Does God Exist?

[The Holy Michigan Empire]

Sounds a bit generic, what was the reason?

Where to begin...

1. Pro-life: Not giving women a choice as to whether to have children or not is really fucking great, isn't it?
2. Anti-stem cell research: Anti-science?
3. Anti-gay marriage: Anti-civil rights?
4. Catholic Priests found to molest children: And these men are supposed to be God's messengers?

What reason would I have to be Christian? Honestly?

While debatable, I am going to make the educated guess that it's mostly political beliefs that wedged you.

I am christian for my own political beliefs and for the companionship of the local church that provided me and my family crucial assistance and friendship.

It's pretty much depending on the church. . .and local culture too. . .. ish.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Erm.

Not really? For one, the article doesn't actually prove that we'll know how a person will act and react to something (tell me, do we have any ability to know exactly how someone will react when we tell them that their wife was just killed? No? It's in the far future, if at all). For two, it still doesn't seem to have any impact on the way in which we act towards one another, which is far more... human.

You said:

I'm more than my body. Who I am, as a person, is more than just my biological, physical body.

And the way in which we all interact within the world is reflected thusly: we're not biological computers, or rather, we don't act like we are, because being human is about more than logic, about more than biological programming.

I reject biological determinism.

You didn't say "we cannot predict with 100% accuracy how someone will react if we do something with our current technology."

So we're going back to semantics now. (also cool cutting the meaningful parts of that post. But wait, meaning is just a human 'emotion' that isn't 'logical'. For fuck's sake.)

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It's all or nothing. Unless he fulfils all of the criteria, he isn't the Messiah.

lrn 2 Christ

That was just and example. Here is a list (excused the "biased" link) of a lot of the prophesies Jesus fulfilled

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

And this time i looked through it.

Aside from the fact that most of those are just generic "prophecies" that could apply to anyone (such as being "humble"), there is no evidence he fulfilled any of those outside of the Bible (especially "both man and God"). Any imbecile could write something and claim it to be true.

Also, the "virgin birth" thing is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "young woman". Essentially, Matthew attempted to claim that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy that wasn't there.

And as stated in my previous post, those prophecies mean jack-shit unless all of them were fulfilled.

[Mavorpen]

Nope, you clearly do not know how to debate. If I say something about genes, I expect you to agree or disagree when you reply and your reasons why.

No. That's not how it fucking works. YOU said that I was making a SPECIFIC claim. I then pointed out that I don't believe that claim. I was under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to actually address the actual claim about genes, because I already fucking stated that I don't believe the claim about genes in the first place.

In other words, the argument isn't about whether you can determine a person's actions through their genes, it's about whether I said that you could in the first place. I didn't. So stop moving the goal posts.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Erm.

Not really? For one, the article doesn't actually prove that we'll know how a person will act and react to something (tell me, do we have any ability to know exactly how someone will react when we tell them that their wife was just killed? No? It's in the far future, if at all). For two, it still doesn't seem to have any impact on the way in which we act towards one another, which is far more... human.

that's not the point. he was proving one of your points wrong, and seeing as how you've given the well-worn goalposts a good ol' shift you might as well commit to it. also, it could be used to predict how people might interact. inb4 he doesn't read this is blindly attempts to refute it like a blindfolded child swinging haplessly at a pinata.

First off, I'm not a "he" (but it's not biological, waaaah!)

Second of all, I admitted i was wrong, but then questioned how it was really relevant. At all.

[Crysuko]

You said:


You didn't say "we cannot predict with 100% accuracy how someone will react if we do something with our current technology."

So we're going back to semantics now. (also cool cutting the meaningful parts of that post. But wait, meaning is just a human 'emotion' that isn't 'logical'. For fuck's sake.)

if semantics is what it takes to get a point across, then yes. as well as this you're STILL not arguing but tirelessly refuting.

[Dragomere]

God exists, either as an all powerful entity, or as the concepts in science.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

God exists, either as an all powerful entity, or as the concepts in science.

The concepts in science aren't remotely supernatural.

[Betulla]

God exists, either as an all powerful entity, or as the concepts in science.

As the concepts in science? Pardon?

[Hydronium]

That was just and example. Here is a list (excused the "biased" link) of a lot of the prophesies Jesus fulfilled

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

And this time i looked through it.

Aside from the fact that most of those are just generic "prophecies" that could apply to anyone (such as being "humble"), there is no evidence he fulfilled any of those outside of the Bible (especially "both man and God"). Any imbecile could write something and claim it to be true.

Also, the "virgin birth" thing is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "young woman". Essentially, Matthew attempted to claim that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy that wasn't there.

And as stated in my previous post, those prophecies mean jack-shit unless all of them were fulfilled.

True,true. but what about the remainder?

[Dragomere]

God exists, either as an all powerful entity, or as the concepts in science.

The concepts in science aren't remotely supernatural.

God governs the universe in religion. Physics governs the universe in science

[Crysuko]

that's not the point. he was proving one of your points wrong, and seeing as how you've given the well-worn goalposts a good ol' shift you might as well commit to it. also, it could be used to predict how people might interact. inb4 he doesn't read this is blindly attempts to refute it like a blindfolded child swinging haplessly at a pinata.

First off, I'm not a "he" (but it's not biological, waaaah!)

Second of all, I admitted i was wrong, but then questioned how it was really relevant. At all.

