This video is an insult to Atheists. Humans have had morality thousands of years before Religion was invented. Is there no logic in fearing consequences without believing in an afterlife, or judgment of god. Animals have morals too. The fact that Sweden and Norway, are among the healthiest, safest, most educated countries in the world and are the least religious. Surely those countries must have morals without fear of god's judgment!
@SteGab1979 Me? I didn't make the video... the person who made the video, now that's who you should be talking to. He's the one who put a boy in his underwear in his video.. I guess he's into that kind of thing or he wouldn't have added it.
We don't know either way. However, what we do know is that when we die, our bodies decay in one way or the other. Just because we don't know absolutely know why or how something got here, doesn't mean that a god created it. And even if so, that would not mean that your religious beliefs are the accurate conclusion. Perhaps Krishna created the world & you got it all wrong and you will be punished by Krishna for being mistaken.
@jakedevon Gaps in our scientific knowledge doesn't mean that a god did it. Unlike your imaginary god the "judge" representing god in your animation is visible. It would have been more to the point to have had just a voice passing judgment.
wow do you realize how hypocritical both the end and your own discription are, think about all the muderers on death row, and on the hour before they are to be put to death they repent and are given a one way ticket to your paradise but a person who lives a good honest life is damned to eternal torture in a ficticious hell....wow that couldnt have been dumber.
@jakedevon so then you stand firmly behind the hypocrisy when sins such as murder:thou shalt not kill, one of the biggest can be repented for at the last hour of life, but a man of good honest living who treated all others with kindness and respect but was unsure or rejected your god is damned to eternal suffering....and you wonder why people just can't accept such hypocritical dogma!!
@wakcedout I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but... Everyone has sinned against God. You can show all the love and respect you want, nevertheless "whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". Who among us has never lied? I'm not going to heaven because I've been a good person. I'm forgiven. Salvation is a free gift. You cannot earn it by being good, going to church, tithing or showing love and respect. You accept it, or you reject it.
@wakcedout Further "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts...". There is a common misconception that you have to believe in God to have morals. This is false. God has written His law on the heart of every human being. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, even if they don't want to admit it.
@Rixonomic um fail, one that sentence can be twisted to mean anything you want it to, and secondly what is right to one person is wrong to another. what one person see's as sin another see's as just business as usual, and further more even the title to this video is redundent as it should be an anarchist stands trial because only an anarchist would not think judges have any authority, and i hope it is not a court in america because the religious symbols would have to go.
@wakcedout Right, you believe that truth is relative. But if all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. There is an objective truth that will effect us all regardless of what we believe. You can not believe in God an hell all you want, but if they are real, you are going to face the consequences. Unless you repent, you will perish.
@Rixonomic who said i didn't believe in god, but then who said i did believe in god, and without proof either of those statements is true then really pascals wager which is what you are mentioning there really seems to just waste my enjoyment of life and all the wonders that this world and the universe have to offer me.
"...what is right to one person is wrong to another."
You believe that it is right for one person to murder and wrong for another person to commit the same murder? Myself, I believe that all murder is wrong.
@jakedevon and yet again you have missed the point made, we both think murder is wrong because it does not benefit our society, but to an anarchist murder would be right. but then you say all murder is wrong so then if someone is trying to kill you and you protect yourself and in turn kill them was that wrong or did you do what even our legal systems back defend yourself and attempt to preserve your life, leave your mental glass bubble and look at things rationally
@wakcedout Everyone deserves Hell. Everyone. If you've lied, you deserve hell. If you've looked with lust, you deserve hell. If you're Hitler, you deserve hell. It's all the same in God's eyes. Rom 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". No one has lived a good, honest life. Sure, compared to other people it may seem that way, but not when you compare yourself to God's perfect standard of righteousness. Equally, everyone who sincerely asks for forgiveness will be forgiven.
No one goes to hell because of their sin. People go to hell because the deny the provision that God has made for their sin. Matthew 12:31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men..."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
If you sincerely seek the truth, you will find it.
Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning [Time - past, present, future] God created the heaven [Space - length, width, height] and the earth [Matter - solid, liquid, gas].
A trinity of trinities.
God created time. If God is stuck in time, He is not God. And since He is outside of time, He is eternal. There has never been a time when God did not exist, because He is outside of time.
If I could fit the all-powerful creator of the universe into my three pound brain, I don't think He'd be worth worshiping.
@wakcedout 1John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Scripture clearly teaches that God is light. Nowhere does it say He made light.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter). All that the universe is composed of in the first ten words of the Bible. Then in verse 3 God says "Let there be light", or more accurately "Let light be". Read your Bible. :)
"Firstly, that wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on ALL delusional creationists."
Do you have anything besides personal attacks?
"Secondly, why don't you explain to the readers how god could create matter?"
Red herring.
My knowledge, or lack thereof, of how the Creator created matter does not change the fact that the existence of matter is absolute proof of a Creator.
Then you have no evidence that your gOD, or ANY gOD exists.
Looking back on the comments, this seems to be your only argument. Meh I shall stop feeding you now troll, looks like you'll have to resort to votebotting thunderf00t's and other atheists' videos.
The question "Who created the Creator?" has the built in assumption that the Creator needs to be created. By definition, the Creator is the one that creates and doesn't need to be created. Only things bound by the laws of physics need to be created. The Creator of those laws is not bound by the laws that the Creator created.
@jakedevon --By definition, the Creator is the one that creates and doesn't need to be created--- Whose definition. ??? Believers are the first to claim that nothing comes from nothing. And then, I believe that there are many creators, who do not need to be created, prove me wrong !!
@jakedevon No I don`t. I am just saying if you believe that one god can have existed forever, without evidence, then I can as well claim multiple gods without evidence.
@lizazoon If you're asking what I think you're asking, your question is inherently flawed. God is eternal. He has, by definition, always existed. If God had a creator, He isn't God. This implies that God is stuck in time, which He created. If God is stuck in His creation, He isn't God. If you build a computer, are you then stuck in the computer? Of course not. You are above, beyond and outside the limitations of the computer. Equally, you cannot limit God to the rules of His creation.
@lizazoon Nor can matter be created or destroyed. Again, this implies that God is limited and bound by the laws of His creation. Space/time/matter is what as known as a continuum. You cannot have matter without space. Otherwise, where would you put it? You cannot have space without time. When would you put it? If God created matter (which cannot be created) He created time and space as well. Again, if God is bound by any of the laws of His creation, He is not God. The truth shall make you free.
Weak. More misrepresentation. Only creationists don't believe what's right in front of their eyes. Heavy-handed and unfunny attempt at satire. Oh, and now we get to hear about how horrible and unworthy we all are! Mankind is a cesspool of corruption and sin. Bad, bad people! I hate this dogmatic, repressive crap. I hate it so much that I KEEP WATCHING so I can contemplate it and HATE IT SOME MORE!!!!! These people are so fucking stupid. GET AN EDUCATION!!!!!
