100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: questions that believers are afraid to answer | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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 Funches; I did not establish the premises - you did. So your question validates the validity of the bible through the assumptions of your original question. You did not ask if there was another explination for the Creation - you established it so you could question the need of the Creator to be created given that the universe was created by him. You now what to demonstrate that because you don't agree with your own premise that the answer to the second part can't be no? You're the logician. Explain how you can do that for me without sounding irrational. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? the question is for you to see if you are delusional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? the question is for you to see if you are delusional On the contrary. Your responses to others make you seem delusional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess my question is why do you get to decide what is logical, rational and/or irrational? Because it seems when an answer is given and it is not one that you "feel" is correct, its either not logical or irrational. So then everyone is at a disadvantage. I don't care to debate my beliefs with anyone. I just ask a question. If you answer different than what I believe I see no reason in tearing apart your answer and calling you name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book I know you are angry with God for some reason too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book I know you are angry with God for some reason too. Ill pray for ya brother 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Funches; I did not establish the premises - you did. So your question validates the validity of the bible through the assumptions of your original question. You did not ask if there was another explination for the Creation - you established it so you could question the need of the Creator to be created given that the universe was created by him. You now what to demonstrate that because you don't agree with your own premise that the answer to the second part can't be no? You're the logician. Explain how you can do that for me without sounding irrational. the original question calls for a logical rational response but you decided to start with the star trek the next generation about the space time continum ...er..where's "Q" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the contrary. Your responses to others make you seem delusional. that's funny coming from you since you keep going off topic instead of trying to answer the question |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess my question is why do you get to decide what is logical, rational and/or irrational? Because it seems when an answer is given and it is not one that you "feel" is correct, its either not logical or irrational. So then everyone is at a disadvantage. I don't care to debate my beliefs with anyone. I just ask a question. If you answer different than what I believe I see no reason in tearing apart your answer and calling you name. well it's hard for me to decide what is logical since everyone choose to complain about the question instead of trying to answer it ...this is clearly a case of "shoot the messenger syndrome" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book I know you are angry with God for some reason too. well he do have all the women...you think that's why I hate God ..Dr. Chuck? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess my question is why do you get to decide what is logical, rational and/or irrational? Because it seems when an answer is given and it is not one that you "feel" is correct, its either not logical or irrational. So then everyone is at a disadvantage. I don't care to debate my beliefs with anyone. I just ask a question. If you answer different than what I believe I see no reason in tearing apart your answer and calling you name. well it's hard for me to decide what is logical since everyone choose to complain about the question instead of trying to answer it ...this is clearly a case of "shoot the messenger syndrome" The pitty wagon will not get you far in life. I saw several answers. scroll back and re-read |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book I know you are angry with God for some reason too. Ill pray for ya brother wow thanks for you forcing your prays on me...maybe I will get a voodoo priestress to make a voodoo chucky doll of you and force her prays on you by sticking pins in it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book I know you are angry with God for some reason too. Ill pray for ya brother wow thanks for you forcing your prays on me...maybe I will get a voodoo priestress to make a voodoo chucky doll of you and force her prays on you by sticking pins in it Prove voodoo logically? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess my question is why do you get to decide what is logical, rational and/or irrational? Because it seems when an answer is given and it is not one that you "feel" is correct, its either not logical or irrational. So then everyone is at a disadvantage. I don't care to debate my beliefs with anyone. I just ask a question. If you answer different than what I believe I see no reason in tearing apart your answer and calling you name. well it's hard for me to decide what is logical since everyone choose to complain about the question instead of trying to answer it ...this is clearly a case of "shoot the messenger syndrome" The pitty wagon will not get you far in life. I saw several answers. scroll back and re-read sounds delusional to me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book I know you are angry with God for some reason too. Ill pray for ya brother wow thanks for you forcing your prays on me...maybe I will get a voodoo priestress to make a voodoo chucky doll of you and force her prays on you by sticking pins in it Prove voodoo logically? well that's between you and the voodoo priestress ...oh and the chucky voodoo doll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 cocroach in the dark bro well chuck it was you that called me Dr. Ruth ...considered yourself as been analyzed ...I know you like the bible...oops I meant I know you like a book I know you are angry with God for some reason too. Ill pray for ya brother wow thanks for you forcing your prays on me...maybe I will get a voodoo priestress to make a voodoo chucky doll of you and force her prays on you by sticking pins in it Prove voodoo logically? well that's between you and the voodoo priestress ...oh and the chucky voodoo doll want a lock of hair? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
want a lock of hair? again that is between you and the voodoo priestress ...with the advances of The Internet she may can make a cyber voodoo chucky doll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches my sweet......try and be nice....oh wait this is funches.........carry on....I love you anyway Mr......and I pray for you always.....but don't stick and voodoo queens on me....tyvm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
want a lock of hair? again that is between you and the voodoo priestress ...with the advances of The Internet she may can make a cyber voodoo chucky doll voodoo doo-doo. |
|
|
|
|
