Re: Straight to the business at hand

on the flipside, I vote for CDJ with the longest posts ever...

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^ and the smallest amount of social life

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[FONT=Times New Roman]Sitting at work tonight I was thinking about the things that have happened lately here in this forum. I have come to the conclusion that there is a very serious double standard going on here.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Let me break it down like this.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Each and every one of you knows what evidence is. It is used in your lives everyday. You are fully aware that it is as much a part of your life as breathing. If any of you say that it is not you are simply avoiding a law of nature.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Lets put evidence into a specific example. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]The police receive a call from a man saying that he came home and found his spouse dead. They arrive on the scene and the very first thing that happens is the area is secured as to not allow the evidence to be corrupted. There are very strict rules they have to follow in collecting evidence. They go to extremely meticulous measures to make sure that the evidence is preserved. Why? Because they are aware of how critically important each and every single thing from the most obvious to the seemingly irrelevant piece is. The entire process of determining if it was a murder, suicide, or accidental death depends on evidence.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]For this example we will say it was a murder. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Then the evidence collected is used to see if a suspect can be determined. That evidence varies greatly. If suspecting a person were not valid then there would never be a case unless someone actually saw the murder. There are circumstances that the police look for. If that were not the case then why is it usually the spouse who is often times the first suspect. The answer is motivation. Motivation is a form of evidence. Yes motivation. It is used to determine if the suspect had a reason to kill his wife.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]So lets take a look at motivation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]It is neither physical nor chemical. It resides strictly in thought. It is 100% mental. To deny that is impossible. You cannot experience motivation with any of the senses. Yet it is enough for the investigator to determine if a suspect should be investigated more thoroughly. Now before you start saying that motivation is not enough to convict a person let me say I agree. However my point is not about convicting it is about using evidence that is neither physical nor chemical. Take the context of what I am saying. If one of your loved ones was murdered and there was a huge insurance policy on them it is natural to suspect that would [B]motivate[/B] certain people to kill their spouse. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Motivation is even taken to court where the person?s freedom and or life is dependent on evidence used. Proving there was a motive involved is often times the first step in determining if a person ?could? have been involved in the murder.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Lets try another form of non-physical, non-chemical evidence.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]You can in no way determine if another person loves you. And when I say that I mean that you have absolutely no way to know the actual true thoughts of that person. Sure they can say they love you with words. That can be determined with the senses. You hear the words. They can give you things in the form of gifts and accompany those gifts with the words I love you. They can touch your arm, hold your hand and kiss you. These are physical you can feel those things.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]But when you take away everything and strip it down to it?s most basic form, love is still a mental process. No amount of talk, or touch, or gifts in the world is absolute proof of love. Is hearing the words I love you proof? No. Why? The undeniable fact is that people can lie. Is getting a kiss proof of love? Absolutely not. Actors kiss each other and they are not expressing love they are faking it for the sake of entertainment.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]It cannot be denied that you have absolutely no way of 100% concrete physical or chemical evidence that a person loves you. Love is a thought with no determinable physical or chemical properties.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]In fact the more you think about it, any type of emotion is a non-physical, non-chemical thing. There is actually no way to determine with 100% infallibility that a person?s outward expression of an inward emotion is the true thought of their heart.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]So again I will say that motivation is 100% mental and cannot be determined with any physical or chemical evidence and emotions are as well. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]If one were to sit and think long enough I am sure you could reason many other non-physical, non-chemical evidences in your life.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]So non-physical and non-chemical evidence is good enough to use in your everyday lives yet you turn the standard against non-physical, non-chemical evidence when God or creation is mentioned. Clearly you all hold a double standard. When you get right down to it you are deceiving yourselves if you say you are not.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]You say things like God exists in a persons mind so there is no way of proving He exists in reality. You say things like there is no way to prove God?s existence without physical or chemical evidence and there is nothing you can do to change that. Yet again I point out the fact that non-chemical, non-physical evidence is used everyday in each and every one of your lives.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Why the double standard? Can any of you actually answer that with any serious credibility? It is inconsistency at work here. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Is it simply because it is God we are talking about?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Is it because if you were to say yes that non-physical, non-chemical evidence were good enough to determine proof of something, then by that admission you must give actual credibility to the fact that God could exist based on the evidence that believers use? Could that be the reason for the double standard?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Lets take this a step further and follow a chain of events, as they would unfold. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]If you were to say that non-physical, non-chemical evidence was viable proof of something, hence giving credibility to the Christians claim of God, this in turn would give viability to God?s statutes. Which in turn would give credibility to heaven and hell thereby raising the standard by which people would be judged and allowing the opportunity for your after-life to be either forever tormented or forever glorious.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Could the thought of being punished eternally be the reason for the double standard? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Is it the idea that God will reward those He chooses to reward and punish those He chooses to punish the reason for the double standard when it comes to evidence? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]I am sure that some of you will come up with many different reasons for the double standard and I am even willing to go out on a limb and guess that some will even say that there is no double standard at work here. Clearly there is though. I have given clear and concise proof that non-physical, non-chemical evidence is at work in everyday life so that can not be denied. If you can say non-physical, non-chemical evidence in one aspect is credible then say non-physical, non-chemical evidence is not viable proof of anything in another aspect then certainly you can see that there is some very serious inconsistency at work here.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Again I ask why the double standard? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]The burden of proof is not that non-physical, non-chemical evidence exists and is used in everyday life, the proof lies in someone proving that it does not exist and is not used in everyday life therefore proving that it can not be used to determine creation over evolution and the existence of God over the non-existence of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Until that is done then non-physical, non-chemical evidence has 100% credibility and can be used.[/FONT]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=cowardly dj;384954][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]It cannot be denied that you have absolutely no way of 100% concrete physical or chemical evidence that a person loves you. Love is a thought with no determinable physical or chemical properties.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]In fact the more you think about it, any type of emotion is a non-physical, non-chemical thing. There is actually no way to determine with 100% infallibility that a person’s outward expression of an inward emotion is the true thought of their heart.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]So again I will say that motivation is 100% mental and cannot be determined with any physical or chemical evidence and emotions are as well.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]Talk to your local neuro surgeon or psychiatrist: emotions can be defined as chemical/neurobiological processes in the brain. You want evidence of that? If my statement wouldn't be true, Prozac et all. wouldn't be effective. Inform yourself: [URL]http://www.heartmathreport.com/index.php/weblog/C64/[/URL]