1. and you bash everyone else here for being irrelevant...
2. it was explained if you read their posts for once instead of blindly disagreeing.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Erm.

Not really? For one, the article doesn't actually prove that we'll know how a person will act and react to something (tell me, do we have any ability to know exactly how someone will react when we tell them that their wife was just killed? No? It's in the far future, if at all).

That's nice. But that isn't what you said. You said we couldn't predict a person's actions. You didn't say we couldn't KNOW with certainty EXACTLY how someone will react in the far future.

And you have the gall to seriously complain that I don't explain myself? If you ACTUALLY meant that we cannot predict with certainty what someone will do in the future, fucking say that.

Then I'm saying that we cannot predict with certainty what someone will do in the future on any meaningful level. Determining where someone can put their hand is not meaningful. Determining if someone might kill themselves in two months, however, is.

For two, it still doesn't seem to have any impact on the way in which we act towards one another, which is far more... human.

Which wasn't your claim, so who gives a fucking shit?[/quote]

Yes, and that claim was incorrect, but it doesn't disprove the entire argument I'm making, which is that even if you'll swear to the ends of the earth and back that we're just biological computers, we're so utterly fucking complex that it's essentially meaningless to how we actually interact with one another. There's a reason why lawyers use multiple different arguments, and it's because if one is proven wrong, there are others to fall back upon.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nope, you clearly do not know how to debate. If I say something about genes, I expect you to agree or disagree when you reply and your reasons why.

No. That's not how it fucking works. YOU said that I was making a SPECIFIC claim. I then pointed out that I don't believe that claim. I was under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to actually address the actual claim about genes, because I already fucking stated that I don't believe the claim about genes in the first place.

In other words, the argument isn't about whether you can determine a person's actions through their genes, it's about whether I said that you could in the first place. I didn't. So stop moving the goal posts.

Obviously someone failed their rhetoric class.

When you make a counter-claim, you also add a rebuttal, which is evidence about why such a counterclaim is correct. By only adding counter-claims, you really are not doing anything other than spewing bullshit.

[Betulla]

The concepts in science aren't remotely supernatural.

God governs the universe in religion. Physics governs the universe in science

Yeah, but call it the Laws of Physics, not God. You'll confuse a lot people like that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The concepts in science aren't remotely supernatural.

God governs the universe in religion. Physics governs the universe in science

I fail to see how physics and a deity relate.

[Conscentia]

Most of those are either taken out of context or aren't even prophecies.

Where in Ezekiel does it say that? I mean, what verse?

Examples of Messianic Prophecy in the Book of Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 37:26-28
Ezekiel 34:11-31
Ezekiel 34:23-24

[Dragomere]

God governs the universe in religion. Physics governs the universe in science

Yeah, but call it the Laws of Physics, not God. You'll confuse a lot people like that.

Physics is the god of science.

[Betulla]

God governs the universe in religion. Physics governs the universe in science

I fail to see how physics and a deity relate.

He's probably trying to sound cool by using God as a metaphor for natural phenomenons.

Yeah, but call it the Laws of Physics, not God. You'll confuse a lot people like that.

Physics is the god of science.

Call it what you want, old sport.

[Conscentia]

Yeah, but call it the Laws of Physics, not God. You'll confuse a lot people like that.

Physics is the god of science.

No it isn't. Physics is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Aside from the fact that most of those are just generic "prophecies" that could apply to anyone (such as being "humble"), there is no evidence he fulfilled any of those outside of the Bible (especially "both man and God"). Any imbecile could write something and claim it to be true.

Also, the "virgin birth" thing is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "young woman". Essentially, Matthew attempted to claim that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy that wasn't there.

And as stated in my previous post, those prophecies mean jack-shit unless all of them were fulfilled.

True,true. but what about the remainder?

As stated, the few prophecies that are actual prophecies and are ones that Jesus "fulfilled" could've been attributed to Jesus by any idiot with a writing implement and ink.

And for the third time, those prophecies mean nothing if all of them weren't fulfilled.

[Agymnum]

While debatable, I am going to make the educated guess that it's mostly political beliefs that wedged you.

I am christian for my own political beliefs and for the companionship of the local church that provided me and my family crucial assistance and friendship.

It's pretty much depending on the church. . .and local culture too. . .. ish.

I'm not against spirituality. So really, you're right, it's my political beliefs that wedged me, so to speak.

You want to believe a God exists, fine, that's your prerogative.

There is no proof of his existence, however, and claiming that there is or that proof is unnecessary for proper belief fosters attitudes of ignorance and complacency, which I am not okay with as they stymie scientific advancement. My problem is not with spirituality, it's with religion.

[Mavorpen]

Then I'm saying that we cannot predict with certainty what someone will do in the future on any meaningful level. Determining where someone can put their hand is not meaningful. Determining if someone might kill themselves in two months, however, is.

What? We can determine if someone might kill themselves in two months. That's hardly impossible.

[San Splendido]

God governs the universe in religion. Physics governs the universe in science

The two are not comparable. Science, while occasionally bloody resistant to change, has no dogma. The "beliefs" (they aren't really) of science are based on what has been shown to exist. Trying to frame the problem as merely two competing dogmata is missing the point.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I fail to see how physics and a deity relate.

He's probably trying to sound cool by using God as a metaphor for natural phenomenons.

It doesn't sound cool at all.