Debate God

Why wouldn't he? Maybe its pointless to just create something out of nothing. And isn't that a huge part of your faith? That he won't show himself to you, you just have to blindly believe?

 

Copy+Paste from the original post, then put (quote) and (/quote) around it. Replace the parentheses with brackets, though.

God didn't create people to serve Him like robots. Plus if you saw a book nowadays and the author was "God" how much tolerance would you give the book? You'd probably look at it and put it down. There is also a verse, which i'm not too familiar with, but it says something like "make the word plain on tablets, so he who runs(?) may read it."

"Coming up with my own beliefs" is the namely source for many of these thousands of religions you stated. I'd rather believe something that has been well structured, follows objective morality, and makes sense rather than some "worship the sun". If Christianity was that dumb I would have never even considered it. Besides, why would I make a religion? I can't make myself a heaven, or a belief. People often say that religion is a safety net for people when they die... If I honestly wanted a safety net i'd make my own religion.

Believing in God doesn't save you from hell. But whatever.

I don't look at my religion as a sort of "chance" thing. Most other religions are so terribly made up that no matter how hard I try to believe in them I can't simply do it. And to the ones that are well constructed, to them I say good job trying. I believe mine for a reason.

Opinions = bias = no conclusion of argument.
You can find a mediocre answer in the earlier things i've said.

 

I huge part of my faith is that God is capable of doing anything. My faith believes that if he wants to do something he can do it. He does not have to prove anything to me. He decided to create life and he did so. I believe that he created life through simple demands rather than creating evolution.

 

You can find many things in the Bible which may as well refer to evolution. Such as the flood, may refer to the cambrian era (where there were mostly water animals). Man created from dust.. may as well refer to man created from mutations/etc. God cursing the ground.. may result in fossils..

Just a thought. However, you believe what you want.

 

It's just as practicle to say that all matter always existed, just as it is to say that God has always existed.

BTW - All Christians should consider reading the lost gospels of Peter and Timothy; I have taken two course on bible study, and these two refuted gospels are a very interesting read (now when I say refuted, I am not refering to Christians of the time, rather the Roman Government whom compiled the Bible; and they HAD an agenda).

 

Matter can't always exist. To call matter eternal you would have to give it infinite properties. Take a rock. How many times could you multiply that rock to equal infinity? You can't do it. Therefore we can conclude matter is finite.

Lost gospels? What do you mean by this?

 

Matter can not be destroyed or created, on the most basic of levels... atoms, stupid ...and thus could easily be assumed as infinite (time basis).

Oh, and those gospels were recently (1880's was the first find) recovered in multiple dig sites throughout the middle east and fertile crest region. They were accounts of Saint Peter and Timothy the Apostle, both of which were left out of the original Bible due to their principles of religion being a personal matter, and they contained different accounts of Jesus' NOT rising from the grave. Where as the Romans were looking to capatilize on Christianity, and use it as a manner to unify the masses and make money, which was contradicted in these gospels' teachings.

PS - Consider looking into the Naustics of the time (Naustics is derived from the Latin for "knowing"), as they were backed by many of the apostles, Mary included.

 

Universal laws do not apply before the universe existed.

Are you talking about 1&2 peter and 1&2 timothy? This is an odd find.. to say the least.

 

And you were alive back then? No, didn't think so; so I am going to assume that laws of the universe existed back then too as that is all I have seen, and all that those who came before me have seen.

No, those are not the Gospels (good word) of Peter and Timothy, where as, these are.
{they provide full accounts of Jesus' life according to Peter and Timothy}

 

Think about it. If the universe doesn't exist, how can there be laws of the universe? Its simple, really.

I know the gospel is, and the "Gospels" refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You're going to have to provide more information or a source of some sort, because at this point I am quite skeptical. Timothy, though, did not witness Jesus' works.

 

Oops... I have been saying Timothy and meaning Thomas, I always get them mixed up... But heres the wikipedia Link for Gospel of Peter; it has links to translated text and origins of findings I believe.
And here is the wikipedia for Thomas: Link

If your looking for a better source do some searching they are easily found.

And you assume that the universe didn't exist before us? That is not factual merely assumed, so the universe has always existed as it's basis for existence is that of the matter itself (which I have already said has always existed).

 

K, i'll look into those gospels.

Hm, lets put it this way. Time is changes in matter. Because we cannot come after an infinite amount of whole time, it means time is finite, therefore created. Because time is finite and time is changes in matter we can conclude that matter must be finite, because if matter is infinite, when do you put it? To say matter is eternal, you MUST give it properties of infinity.

 

You realise your applying an argument that can be used both ways, right? On both God and matter. And assuming that God is infinite how can we place when we came into existence if he himself has always been? And the basic understanding of time for most is how long things have been moving... where as in higher levels of learning it is commonly held that time is not only a measurement but a basis of longevity in existence and perpetuence. Hence the fourth dimension theory that so many like to spit out with out really knowing anything about it... but anyways; try to not make arguments that can easily contradict both sides. Look for the holes in each argument and make them bigger

BTW - The Gospel of Thomas isn't so much a gospel, but rather a Jesus quote book, and it portrays him as quite the exceptional teacher.

 

God exists outside of time, matter, and space. If God existed inside of it he couldn't be God. God is eternal - not infinite. Also, time can be subsequently said as a lot of things. If you've ever paused a movie, you've paused the change in it, and you've paused the time. Time is a concept applied literally when it comes to most people.

 

And thus is the same assumption that I can make towards anything, matter is eternal, it really is just smoke and mirrors. We can't make any real assumptions about the time because we weren't around then. And your basis for dismaying my point is most likely based on believing me to support the big bang theory; but, in my opinion, the big bang theory is bullshit. Doesn't account for alot of physical properties and laws, especially in reference to thermodynamics and conservation of matter/energy.

I believe no answer is, yet, correct about creation (of the universe / not the theory), so therefore until one is determined creation is a farce.

 

What are you trying to tell me there?

Of course, we will never fully prove something until we perceive it. Also, its not like I hinted at the big bang, it was just the most common opposing argument.

Just a side note, since you're here, if you never made that one map with the vents, I would have never had inspiration to make my best map evar. So thanks on that.

 

Oh yeah Espionage... I disliked that one, so I reimagined it on sandbox; infinitely better and bigger; check it out if you want: Link

And all you did was hint at big bang... no universe or time, lack of motion or expansion; all of which point right at this theory.

 

Yep, already queued it up along with your soccer map.

Anywho. Albeit it does hint at big bang, the big bang sort of denies the existence of a creator. Which is where I digress.

 

Not necessarily, it merely changes the stage upon which the creator began his creation. But I am tired so I am going to go for the night, see you later.