100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: questions that believers are afraid to answer | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Funches and toastedoranges, Rational means "Consistent with or based on reason; logical " There is nothing there about FACTS or PROOF. Therefore, what I said is rational. Everyone else here might allow you to define the terms, but you can't do that with me. Your threads are pure trolling. Why the mods don't lock the threads, I will never guess. You have no interest in debating the issues, you simply desire to make those who accept your silly definitions of the terms, look bad. lol, your such a manipulater  as usual you let what's in a book limit what you are willing to think beyond ...now you wish to cry foul and call people trolls because they don't agree with you...labeling someone a troll is the same mentality when the church label people heretics ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches and toastedoranges, Rational means "Consistent with or based on reason; logical " There is nothing there about FACTS or PROOF. Therefore, what I said is rational. Everyone else here might allow you to define the terms, but you can't do that with me. Your threads are pure trolling. Why the mods don't lock the threads, I will never guess. You have no interest in debating the issues, you simply desire to make those who accept your silly definitions of the terms, look bad. lol, your such a manipulater as usual you let what's in a book limit what you are willing to think beyond ...now you wish to cry foul and call people trolls because they don't agree with you...labeling someone a troll is the same mentality when the church label people heretics ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um... I don't think you've noticed that I actually did answer the original question just the other day. Scroll back a page. Doctor, Yes you did. A few others have also come in with a response to the OP. But of the 13 pages - maybe, what 3 or 4 posts? A lot of reading with little to show for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches you have an opinion and I respect that. But man you twist what others say............its entering the "spin zone" talking to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is the believers of the particular belief that claim that religious things as true and claim they need nothing but to utter the word faith and it becomes truth ...this is deceptive and/or or delusional Assuming that belief is deceptive or delusional, it is only deceptive or delusional to the person who holds the belief. Since you have no say whatsoever in what another believes, that's not your concern. do you mean like when it wasn't anyones concern when the church were torturing and murdering heretics Yes, exactly. They were fully justified in doing that. Heretics should be tortured and murdered. ..er...ok...right ...maybe you need to talk to chuck 366 he thinks he's Dr. Phil better than you thinking your dr. ruth ok Chuck sorry I call you Dr. Phil because he does try to answer the original questions and stick to the topic of his show...unlike you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rational Consistent with or based on reason; logical If God created the universe, then God must exist outside of the universe. If God exists outside of the universe, then God is not bound by the laws of the Universe. God claims to have existed forever. I accept that claim as the truth. Completely reasonable and logical. You disagree with the conclusion. You reject the statement that God has existed forever, but that doesn't make it irrational. You can define the words for yourself all you want, but I will reject your personal defintions of the terms and use only the accepted defintions. again you are using faith to answer a question and to do so is irrational..you just said God made the claim to have existed forever ..again how do you know God always existed or that God made this claim ....so can you explain how you know this without involving faith To ask a question that cannot be proven is just antagonistic. You must like talking in circles and to worship something that can't be proven is irrational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches and toastedoranges, Rational means "Consistent with or based on reason; logical " There is nothing there about FACTS or PROOF. Therefore, what I said is rational. Everyone else here might allow you to define the terms, but you can't do that with me. Your threads are pure trolling. Why the mods don't lock the threads, I will never guess. You have no interest in debating the issues, you simply desire to make those who accept your silly definitions of the terms, look bad. lol, your such a manipulater as usual you let what's in a book limit what you are willing to think beyond ...now you wish to cry foul and call people trolls because they don't agree with you...labeling someone a troll is the same mentality when the church label people heretics ... and you are so easy to manipulate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rational Consistent with or based on reason; logical If God created the universe, then God must exist outside of the universe. If God exists outside of the universe, then God is not bound by the laws of the Universe. God claims to have existed forever. I accept that claim as the truth. Completely reasonable and logical. You disagree with the conclusion. You reject the statement that God has existed forever, but that doesn't make it irrational. You can define the words for yourself all you want, but I will reject your personal defintions of the terms and use only the accepted defintions. again you are using faith to answer a question and to do so is irrational..you just said God made the claim to have existed forever ..again how do you know God always existed or that God made this claim ....so can you explain how you know this without involving faith To ask a question that cannot be proven is just antagonistic. You must like talking in circles and to worship something that can't be proven is irrational Ok beezlebub |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um... I don't think you've noticed that I actually did answer the original question just the other day. Scroll back a page. Doctor, Yes you did. A few others have also come in with a response to the OP. But of the 13 pages - maybe, what 3 or 4 posts? A lot of reading with little to show for it. he didn't come up with an answer I had to edit a rational answer out of his post ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches you have an opinion and I respect that. But man you twist what others say............its entering the "spin zone" talking to you. nope ..I'm just explaining the way it should have been explained in Sunday school ...er..ok well how it would have been explained if sunday school was open minded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is no, and the rational explination comes in one of the basic attributes of the God of scripture. Since the object of the question is the scriptural God - the God of creation, henceforth known as the "Creator" - it is