Posted on 12/07/2025 9:40:34 AM PST by daniel1212
Yep. They are there.
It’s almost like a psyop to chase people away and ridicule those who want to look into it.;-)
It has been scientifically proven that nothing decided to create everything.
Terence McKenna called the Big Bang science’s one free miracle.
Lol.
When it comes to first principles, AI has nothing to offer and never will.
Yes, but atheists deny that their position is one of faith, while overall defining the latter as belief in the absence of evidence. However, aside from being like a baby who cannot believe milk comes from a cow since he is not capable of such reasoning nor has knowledge of such, in order to logically be an atheist as a person capable of deciding to believe in what he/she is taught, then to be a atheist is a position of faith, even blind faith in the case of a ignorant communist who simply believes what he/she is taught, and more so when faced with evidence that challenges his position.
Beliefs, by definition, are less supported than knowledge in the sense of science, a facet of man's pursuits which is also by definition incomplete. This forum has advocates for varying and competing beliefs, as an example, when we read views from Protestant and 'non-denominational' evangelicals, as distinct from Roman Catholics, as distinct from Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. All appear in the FR forum. Which is right? When arguing belief, one argues against another belief. It's quite an arena, when all is said and undone. And elbows get thrown in the tussle, to be sure.
Comparing the debate btwn theists and atheists being analogous to debates btwn religious flying the Christian label, In former, using scientific discoveries alone means debating the meaning of physical evidence and extrapolations from such, however limited.
In the latter, the fundamental debates btwn evangelicals and Catholics is not due to what Scripture itself teaches using sound principals of exegesis out of a quest to follow that Word of Truth wherever it leads, but the debate is effectively due to the Catholic belief that it alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means. And she defines that body of Truth as also existing on Oral Tradition, and both of which are cited here to support her premise that she alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means
Thus, those defending the Catholic position in which their one true church is itself an object of faith, when seeking to validate distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, and with Acts through Revelation especially revealing how the NT church understood the gospels), then such are compelled to force Scripture to validate their beliefs.
While atheists can charge that creationist do the same with scientific evidence (and both see bias confirmation), yet they can support their basic position (that, not only do effects have a cause, but that ultimately an Uncaused Cause is required, that being a Creator-God) and more via secular sources. And proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause.
The 7th day Sabbath in Genesis. Commemorating creation by a loving God.
When we honor that holy Sabbath day of rest......we utterly rebuke AI and Darwinism.
Jesus made the universe then he made the Sabbath day. For man.
:-)
If you look into it, you will find that that isn't the way it works.
The Christian message is that our world has fallen into self-destruction and needs a savior to rescue those who want to be rescued. That faith presents a body of evidence that such a Savior has been provided.
It is difficult if not impossible to reach a conclusion as to the accuracy of this claim without analyzing it.
One thing is certain. You will die. And then you will learn the truth.
Unfortunately, the body of evidence Christianity presents indicates that at that point, it will be too late to embrace your Savior.
Just little details, of course. Nothing to worry about...but where you spend eternity.
Maybe it is just nonsense. But how will you know unless you take the time and diligent effort to disprove it.
As an aside, people on their deathbeds aren't usually jovial and dismissive of this decision. Those who are dismissive are only those who think it won't happen to them (dying that is).
Do your homework. Your eternal life hangs in the balance.
“But how will you know unless you take the time and diligent effort to disprove it.”
You can’t, that’s my point!
“Your eternal life hangs in the balance.”
I’ll take my chances, just like you are. You have no idea that what you believe is true - it’s just a belief, just like kids may believe in Santa Claus. And if your god is so petty that he would condemn me to eternal hell after what I consider to have lived a “good” life, simply because I say I don’t know if he exists, then he’s not only insecure but extremely vengeful. Not a guy I’d care to around with.
And by the way exactly what would I be doing in heaven for eternity, play the harp? What would you envision your eternal life in heaven to be like? What would you do day and day out, if they even have days?