What does the law of conservation of energy have to do with God? I was commenting on the moronic video. How does it serve Christianity to misrepresent how atheists see the world? People may think this video is funny at first, but after they meet some REAL scientists they will discover that this was just a lie. They will ask themselves, 'I wonder what else they were lying about?' Atheists believe in physical evidence. An invisible God is not the same as a judge. This video is idiotic.
"How does it serve Christianity to misrepresent how atheists see the world?"
The video is an allegory of how the atheist sees the world.
The video shows how the atheist deny the judgment. Your above statement seems to say that atheists don't deny the judgment. But, I doubt that you really mean that. So, how exactly is the video misrepresenting atheism?
I understand that the judge is supposed to represent God's judgement. Suggesting that atheists simply reject God blindly is the misrepresentation. The video equates disbelief with being presented with evidence RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES and not believing your own senses. Atheists reject God precisely BECAUSE they believe their own perception. As you know, Christians have to have FAITH because the Christian God is not scientifically provable. If it was provable, all scientists would be Christians.
"The video equate disbelief with being presented with evidence RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES"
That is accurately representing how atheists see the world.
Atheists reject God because they don't believe their own perception.
As you should know, Christians don't have blind faith. Science points to a Creator. For example: matter can't create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.
I know all scientists aren't rational, but science and the scientific method is. A scientist can't make any claims without a group of their peers reviewing their research to assure that it is valid. The scientific peers must test the results independently. So you see, not even scientists assume ALL scientists are rational. This is how they prevent all sorts of random and meaningless ideas from becoming accepted theories.
You then go on to give a description of the scientific method for some reason. Most likely to make yourself sound smart.
I said that science points to a Creator. And I gave some science that prove what I said. You responded with philosophy ("If science pointed to a creator..."), not science.
As I said: Many atheists hate science because science points to a Creator.
I wasn't trying to be a smart ass. A lot of people don't know about the scientific method. I just wanted to be clear. As far as I can tell, your 'proof' of a creator is the law of conservation of energy. I agree that the matter had to come from somewhere, and I agree that no one knows where it came from. The fact that science cannot explain this leaves a gap in human knowledge. We can then make a lot of assumptions about where the matter came from. You assume a matter maker. Why?
You might want to look into the research that the LHC is doing right now. It build on previous obtained knowledge that, until now, has been very accurate.
What the LHC is doing, and you can easily find this on intarweb, is looking into a state of matter and being that existed only in the very earliest beginning of our universe. . That billionth of a second.. Before and after, do you need Grover of sesame street to spell it out for you ? Well, do you ? punk ! (sry, Dirty harry quotes must be!)
Only way you can send this knowledge to the realm of myth, where all petty gods, like yours reside, is to come up with something that not only disproofs all these intrecuit and accurate methods of describing and predicting all kinds of phenomenon, but also it has to make the same predictions and make the same observation explainable. And .. gods .. are not it !.
Look, you are obviously all over the place with these definition of gOD, matter and science. Lets find some common ground. Precisaly what gOD are you defending ?
A. created ADAM from dirt and EVE from rib, FLOOD making god ?
B. Observing, non biblical, semi creating god who does not interfere?
C.a gOD that just set the big bang in motion . no communication, no contact no scripture.
If you have your own set of attributes, please let me know. There are a lot of silly combinations out there !
Seemingly it is you who has a pretty hard time answering questions.
How do we know this nowadays !. Science my dear boy. The hypothesis, theories and maths that can make predictions so precise that it is equal to measuring the dimensions of your apartment/house within millimeters of accuracy while observed from Pluto. That kind of accuracy predicts that kind of thing. You would have to falsify it and surpase it to put any old god in that place.
You equate "Blind faith" and science wrongly. Just because you are unwilling to begin even grasping the massive amounts of undeniable knowledge we gain from science, does not mean it is not there. Are you an ostrich or something ?
You had my answer.. Normally in human debate, after the answer, a series of on topic question ensue. Not with you I see. Fair enough. I have come to expect nothing less of you.
Now for the last point, in which you demonstrated to be a total ... well git !. T.B.C.
Your gOD, the one that flooded the earth ( OT ) and made Adam from DIRT and Eve from his RIB is of course a big fat man made make up story. A fairy tale.
If even 1 iota of that non sense is true and real the science that makes you computer/television/medicine/microwave/shampoo work would not be possible to create.
It does NOT match anything we know, and with what we know I mean everything that made your world.
Whaling on about big bangs is senseless with you god.
You might want to worry how your god will survive the next day. The literal god of the OT has lost. All his tricks have been played, and he has been reduced to absolute nothingness, where it belongs. As well has the NT god been dismissed. And all the other fundamental lunacy that came from Abraham.
As I said earlier, the existence of matter absolutely proves a Creator. With science we know that matter can't create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.
Your statement is meaningless outside your limited ( self imposed ) understanding and interpretation.
IF a consience being DID create/start the entire universe, It would be nothing like described in scripture.
What it would be is totally out of our realm of thought. But what we know now, even this unknown distant creator is not needed, let alone one one that has been thought up by men.
That didn't answer my question. If you don't have any idea, then just say so.
With science we know that matter can't create itself. Therefore, we know that something created the matter. Whatever that something is is the the Creator.
It's a no-brainer.
If you have something to add, please do. If you're one of those 'No it isn't. You just keep saying that. that nuts', then go somewhere else please.
Matter is energy. The atoms we know to build up matter as we preserve it are made from smaller blocks. These all have various crazy properties and interaction but basically they all are a manifestation of energy. These also make up other non material things like light, electro magnetism and maybe gravity, space and time.
These had sprung out of what you could see as a potential.
It is also within various degrees possible for matter to create matter. In fission and fusion, for example, new matter is being created by shuffling the various sub atomic particle around. In theory matter could be created from raw energy. This will happen in time, when we get sufficient energy, or understand the quantum underpinnings better.
But we have a fairly good idea how that what was going to be matter as we know it today looked about a billionth of a second after the big bang 13,7 billion years ago ( not 4004 bc ). This proto matter came from the singularity. Science is just about to uncover the last remaining billionth of that second.. And we will certainly not find any Abrahamic gOD there.
Of course not.. You wanted a reply on creating matter. There..
Begging the question has nothing to do with it. That is just silly.
If you had understood even an iota of the word "potential" then you would not have been asking this question. See how I assume that you do not know the meaning of potential, because if you did, YOU would be the one committing the begging of said proverbial question.
But that is not the case, what is really going on is you being an obnoxious git.
Another question you will not answer ( opposed to my answer which you either could not understand of refused to read at all ).
What precisely, ( forget that this was not even the subject ), did make you believe that not evolution by natural selection was right, but that some creator must have made it all happen ? Example !?
If you read "the origin of species" ten times over, It would not do you a lot of good.
I think you are not worth bothering, but i'll go ahead anyway and suggest that IF you really want to know what Darwinian thinking is all about, you might want to look into D. Dennett's "Darwins dangerous idea".
