no evidence exists for an afterlife.
3. A God whose interactions with humans, including miraculous
   interventions, have been reported in scriptures is
   contradicted by the lack of independent evidence that
   these miraculous events took place and the fact that physical
   evidence now convincingly demonstrates that some of
   the most important biblical narratives, such as the Exodus,
   never took place.
4. A God who miraculously and supernaturally created the
   universe fails to agree with the empirical fact that no violations
   of physical law were required to produce the universe,
   its laws, or its existence rather than nonexistence. It also
   fails to agree with established theories, based on empirical
   facts, which indicate that the universe began with maximum
   entropy and so bears no imprint of a creator.
5. A God who fine-tuned the laws and constants of physics
   for life, in particular human life, fails to agree with the fact
   that the universe is not congenial to human life, being
   tremendously wasteful of time, space, and matter from the
   human perspective. It also fails to agree with the fact that
   the universe is mostly composed of particles in random
   motion, with complex structures such as galaxies forming
   less than 4 percent of the mass and less than one particle
   out of a billion.
6. A God who communicates directly with humans by means
   of revelation fails to agree with the fact that no claimed
   revelation has ever been confirmed empirically, while
   many have been falsified. No claimed revelation contains
   information that could not have been already in the head
   of the person making the claim.

Hypothetical Observations That Would Have
Favored the God Hypothesis

1. Purely natural processes might have been proved incapable
   of producing the universe, as we know it, from nothing. For
   example, the measured mass density of the universe might
   not have turned out to be exactly what is required for the
   universe to have begun from a state of zero energy, which
   we assume is the energy of nothing. This would have
   implied that a miracle, the violation of energy conservation,
   was required to produce the universe.
2. Purely natural processes might have been proved incapable
   of producing the order of the universe. For
   example, suppose the universe were not expanding but
   rather turned out to be a firmament (as the Bible says it
   is). The second law of thermodynamics would require
   that the universe always had total entropy less than maximum
   in the past. Thus, if the universe had a beginning,
   that beginning would have to be one of order imposed
   from the outside. If the universe had no beginning but
   extended indefinitely into the past, then we still would
   need to account for the source of the ever-increasing
   order as we go back in time.
3. Purely natural processes might have proved incapable of
   producing the complex structure of the world. For
   example, the age of Earth might have turned out to be
   too short for evolution. Simple processes might not have
   been able to produce complex structure.
4. Evidence was found that falsified evolution. Fossils might
   have been found that were inexplicably out of sequence.
   Life-forms might not have all been based on the same
   genetic scheme. Transitional species might not have been
   observed.
5. Human memories and thoughts might have provided
   evidence that cannot be plausibly accounted for by
   known physical processes. Science might have confirmed
   exceptional powers of the mind that it could not plausibly
   explain physically. Science might have uncovered
   convincing evidence for an afterlife. For example, a
   person who has been declared dead by every means
   known to science might return to life with detailed stories
   of an afterlife containing information he could not
   possibly have known and is later verified as factual, such
   as the location of the nearest planet with life.
6. A nonphysical channel of communication might have
   been empirically confirmed by revelations containing
   information that could not have been already in the head
   of the person reporting the revelation. For example,
   someone in a religious trance might learn the exact date of
   the end of the world, which then happens on schedule.
7. Physical and historical evidence might have been found
   for the miraculous events and the important narratives of
   the scriptures. For example, Roman records might have
   been found of an earthquake in Judea at the time of a
   crucifixion ordered by Pontius Pilate. Campsites might
   have been found in the Sinai Desert.
8. The void might have been found to be absolutely stable,
   requiring some action to bring something rather than
   nothing into existence.

 

[kingtego]

1. The universe might have been found to be so congenial
   to human life that it must have been created with human
   life in mind. Humans might have been able to move
   from planet to planet, just as easily as they now move
   from continent to continent, and be able to survive on
   every planet without life support.
2. Natural events might follow some moral law, rather than
   morally neutral mathematical laws. For example, lightning
   might strike mostly wicked people; people who
   behave badly might fall sick more often; nuns would
   always survive plane crashes.
3. Believers might have had a higher moral sense than nonbelievers
   and other measurably superior qualities. For
   example, the jails might be filled with atheists while all
   believers live happy, prosperous, contented lives surrounded
   by loving families and pets.
   But none of this has happened. The hypothesis of God is not
   confirmed by the data. Indeed that hypothesis is strongly contradicted
   by the data.

• Victor J. Stenger

 

[cheamon]

You would not believe me if I introduced you to Him in Person.