No, that is not most logical, since you then would have a exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with profound intricate, elaborate complexity (more so as we discover more) and extensive diversity, all of which testify to a Creator - along with humans being both supreme in intelligence and overall ability, yet vulnerable, to whom are given the ability to make moral choices and moral laws, which are beneficial when followed but negatively consequential effects when broken, and which thus speak of need for a power greater then himself - yet such would have no real meaningful purpose under your amoeba scenario.
Meaning the creator of the amoeba says, "I will make my power and wisdom manifest but not enable the amoeba to recognize this and seek the ultimate Source of it. If I provide the amoeba with abilities that can both help him and hurt him, with laws and a conscience that have consequential effects, but not allow hm to express gratitude to a creator nor seek His approval nor recourse to mercy from the same.
No, God did not so love morally senseless amoebas that He sent His Son so that those who choose the Light over Darkness may have eternal life.
“Your eternal life hangs in the balance.”
I cannot read your mind so cannot judge your intent—but it still sounds like a threat—emotional blackmail.
“Do this or God will shoot your dog.”
I see that you found a way to insert your perpetual compulsive cultic contention for your Sabbathtarianism ethos into a thread about atheism versus evidence for God. Thanks for the argument against being a member of your cult. Otherwise, you have long ago merited being ignored as another cultist, though sometimes provoking a response.
“eternal life”
That is not logical.
“He sent His Son “
D8d G9d create his Son?
You can listen or you can just keep whining.
You must figure out if this warning—and it is quite real—is something you need to heed.
First up, thanks for a cogent comment, which is refreshing.
We might have differing experiences, but when I have debated an atheist, moving them to 'confess' their's is also a statement of belief has been relatively easy, structurally. For one particularly ardent atheist, I pointed out his repeated attempts to proselytize for his belief was a parallel, rather than opposing, stance. As I still see him occasionally, I am among the few he toys with about his 'belief,' for so it is. Letting a atheist get away with saying their's is not a belief is missing a bet rhetorically. One cannot even form the argument, atheism, without the word theism. I'd venture to say he is slowly amending his thoughts, given patience with him. We'll see.
As to weighing into controversies between "sola scriptura" as a formal stance and "prima scriptura," I tend to let individuals hash that out. After all, from the so-called "great schism" of 1054 ( before the Protestant revolutions, there having been more than one ) one can be driven back to questions such as "which Bible" -- 66, 73 or 81 -- is THE Bible. Rather a bit like "which translation" is THE translation. It becomes problematic as one finds schisms within schisms. After all, when discussing the rapture, for example, one finds at least three distinct and differing stances.
Of course, it comes down to language. In another period in my life, I had the chance to query a number of theologians as to those deep aphasias which destroy one's language facility. Question: without language, can one have a relationship with God? It is a serious question.
From different stances, I got back two views from a number of them. The initial view from all was "no." Why? Theology, scripture, apologetics, debate and liturgy of various forms are all conducted in language. "Our Father..." "The Creator." Language.
All then amended their views to "yes" as follows. Intuition. Not being willing to close avenues to God to language alone. It's a subtle thing, to be sure. I'll go with their views, which coalesce into a view. They were Protestant by denomination, non-denominational Christian, Roman Catholic and two Jews too. All who conduct their thoughts, thinking, study and prayer in language.
A small reflection. Even Darwin capitalizes "Creator," as he writes in a conclusion of his theory -- for it only a theory -- "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Not advocating for him, but merely pointing out the use of language even in that text. That quote, by the way, is rarely cited because the Social Darwinists find it an anathema to their lunacy.
And of course, our wonderful Declaration of Indepedence relies on -- "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Definitely advocating for that founding document.
You wrote "Uncaused Cause" with that capitalization as well. Bravo.
Beyond this, one founds one's faith -- beliefs -- on one's "scriptura" and how it is read and understood. This nation's Creator who has "endowed" us with that striking perspective -- "unalienable Rights." Liberty. No wonder why so many of the political Left and the utterly corrupt would eat away at them, as they would tear away at our Creator, our Uncaused Cause.
As you say, we can " proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause." Sounds darn fine to me.
Best wishes.
You are at it again.
Please don’t shoot my cat too.
Lol.
A warning is not a threat. I warn my friends. Sorry if I counted you among my friends.
So you can skip the need to correct me.
I am done here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.