understood that He is omniscient, omnipresent, has no beginning and will have no end. These attributes are basic, and unquestionable, else we are not talking about the God of scripture - but some other god. Therefore... Your argument establishes that the universe was created. Having accepted this as a valid premise, it follows that the universe now exists within a time continuum. It has a beginning, and through the course of time, changes, evolves, deteriorates, etc. We know this through our experience with a minute portion of the universe - Earth, and whatever scientific evidence we have accumulated by our research in the heavens beyond. The Creator - however, exists beyond the time continuum, and is not confined by it. Whereas the universe is. Therefore - since the Creator is not bound by time, it is illogical to presume that a Creator had to have a creator. It contradicts the definition of Him, and it is irrational to attribute a fact to a subject that contradicts the definition of it. Sorry for the interuption all - do continue. everything you claimed that was valid is actually not valid but exist as a matter of faith to the believer that it is valid...and because one has faith only validates that they do not actually know if it is valid or not but only an assumption that it is valid ... your response to the question was "no" which then requires you to give a rational explanation as to why you answered "no" in which your response was that God exist beyond the time continum..that is again a matter of faith and faith is used to accept that which is irrational Actually Funches - that is incorrect. The problem is that you are incapable of doing what it takes to prove it. You rely on the witness of man to tell you there is no proof - but what have you done to examine the issue? Have you travelled to the North pole to exclude any evidence there? Been to the top of mount Arrarat to see if the Ark is still there? So who's belief is based on faith? Your belief that there is no proof takes more faith than mine - because you rely on the testimony of others. I've experienced the existance of God in my life, and my "facts" need not match your criteria - which shifts like the tide anyway. And since your experience of there not being a God has barely begun - prove to me you're not delusional on your journey to prove something doesn't exist. And you call that rational? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches you have an opinion and I respect that. But man you twist what others say............its entering the "spin zone" talking to you. nope ..I'm just explaining the way it should have been explained in Sunday school ...er..ok well how it would have been explained if sunday school was open minded you understand "openminded" ? I don t see it, sorry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rational Consistent with or based on reason; logical If God created the universe, then God must exist outside of the universe. If God exists outside of the universe, then God is not bound by the laws of the Universe. God claims to have existed forever. I accept that claim as the truth. Completely reasonable and logical. You disagree with the conclusion. You reject the statement that God has existed forever, but that doesn't make it irrational. You can define the words for yourself all you want, but I will reject your personal defintions of the terms and use only the accepted defintions. again you are using faith to answer a question and to do so is irrational..you just said God made the claim to have existed forever ..again how do you know God always existed or that God made this claim ....so can you explain how you know this without involving faith To ask a question that cannot be proven is just antagonistic. You must like talking in circles and to worship something that can't be proven is irrational Ok beezlebub beezlebub?...why thank you chuck..you're a buddy and a pal ...but alas I have only 66 under my hair and not 666 ..what a rip off |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is no, and the rational explination comes in one of the basic attributes of the God of scripture. Since the object of the question is the scriptural God - the God of creation, henceforth known as the "Creator" - it is understood that He is omniscient, omnipresent, has no beginning and will have no end. These attributes are basic, and unquestionable, else we are not talking about the God of scripture - but some other god. Therefore... Your argument establishes that the universe was created. Having accepted this as a valid premise, it follows that the universe now exists within a time continuum. It has a beginning, and through the course of time, changes, evolves, deteriorates, etc. We know this through our experience with a minute portion of the universe - Earth, and whatever scientific evidence we have accumulated by our research in the heavens beyond. The Creator - however, exists beyond the time continuum, and is not confined by it. Whereas the universe is. Therefore - since the Creator is not bound by time, it is illogical to presume that a Creator had to have a creator. It contradicts the definition of Him, and it is irrational to attribute a fact to a subject that contradicts the definition of it. Sorry for the interuption all - do continue. everything you claimed that was valid is actually not valid but exist as a matter of faith to the believer that it is valid...and because one has faith only validates that they do not actually know if it is valid or not but only an assumption that it is valid ... your response to the question was "no" which then requires you to give a rational explanation as to why you answered "no" in which your response was that God exist beyond the time continum..that is again a matter of faith and faith is used to accept that which is irrational Actually Funches - that is incorrect. The problem is that you are incapable of doing what it takes to prove it. You rely on the witness of man to tell you there is no proof - but what have you done to examine the issue? Have you travelled to the North pole to exclude any evidence there? Been to the top of mount Arrarat to see if the Ark is still there? So who's belief is based on faith? Your belief that there is no proof takes more faith than mine - because you rely on the testimony of others. I've experienced the existance of God in my life, and my "facts" need not match your criteria - which shifts like the tide anyway. And since your experience of there not being a God has barely begun - prove to me you're not delusional on your journey to prove something doesn't exist. And you call that rational? give it up, he hates God for some reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rational Consistent with or based on reason; logical If God created the universe, then God must exist outside of the universe. If God exists outside of the universe, then God is not bound by the laws of the Universe. God claims to have existed forever. I accept that claim as the truth. Completely reasonable and logical. You disagree with the conclusion. You reject the statement that God has existed forever, but that doesn't make it irrational. You