Read the opening Gospel of St John.

You have ridiculed my experience and accused me of being mentally ill, now you ask me asif you had not made that condescending accusation.

I never said you were mentally ill I said you were deluded, and this post yet again beautifully illustrates that point.

By your very statement, you do not want proof, your mindset is already made up. You have condemned Christ.

Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

I have experienced the Awsome Holy Spirit of Almighty God which you have already condemned as hearsay and evidence pf mental illness.

I never once said that believing in god = mental illness. Once again twisting words to fit your argument.

You ask me to give you evidence where Awesome Almighty God has been put under the microscope, disected and analysed to satisfy your insatiable greed for knowledge of new ways to attack Him.

No I ask you to give me evidence for god because I’ve never seen any.

I can tell you that if I had that information, I would not share it with you. I am a mere created thing, yet having experienced Him from all Eternity, will not betray Him to be re-crucified again as you would wish.

That’s pretty selfish. So you’d let me burn in hell for eternity instead of showing me your proof? This is assuming you have information to share. I’d say that’s quite possibly the epitome of evil.

 

[cheamon]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archko_Volume

Are you referring to Publius Lentulus?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Lentulus

interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/8/3.php

Your own religion does not accept these as acceptable records.

In before “It doesn’t matter because I can feel him” argument

 

[SHW]

It is quite impossible for him to be all knowing and for us to have free choice. It’s basic logic.

What is your “basic” logic for this?

God created Adam and Eve in order for them (and their offspring) to live eternally in heaven with Him. However, God wants people to love Him for Who He is; He does not want puppets or slaves so He gives Adam and Eve free will to either accept His command or reject His command about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If they eat from this tree, then they will lose their innocence because Satan’s evil will be unleashed upon them. Hell was originally made for Satan and his followers. (Revelation 12:7-10, 2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:4-1, Revelation 14:9-12)

But, He knew before He created them that they would indeed reject His command and therefore suffer spiritual death. So, because of His foreknowledge since He is all-knowing (omniscient), He provided a plan for them to be redeemed from their sin by sending His own Son to die in atonement for this sin which caused their estrangement from Him. Did He have to do this in order to redeem them? No. He did it in order for them to see how much He loved them. He actually loved them so much that He was willing to show them His great love by suffering death Himself (empathy) in order to reconcile them to Himself again and to be a good role model for them to follow so that they can inherit eternal life when they die. (John 3:16, Matthew 25:34, 1 Peter 1:20) Adam was not a good role model for us. (Romans 5) Christ is. (John 8:12)

We descendants of Adam, however, do not regain the innocence of the Garden of Eden by Christ’s sacrifice; we now have to take up our own crosses in order to be saved and inherit eternal life. (Luke 9:23, Matthew 10:38) This must be done in order to satisfy God’s Justice. We will be rewarded with heaven and everlasting life if we are approved (found worthy) after we die. (James 1:12)

It’s no “skin off my nose” if you refuse to believe as I do. You are responsible for the skin on your own nose. This responsibility to choose your “own” destiny by your own choices is called free will.

 

[SHW]

interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/8/3.php

Your own religion does not accept these as acceptable records.

Thank you for pointing that out. I had no idea.

 

[cheamon]

What is your “basic” logic for this?

God is all knowing. god knows the future. Because god knows the future there is only one possible way for things to progress. If things progressed in a different way then god foresaw it, then he is not omniscient. So things must progress in the way that god sees them. If things progress always in the way god sees them, then there is no free will because everything has a set path.

In other words, god could not be omniscient while we have free will. I’ve explained this twice now and I have yet to hear a legitimate argument against it, just denial.

God created Adam and Eve in order for them (and their offspring) to live eternally in heaven with Him. However, God wants people to love Him for Who He is; He does not want puppets or slaves so He gives Adam and Eve free will to either accept His command or reject His command about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If they eat from this tree, then they will lose their innocence because Satan’s evil will be unleashed upon them. Hell was originally made for Satan and his followers. (Revelation 12:7-10, 2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:4-1, Revelation 14:9-12)

Read above ^^^ regarding freewill. As far as Adam and Eve, it’s literally impossible for the whole human race to have come from two people.