Books on astrophysics and quantum theory I could also give, but your futile assumptions on that matter are... more severe.
Also, It help to know the scientific methodology behind such works.
Is this your way of suggesting that matter can create itself?
Ha! Ha! With science, we know that matter can't create itself.
Many atheists hate science because it supports the Creator. They don't want to be seen as to be saying that matter can create itself... but they can suggest it.
As I already said, anyone that has a hard time understanding that, a fact is a fact and I can't change it's status, would also have a hard time with the other statement.
I don't think that it is possible to reason with someone that believes that murder and rape are not always wrong.
If a person with this belief was convinced that a utopia was possible, then how many MURDERS would he feel justified in committing to usher in his supposed utopia?
"Like the Israelites when they killed every man, woman, and child"
Strawman.
That was war. I know that you are trying to get murder to include those solders that kill in war.
Also, the Bible teaches that we are made in the image of God. Therefore, one cannot own an image of God. (Also, you can't find one verse where the Lord God says that slavery is good.)
I was hoping that explaining the same thing another way would help you to learn the the reason that I said: There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or inability to prove it can't change it's standing.
"But you're using the definition of 'murder is all killing that is unjustifiable' which, by definition, I would have to agree with"
I remind the readers that Neoignis wants the word "murder" to include people that defend in self-defense, and to include the solders that kill in defense of our country. IF he could've redefined the word, then he could have won the argument.
I don't expect you to understand the difference because you have never changed your stance when I corrected you that 'a fact is a fact despite my ability or inability to change it's status.'
"Though if you really want to go down this abortion of a debate format, since you walked away form the Bible discussion, the Bible is wrong."
You're wrong again.
I've not walked away. A "discussion", or a debate, involves two people answering each other's questions. You've stated that you won't answer my questions, and this means that I don't have to answer yours.
"For justice, the discussion isn't on relativism,"
You said that murder and rape are not always wrong. Hitler convinced many of his countrymen that murdering people in his ovens was for the good of his country. Hussein convinced some of his countrymen to commit atrocities in his rape rooms.
The philosophy that you are asserting is a very dangerous one. Luckily, you've admitted that there is no reason that anyone should believe it.
"considering that you spent a while railing against proof"
Strawman.
Absolute proof is absolute proof.
I don't expect you to understand the difference because you have never changed your stance when I corrected you that 'a fact is a fact despite my ability or inability to change it's status.'
I have been trying to teach you your mistake when you said that "Psalm 22 isn't a fulfilled prophecy by Jesus until you demonstrate it to be so," You've paralleled your mistake multiple times.
This is either a fact or it isn't DESPITE my ability to demonstrate it.
Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it?
You seem to be ignorant of, both what you have said, and the meaning of what you have said.
Let's take your statement "Psalm 22 isn't a fulfilled prophecy by Jesus until you demonstrate it to be so," Now, that is either a fulfilled prophecy or it isn't. My demonstrating of anything won't change what it is.
Until you accept my correction of you when you said that it could be true until I proved it, then we can't move forward.
Proof- the effect of evidence in convincing the mind
As I have repeated corrected you: Facts don't care what you think. So, I ask again: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and ability to prove it can't change it's standing.
Aww. I thought that you were making headway, but I can see that you still don't understand. Proof deals with the mind. Facts don't care what you think.
So, I ask again: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability to prove it can't change change it's standing.
"Proof is the standard to which evidence is held."
Agreed. I said as much when I said "Proof deals with the mind", so you're slowly catching on. But there is no use in going on until you accept my correction of you when you, repeatedly, claimed that proof establishes a fact. Facts are fact, regardless of how much evidence is presented.
You are still making the same mistake. Proof deals with the mind. Facts are facts regardless of the amount of evidence.
Put another way: There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or lack thereof to prove it can't change it's standing. Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it?
"Although a lack of proof does not denote that it is false,"
And you still didn't answer my question; which was: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or lack thereof to prove it can't change it's standing.
While that is true in a debate, it does nothing to answer my question; which was: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or lack thereof to prove it cannot change it's standing.
Why should I take your challenge and you refuse mine? This is supposed to be a debate. If you don't have to answer questions, then I don't have to answer questions.
So, do you know of any such contradictions in the Bible?
"No You said Psalm 22 is a prophecy that was referring to and fulfilled by Jesus, so you have to prove it."
Why should I take your challenge if you refuse mine?
The challenge that you gave me will be very hard to do on this format. But, all you have to do is give your favorite Bible "contradiction" for me to debunk. Are you admitting that you don't know of any?
Hahaha, I'm sorry the guy walking in in his underwear with porno music going was great.
drtoonie 7 months ago
VenomFangX originally made this awhile back.
I wish the Atheist scum bag had been tossed into an active volcano at the end, lol.
That's just like an ape-man believer to show up at court in his damn underwear, haha!!!
buffboynick 8 months ago
This video is an insult to Atheists. Humans have had morality thousands of years before Religion was invented. Is there no logic in fearing consequences without believing in an afterlife, or judgment of god. Animals have morals too. The fact that Sweden and Norway, are among the healthiest, safest, most educated countries in the world and are the least religious. Surely those countries must have morals without fear of god's judgment!
JJJCHEVY 9 months ago in playlist religion 2
The judge looks a bit like a meth addict
forestskog 1 year ago
Are you fond of boys in their underwear? It would seem so!
sheri226 1 year ago
@sheri226 LOL, yeah! Careful where you be treading.
SteGab1979 1 year ago
@SteGab1979 Me? I didn't make the video... the person who made the video, now that's who you should be talking to. He's the one who put a boy in his underwear in his video.. I guess he's into that kind of thing or he wouldn't have added it.
sheri226 1 year ago
@sheri226 Not YOU...
SteGab1979 1 year ago
Very fitting- a fictional, animated account of a fictional god.
Turtleposer 1 year ago
@Turtleposer
Where are you going when you die?
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon
I'm probably going to be cremated. My remains will be absorbed into the earth.
If you know where you're going, please provide evidence. No the Bible isn't evidence.
Turtleposer 1 year ago
@Turtleposer
How do you know that there is no afterlife?
I, myself, believe that there is a Creator because matter can't create itself.
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon
We don't know either way. However, what we do know is that when we die, our bodies decay in one way or the other. Just because we don't know absolutely know why or how something got here, doesn't mean that a god created it. And even if so, that would not mean that your religious beliefs are the accurate conclusion. Perhaps Krishna created the world & you got it all wrong and you will be punished by Krishna for being mistaken.
Believe what you want. It's irrelevant.
Turtleposer 1 year ago
@Turtleposer
"We don't know either way."
Who is this "we" that you are referring?
So, you are saying that there may be an afterlife? You just need more information before you can say for sure?
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon -
"We" refers to all of us. You can just make stuff up or refer to a book.
If the information you're referring to is the Bible, then too late, I've already read it. It's not proof.
How 'bout if you appear to me after you die and tell me what happens?
