45
   

How do i know God is real?

 
 
dh71
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2014 11:02 pm
@neologist,
Why did you waste your time writing something so pitiful and weak
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2014 12:31 am
@dh71,
I had to do something to compensate for my good looks.
What's your excuse?

http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/s/shrek/graphics-shrek-555058.jpg
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2014 02:09 am
Quote:
dh71 said: God is not real

Prove it..Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/ladd-shane_zps4e82184e.jpg~original
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 05:52 pm
@neologist,
A woman once said I had the body of a god. I later found out that she is a Buddhist.
0 Replies
 
krazyme2
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Feb, 2014 02:24 am
i dont know if god is real. but he probably is, how else can u explain this **** called life.
u might be god i could be as well. but god is here and we all should be thankful, for what he did for us is amazing. even if he is not real he is real. god understands everything, u do not yet u are still alive, if there is a whim of understanding then that is god.
only two possibilities, u did it, or god did it. u need to think for yourself when it comes to religion, for all i now, its just me. just really im here not for everyone else, even if others are real. if there is a true god, then i know that he looks out for everyone. god only asks thAT you awknowledge him. be a decent human, if god is real then you wont be punished, if he isnt real then kill me now. the whole basis of the ideA OF GOD is to be a decent human, that is as far as anyone can go. even if there is no god, the nature of man and ur peers should tell you the way to go. may god bless you, and do whats in your power to be a god person, it doesnt matter if god is here or not, you are here, and it is expected of you.
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 04:32 pm
@krazyme2,
How can there be a god when a child starves to death every five seconds?
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 04:42 pm
Quote:
Advocate asked: How can there be a god when a child starves to death every five seconds?

It's human mismanagement, stupidity and overpopulation that causes it.
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 04:47 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Advocate asked: How can there be a god when a child starves to death every five seconds?

It's human mismanagement, stupidity and overpopulation that causes it.


Were there a god, he or she would step in and make the necessary adjustments.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 04:49 pm
Quote:
Advocate said: Were there a god, he or she would step in and make the necessary adjustments.

He gave us the simple commonsense to grow crops, do fishing and hunt animals to keep from starving, I don't see what else he could do..
Advocate
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 05:09 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Advocate said: Were there a god, he or she would step in and make the necessary adjustments.

He gave us the simple commonsense to grow crops, do fishing and hunt animals to keep from starving, I don't see what else he could do..


Is that all god is for? You need to peruse the bible(s).
Calamity Dal
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 06:36 pm
@Advocate,
This is where I struggle with this version of a god. Why does a god not step in to stop suffering. Why would a god allow humans to mismanage the earth?
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 07:39 pm
@Smileyrius,
Once you step of our "earth" time is not measurable.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 08:05 pm
@Calamity Dal,
Calamity Dal wrote:
This is where I struggle with this version of a god. Why does a god not step in to stop suffering. Why would a god allow humans to mismanage the earth?
There are issues to be settled. Satan made a number of allegations, the disposition of which takes time.

Here are a few of the issues:
Satan alleged:
>God is a liar: Genesis 3:4 This accusation, BTW, is the basis for the myth of the immortal soul.

>God is keeping something desirable from us: Genesis 3:5
>Humans will be better off setting their own standards. Genesis 3:5

>No human will serve God except out of selfishness: Job 2:4

Now you and I would probably aver that more than enough time has been allotted for Satan to prove his accusations, but we don't keep the clock. One thing we may look to for comfort is the promise of the resurrection: All those who lived and died without knowing God will have an opportunity to live in a world unsullied by Satanic influence. John 5:28
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2014 12:36 am
@tenderfoot,
An interesting thought my friend, could you explain it a bit deeper for me?

Smiley,
still learning

JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2014 03:17 am
of course there's no proof for any of this.....


0 Replies
 
JeffreyK
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2014 07:20 pm
Wow can you really say to someone what ever you believe that feels good to you - do that? well then I guess my God becomes my own idea and in essence I create him/her so by definition there still remains no God.
Why did not one of you say anything about your own belief in God and even those that eluded to a belief didn't explain why they believe/ have faith in God/a God. For those that believe your faith will always be weak if you don't know why you believe and will ultimately be meaningless when tested.
If there is a God don't you think God would create in his creation this very question, and why? - to cause you to seek! seek what? - the truth!