So much for the double standard and the attempt to get your right by limiting the broadness of perception.

Furthermore, not everything is to be proved with chemistry and physics alone: sociology, antropology, psychiatry, ... can offer evidence as well. Like in your murder case...

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=KinKyJ;384968]Talk to your local neuro surgeon or psychiatrist: emotions can be defined as chemical/neurobiological processes in the brain. [/quote]

I did not say that emotions could not be defined in the brain. That is absolutely true and you will get no argument from me on that subject. The point I was making is that you can not prove at all that a persons outward expression is is their true thoughts. That is not measurable in any form other than taking their word for it.Unless there is a thought reading scientific test then you are still in the realm of no real physical tangible evidence of anything that goes on in a person mind.

I am not talking about the physical firing of nuerons and the such, of course that is recordable it is a physical/chemical reaction. I am talking about the thought that sets the firing into motion. That is in no wise recordable.

Check into some of the research done by some neurologist and you will see that a persons "thoughts" are considered in the realm of the unknown for lack of scientific evidence and the ability to test the thoughts.

I have a few names and some papers written on the subject by some of the (considered) worlds best neurologists. I will try to find them and post them here. It is really a very interesting read if you are interestd in the brain that is.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[URL]http://www.sfn.org/[/URL] society for nueroscience

[URL]http://www.jneurosci.org/[/URL] journal of nueroscience online

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=cowardly dj;385012]I have a few names and some papers written on the subject by some of the (considered) worlds best neurologists. I will try to find them and post them here. It is really a very interesting read if you are interestd in the brain that is.[/quote]goodie, more copy pastin' :sarcasm:

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

[URL]http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15[/URL]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

:lol:

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=jarble187;385031]I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

[URL]http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15[/URL][/quote]

how did you ever find that :roflmao:

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=jarble187;385031]I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

[URL]http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15[/URL][/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Honestly, I?m probably missing something here, but if I wanted serious and in-depth conversations aboutt religion, [MS] would not be the place I?d come to.

