[1/2]
@pr0fiteer:
2. ๐๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐จ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ฃ๐ข๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ข๐ด ๐ช๐ต ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ
Would you please say this again? Iโm not clear on what you are saying here.
"๐๐ง ๐จ๐ณ๐ข๐ท๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ณ๐ด ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฏ." ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ ๐จ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ด๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ฐ.
This is not what Dr. Breuer wrote. He wrote:
โWith lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.โ
3. ๐๐ฆ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ช๐ฎ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ, ๐ ๐ด๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ช๐ต
@wendelltalks wrote that there are โ[p]eople who refuse to explain away the reality of objective moral obligation.โ Backmon Oct. 29, 2026, @wendelltalks did pose the following question:
๐๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ?
But I would direct you to what @wendelltalks stated in his May 15, 2023 post regarding subjective and objective morality:
๐๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ด๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐บ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด. ๐๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐จ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ณ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ด๐ฆ๐ญ๐ง. ๐๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ญ๐ต๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด, ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ต๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ญ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐๐ช๐ด ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด.
๐๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ค ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ๐ธ๐ด, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฉ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ค๐ต ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ. ๐๐ช๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ข ๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ด, ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ญ๐บ ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ง๐ด ๐ธ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ถ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ช๐ข๐ด๐ฆ๐ด.
๐๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ง๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ง๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐จ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ๐จ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ. ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐จ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ด ๐ถ๐ด ๐ข ๐ง๐ช๐ณ๐ฎ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ช๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ท๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด ๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฆ. ๐๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ข๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต "๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ, ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ด๐ถ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฃ๐ช๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ณ๐บ," ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ด๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ณ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต. ๐๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ง๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ข๐ฑ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐จ.
You wrote:
๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ'๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด
On what exactly is this statement of yours based? Prof. Michael Huemerโs claim is that we can know of the existence of objective morality through intuition alone. Some people have extramarital affairs and donโt view adultery to be morally wrong as long as their spouse never finds out about these affairs.
[contโd]
[2/2]
If God doesnโt exist, then moral values are subjective, for they would be based on individual preferences. Is stealing wrong because of ethics or because of morality? If stealing is wrong, is it because the law says it is ethically unlawful to steal or is there a compelling subjective OR moral reason for society not to steal?
๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ด๐ข๐บ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐จ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ด ๐ข๐ญ๐ธ๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ. ๐๐ฉ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ 13 ๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐บ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ด ๐ข๐จ๐ฐ.
You donโt know this to be true. When we refer to the universe, this doesnโt exclude matter. How can you seriously say that matter didnโt appear out of nowhere 13 bya if the universe didnโt exist 13 bya?
[1/4]
@pr0fiteer:
1. ๐๐ฉ๐บ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐บ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต?
Iโm not clear on what you are asking here.It is obvious that what exists today exists today, and what doesnโt, doesnโt.
2. ๐๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ด ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ง ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ'๐ด ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฆ๐น๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ญ๐บ ๐ข๐ด ๐ช๐ต ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ, ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต
Maybe you know this and maybe you donโt, but there are four fundamental forces of nature, right? A Gravitational Force; a Electromagnetic Force; a Strong Nuclear Force; and a Weak Nuclear Force. Referring to just the Electromagnetic Force, a slight difference in this force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the Electromagnetic Force determines whether we live or not.
Equally vital is the intensity of the Electromagnetic Force in relation to the other three forces. For example, some physicists figure this force to be (10โดโฐ) times that of gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (10โดยน). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally weaker, and a Professor of Mathematics and Physics at Oxford, Dr. Reinhard Breuer (โThe Anthropic Principle: Man as the Focal Point of Natureโ), made this interesting comment on the resulting situation:
โWith lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.โ Imagine this!
What if gravity were stronger proportionately, so that the number had one fewer zeros (10ยณโน)? โWith just this tiny adjustment,โ continues Breuer, โa star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.โ And other scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise.
Indeed, two remarkable qualities of our sun and other stars are long-term efficiency and stability. Consider a simple illustration:
We know that to run efficiently, a precisely tuned automobile engine needs a critical ratio between fuel and air; this is a must! Engineers design complex mechanical and computer systems to optimize performance. If this is so with a mere engine, what of the efficiently โburningโ stars such as our sun? The key forces involved are precisely tuned, optimized for life. Did this precision just happen? What do you think?
3. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ'๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด
๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด
Atheists proffer ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ฆ that no gods exist, but what of the scientific principles associated with a fine-tuned universe, the zygote stage to neonate stage to adult progression, blood clotting and consciousness? Maybe Iโm mistaken here and you can prove your claim, but the burden of proof is on you to prove that God doesnโt exist. I believe he does exist, but beliefs arenโt claims, and claims ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ be proven.
Many atheists are nihilists as you are. Life has no objective meaning or purpose to you. Nihilists accept the conclusions of their godless worldview: To them, God does not exist and morality is all an illusion. But is morality merely an invention of intuition?
[contโd]
[3/4]
Then, too, when it comes to the things we see as the result of such growth, man cannot make a single blade of grass, and even if he were able to grow a single blade of grass, is grass what he wants to eat, or does he want delicious food, pleasing to the eye, palatable to the tongue? Well, we know the answer.
This establishes God's superiority, and clearly someone higher than man must supply these needs. Why does there exist a vast variety of food in the world? Not just vegetation, but the animals and the fish we eat? Whose idea was it to make the plants, the fish and the other animals we eat?โฃ
We can look at man's body. We can look at the marvelous systems. The doctors and scientists say, these systems are not unrelated. They say, each system in our bodies is related to the other systems: The circulatory system, the nervous system, the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, the blood system, the digestive system. If one breaks down or falls down, the others will rally to its side to try to make that body work anyway.
Who thought of that? Man? Not even his doctors understand this fully. Why does these systems in the human body so organized that they work this way? Whose idea was this? Who made man?โฃ
โฃ
A prime example that proves Godโs existence that comes to my mind is this: Water, which is our most essential fluid. Water has a remarkable property that shows the remarkable and the eternal power of God. Perhaps youโve noticed this:โฃ
โฃ
When water freezes, it expands, and gets lighter and floats. You know that because when you put an ice cube in your Pepsi, it doesn't sink to the bottom. It floats right there on the top. And you know, too, that it expands because when you fill your ice tray, you don't fill it up all the way to the top. You leave a little room, because you know that when you pull it out of the freezer, it's going to take up that extra space.โฃ
โฃ
So because water, when frozen, expands, and gets lighter and floats, it keeps all of us from living, right here on this earth, in a refrigerator. Did you know that? How so? Well, now, consider this, for a moment there, how it is saving the whole world of mankind. Let's say just the opposite were true. Let's say water, when frozen, was like most other substances; they contract and get smaller. That's like that chicken in your freezer: When you pull it out, it has shriveled up a little. It has gotten smaller. See, that's how most things do when they freeze; not water. Well, that's saving us.โฃ
โฃ
And I will add here that when we boil water; it becomes steam, but none of this was written to discuss the different properties of water, but to discuss the proof that God exists.โฃ
โฃ
Let's say water did like most substances and when frozen became more dense, and instead of floating would sink. Well, during a cold winter, what would happen? All the water on top would freeze; lakes, rivers, ponds, all around the world, and since it wouldn't float, it would become more dense and would sink right to the bottom and there ice would be all winter.โฃ
โฃ
Then when the summer came, the sun couldn't penetrate all the way through the water down to the bottom where the ice is and had not melted, so by the time winter came around again, you would still have much ice at the bottom of all the rivers and lakes and streams.โฃ
But then with winter that on top would freeze again and would sink toward the bottom, piling up on top of that other unmelted ice at the bottom that had been there from the previous winter. Can you see what would happen now? After a few winters, there wouldn't be a drop of water on this earth, all of it would be frozen and we would be in a refrigerator, except we wouldn't be here because, without our most essential fluid that God provides, then we just could not exist as humans on this planet.โฃ
โฃ
[contโd]
[4/4]
Well, now, who thought of that? Who thought of making water the exception to most substances? Not man, although we do appreciate it and its properties. We live as a result of it. But it establishes the eternal power of God, and therefore the evidence all around us, visible and invisible collectively, constitutes proof that God exists.โฃ
โฃ
For an absolute certainty, it becomes clear by using, not the sense of hearing, but our four other senses of sight, smell, taste, and touch, that God exists.โฃ
[1/2]
@jools6691:
๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ๐ด ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ
Lose what? Iโm not debating you about anything. ๐ ๐ง๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ ๐๐๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ง๐ฒ๐จ๐ง๐. I donโt care that your view about these โgenetic studiesโ and fossils differs from my view. It has never been important to me to win an argument. Iโm hardly wrong, and if I am wrong, I remember that as a Christian, and a very flawed human being.
