This is a thread you can ask me any question you want about Christianity and I will answer it to the best of my ability. I am a Christian, or to be more specific, Reformed Presbyterian. There will be no spam, and no stupid mean remarks. And I will answer the questions, so ask away, anything about God, Christianity or... anything...
you cannot teach a dog science because he is not programmed to understand it same with humans and god
Dogs also have no concept or understanding of science at all though, so how is it that you *know* so much about god, if it's something you're not capable of understanding?
JJ52.. just.. lol.
Science has one major flaw: how did everything start, what was the begining. The answer to this is God. Most scientist believe in God!!!
Not knowing things, is never a 'flaw' with science. It's a learning process. We discover things, figure out how they work, and add them into the fold of our knowledge.
You say 'the answer to this is God'. Where's your proof? As for your assertion that most scientists believe in god, that's an outright fabrication, and unless you provide reliable evidence that shows otherwise, I would suggest you retract that statement.
God is in everything.
Again, proof please.
HiddenDiance... imagine you are living in the 2-D world, and whatever you see you experience fully, not knowing there can be another dimension. Now imagine that there IS one, and somebody is three-dimensional and can create a 2-D world. How can you possibly know fully of a three-dimensional being while not knowing that there is actually the third dimension?
Just because I can 'imagine' something, doesn't mean it exists, nor does it mean that someone who lives there exists either. Those are assumptions I am making with *no proof* which is exactly what you are doing with god. If you cannot prove the existence of god (and the burden of proof does lie with you, so don't go and complain that I can't disprove god), then this entire argument is completely void. It doesn't matter that you think god is in everything if you don't have anything to base the existence of god on. It just falls apart without anything to support it.
Ambrose Bierce has a cheeky definition for faith:
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
That sums up your entire argument. Proof first, debate later.
-OK now the devil is making you`re minds full of sins not your free will and god always forgives you?And how can somebody create a world without the death in it?
The devil created all sin and evil. Because we have free will we have the choice to make sins or not.
When Adam and Eve were created by God the were , for lack of a better term, immortal. There was no fighting, no illness, no hatred or evil. The devil created that.
As for your assertion that most scientists believe in god, that's an outright fabrication, and unless you provide reliable evidence that shows otherwise, I would suggest you retract that statement.
My Father works with alot of scientists and he knows they go to church. Scientist from a major lab go to a church not too far from were i live, plus the scientist that work at a nearby nuclear power plant! Some of the scientists that work with my Father have gone to nationwide conventions and talked about the creation of everything and many of them believe in God! Were is your proof that the majority of scientist dont believe in God? I also think its sad that your debating with some who is holding their ground and is less than half your age.
Its just sad how wrong you atheists are. =( Its not that i dont like atheists i just dont like the ones that try to turn others atheist.
I could say the exact same thing to you. Except, I don't think it's sad. You're making a choice to believe in this illusion. I think it's.. distasteful.
My Father works with alot of scientists and he knows they go to church. Scientist from a major lab go to a church not too far from were i live, plus the scientist that work at a nearby nuclear power plant! Some of the scientists that work with my Father have gone to nationwide conventions and talked about the creation of everything and many of them believe in God! Were is your proof that the majority of scientist dont believe in God? I also think its sad that your debating with some who is holding their ground and is less than half your age.
'My dad says' is not evidence. Do you know how science works? I don't even know why I asked that question, because clearly, you don't.
Here's a survey of natural scientists & comparitive numbers to earlier surveys done on the same subject. Funny how even going *way* back, disbelief/doubt is way in the majority.
I think it's sad that you *think* you're holding ground in this debate. You haven't proven the existence of god, nor did you even address that point *at all*, and I should add quite clearly: Without proving that god exists, you have *no* arguement. You're going down faster then the hindenburg.
Its not that i dont like atheists i just dont like the ones that try to turn others atheist.
It's not a matter of turning people athiests. It's a matter of making you admit that you are wrong. If you start a debate if you can't give evidence or logical backup then your argument is invalid, I mean, if you don't care about it enough to back it up then why should anybody else value it? And when it's something as big as religion where you just CAN'T back it up then don't talk to athiests about it because they will never respect your decision due to the fact that your opinion is invalid in a debating sense.
i don't. all that's givin is scripture to base my interpretation off of
And since the scripture, a 2000 year old document written at least a few hundred years after the events potrayed in the new testament, cannot be relied upon as accurate evidence of those events to be true, without doubt, it doesn't stand up in a debate.
You have faith - and that's fine. .. I guess. But it's nothing more then that. Belief, without knowledge. It doesn't stand up in this kind of setting (and in my opinion, no other setting) because it's not based in reality.
better to know the things you are against than to shun the knowledge completely
My primary religious study to this point has been christianity, and while I'm moving onto others... - I've read the bible, so I know about as much about christianity as anybody else (more in a lot of cases, it's actually kind of shocking how many believers have never read it).
What I am against is people preaching, teaching & interfering with the lives of others, in many ways being quite harmful (ex. Jehovah's witnesses preventing their dying children from getting blood transfusions/organ donor) on the basis of something that has absolutely no reliable evidence or proof.
I'm not shunning something that is certifiable; it's precisely the fact that it isn't that I challenging those of faith to provide something substantial, but in the end, they always fail.
That's why buddhism rules. Even if you don't believe it the philosophy of it works. Which you can see when you see how passive monks are. Even in places like Tibet when they are being tortured and opressed. The best thing is their we don't tell you unless you ask rule. Which means this would never EVER happen.
That's why buddhism rules. Even if you don't believe it the philosophy of it works. Which you can see when you see how passive monks are. Even in places like Tibet when they are being tortured and opressed. The best thing is their we don't tell you unless you ask rule. Which means this would never EVER happen.
Eh, it's still rubbish though. Karma? Rebirth? Planes of Existence? There's no proof for any of that either. As for 'don't tell unless you ask'.. aren't you technically contradicting that by posting about how awesome it is?
