Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 The same can be said to you..drove that God doesn't exist. Faith is essential... It is hypocritical of you to demand proof from some poster and then use the "faith defense" when proof is demanded of you... How do you know Christ was supposedly born on December 25th? A date where MANY pagan deities were supposedly born no doubt because it coincides near the winter solstice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 "The God that I don't believe in is greater than the God that you don't believe in". BTW, the only difference between an Atheist and a Christian is that the Atheist disbelieves in one more God than The Christian disbelieves in. All those hundreds of reputed Gods out there yet only one God difference between them. Atheists and Christians have a lot more in common than they have differences! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 He asked me to prove something and I asked him to disprove it...There are many arguments for God found on this site. If you have questions or want to debate simply ask. http://www.kingdavid8.com/homepage.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 "The God that I don't believe in is greater than the God that you don't believe in". BTW, the only difference between an Atheist and a Christian is that the Atheist disbelieves in one more God than The Christian disbelieves in. All those hundreds of reputed Gods out there yet only one God difference between them. Atheists and Christians have a lot more in common than they have differences! Interesting way to look at it! My point is you can find many instancies where AFC's CC, borrowed heavily from other religions. AFC thinks that his CC came into being in a vacuum completely devoid of influences from other religious beliefs. The truth is there were many fringe religions, cults, etc. The Roman Empire kind of swallowed and mixed these up these up as it conquered areas. I suppose AFC thinks baptism started with his CC. The history of washing with water pre-dates history. This is a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 He asked me to prove something and I asked him to disprove it...There are many arguments for God found on this site. If you have questions or want to debate simply ask. http://www.kingdavid8.com/homepage.html You are the one proposing you have a god. In debate, the proposing team has the burden of proof. So go ahead and prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 If you read my post there is a link I posted that details many of the arguments used...feel free to discuss any of them with me. I'm going to bed now but I'll answer your query the best I can later. I'll leave you with a quote... "To the believer no proof is necessary (Faith), to the skeptic no proof is enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 He asked me to prove something and I asked him to disprove it...There are many arguments for God found on this site. If you have questions or want to debate simply ask. http://www.kingdavid8.com/homepage.html Well, this is going to be easy: This is David's opening argument: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Debates/DaveOpen.html David is wondering how the Universe can begin without God starting it. How can you create something out of nothing? This is my rebuttal: Even in a vacuum you can have energy. Physicists have a name for it: Vacuum Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy From this physicists theorize that matter can be formed: In fact, they propose a theory for this called inflation theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) The evidence for the beginning of the universe happening in this way is much more consistent than what is told to us in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 If you read my post there is a link I posted that details many of the arguments used...feel free to discuss any of them with me. I'm going to bed now but I'll answer your query the best I can later. I'll leave you with a quote... "To the believer no proof is necessary (Faith), to the skeptic no proof is enough." Okay. In my post above, explain to me why inflation theory is wrong... My quote for you: The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Interesting way to look at it! My point is you can find many instancies where AFC's CC, borrowed heavily from other religions. AFC thinks that his CC came into being in a vacuum completely devoid of influences from other religious beliefs. The truth is there were many fringe religions, cults, etc. The Roman Empire kind of swallowed and mixed these up these up as it conquered areas. I suppose AFC thinks baptism started with his CC. The history of washing with water pre-dates history. This is a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism It stands to reason that wherever Christianity has supplanted virulent pre-existing religions, remnant features of the ousted religion will persist in some form culturally to impart something of their flavor to the Christianity that replaces them. Conversion is seldom total. That said, the Wikipedia passage linked is regrettably riddled with cautions in the form of "[citation needed]" etc. When enough of these accumulate in a single presentation it weakens it to those who would oppose it, perhaps undeservedly. In short, it would be good to see these weaknesses tightened up to make the presentation more robust academically. In sheer documentation Christianity has had some 2,000 years to 'get all its ducks in a row', rightly or wrongly. By comparison, most other potentially rival ideologies seem in some disarray Scripturally and appear less competent. Consequently, in the absence of more credible competition Christianity in the form we have come to know it may be enjoying a success that is disproportionate. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Well, this is going to be easy: This is David's opening argument: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Debates/DaveOpen.html David is wondering how the Universe can begin without God starting it. How can you create something out of nothing? This is my rebuttal: Even in a vacuum you can have energy. Physicists have a name for it: Vacuum Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy From this physicists theorize that matter can be formed: In fact, they propose a theory for this called inflation theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) The evidence for the beginning of the universe happening in this way is much more consistent than what is told to us in the Bible. Even if the "energy" became matter, it does not explain where the energy came from... So your Vacuum theorem doesn't disprove anything. In regards to your inflation theory, it is interesting because it involves the Big Bang which the physicist Stephen Hawking has done remarkable work on. Some of his finding indicate a very beginning to the universe and in fact to time itself. Furthermore the moments after the Big Bang were very important in that if the universe expanded too fast it would have broken apart and too slow, collapsed back on itself. The improbability that it did had "religious implications" and left the possibility open for a creator," according to Hawking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm surprised that the possibility that the Universe has always existed hasn't been given more attention. After all, the 13.7 Billion years that can be traced in reverse to the Big Bang applies only to the Observable Universe. It's already conceded that there is more Universe out there beyond that. It may in fact extend forever .... and accordingly have existed forever too, making our Observable Universe no more than a local hiccup ... one microscopic bubble in a fizzing ocean of soda. There has been recent work done on that most elusive of all aspects of creation of Life ... "Abiogenesis". For the first time they may indeed have cracked it. I know this is going to sound lame but I'd need to dig around for the info I found, and can't go into detail with confidence until I refresh my memory on quite how the proposal went. But I do recall that it was quite different from others that have been doing the rounds. Anyhow, probably something for another thread. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 I have never heard of that first point about observable universe....if you could a link would be helpful. From what I've read the big Bang constituted the creation of time and space... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 I have never heard of that first point about observable universe....if you could a link would be helpful. From what I've read the big Bang constituted the creation of time and space... Yes the Big Bang is now regarded as the creation of Space and Time traced back from our present. But that may not be inconsistent with a whole lot of Universe having spread out from that time & point of origin long before the part that we occupy emerged. Anyway, you could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe and if you simply Google "Observable Universe" you will get nearly half a million more responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Davy G Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Birthdate: 25 Dec 4BC When do Catholics celebrate the immaculate conception? I do not think it is during Easter, is it? @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Shaw Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Just a quick response.......the Bible does not give the actual date of Christ's birth. It was a date picked by the church to celebrate his birth. There have been some that state that any date in December could not be right because the shepards would not be out in the cold "watching their flocks by night." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 December 8th the feast of the Immaculate Conception... Also I understand about the observable universe, I'm just looking for something that explains about whatever existed before the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Also I understand about the observable universe, I'm just looking for something that explains about whatever existed before the Big Bang. The "Big Crunch" of a prior Universe. I know ... I was there. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 The "Big Crunch" of a prior Universe. I know ... I was there. @ Lol I have heard about that theory and it is one of the three possible scenarios that could have arisen from a big bang. However scientists have yet to determine which of the theories is correct so all we really can do at this point it speculate...but hey isn't that what bcvoice is for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Davy G Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 As far as I know, the Holy Catholic Church claims the D.O.B. was 25 December. I'm sorry, but that's quicker than a soap opera pregnancy. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Geo Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 As far as I know, the Holy Catholic Church claims the D.O.B. was 25 December. I'm sorry, but that's quicker than a soap opera pregnancy. @ The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the birth date of Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Conception has nothing to do with birth according to the CC? What's all the fuss about condoms then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 As far as I know, the Holy Catholic Church claims the D.O.B. was 25 December. I'm sorry, but that's quicker than a soap opera pregnancy. @ The 25th is the date CELEBRATED by the CC..they don't know exactly the date of the birth so they have chosen that date as the holiday. Stop being a troll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 He asked me to prove something and I asked him to disprove it...There are many arguments for God found on this site. If you have questions or want to debate simply ask. http://www.kingdavid8.com/homepage.html There are no atheists in foxholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 There are no atheists in foxholes. I've heard that before...thanks for contributing. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.