Many atheists are nihilists as you are. Life has no objective meaning or purpose to you. Nihilists accept the conclusions of their godless worldview: To them, God does not exist and morality is all an illusion.
Many atheists describe atheism as โthe disbelief in any gods,โ and some say atheism โaddresses and rejects the claim that a god exists,โ although atheism ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ง๐จ ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ.
However, this a syllogism:
-P1 If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
-P2 But objective moral values and duties do exist.
-C Therefore, God exists.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) ignores the laws of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The ToE says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged.โฃ
โฃ
According to this theory, this supposed processโwhich yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stageโwas formed all by itself under natural conditions. What the law of entropy makes clear is that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.โฃ
Something is either scientifically sound or it isnโt scientific and the ToE ignores this fundamental law of physics, and it totally contradicts the second law and says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged.โฃโฃโฃ
The ToE is a form of religion that has indoctrinated many of our children when they were in school and it is a falsehood that has become part of the belief system in many adults today. It is often defined as โallele frequencies that changes over timeโ by natural selection driven by common descent with modification, and that it is by means of such changes in these allele frequencies in a population over time that new species emerge.โฃ โฃ
โฃ
Macroevolution/speciation has ๐ง๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ occurred. No empirical evidence exists for the transitioning of whale fins into legs and the transitioning of a whale's blowhole into an adapted nose. No one has ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ observed natural selection driven by common descent with modification cause one species to evolve into another species.โฃ One evolutionist wrote:
โฃ
โWe have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because itโs good, we know it is bad, but because there isnโt any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation.โฆโโฃโฃ
โฃโฃ
โGeneticist Jรฉrรดme Lejeuneโฃ
โฃ
If you are not a scientist, I should mention the following three (3) points to you:
[contโd]
[2/2]
First, with respect to the ToE, it isnโt possible to observe the past. Observation is an activity that utilizes the senses to collect data in the present. We cannot use the senses to collect empirical data about past events. While it is possible to examine past events in the present, a degree of interpretation and inference will always be required to establish how such past events occurred.โฃ
โฃ
Second, itโs not possible to design experiments to determine what happened in the past. Controlled observations/experiments may determine whether an event is possible in a specific situation, but the exact conditions that existed in a past moment in time can never be replicated. Conclusions about the past cannot be reached through inductive reasoning. Such conclusions or explanations are made through abductive reasoning.โฃ
โฃ
Third, as Iโve already stated, itโs not possible to predict the past. Science predicts FUTURE events arising from certain situations based on CURRENT observations of nature. It is not used to make predictions of what happened in the past based on general observations of nature. Nor can it be used to establish the past events that led to the current observationsโthis would be the remit of abduction.โฃ
โฃ
Using the scientific method, one observes what happens and then, based on those observations, postulate a theory as to what might be true, test this theory by making further observations and by conducting experiments; observe what results to see if predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.โฃ
I do not view the ToE as scientific. As a scientist, I cannot ignore the second law of thermodynamics, which debunks the ToE. What Iโm telling you here is what I believe as a Christian to be true.
Since you are of the belief that these โgenetic studiesโ regarding this โmodern human femaleโ who โlived in Africa approximately 100,000 to 200,000 years agoโ were based on these fossilized skulls in your post, all I ask it that you would provide a link to these โgenetic studiesโ where this representation is made. If you cannot do so, thatโs ok. You donโt believe in God, but because I believe in God, I know the truth.
You donโt need to be persuaded to believe things that you already believe, Julie, but if you cannot distinguish speculation and supposition from facts, then I suspect that you are going to be ok with your beliefs.