Anyways, mankind’s closest common ancestors are 100,000 years apart:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

But, He knew before He created them that they would indeed reject His command and therefore suffer spiritual death. So, because of His foreknowledge since He is all-knowing (omniscient), He provided a plan for them to be redeemed from their sin by sending His own Son to die in atonement for this sin which caused their estrangement from Him. Did He have to do this in order to redeem them? No. He did it in order for them to see how much He loved them. He actually loved them so much that He was willing to show them His great love by suffering death Himself (empathy) in order to reconcile them to Himself again and to be a good role model for them to follow so that they can inherit eternal life when they die. (John 3:16, Matthew 25:34, 1 Peter 1:20) Adam was not a good role model for us. (Romans 5) Christ is. (John 8:12)

In your first few sentences you confirm my argument that we would have no free will.

You’re missing a key component to your story. So, as you agreed, he knew that mankind would fall. So he punishes mankind for something he knew would happen if he created them (remember you said this yourself). Since he is all knowing and knew this would happen, he created man knowing they would be punished to eternal torture. He then sends his son to die for something he knew would happen.

He could have avoided all this if he hadn’t created Lucifer (and as you agreed he can see the future) or by not punishing us for something he knew would happen.

We descendants of Adam, however, do not regain the innocence of the Garden of Eden by Christ’s sacrifice; we now have to take up our own crosses in order to be saved and inherit eternal life. (Luke 9:23, Matthew 10:38) This must be done in order to satisfy God’s Justice. We will be rewarded with heaven and everlasting life if we are approved (found worthy) after we die. (James 1:12)

Pretty sure I address everything here ^^^^

It’s no “skin off my nose” if you refuse to believe as I do. You are responsible for the skin on your own nose. This responsibility to choose your “own” destiny by your own choices is called free will.

Again by saying we have free will you are contradicting the points you made earlier in this post.

 

[JordanSRT]

What is your “basic” logic for this?

God created Adam and Eve in order for them (and their offspring) to live eternally in heaven with Him. However, God wants people to love Him for Who He is; He does not want puppets or slaves so He gives Adam and Eve free will to either accept His command or reject His command about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If they eat from this tree, then they will lose their innocence because Satan’s evil will be unleashed upon them. Hell was originally made for Satan and his followers. (Revelation 12:7-10, 2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:4-1, Revelation 14:9-12)

Isn’t this exactly what you are? Have you ever in your life questioned god’s word or demanded proof?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

No. it not that you have not seen any, Its that you refuse to accept it as from God.

 

[cheamon]

No. it not that you have not seen any, Its that you refuse to accept it as from God.

Okay. Thank you for telling me what I have and have not seen.

 

[Lilyflower]

Isn’t this exactly what you are? Have you ever in your life questioned god’s word or demanded proof?

If Almighty God says ‘it is true’ who am I to argue!

Because by your VERY OWN ADMISSION, you have total contempt for Almighty God, by the very words you have written and how you have written them. I do NOT share your contempt of Awesome Almighty God.

Without asking He gave me all the proof I ever needed and some. He came to me in person in a very personal way, yet His calling card confirmed that of a simlar calling card left some 4000-years before.

I cannot prove to you that it happend. It matters nothing to me whether you believe or disbelieve.

I cannot prove it really happened to me.

Whether you believe or reject, is of no consequence to me.

All I am concerned with is that He of All eternity visited me. That is sufficient. Believe or not.

 

[Lilyflower]

Okay. Thank you for telling me what I have and have not seen.

By the words you use and the contempt you have for awsome Almighty God, it is obvious what ‘you have and what you have not seen!’

Blessings and peace.

 

[ixolite]

Atheists claim that God doesn’t exist.

No, we don’t. We don’t believe in god(s). We don’t believe in your god, as we don’t believe in Zeus, Krishna or Allah. Atheism is simply the absence of belief.

 

[JordanSRT]

If Almighty God says ‘it is true’ who am I to argue!

Because by your VERY OWN ADMISSION, you have total contempt for Almighty God, by the very words you have written and how you have written them. I do NOT share your contempt of Awesome Almighty God.

Without asking He gave me all the proof I ever needed and some. He came to me in person in a very personal way, yet His calling card confirmed that of a simlar calling card left some 4000-years before.

I cannot prove to you that it happend. It matters nothing to me whether you believe or disbelieve.

I cannot prove it really happened to me.

Whether you believe or reject, is of no consequence to me.

All I am concerned with is that He of All eternity visited me. That is sufficient. Believe or not.

How can I have contempt for a fictional character from a book that was badly written 2000 years ago? My point is, that if god wanted mindless zombie sheep he would have made more sheep and not man.

 

[cheamon]

If Almighty God says ‘it is true’ who am I to argue!

Because by your VERY OWN ADMISSION, you have total contempt for Almighty God, by the very words you have written and how you have written them. I do NOT share your contempt of Awesome Almighty God.