Turtleposer 1 year ago
@jakedevon Buddy are you slow, or what? Do you need a plank to bang your empty head on in order to make some sense.
Morons like you are making Christians and theists in general seem like raving loonies. GET. A. LIFE!
SteGab1979 1 year ago
@jakedevon Gaps in our scientific knowledge doesn't mean that a god did it. Unlike your imaginary god the "judge" representing god in your animation is visible. It would have been more to the point to have had just a voice passing judgment.
max2right 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jakedevon Where are you going when you die?
I don't know and guess what? Neither do you.
forestskog 1 year ago
wow do you realize how hypocritical both the end and your own discription are, think about all the muderers on death row, and on the hour before they are to be put to death they repent and are given a one way ticket to your paradise but a person who lives a good honest life is damned to eternal torture in a ficticious hell....wow that couldnt have been dumber.
wakcedout 1 year ago
@wakcedout
The Lord God said that He came to save sinners, not good people. (Mark 2:17)
People that think that they are good will go to hell. Evil people that repent and call on the Lord Jesus will go to heaven.
"...but a person who lives a good honest life..."
A person will only go to hell if he or she deserves it.
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon so then you stand firmly behind the hypocrisy when sins such as murder:thou shalt not kill, one of the biggest can be repented for at the last hour of life, but a man of good honest living who treated all others with kindness and respect but was unsure or rejected your god is damned to eternal suffering....and you wonder why people just can't accept such hypocritical dogma!!
wakcedout 1 year ago
@wakcedout I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but... Everyone has sinned against God. You can show all the love and respect you want, nevertheless "whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". Who among us has never lied? I'm not going to heaven because I've been a good person. I'm forgiven. Salvation is a free gift. You cannot earn it by being good, going to church, tithing or showing love and respect. You accept it, or you reject it.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
@wakcedout Further "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts...". There is a common misconception that you have to believe in God to have morals. This is false. God has written His law on the heart of every human being. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, even if they don't want to admit it.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
@Rixonomic um fail, one that sentence can be twisted to mean anything you want it to, and secondly what is right to one person is wrong to another. what one person see's as sin another see's as just business as usual, and further more even the title to this video is redundent as it should be an anarchist stands trial because only an anarchist would not think judges have any authority, and i hope it is not a court in america because the religious symbols would have to go.
wakcedout 1 year ago
@wakcedout Right, you believe that truth is relative. But if all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. There is an objective truth that will effect us all regardless of what we believe. You can not believe in God an hell all you want, but if they are real, you are going to face the consequences. Unless you repent, you will perish.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
@Rixonomic who said i didn't believe in god, but then who said i did believe in god, and without proof either of those statements is true then really pascals wager which is what you are mentioning there really seems to just waste my enjoyment of life and all the wonders that this world and the universe have to offer me.
wakcedout 1 year ago
@wakcedout
"...what is right to one person is wrong to another."
You believe that it is right for one person to murder and wrong for another person to commit the same murder? Myself, I believe that all murder is wrong.
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon and yet again you have missed the point made, we both think murder is wrong because it does not benefit our society, but to an anarchist murder would be right. but then you say all murder is wrong so then if someone is trying to kill you and you protect yourself and in turn kill them was that wrong or did you do what even our legal systems back defend yourself and attempt to preserve your life, leave your mental glass bubble and look at things rationally
wakcedout 1 year ago
Oh! I see what you are saying.
No, the crime must be brought to justice. Of the people that go to heaven, no criminal will get away with what they have done.
"...but a person why lives a good honest life is damned..."
Again, a person will only go to hell if they deserve it. Did you not understand when I said it the first time?
jakedevon 1 year ago
@wakcedout Everyone deserves Hell. Everyone. If you've lied, you deserve hell. If you've looked with lust, you deserve hell. If you're Hitler, you deserve hell. It's all the same in God's eyes. Rom 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". No one has lived a good, honest life. Sure, compared to other people it may seem that way, but not when you compare yourself to God's perfect standard of righteousness. Equally, everyone who sincerely asks for forgiveness will be forgiven.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
No one goes to hell because of their sin. People go to hell because the deny the provision that God has made for their sin. Matthew 12:31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men..."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
If you sincerely seek the truth, you will find it.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
Proof?
Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
:/
Rixonomic 1 year ago
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning [Time - past, present, future] God created the heaven [Space - length, width, height] and the earth [Matter - solid, liquid, gas].
A trinity of trinities.
God created time. If God is stuck in time, He is not God. And since He is outside of time, He is eternal. There has never been a time when God did not exist, because He is outside of time.
If I could fit the all-powerful creator of the universe into my three pound brain, I don't think He'd be worth worshiping.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
@Rixonomic and then after he "made" all that he then made light which means he was feeling around in the dark and got lucky!
wakcedout 1 year ago
@wakcedout 1John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Scripture clearly teaches that God is light. Nowhere does it say He made light.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter). All that the universe is composed of in the first ten words of the Bible. Then in verse 3 God says "Let there be light", or more accurately "Let light be". Read your Bible. :)
Rixonomic 1 year ago
@grits011
Word up w/ the creationist lies
EnBargoON 2 years ago
@EnBargoON
Why don't you explain to the readers how matter could create itself, if that is what you believe.
I, however, believe science.
You see, with science we know that matter can't create itself. So something brought it into existence.
A Matter Maker made the matter.
Do you have anything besides personal attacks?
jakedevon 2 years ago
Firstly, that wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on ALL delusional creationists.
Secondly, why don't you explain to the readers how god could create matter?
EnBargoON 2 years ago
"Firstly, that wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on ALL delusional creationists."
Do you have anything besides personal attacks?
"Secondly, why don't you explain to the readers how god could create matter?"
Red herring.
My knowledge, or lack thereof, of how the Creator created matter does not change the fact that the existence of matter is absolute proof of a Creator.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Then you have no evidence that your gOD, or ANY gOD exists.
Looking back on the comments, this seems to be your only argument. Meh I shall stop feeding you now troll, looks like you'll have to resort to votebotting thunderf00t's and other atheists' videos.
EnBargoON 2 years ago
"Then you have no evidence..."
You are not making any sense.
You are saying that, if I don't know how a building is built, then the building does not exists?
If I don't know how the Creator created the universe then there is no Creator?
Don't leave your brain at the door. You can learn to think for yourself.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Meh,
I'll stop feeding you now troll,
looks like you'll have to be feed by some other atheist.
A MESSAGE TO ALL ATHEISTS,
JUST RATE IT ONE STAR
DON'T TRY TO REASON WITH HIM.
EnBargoON 2 years ago
"A MESSAGE TO ALL ATHEISTS,
JUST RATE IT ONE STAR
DON'T TRY TO REASON WITH HIM."
They might as well.
There is just no way that anyone can prove that matter can create itself.