Not because I think people here aren?t intelligent enough for it, but simply because it is not the place for it.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=jarble187;385031]I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

[URL]http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15[/URL][/quote]

im curious but what genre of music is Joy Electric:?:

Re: Straight to the business at hand

ummm are there Coles Notes for this thread??

Way to much reading :pass:

Re: Straight to the business at hand

you mean Cliff Notes. I just don't understand you Canadians sometimes.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^ Coles notes is the brand name I guess you'd call it for the cliff notes books for like every book....assumed they were in the US too

shrugs

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[img]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7381/2d9f53fc22178bb165c2310e61797119a9280762pz9.gif[/img]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;384954]I am sure that some of you will come up with many different reasons for the double standard and I am even willing to go out on a limb and guess that some will even say that there is no double standard at work here. Clearly there is though. I have given clear and concise proof that non-physical, non-chemical evidence is at work in everyday life so that can not be denied. If you can say non-physical, non-chemical evidence in one aspect is credible then say non-physical, non-chemical evidence is not viable proof of anything in another aspect then certainly you can see that there is some very serious inconsistency at work here.

Again I ask why the double standard?

The burden of proof is not that non-physical, non-chemical evidence exists and is used in everyday life, the proof lies in someone proving that it does not exist and is not used in everyday life therefore proving that it can not be used to determine creation over evolution and the existence of God over the non-existence of God.

Until that is done then non-physical, non-chemical evidence has 100% credibility and can be used.[/QUOTE] Again, here is where you become condescending.

Your arguments earlier regarding motivation for murder and then the one regarding love are used to show that your proof could be used similarly to lead one to believe that "god COULD exist", but when people are unwilling to make that leap to "god DOES exist" you start saying there's a double standard going on.

Now that is condescending. You see, right then and there, you took a "leap of faith" not based on fact, but merely because in your mind you've refuted all other evidence contrary to creation and your conclusion is, well, since I can't disprove god and it is the only possible explanation left, therefore it must be the answer. That is not proof, nor is it a double standard for others not to take the same leap that you did.

This is why many people here have become frustrated with your discussions here. You insist you're right and refuse to realize that your own proof is based on your own personal scientific process of elimination. Unfortunately, that process only truly works where there are no other possible explanations. Merely because science hasn't provided any other explanations to your satisfaction doesn't make it so. Following your line of reasoning, you have to show me why no other explanations are even possible, whether already thought of or not. Good luck.

and for the record, I have continued to try to have an intelligent discussion with you on the matter throughtout, without throwing insults your way. The fact that you've skirted many of the more intelligent questions that were posed with your condescending, albeit unintended, attitude is a bit dismaying.

P.S. Using that small text makes it even more difficult to read your arguments...

Re: Straight to the business at hand

when I first saw this thread title ([URL="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32839"]Straight to the business at hand[/URL]), I thought CDJ was going to talk about masterbation. After reading 4 pages on if God exists, I wish this thread was on masterbation :ShootMe:

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[QUOTE=speciale;385395]when I first saw this thread title ([URL="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32839"]Straight to the business at hand[/URL]), I thought CDJ was going to talk about masterbation. After reading 4 pages on if God exists, I wish this thread was on masterbation :ShootMe:[/QUOTE]

dare to dream...

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[COLOR=black][quote=rubyraks;385393]when people are unwilling to make that leap to "god DOES exist" you start saying there's a double standard going on.[/quote][/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]I am not saying that the double standard is people not taking the leap. The double standard I speak of is the fact that many have said that there is no ?proof? without physical evidence i.e as science could prove.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#c0c0c0]I am saying that evidence does come non-physical, non-chemicla forms and others here say that the only evidence is that which can be proven through science[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]If that is the case then the big bang has the exact same amount of discredit that God does as far as science goes because the big bang can not be proven with any tests.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][quote=rubyraks;385393] and for the record, I have continued to try to have an intelligent discussion with you on the matter throughout, without throwing insults your way. The fact that you've skirted many of the more intelligent questions that were posed with your condescending, albeit unintended, attitude is a bit dismaying.[/quote][/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]as I have stated before I am not avoiding any questions intentionally[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]if there is a particular question(s) you are referring to then please quote them and I will answer them.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][quote=rubyraks;385393]P.S. Using that small text makes it even more difficult to read your arguments...[/quote][/COLOR]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=silver]not intended . I am not exactly sure why that happens. Maybe because I type my responses in word and paste here[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^although you missed the thread posted that scientists are now trying to do "mini bangs" to help maybe prove the theory of multiple dimensions or maybe how the big bang evolved...really, first of its kind.