Without asking He gave me all the proof I ever needed and some. He came to me in person in a very personal way, yet His calling card confirmed that of a simlar calling card left some 4000-years before.

I cannot prove to you that it happend. It matters nothing to me whether you believe or disbelieve.

I cannot prove it really happened to me.

Whether you believe or reject, is of no consequence to me.

All I am concerned with is that He of All eternity visited me. That is sufficient. Believe or not.

WE DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD. You can’t have contempt for something that we don’t believe in. Holy ****.

I have heard from people before that Catholicism is more like a cult, although I used to strongly doubt that. After coming to this site there is no doubt in my mind that many Catholics are no different than cultists. All you’ve done is cover your ears and say “No no no no! God is real!”, and not ONCE presented an actual argument. It truly is people like this that draw people away from religion. I know one of the largest reasons I started questioning the belief was because of blind followers like you. You have never taken the time to actually consider your beliefs, and it’s blatantly obvious to everyone except you (and perhaps some other members here).

SHW is the only one that has put forth anything that’s even debatable.

waits for “you must hate god and it doesn’t matter because I’ve seen it” reply

 

[Lilyflower]

Isn’t this exactly what you are? Have you ever in your life questioned god’s word or demanded proof?

It is interesting that your script says ‘you dismiss my God because you have not seen!’

But while you pour scorn on all that He has done for humanity let alone creating all that exists, you do not have proof of His existence, Neither will you ever have for as long as you are so scornful, prideful and full of your OWN importance, which before Him counts as little less than nothing.

It is only by realising your TRUE position and relationship to Him that you will ever experience HIm.

The fact He the author of all that exists, who invite you to discover Him, you refuse His request, demanding instead to analyse Him, discect Him, and put Him under the microscope, you are so frustrated that He eludes you.

Perhaps you might want to start by looking in the more obvious places, then you may see, but while you are pouring contempt for Him, you will NOT see or understand. He will remain for you as elusive as He is at present.

Whatever gods you believe in or reject is rather upto you.

Blessings and peace

 

[Lilyflower]

WE DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD. You can’t have contempt for something that we don’t believe in. Holy ****.

I have heard from people before that Catholicism is more like a cult, although I used to strongly doubt that. After coming to this site there is no doubt in my mind that many Catholics are no different than cultists. All you’ve done is cover your ears and say “No no no no! God is real!”, and not ONCE presented an actual argument. It truly is people like this that draw people away from religion. I know one of the largest reasons I started questioning the belief was because of blind followers like you. You have never taken the time to actually consider your beliefs, and it’s blatantly obvious to everyone except you (and perhaps some other members here).

SHW is the only one that has put forth anything that’s even debatable.

waits for “you must hate god and it doesn’t matter because I’ve seen it” reply

My emphasis

You came to this site by your own admission that you do not believe! So it was unlikely that anyone would ever convince you other wise.

You say ‘I do not question’: Why should I? Having met the Holy Spirit of the Risen Christ, I am more than convinced that He is real. But I cannot pass that onto you. You chose to reject my evidence even though there is biblical evidence to support it. You insult me by calling my personal encounter ‘delusional’ and ‘mental illness’, so whatever I say, you will dismiss.

You dismiss personal testimony and you dismiss His written word. There is little else to say.

You came here to beat up Catholics whom you presumed had not personal experience of Almighty God. You found that your view was challenged but still not conforming to what you believe, you refuse to accept their testimony. All I can do is ask you to wait. You will find out in due course!!

If I said ‘I had no experience’ you would accuse me of being a blind follower!’ The fact I HAVE experienced the Awesome Holy Spirit of Almighty God you call me delusional. That proves you have come here with closed ears and a hidden agenda of disbelief. Even if one had seen, you still refuse to believe. You disbelieve because He whom you mock refuese to sucomb to your provocation. Whatever else, you are determined not to blieve. No evidence will ever convince you. You are proudly your fathers son! he [small ‘h’ intended] must be well pleased with you!!!

I have no proof you exist. Your response could for all I know be computer generated. I have experience FIRST HAND the Awesome Spirit of Almighty God. I am more certain of His existance than I am of YOUR existance. Sorry but that is the only answer I have for you.

Blessings and peace.

 

[cheamon]

Lilyflower:
I see you’re insinuating atheists are like cultists and we don’t question our beliefs. That’s funny because as I said earlier, I was raised christian. I retract my earlier statement where I said you were not mentally ill. You clearly are. Enjoy the rest of your circle jerk.