The existence of matter is absolute proof of a Creator. After all, matter can't create itself.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon-- After all, matter can't create itself. 2 months ago --
After all, the creator can`t create himself
lizazoon 1 year ago
The question "Who created the Creator?" has the built in assumption that the Creator needs to be created. By definition, the Creator is the one that creates and doesn't need to be created. Only things bound by the laws of physics need to be created. The Creator of those laws is not bound by the laws that the Creator created.
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon --By definition, the Creator is the one that creates and doesn't need to be created--- Whose definition. ??? Believers are the first to claim that nothing comes from nothing. And then, I believe that there are many creators, who do not need to be created, prove me wrong !!
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon
"And then, I believe that there are many creators,"
Well, I am glad that you admit some type of creator.
The topic of if there is a Creator is a different topic than who or what the creator(s) is.
Just to verify before we move on to another topic... we now agree in some type of metaphysical creator(s) of some type?
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon No I don`t. I am just saying if you believe that one god can have existed forever, without evidence, then I can as well claim multiple gods without evidence.
lizazoon 1 year ago
I don't believe that one god could have existed forever without evidence.
What makes you think that I think this?
jakedevon 1 year ago
@jakedevon: Where is your evidence that any creator does not his own creator ?
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon
Would you rephrase the question please?
I'm not certain what you are asking.
jakedevon 1 year ago
@lizazoon If you're asking what I think you're asking, your question is inherently flawed. God is eternal. He has, by definition, always existed. If God had a creator, He isn't God. This implies that God is stuck in time, which He created. If God is stuck in His creation, He isn't God. If you build a computer, are you then stuck in the computer? Of course not. You are above, beyond and outside the limitations of the computer. Equally, you cannot limit God to the rules of His creation.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
@Rixonomic I believe in multiple eternal gods, who have always existed. !
--This implies that God is stuck in time, which He created.-- Objection your honor, You can`t create time.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Nor can matter be created or destroyed. Again, this implies that God is limited and bound by the laws of His creation. Space/time/matter is what as known as a continuum. You cannot have matter without space. Otherwise, where would you put it? You cannot have space without time. When would you put it? If God created matter (which cannot be created) He created time and space as well. Again, if God is bound by any of the laws of His creation, He is not God. The truth shall make you free.
Rixonomic 1 year ago
@Rixonomic: As I told you sir, I believe in multiple gods, who are not bound by any of the laws of their creation.
lizazoon 1 year ago
WARNING: Creationist lies. Leave your brain at the door.
grits011 2 years ago 7
Weak. More misrepresentation. Only creationists don't believe what's right in front of their eyes. Heavy-handed and unfunny attempt at satire. Oh, and now we get to hear about how horrible and unworthy we all are! Mankind is a cesspool of corruption and sin. Bad, bad people! I hate this dogmatic, repressive crap. I hate it so much that I KEEP WATCHING so I can contemplate it and HATE IT SOME MORE!!!!! These people are so fucking stupid. GET AN EDUCATION!!!!!
grits011 2 years ago
"Only creationists don't believe what's right in front of their eyes."
Another weak declaration.
People have been declaring the death throngs of the Lord God for centuries.
Educated people know that matter can't create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.
jakedevon 2 years ago
What does the law of conservation of energy have to do with God? I was commenting on the moronic video. How does it serve Christianity to misrepresent how atheists see the world? People may think this video is funny at first, but after they meet some REAL scientists they will discover that this was just a lie. They will ask themselves, 'I wonder what else they were lying about?' Atheists believe in physical evidence. An invisible God is not the same as a judge. This video is idiotic.
grits011 2 years ago
"How does it serve Christianity to misrepresent how atheists see the world?"
The video is an allegory of how the atheist sees the world.
The video shows how the atheist deny the judgment. Your above statement seems to say that atheists don't deny the judgment. But, I doubt that you really mean that. So, how exactly is the video misrepresenting atheism?
jakedevon 2 years ago
I understand that the judge is supposed to represent God's judgement. Suggesting that atheists simply reject God blindly is the misrepresentation. The video equates disbelief with being presented with evidence RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES and not believing your own senses. Atheists reject God precisely BECAUSE they believe their own perception. As you know, Christians have to have FAITH because the Christian God is not scientifically provable. If it was provable, all scientists would be Christians.
grits011 2 years ago
"The video equate disbelief with being presented with evidence RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES"
That is accurately representing how atheists see the world.
Atheists reject God because they don't believe their own perception.
As you should know, Christians don't have blind faith. Science points to a Creator. For example: matter can't create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.
jakedevon 2 years ago
If science pointed to a creator, all scientists would believe in God.
grits011 2 years ago
"If science pointed to a creator, all scientists would believe in God."
You're wrong again.
You are assuming that all scientists are rational.
Likewise, some of those scientists smoke cancer sticks knowing what they could cause.
People aren't always rational.
jakedevon 2 years ago
I know all scientists aren't rational, but science and the scientific method is. A scientist can't make any claims without a group of their peers reviewing their research to assure that it is valid. The scientific peers must test the results independently. So you see, not even scientists assume ALL scientists are rational. This is how they prevent all sorts of random and meaningless ideas from becoming accepted theories.
grits011 2 years ago
"but science and the scientific method is."
You then go on to give a description of the scientific method for some reason. Most likely to make yourself sound smart.
I said that science points to a Creator. And I gave some science that prove what I said. You responded with philosophy ("If science pointed to a creator..."), not science.
As I said: Many atheists hate science because science points to a Creator.
jakedevon 2 years ago
I wasn't trying to be a smart ass. A lot of people don't know about the scientific method. I just wanted to be clear. As far as I can tell, your 'proof' of a creator is the law of conservation of energy. I agree that the matter had to come from somewhere, and I agree that no one knows where it came from. The fact that science cannot explain this leaves a gap in human knowledge. We can then make a lot of assumptions about where the matter came from. You assume a matter maker. Why?
grits011 2 years ago 5
"...we know it today looked about a billionth of a second after the big bang 13,7 billion years ago..."
Do you know of any real evidence for this myth?
jakedevon 2 years ago
You might want to look into the research that the LHC is doing right now. It build on previous obtained knowledge that, until now, has been very accurate.
What the LHC is doing, and you can easily find this on intarweb, is looking into a state of matter and being that existed only in the very earliest beginning of our universe. . That billionth of a second.. Before and after, do you need Grover of sesame street to spell it out for you ? Well, do you ? punk ! (sry, Dirty harry quotes must be!)
retepvosnul 2 years ago
Only way you can send this knowledge to the realm of myth, where all petty gods, like yours reside, is to come up with something that not only disproofs all these intrecuit and accurate methods of describing and predicting all kinds of phenomenon, but also it has to make the same predictions and make the same observation explainable. And .. gods .. are not it !.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
Look, you are obviously all over the place with these definition of gOD, matter and science. Lets find some common ground. Precisaly what gOD are you defending ?
A. created ADAM from dirt and EVE from rib, FLOOD making god ?
B. Observing, non biblical, semi creating god who does not interfere?
C.a gOD that just set the big bang in motion . no communication, no contact no scripture.
