But does that make sense?!
Yes, scientists have concluded that the absence of something - i.e. nothing - is also something, and with only nothing in the universe, something would have to be generated (using the matter/antimatter principle), or else our 4D spacetime would either break itself apart or, more likely, shrink itself to a singular point. And yes it does make sense from a mathematical perspective. However, there is not enough evidence to make it a true law of science just yet.
What stupidity?! Everything in that article is based on fact, since that's what you non-christians seem to be interested in. I used bible references to tell you were I got the stories from so YOU could look them up and see that I wasn't lying.
It is true, but most of it is irrelevant to the subject matter and/or contains inadequate examples in an attempt to prove a rule. (i.e. for every case where your explanation turns out to be true, i can show you ten where it is false)
It was more for his love for us that he did it. We needed to be shown love so we could love (botherly love not the spouse kinda love) others. That's part of the Christian doctorin.
Make no mistake about it. Jesus is a PART God. Jesus + Holy Spirit + The Father = GOD That's the Trinity.
And your argument behind this is? (and if you are going to say that the bible said so, be sure to have an explanation for why the bible is correct as well)
Now, if you don't mind, I have some sinning to get done.
Great!
Well then you going to hell!
As I said twice already, this is really a great thing. Those who go to heaven never find out what hell is like, making them less knowledgeable in one way, and those who go to hell get to be with all the other smart people who refused to take this nonsense for an explanation.
And on your article: Bible references do not make science, but jibberish. That's why no creationist anywhere has ever come up with a real scientific paper (up for peer-review) that tries to refute evolution (learn to spell) with science. Why's that? Because creationism is rubbish.
LOL! Absolutely correct!
True or False-- An athiest would adapt better to God being proven, than a Christian would to God being disproven.
Frankly I don't think the Chrisitans would fare so well. The decision to believe in God seems to be made from cultural indoctrination, or an inner desperate need to believe in something bigger. Loss of that cultural core/emotional crutch would probably be devastating.
Exactly what I was saying earlier! These ideas has been so finely ingrained into the minds of the people (at an early age too, so more ideas build up on htme), that they will outright refuse to believe anything else. For the fourth time, this is
precisely what happened with the planetary motion principles when Galileo and Kepler, and later Newton discovered the mathematics behind it all. As Crazy Ivan said, if we did not have these great contrarian minds coming up, we would still be living in a middle age.
Ok now your logic just is not logic any more. Let me put what you just said in different wording.
I can see the winds effects. But I can't see the wind. So then it must not exist. Or. I have never seen Europe, so it must not exist. Now you might say, "I live in Europe you %#@%&!", Then I'd say, "But you have to be lying because I've never seen it so it can't exist."
That is what you said. So there are ultimate truths!
Here is an example of irrelevant points to back your argument. If you can perceive the effects of the wind, then you can
indirectly perceive the wind as well. Now, with this god, we cannot percieve the effects
or the actual uh, being, so it lies in the realm of the perceptive only, where
anything can be shown to exist.
Or would you say that because it exists in the context of God's Universe, it's not God, but a creation of God?
Good one; it's kind of obvious what the answer will be, though, or they will try to avoid the question. The common masses for centuries have done just the latter when it comes to these types of questions.