[1/3]
@sarahsalviander:โฃ
โฃ
๐๐ฌ๐ข๐บ, ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐๐. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐โ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐บ ๐บ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ด ๐โ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ต.โฃ
โฃ
1. ๐ ๐ฐ๐ถโ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฆ๐ด๐ถ๐ด ๐๐ฉ๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต?โฃ
โฃ
๐ ๐ฆ๐ด.โฃ
โฃ
Do you? Many atheists describe atheism as โthe disbelief in any gods,โ and some say atheism โit addresses and rejects the claim that a god exists,โ although atheism ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ง๐จ ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ. I get the impression that you believe that God is Jesus Christ, who is not God, but the Son of God. I have interpreted your "yes" to mean that you no longer adhere to the claim that no gods exist.โฃ
โฃ
2. ๐๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ต?โฃ
โฃ
๐ ๐ฆ๐ด.โฃ
โฃ
Ok.โฃ
โฃ
3. ๐๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ฉ ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ต?โฃ
โฃ
๐๐ฐ.โฃ
โฃ
Ok.โฃ
โฃ
4. ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ, ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ง๐ช๐ค ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ?โฃ
โฃ
I noticed that you objected to this question as being illegitimate, rather than answering it.โฃ
โฃ
The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator. That Creator is God, for just as โevery house is built by someone, โฆ the builder of all things is God.โ (Heb. 3:4) Simple, but powerful logic. But there is no hypothesis, no theory, postulate that can be presented as scientific evidence for God.โฃ
โฃ
If I had a video camera in my backyard that records the bunch of leaves I have raked together into a large pile being redistributed across the lawn during the two minutes I had stepped away to warn my neighbor, who has just parked her car at the curb in front of my house, that she needs to close her windows to ensure that her car's interior is unaffected by the water that will momentarily be coming from my water sprinklers, I can no more use that video to provide scientific evidence of the wind than I can provide scientific evidence of an invisible and immortal God. We could look around us and conclude that everything we see with our eyes constitutes evidence that that God exists.โฃ
โฃ
5. ๐๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ณ๐บ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ช๐ฎ๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ณ๐บ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ.โฃ
โฃ
Sagan's "ECREE" opinion aside, to claim belief in God would be ordinary to those believing in God, but would be extraordinary were an atheist to claim he or she believes in God. I like your red car/flying red car analogy, but DeLorean time machines and warp speed are extraordinary and are things that are right up there with flying red cars. ๐โฃ
โฃ
6. ๐๐ฐ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ?โฃ
โฃ
The teleological argument and the Kalฤm Cosmological argument are philosophical arguments that I imagine have persuaded many to believe in God (even in Spinoza's God), but it is also logical to conclude that the scientific peinciples associated with a fine-tuned universe, the zygote stage to neonate stage to adult progression, blood clotting and consciousness, as well as the things one learns from a study of the Bible have convinced many others to believe in God.โฃ
โฃ
7. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆโ๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ.โฃ
โฃ
How are "near-death experiences" compelling evidence for God?โฃ
โฃ
8. ๐๐ฉ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฅ?โฃ
โฃ
๐๐ฆ๐ฆ #6 ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ #7.โฃ
โฃ
Including Christianity, the 12 major religions in the world are Baha'i, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islฤm, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism and there are an estimated 10,000 religions, but one's religion matters.โฃ
โฃ
[contโd]
[2/3]
9. ๐๐ฐ, ๐ช๐ง ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐บ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ, ๐ฅ๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ด ๐ง๐ช๐จ๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ?โฃ
โฃ
The question isn't whether Genesis is literal and figurative in any context; just whether it is figurative and it isn't. The word "day" is a homonym used in Genesis chapters 1 through 3, and this word may not always refer to a 24-hour day. The word "day" is used at Gen. 1:5, 2:4, 2:17 and 3:8, but none of them are used to refer to a 24-hour day.โฃ
โฃ
Similar to "day" is the word "light": "The morning light" (noun); "he used a match to light a fire" (verb); "the room was light and airy" (adjective); "the suitcase wasn't heavy at all, it was light" (adjective); "the lotion glistened because of her light skin" (adjective).โฃ
โฃ
Each of the โdaysโ in Genesis are epochs as proven by the fact that the Andromeda Galaxy, for example, is 15 quintillion (15 trillion million) miles away, so on the first creative โdayโ when God said โlet there be light,โ light from the Andromeda Galaxy to which Gen. 1:3โ5 refers would have taken 2.537 mly to reach the earth. The second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth creative โdaysโ were epochs, but not 24 hours in length.โฃ
โฃ
Moses wrote the book of Genesis under the inspiration of God. What Moses wrote is based on fact and isnโt some guess based on Mosesโ belief considering the fact that the odds of his being able to write down the correct order of events as he does in Genesis is 1 in 3,628 800!โฃ
โฃ