If you have your own set of attributes, please let me know. There are a lot of silly combinations out there !
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"...a state of matter and being that existed only in the very earliest beginning of our universe."
Ha! Ha!
And how in the world was this verified?
It seems that people will believe anything nowadays.
jakedevon 2 years ago
A. B. or C.
Seemingly it is you who has a pretty hard time answering questions.
How do we know this nowadays !. Science my dear boy. The hypothesis, theories and maths that can make predictions so precise that it is equal to measuring the dimensions of your apartment/house within millimeters of accuracy while observed from Pluto. That kind of accuracy predicts that kind of thing. You would have to falsify it and surpase it to put any old god in that place.
Not going to happen.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"Science"
Not good enough. You might as well said that I should have blind faith in what some scientist said.
I really did not expect you to have an answer.
By the way, I believe in the God of the Bible. The God that breathed life into Adam. The God that flooded the whole earth.
jakedevon 2 years ago
You equate "Blind faith" and science wrongly. Just because you are unwilling to begin even grasping the massive amounts of undeniable knowledge we gain from science, does not mean it is not there. Are you an ostrich or something ?
You had my answer.. Normally in human debate, after the answer, a series of on topic question ensue. Not with you I see. Fair enough. I have come to expect nothing less of you.
Now for the last point, in which you demonstrated to be a total ... well git !. T.B.C.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
Your gOD, the one that flooded the earth ( OT ) and made Adam from DIRT and Eve from his RIB is of course a big fat man made make up story. A fairy tale.
If even 1 iota of that non sense is true and real the science that makes you computer/television/medicine/microwave/shampoo work would not be possible to create.
It does NOT match anything we know, and with what we know I mean everything that made your world.
Whaling on about big bangs is senseless with you god.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
You might want to worry how your god will survive the next day. The literal god of the OT has lost. All his tricks have been played, and he has been reduced to absolute nothingness, where it belongs. As well has the NT god been dismissed. And all the other fundamental lunacy that came from Abraham.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"Just because you are unwilling to begin..."
As I said earlier, the existence of matter absolutely proves a Creator. With science we know that matter can't create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Your statement is meaningless outside your limited ( self imposed ) understanding and interpretation.
IF a consience being DID create/start the entire universe, It would be nothing like described in scripture.
What it would be is totally out of our realm of thought. But what we know now, even this unknown distant creator is not needed, let alone one one that has been thought up by men.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"Your statement is meaningless outside your limited (self imposed) understanding"
I think that you are saying that matter can create itself. Is that what you are so saying?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"You might want to worry how you god will survive the next day. The literal god of the OT has lost."
Lol!
People have been declaring the death throngs of the Lord God for centuries.
I guess that they believe that if they say it often enough or loud enough, then people will believe it.
jakedevon 2 years ago
The last part, alas, is true.
Do note that this has no impact on the truth value of the statement.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"Many people deny the obvious fact that there is a Creator"
LOL
"It can be comforting to the weak-minded to believe that there will be no judgment"
PMSL
You keep telling yourself that. But no matter how many times you say it you won't make it come true.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
With science, we know that matter cannot create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.
It really is that simple.
jakedevon 2 years ago
No it isn't.
We do not need a god.. there is none.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"there is none."
Where do you think that everything came from?
With science, we know that matter can't create itself.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Certainly not from the god you have in mind.
"we know matter can not creat itself" . Who is suggesting that ? You yourself suggest that omnipowerfull being creat themselfs. that nuts.
We need no god to explain anything, just some patience and time.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"Certainly not for the [G]od you have in mind."
That didn't answer my question. If you don't have any idea, then just say so.
With science we know that matter can't create itself. Therefore, we know that something created the matter. Whatever that something is is the the Creator.
It's a no-brainer.
If you have something to add, please do. If you're one of those 'No it isn't. You just keep saying that. that nuts', then go somewhere else please.
jakedevon 2 years ago
gOD.. is not a person. no need for a capital.
Matter is energy. The atoms we know to build up matter as we preserve it are made from smaller blocks. These all have various crazy properties and interaction but basically they all are a manifestation of energy. These also make up other non material things like light, electro magnetism and maybe gravity, space and time.
These had sprung out of what you could see as a potential.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
It is also within various degrees possible for matter to create matter. In fission and fusion, for example, new matter is being created by shuffling the various sub atomic particle around. In theory matter could be created from raw energy. This will happen in time, when we get sufficient energy, or understand the quantum underpinnings better.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
But we have a fairly good idea how that what was going to be matter as we know it today looked about a billionth of a second after the big bang 13,7 billion years ago ( not 4004 bc ). This proto matter came from the singularity. Science is just about to uncover the last remaining billionth of that second.. And we will certainly not find any Abrahamic gOD there.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"The atoms we know to build up matter as we preserve it are made from smaller blocks."
You just did the fallacy of begging the question. Now you must explain where the energy came from.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Of course not.. You wanted a reply on creating matter. There..
Begging the question has nothing to do with it. That is just silly.
If you had understood even an iota of the word "potential" then you would not have been asking this question. See how I assume that you do not know the meaning of potential, because if you did, YOU would be the one committing the begging of said proverbial question.
But that is not the case, what is really going on is you being an obnoxious git.
Have a nice day.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"Of course not.. You wanted a reply on creating matter."
As I said earlier, if you don't know, then just say so.
jakedevon 2 years ago
head is ass remark.. You want me to post entire papers in block of 500 characters ?? or what ?
Look, maybe, just maybe, you are not a total faecalbrain, and maybe you could look into this yourself. But that is not your game, is it ?.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"and maybe you could look into this yourself."
I have looked into it. That is why I no longer believe in evolution.
So, I take it that you can't answer my question. I'm not surprised.
jakedevon 2 years ago
WTF.. what does evolution have to with this ? Are you insane ?
It has nothing to do with evolution. We haven't even began starting to think about contemplating mentioning evolution. It has NOTHING to do with it.
And thus, have you looked into it ? NO! . you lie. through your teeth you lie to me. Fine. Have it your way.
With matter creating matter, did you by any chance mean. matter creating life ?
retepvosnul 2 years ago
The origin of the current universe is NOT the origin of life is NOT the origin of species.
The way in which you mangle these together is a sure sign of you not understanding the very basics of all three concepts.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
Another question you will not answer ( opposed to my answer which you either could not understand of refused to read at all ).
What precisely, ( forget that this was not even the subject ), did make you believe that not evolution by natural selection was right, but that some creator must have made it all happen ? Example !?
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"And thus, have you looked into it ? NO! . you lie."
Well, tell me, how many books have I read on the subject of evolution?
Did I read "The Origin of Species"?
What is my degree(s) in, if any?
jakedevon 2 years ago
If you read "the origin of species" ten times over, It would not do you a lot of good.
I think you are not worth bothering, but i'll go ahead anyway and suggest that IF you really want to know what Darwinian thinking is all about, you might want to look into D. Dennett's "Darwins dangerous idea".