can define the words for yourself all you want, but I will reject your personal defintions of the terms and use only the accepted defintions. again you are using faith to answer a question and to do so is irrational..you just said God made the claim to have existed forever ..again how do you know God always existed or that God made this claim ....so can you explain how you know this without involving faith To ask a question that cannot be proven is just antagonistic. You must like talking in circles and to worship something that can't be proven is irrational Ok beezlebub beezlebub?...why thank you chuck..you're a buddy and a pal ...but alas I have only 66 under my hair and not 666 ..what a rip off that was good, touche' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is no, and the rational explination comes in one of the basic attributes of the God of scripture. Since the object of the question is the scriptural God - the God of creation, henceforth known as the "Creator" - it is understood that He is omniscient, omnipresent, has no beginning and will have no end. These attributes are basic, and unquestionable, else we are not talking about the God of scripture - but some other god. Therefore... Your argument establishes that the universe was created. Having accepted this as a valid premise, it follows that the universe now exists within a time continuum. It has a beginning, and through the course of time, changes, evolves, deteriorates, etc. We know this through our experience with a minute portion of the universe - Earth, and whatever scientific evidence we have accumulated by our research in the heavens beyond. The Creator - however, exists beyond the time continuum, and is not confined by it. Whereas the universe is. Therefore - since the Creator is not bound by time, it is illogical to presume that a Creator had to have a creator. It contradicts the definition of Him, and it is irrational to attribute a fact to a subject that contradicts the definition of it. Sorry for the interuption all - do continue. everything you claimed that was valid is actually not valid but exist as a matter of faith to the believer that it is valid...and because one has faith only validates that they do not actually know if it is valid or not but only an assumption that it is valid ... your response to the question was "no" which then requires you to give a rational explanation as to why you answered "no" in which your response was that God exist beyond the time continum..that is again a matter of faith and faith is used to accept that which is irrational Actually Funches - that is incorrect. The problem is that you are incapable of doing what it takes to prove it. You rely on the witness of man to tell you there is no proof - but what have you done to examine the issue? Have you travelled to the North pole to exclude any evidence there? Been to the top of mount Arrarat to see if the Ark is still there? So who's belief is based on faith? Your belief that there is no proof takes more faith than mine - because you rely on the testimony of others. I've experienced the existance of God in my life, and my "facts" need not match your criteria - which shifts like the tide anyway. And since your experience of there not being a God has barely begun - prove to me you're not delusional on your journey to prove something doesn't exist. And you call that rational? sorry but it's not up to me to prove or disprove the delusions of others.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches you have an opinion and I respect that. But man you twist what others say............its entering the "spin zone" talking to you. nope ..I'm just explaining the way it should have been explained in Sunday school ...er..ok well how it would have been explained if sunday school was open minded you understand "openminded" ? I don t see it, sorry that's because you are not "open minded" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is no, and the rational explination comes in one of the basic attributes of the God of scripture. Since the object of the question is the scriptural God - the God of creation, henceforth known as the "Creator" - it is understood that He is omniscient, omnipresent, has no beginning and will have no end. These attributes are basic, and unquestionable, else we are not talking about the God of scripture - but some other god. Therefore... Your argument establishes that the universe was created. Having accepted this as a valid premise, it follows that the universe now exists within a time continuum. It has a beginning, and through the course of time, changes, evolves, deteriorates, etc. We know this through our experience with a minute portion of the universe - Earth, and whatever scientific evidence we have accumulated by our research in the heavens beyond. The Creator - however, exists beyond the time continuum, and is not confined by it. Whereas the universe is. Therefore - since the Creator is not bound by time, it is illogical to presume that a Creator had to have a creator. It contradicts the definition of Him, and it is irrational to attribute a fact to a subject that contradicts the definition of it. Sorry for the interuption all - do continue. everything you claimed that was valid is actually not valid but exist as a matter of faith to the believer that it is valid...and because one has faith only validates that they do not actually know if it is valid or not but only an assumption that it is valid ... your response to the question was "no" which then requires you to give a rational explanation as to why you answered "no" in which your response was that God exist beyond the time continum..that is again a matter of faith and faith is used to accept that which is irrational Actually Funches - that is incorrect. The problem is that you are incapable of doing what it takes to prove it. You rely on the witness of man to tell you there is no proof - but what have you done to examine the issue? Have you travelled to the North pole to exclude any evidence there? Been to the top of mount Arrarat to see if the Ark is still there? So who's belief is based on faith? Your belief that there is no proof takes more faith than mine - because you rely on the testimony of others. I've experienced the existance of God in my life, and my "facts" need not match your criteria - which shifts like the tide anyway. And since your experience of there not being a God has barely begun - prove to me you're not delusional on your journey to prove something doesn't exist. And you call that rational? sorry but it's not up to me to prove or disprove the delusions of others.. Than why ask the question? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
give it up, he hates God for some reason. or is it chuck...that those that have to love an unproven entity has to because they hate theirselves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
chuck366
on
Fri 01/04/08 10:12 AM
|
|
give it up, he hates God for some reason. or is it chuck...that those that have to love an unproven entity has to because they hate theirselves Now you are analizing me? You have a better chance of shooting a cockroach in the dark bro |
|
|
|
|