Genesis lists the following major stages during the creation process and in this general order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness, enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and the beginning of seasons; (8) sea monsters, flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; and (10) man.โฃ
โฃ
Science agrees with this general order, so the science of mathematical probability says for anyone to just pick the numbers 1 to 10 randomly from a box and draw them in consecutive order (1:3,628,800) means that Moses didn't just happen to guess the right order correctly; this would be an unrealistic conclusion. Logically, Moses would had needed help from someone that was there at the time to write what he did, and I believe that "someone" is God.โฃ
โฃ
10. ๐๐ง ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ?โฃ
โฃ
God is eternal and uncreated. It is not special pleading to state a scriptural fact. (1 Tim. 1:17) You wrote that "people believed the universe was eternal โฆ until the 20th century, when โฆ evidence began piling up showing the universe had a beginning" and how by "the 1960s, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic background radiation, the Big Bang theory had pretty much destroyed the idea of an eternal universe," but what does the Big Bang have to do with who created God? Only someone eternal could create the universe and the Bible indicates that God is uncreated. Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 AD, referred to God as โthe uncreated and imperishable and only true God.โ (See Prov. 30:4.)โฃ
โฃ
An infinitely small point called a "singularity" exploded into the present universe, which inflated or expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light. What is supposed to have caused the big bang itself? What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? No one associated with modern cosmology is able to explain this singularity, where and when it began.โฃ
โฃ
[contโd]
[3/3]
I should add here that in his book, โThe Intelligent Universe,โ Prof. Fred Hoyle wrote about Ptolemyโs futile use of epicycles and said: โI have little hesitation in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers.โโฃ
โThe Intelligent Universe (1983), page 186.โฃ
โฃ
You wrote that it comes down to choosing to โbelieve in an infinite chain of causes โฆ or an eternal something with the power to create. Which one makes more sense to you?โ No. There is no need to guess: God is an uncreated being and he it was that created the universe.โฃ
โฃ
11. ๐๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฅ๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ถ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข โ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅโ ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ช๐ด ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ตโ๐ด ๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐บ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ?โฃ
โฃ
We live in an orderly 13.7 byo universe with a 4.6 byo sun and moon, and a 4.5628 byo earth, which is not in conflict with Genesis.โฃ
โฃ
12. ๐๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ฆ ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ง๐ช๐ค ๐ฑ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฐ๐ฅโ๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ฐ๐ญ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ?โฃ
โฃ
๐๐ฐ.โฃ
โฃ
I have written many Bible-related posts featuring God's dealings with mankind since Adam's creation 6,051 years ago in 4026 BC.โฃ
โฃ
13. ๐๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ด ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ต โฆ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ญ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บโ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ค๐ต๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ.โฃ
โฃ
You wrote: "The law of parsimony (Occam's razor) applies here," but evolutionary biology is psuedoscience and is in conflict with the Bible, which does not teach phylogenetic trees or that mankind evolved, but they we are the offspring of Adam and Eve. We are all born with clean slates, so to speak, but no one is born an atheist.โฃ
โฃ
14. ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ช๐ด ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ค๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฏ, ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ง๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐บ, ๐ฆ๐ต๐ค.โฃ
โฃ
Not always. Some people learn their religion from missionaries that proselytize in their country.โฃ
โฃ
15. ๐๐ฆโ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด, ๐ ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ.โฃ
โฃ
I disagree; not all of us are atheists.โฃ
โฃ
16. ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ?โฃ
โฃ
I believe in and worship the God of the Bible, whose name is Jehovah. (Exo. 6:3; Jer. 10:10, ASV; John 17:3)โฃ
โฃ
17. ๐๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ฎ ๐ช๐ด ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐ข ๐ญ๐ข๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ง.โฃ
โฃ
No; atheism ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ง๐จ ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ.โฃ
โฃ
18. ๐๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ฎ ๐ช๐ด๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ช๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ฉ๐ข๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ง.โฃ
โฃ
The burden of proof (BOP) is on the individual that makes a claim. I believe in God; this is an affirmative (positive) statement. I am not obliged to prove my beliefs to anyone, but I'm always willing to share them with others. When the atheist makes a claim, the BOP is on the atheist to prove his or her claim that no gods exist.โฃ
[1/8]