Books on astrophysics and quantum theory I could also give, but your futile assumptions on that matter are... more severe.
Also, It help to know the scientific methodology behind such works.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"If you read "the origin of species" ten times over,"
I think that you are admitting that you were wrong, and that you don't really know if I have really looked into the subject of evolution or not.
You called me a liar ("you lie.") but when asked for specific evidence for your slander of me, you sidestep.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Books on astrophysics and quantum theory..."
Is this your way of suggesting that matter can create itself?
Ha! Ha! With science, we know that matter can't create itself.
Many atheists hate science because it supports the Creator. They don't want to be seen as to be saying that matter can create itself... but they can suggest it.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Why can't you stick with one subject like other people do ? So now you are back on you old tid bit on creation of matter.
I am getting sick and jumping hither and fro commenting on your seemingly random rants and topic switching .
I thing you are not really into this "debate" thing and there for I will not comment further.
You malevolently twist and turn conversation to ignore what you should comment on, and you repeat you weak and ignorant stick figure arguments.
Have a blast,
bye.
retepvosnul 2 years ago
"Morality is unrelated to ones comprehension and intelligence"
I thought that your position is relative morality.
It seems that you are coming around. I hope that it sticks this time.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Hmmm, how to explain to an imbecile"
This from a person who says that Hitler's gas ovens are justified.
This from a person who says that some murders and rapes are not wrong.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Hitler was acting in defence of his country, so he was justified"
There is no way to justify throwing 4 million Jews into gas ovens. I know that you argue that some murders and rapes are justified.
Neoignis, I don't think that I can reason with you.
Evil is as evil does. Murder and rape are evil.
jakedevon 2 years ago
The question "Who made God" has the built-in assumption that God needs to be made.
The Creator, by definition, is the one that creates and does not, Himself, need to be created.
Only things that begin to exist need to be created.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"We do know that matter can be created by energy"
Again, you committed the fallacy of begging the question.
The same fallacy on the same subject.
Neoignis, saying something over and over again won't make it true.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"And servants were synonymous with slaves"
I can see that you are still trying to redefine words as you see fit.
You are easily shown to be wrong. I, myself, was in the service industry for years. But nobody ever owned me.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"That is irrelevant to "absolute proof is...""
As I already said, anyone that has a hard time understanding that, a fact is a fact and I can't change it's status, would also have a hard time with the other statement.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Hitler was acting in defence of his country, so he was justified"
Many, many American heroes died because they thought, unlike you it seems, that Hitler's ovens must be stopped.
There is no way that you can defend a statement like that one. How can you even try to defend murder on that scale?
Dear readers, see where atheism leads.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"So if he hated slavery so much, why didn't he outlaw it?"
As I have already said, it is implied in the verse which says that man is made in the image of God.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a "great store of servants". Have you ever been served by a waitress?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"So women and children are enemy combatants now?"
I didn't say that. (Another strawman)
In every war, that I have ever heard of, non-combatants are killed.
Also, parents, even today, can use their influence against their children. (For example, parents could NOT take them to Sunday school.)
Plus, young children go to heaven when they die.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Straight from Gods mouth to your eyes"
...confirming what I said.
As you can see, the Lord God is REGULATING slavery. The Lord God also regulates, and hates, divorce.
I asked you to find a verse where the Lord God says that slavery is good. So far, you haven't found one.
jakedevon 2 years ago
I don't think that it is possible to reason with someone that believes that murder and rape are not always wrong.
If a person with this belief was convinced that a utopia was possible, then how many MURDERS would he feel justified in committing to usher in his supposed utopia?
I submit: as many as he thinks it takes.
I say: it is best to teach no murder.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Like the Israelites when they killed every man, woman, and child"
Strawman.
That was war. I know that you are trying to get murder to include those solders that kill in war.
Also, the Bible teaches that we are made in the image of God. Therefore, one cannot own an image of God. (Also, you can't find one verse where the Lord God says that slavery is good.)
jakedevon 2 years ago
"But you agree with him,"
Strawman.
I said that murder is always wrong.
You are the one that says that murder and rape are not always wrong.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"If you want to be immoral"
Strawman.
I've said nothing to indicate that I want to be immoral.
You, however, try to teach that murder and rape are not always wrong.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Creator=/=Judge"
Before I can teach you who the Creator/Judge is, I must teach you that there is a creator.
It is easy to tell that there is a Matter Maker because there is matter. The existence of matter is absolute proof of a Matter Maker.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"That's a tautology"
I was hoping that explaining the same thing another way would help you to learn the the reason that I said: There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or inability to prove it can't change it's standing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"That does nothing to demonstrate the validity of the prediction."
Just because you say that it is not demonstrated, that doesn't make it so.
Historical science says otherwise.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"No"
I think that you just admitted that you have to answer questions also.
Either way, I don't have to answer questions if you don't have to answer questions.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"But you're using the definition of 'murder is all killing that is unjustifiable' which, by definition, I would have to agree with"
I remind the readers that Neoignis wants the word "murder" to include people that defend in self-defense, and to include the solders that kill in defense of our country. IF he could've redefined the word, then he could have won the argument.
But he can't.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"We cannot say where energy came from..."
You say this to cover your begging the question fallacy.
We still know that energy didn't create itself, from that we know that something made it.
And so, we are right back to my statement that matter is created by a Matter Maker.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Fo' realz?"
Yes, absolute proof is absolute proof.
I don't expect you to understand the difference because you have never changed your stance when I corrected you that 'a fact is a fact despite my ability or inability to change it's status.'
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Therefore energy is the matter maker,"
You just committed the fallacy of "begging the question." Now you must explain where the energy came from.
Of course matter is made by the Matter Maker. Matter can't create itself.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"You have claimed Psalm 22 is a prediction...what support you have for that stance."
I will go this far.
Historical science lends support for my claim.
Four ancient documents, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all document the crucification of the Lord Jesus.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"I just said I have to answer questions when I make claims, so you have to answer questions when you make claims."
In other words, you're trying to dictate which questions I will answer, and dictate which question that you will answer. Very sneaky.
No thanks. I prefer an open debate.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Though if you really want to go down this abortion of a debate format, since you walked away form the Bible discussion, the Bible is wrong."
You're wrong again.
I've not walked away. A "discussion", or a debate, involves two people answering each other's questions. You've stated that you won't answer my questions, and this means that I don't have to answer yours.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"A lack of oposition does not validate a position,"
In a debate, if a person is presented with an argument that he cannot answer and he walks away, then the presented argument stands.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"For justice, the discussion isn't on relativism,"
You said that murder and rape are not always wrong. Hitler convinced many of his countrymen that murdering people in his ovens was for the good of his country. Hussein convinced some of his countrymen to commit atrocities in his rape rooms.
The philosophy that you are asserting is a very dangerous one. Luckily, you've admitted that there is no reason that anyone should believe it.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"therefore he is your judge"
"I'm not admitting there was a creator."