Let me ask you this question so you believe in God or don't- now what?
I am a Christian (that's right guys I actually aligned myself with a known religious group). I grew up in the church so the idea of there being a God seemed normal to me, why not everyone else around me seemed to believe and even told me about God and who he is. But even then knowing of the God in the bible didn't dismiss me questioning everything - especially as I got older and grew in my own opinions and ideas.
So I did this crazy thing and actually started seeking him! I got a general idea of other religions but my ultimate test was actually reading the ancient word of the bible (try new living translation). If you really wanted to know if God was & is real you can actually read about him through a book that was brought together through many authors over hundreds of years talking about the one and the same God. I strongly suggest praying as you go asking God himself to reveal himself to you & pray for understanding so you might interpret whats written easily (Mathew chtr 7:verse 9:11).
In Genesis you can how he created the world (its the first thing you read in the bible), how he chose a people that were to reveal his existence and Glorify him to all nations (that had since turned away him and created their own Gods) through their relationship with him and the prosperity they would gather through his providence/love. He also punished people- what? how could he if he's suppose to be loving- well because people are also give free will and can choose to do what ever they want, did your parents not punish you? and don't they still love & care about you -think about it. God is neither dead nor alive he is timeless and inextricably connected to this world -his creation and we are his children whether you choose to believe that or not because he raised us up higher than any of the animals around us (evolution?) even to the point of giving us dominion over the whole world.
In the new testament you can read about who he is in the likeness of his own son born of the holy spirit (an actual historic figure in documented human history).
So what about the number of starving people that are dieing everyday. Take hope in (Ezekiel 34: vs 18-24) also read (the book of Job in the bible where a "righteous" man is cursed) and a huge part of things like this is after God created the world and "it was good" something happens in (Genesis 3) that changes everything.
God is just and of those that believe in him he will save. why only those that believe in him? - because if we don't believe in God then we wont listen to him and if we don't listen to him we are destined for destruction either way Gods control (Romans 9:10-28).
Think about it why did God harden the heart of Pharaoh at the signs of his first, second, third, etc. miracle and why did Jesus (God) bring in Judas as part of his Apostles who later betrayed him - to reveal his Glory& Authority. How can we see light if there is no darkness?

So because we have a God/creator if you will we are to glorify him it is essentially why we exist. How - by emulating his character, growing in his likeness through having a relationship with him, struggling through this life building up our faith and trust in him.
You were designed to worship hence the reason people create idols in their life - money, food, sex, items,activities because we try to fill that void in our life when we don't have God and it always seems empty when we fill it with these other things.
I already know that this won't convince all readers because I was warned (Mathew 7:6) "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
(Proverbs 23:9) Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
But for those seeking I encourage you to continue seeking as you will inevitably will find (Mathey 7:7)
0 Replies
 
tenderfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2014 08:15 pm
@Smileyrius,
Humans measure time by the revolving of earth... in one day it revolves once, in a year it revolves 365 times ~~~ Distance in space is measured by the time earth revolves ( light years )
0 Replies
 
Tamara2000
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2014 01:11 pm
@Groomers123,
Hi, I´m nearly your age and this is what I think:
Well, we can´t absolutly know if God is real, that´s something that you´re heart and not your brain must decide. There are many religions but you are not obliged to believe in one or not to believe, you can believe in any other thing you could imagine. Perphaps you ask him questions and you expect a clearly answer but is probably that the answer appears to you in an other way, like a sentence in an adverstisement a situation similar like your in an other person... There are lots of questions that we can´t answer at the moment but I´m shure at the future we will. You must believe in what you want and I think that if you have the option of believing in something beautiful like God (A good God) why not doing it?

Good Luke and Relax please, the life is prettier than what they make us to believe, just look it with other eyes Smile
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2014 01:40 pm
@Groomers123,
Quote:
How do i know God is real?


Primarily, because the only other option (evolution) is a bunch of bullshit.


The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Quote:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

  • It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...

    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxBbTP7lYdWyifvIpoafdaze7s103OTEgN_V3V80q86SZLo5fE1w

  • PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

  • PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

  • PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

  • For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.


The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

Quote:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!


Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?

0 Replies
 
tenderfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 12:08 am
@Smileyrius,
Distance in space is measured by the time it takes here on earth for earth to revolve it's 365 times a year sooooooo that's the revolution of one planet in our part of the universe. Our earth, our time on our earth.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 02:56:16