@wendelltalks:โฃ
๐๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ฎโ๐ด ๐ง๐ข๐ท๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ด๐ฐ๐ญ๐ถ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐บ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐๐ฉ๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ดโฆ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด.โฃ
โฃ
โข ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต โ๐ช๐ดโ โข ๐๐ช๐ง๐ฆ ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต โ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅโ โข ๐๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต โ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ๐ง๐ถ๐ญโ โข๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ช๐ด ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต โ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ตโ โข ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ต๐ฉ ๐ช๐ด ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต โ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ดโโฃ
@TherionWare:โฃ
๐โ๐ฎ ๐ข๐ด๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ด๐ถ๐ง๐ง๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ, ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ญ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐จ๐ฆ๐ต "๐ข๐ฃ๐ด๐ฐ๐ญ๐ถ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐บ"?โฃ
โฃ
You would be a rare atheist t๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฒ for the beliefs that some Christians hold. In the Bible, at Rom. 1:19-20, it states:โฃ
โฃ
โFor what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.ย For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.โโฃ
โฃ
Now is this true? Absolutely! Certainly! ๐ God HAS made it plain to us the things that we need to know, the things that we can see and perceive indicate that God has eternal power, that He actually exists and that He is superior to all man-made things, and all other things on earth and in the material universe. Since there is an ample amount of evidence that could be presented, I wonโt spend any time with this and will just move on.โฃ
โฃ
๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โฃ
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐
๐๐๐โฃ [ tinyurl.com/3bxkh6dt ]
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐[ tinyurl.com/3bxkh6dt ]
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ [tinyurl.com/2wzbxc5z ]
๐๐๐
๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐
๐โฃ โฃ [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐โฃ [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โฃ [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
โฃ
๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โฃ
Now there are some that adhere to their belief in God simply because of the belief of their parents or because they now happen to live where it is socially popular to be a Christian that believes Jesus to be both the Son of God and God. (FYI the Gospel of John at John 20:31 doesnโt say that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, but that he is โthe Son of God.โ)โฃ
โฃ
However, the fact that oneโs parents professed belief in God will not convince any atheist to believe that God exists, will it? Indeed, one of the reasons why many persons, even the children of some so-called Christians, become doubters of Godโs existence is the inability of believers to convincingly explain their convictions, they having no idea what โfaithโ means. And, frankly, unless a person has been personally convinced to believe in God, that person is not likely to defend any of his or her religious beliefs when under pressure to do so. (See Rom. 12:2; Heb. 11:1)โฃ
โฃ
A legitimate belief in God must be founded on facts that we intelligently determine to be true. But as a first century AD Bible writer wrote: โNo man has seen God at any time.โ (John 1:18) So to be convinced of Godโs existence our belief must be based on the things we discern we observe in the material universe as well as our accumulated personal experience. Only then can we can develop an unassailable belief in God using our powers of reason.โฃ
[contโd]
[7/8]
This establishes God's superiority, and clearly someone higher than man must supply these needs. Why does there exist a vast variety of food in the world? Not just vegetation, but the animals and the fish we eat? Whose idea was it to make the plants, the fish and the other animals we eat?โฃ
We can look at man's body. We can look at the marvelous systems. The doctors and scientists say, these systems are not unrelated. They say, each system in our bodies is related to the other systems: The circulatory system, the nervous system, the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, the blood system, the digestive system. If one breaks down or falls down, the others will rally to its side to try to make that body work anyway. Who thought of that? Man? Not even his doctors understand this fully. Why does these systems in the human body so organized that they work this way? Whose idea was this? Who made man?โฃ
โฃ
A prime example that proves Godโs existence that comes to my mind is this: Water, which is our most essential fluid. Water has a remarkable property that shows the remarkable and the eternal power of God. Perhaps youโve noticed this:โฃ
โฃ
When water freezes, it expands, and gets lighter and floats. You know that because when you put an ice cube in your Pepsi, it doesn't sink to the bottom. It floats right there on the top. And you know, too, that it expands because when you fill your ice tray, you don't fill it up all the way to the top. You leave a little room, because you know that when you pull it out of the freezer, it's going to take up that extra space.โฃ
โฃ