Which one of these contradictory statements do you stand beside?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"considering that you spent a while railing against proof"
Strawman.
Absolute proof is absolute proof.
I don't expect you to understand the difference because you have never changed your stance when I corrected you that 'a fact is a fact despite my ability or inability to change it's status.'
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Nothing points to a matter creator,"
Wrong again.
With science, we know that matter can't create itself. Something made the matter. Whatever that something is is the Matter Maker.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Great vid!
godstruthislove 2 years ago
"Thats' not how it works."
Wrong again.
In a debate, if a person is presented with an argument that he cannot answer and he walks away, then the presented argument stands.
And it is still standing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
I said "He finally admitted that there is no evidence for it."
Neoignis replied: "Morality isn't something contingent on evidence."
That doesn't change the fact that you admitted that there is no reason for anyone to agree with your supposed relative justice.
Plus, your above response could easily be interpreted as an admission to fixed justice.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"I was making the point that your video was an undemonstrated assertion,"
Neoignis claimed that Vishnu is my judge. He lost that debate.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"I have to answer questions when I make claims."
I stand my ground. If you don't have to answer questions, then I don't have to answer questions either.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"...and as such you could be certain of what is true."
That is quite a reversal from "one cannot be certain of what is true"!
Why is it that I was able to teach you your error on this subject, but you're learning so slowly about why I can't change the standing of a fact?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"A fact is a truth that has been proved."
I have been trying to teach you your mistake when you said that "Psalm 22 isn't a fulfilled prophecy by Jesus until you demonstrate it to be so," You've paralleled your mistake multiple times.
This is either a fact or it isn't DESPITE my ability to demonstrate it.
Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"one cannot be certain of what is true."
Ha! Ha!
I think that you just said that you are certain that it is true that one cannot be certain of what is true.
No wonder you are having such problems understanding that facts are facts despite my ability or inability to prove them.
jakedevon 2 years ago
You seem to be ignorant of, both what you have said, and the meaning of what you have said.
Let's take your statement "Psalm 22 isn't a fulfilled prophecy by Jesus until you demonstrate it to be so," Now, that is either a fulfilled prophecy or it isn't. My demonstrating of anything won't change what it is.
Until you accept my correction of you when you said that it could be true until I proved it, then we can't move forward.
jakedevon 2 years ago
Neoignis, how many missteps in a row do you have to make before you realize that you many have a problem?
Christians don't have a problem proving a Creator. All we have to do is point at matter; the existence of matter is absolute proof of a Matter Maker.
jakedevon 2 years ago
I said "you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it"
You replied "I didn't say that."
Yes, you did. Here is your quote: "Psalm 22 isn't a fulfilled prophecy by Jesus until you demonstrate it to be so,"
You are wrong. It is a fact or it isn't despite anything I do.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"one cannot be certain of what is true."
Are you certain of that? How could you prove that to be true?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Proof is a process that occurs in the human mind."
Hey! I think you may have it.
"Yes. They care what can be demonstrated to be true."
Maybe not.
Facts don't care about anything because they don't have feelings. They're never sad or happy and they don't care if you don't believe them.
This is another example of your lack of understanding of what a fact is. We really need to get this taken care of before we proceed.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Prove it."
Proof- the effect of evidence in convincing the mind
As I have repeated corrected you: Facts don't care what you think. So, I ask again: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and ability to prove it can't change it's standing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"If a fact is a fact it can be proven by anyone."
Aww. I thought that you were making headway, but I can see that you still don't understand. Proof deals with the mind. Facts don't care what you think.
So, I ask again: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability to prove it can't change change it's standing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Proof is the standard to which evidence is held."
Agreed. I said as much when I said "Proof deals with the mind", so you're slowly catching on. But there is no use in going on until you accept my correction of you when you, repeatedly, claimed that proof establishes a fact. Facts are fact, regardless of how much evidence is presented.
So, do you so accept my correction of you?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"A lack of proof does not denote"
I am trying to show you the difference between proof and evidence. Proof deals with the mind.
So, do you accepted my correction of you when you claimed that proof establishes a fact? There is no use going on until you learn this.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"What makes a fact a fact... oh yeah, proof."
You are still making the same mistake. Proof deals with the mind. Facts are facts regardless of the amount of evidence.
Put another way: There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or lack thereof to prove it can't change it's standing. Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Although a lack of proof does not denote that it is false,"
And you still didn't answer my question; which was: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or lack thereof to prove it can't change it's standing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"If you can't prove it, you can't use it."
While that is true in a debate, it does nothing to answer my question; which was: Do you now accept my correction of you when you said that it couldn't be true until I proved it? There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or lack thereof to prove it cannot change it's standing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Then prove it."
Do you accept my correction of you when you said that it could not be true until I proved it?
There is no use in going on until you understand that a fact is a fact and my ability or lack thereof to prove it cannot change it's standing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"red herring, an attempt to shift the discussion away from this claim you cannot prove."
Wrong on both counts.
If I can prove that the Bible is true, then I have proved that the prophecy is true.
The first step that I have chosen to proving the Bible is true is to prove that It has no contradictions.
So, you are wrong and you are wrong. Again.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Following your favourite form of logic, this lack of response suggests that you cannot prove the claim."
Strawman.
I have not abandoned it yet. We are still negotiating the terms of debate.
If you quit debating, that doesn't mean that I lost.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Psalm 22 isn't a fulfilled prophecy referring to and fulfilled by Jesus until you demonstrate it to be so,"
Wrong again.
A prophecy is not true or not depending on my ability to prove or disprove it. A prophecy is true if the prophecy is true.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"I'm not asking a question, I'm asking for proof of your claim."
Before we proceed, please verify your question that you are not asking. (Lol!)
jakedevon 2 years ago
But before moving on, let's recap.
First Neoignis claimed that Vishnu is my judge. He lost that debate.
Then, Neoignis failed to prove his relative justice case. He finally admitted that there is no evidence for it. So I won that one.
Then Neoignis tried to prove that my position of fixed justice was, in fact, relative justice. Apparently he's given up on that one, so I win again.
Now, Neoignis wants to claim that this is a debate but he doesn't have to answer questions.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"Because "ei incumbit probatio que dicit, non qui negat.""
Again, if you don't answer my questions, then I don't have to answer yours.
"and in a debate the one who makes the claim has to prove the claim."
You're trying to use that as proof that you don't have to answer questions during a debate? Bad form.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"You made the claim you have to prove it."
Why should I take your challenge and you refuse mine? This is supposed to be a debate. If you don't have to answer questions, then I don't have to answer questions.
So, do you know of any such contradictions in the Bible?
jakedevon 2 years ago
"No You said Psalm 22 is a prophecy that was referring to and fulfilled by Jesus, so you have to prove it."
Why should I take your challenge if you refuse mine?
The challenge that you gave me will be very hard to do on this format. But, all you have to do is give your favorite Bible "contradiction" for me to debunk. Are you admitting that you don't know of any?
jakedevon 2 years ago