So because water, when frozen, expands, and gets lighter and floats, it keeps all of us from living, right here on this earth, in a refrigerator. Did you know that? How so? Well, now, consider this, for a moment there, how it is saving the whole world of mankind. Let's say just the opposite were true. Let's say water, when frozen, was like most other substances; they contract and get smaller. That's like that chicken in your freezer: When you pull it out, it has shriveled up a little. It has gotten smaller. See, that's how most things do when they freeze; not water. Well, that's saving us.โฃ
โฃ
And I will add here that when we boil water; it becomes steam, but none of this was written to discuss the different properties of water, but to discuss the proof that God exists.โฃ
โฃ
Let's say water did like most substances and when frozen became more dense, and instead of floating would sink. Well, during a cold winter, what would happen? All the water on top would freeze; lakes, rivers, ponds, all around the world, and since it wouldn't float, it would become more dense and would sink right to the bottom and there ice would be all winter.โฃ
โฃ
Then when the summer came, the sun couldn't penetrate all the way through the water down to the bottom where the ice is and had not melted, so by the time winter came around again, you would still have much ice at the bottom of all the rivers and lakes and streams.โฃ
But then with winter that on top would freeze again and would sink toward the bottom, piling up on top of that other unmelted ice at the bottom that had been there from the previous winter. Can you see what would happen now? After a few winters, there wouldn't be a drop of water on this earth, all of it would be frozen and we would be in a refrigerator, except we wouldn't be here because, without our most essential fluid that God provides, then we just could not exist as humans on this planet.โฃ
โฃ
Well, now, who thought of that? Who thought of making water the exception to most substances? Not man, although we do appreciate it and its properties. We live as a result of it. But it establishes the eternal power of God, and therefore the evidence all around us, visible and invisible collectively, constitutes proof that God exists.โฃ
โฃ
[contโd]
[8/8]
For an absolute certainty, it becomes clear by using, not the sense of hearing, but our four other senses of sight, smell, taste, and touch, that God exists.โฃ
โฃ
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โฃ
@TherionWare:โฃ
๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ๐จ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ด๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ๐บ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฆ, ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ด, ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ต๐ฉ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ด๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ง๐ช๐ท๐ฆ. ๐๐ต ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฏโ๐ต.โฃ
โฃ
"๐ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ" ๐ช๐ด ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ง๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ญ๐บ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ. ๐๐ต ๐จ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ด ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต ๐ข ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ช๐ต๐บ, ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ง๐บ ๐ช๐ต ๐ข๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ.โฃ
โฃ
๐ ๐ฐ๐ถโ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐จ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ฉ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ค๐ญ๐ถ๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ธ๐ข๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ธ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ญ๐บ.โฃ
โฃ
What โargumentโ is missing? Please be specific.โฃ
โฃ
@Crypt0_Facts:โฃ
๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ช๐ด ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ด๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐บ ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด๐ฆ, ๐ณ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ง, ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ข๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฏ. โฃ
โฃ
๐๐ฆ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ข๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด, ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ข๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด. โฃ
โฃ
๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ต'๐ด ๐ข ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ช๐ต ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จโฃ
โฃ
I believe there is only one God, but you, as an atheist, assert a priori that all life on earth is the result of a common ancestor, and assumes that all animal and human behavior can be explained from a naturalistic point of view.โฃ
โฃ
Dismissing the entire category of personal testimony a priori isnโt neutral skepticism; it is a presupposition that rules out the data before examining the pattern. However, testing the historical, circumstantial and testimonial evidence in the Bible for their authenticity, one can logically perceive that Godโs existence is a fact.โฃ
โฃ
Babies are born with blank slates as it were. By their third birthday, they may have learned to speak and understand one or more languages, but they do not and they cannot make the claim that gods do not exist.โฃ
โฃ
However, as children get older, parents teach their children their ideology, their worldview, their religion, both the atheist and the non-atheist, to guide them in life, and by the time they become adults, they will have decided to embrace either their parentsโ worldview or some other religion.โฃ
๐๐๐ข๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐๐
tinyurl.com/2s42andx