Screw the thread...here's an article link:

[url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=325&objectid=10400645[/url]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote] I am not talking about the physical firing of nuerons and the such, of course that is recordable it is a physical/chemical reaction. I am talking about the thought that sets the firing into motion. That is in no wise recordable.

Check into some of the research done by some neurologist and you will see that a persons "thoughts" are considered in the realm of the unknown for lack of scientific evidence and the ability to test the thoughts.[/quote]

Because at this point you're more than likely delving into the subconscious mind which IS the unknown...until enough of our brains are actually studied and understood, the fact remains that we use less than 10% of it actively....the rest just can't be understood r studied "as we know it."

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=FM;385613]Because at this point you're more than likely delving into the subconscious mind which IS the unknown...until enough of our brains are actually studied and understood, the fact remains that we use less than 10% of it actively....the rest just can't be understood r studied "as we know it."[/quote]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=silver]isn?t that one of the most interesting things about being human though[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]That we are sefl-aware?[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]In all the articles I have read about consciousness it seems to always be defined by all scientists as "being self-aware. I on the other hand have formulated my own theory about consciousness. [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]Being self aware does not constitute a consciousness as far as it being the only attribute to define it. I am sure that animals are aware they exist to a certain degree.(though I can not prove that it is just my thought)[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]They eat when hungry, sleep when tired, they know things that is usually attributed to instinct. Instinct to me is just another name for aware that you have needs.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]So when I think of consciousness I see it as multi-staged.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]1. You are aware that you exist.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]2. You are aware that others are aware that you exist.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]3. You are aware that others are aware that they are aware that they exist.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]Now that may sound funny on paper but give that some thought. We are aware that other people know we exist. Animals do not spend time worrying about their looks in hopes to affect what other people think about hem. We groom ourselves, go on diets, work-out etc. Why? We know other people are aware of us, and want that awareness to be of a nature that will give them a positive awareness of us.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]Think about that for a while and then tell me what you think.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=silver]BTW this is the first time I have ever told this to anyone. Never discussed this with another person so I am interested in some feedback on it.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=cowardly dj;385619]Now that may sound funny on paper but give that some thought. We are aware that other people know we exist. Animals do not spend time worrying about their looks in hopes to affect what other people think about hem. We groom ourselves, go on diets, work-out etc. Why? We know other people are aware of us, and want that awareness to be of a nature that will give them a positive awareness of us.[/quote]Animals don't work out, diet 'n' shit because they don't have to when they're in the wild. We do those things because we eat crap and sit on our asses all day long.

Animals do "worry" about their looks though, mainly the males (weird, opposite of with humans :lol: ), because only the strongest/most beautiful male will get a female to mate with)

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=KinKyJ;385623]Animals don't work out, diet We do those things because we eat crap and sit on our asses all day long.[/quote]

so true, so very true, and sad at the same time

[quote=KinKyJ;385623]Animals do "worry" about their looks though, mainly the males (weird, opposite of with humans :lol: ), because only the strongest/most beautiful male will get a female to mate with)[/quote]

While I was posting this the image was in my head about a bird, not sure which one, that puffs up its chest to attract a mate.

That is still instinct IMO. It is simply to attract a mate to propigate the species. Not because he wants companionship and the likes.

There is no worry over "how do I look", I guess it would be more or less summed up as "is this working" for that bird

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^ Yup, that's why I've put worry between parantheses. I guess we're agreeing on something at last CDJ ;)

However, I think you need to take another thing into account. Yes, the fact that we're preoccupied with how we look is basicly because of awareness like you said, but it's mainly boosted and fueled by the industry. Cosmetics, fashion, gyms, ... They all want a bill from your wallet. Just look at the rise of cosmetics for men.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=KinKyJ;385629 Just look at the rise of cosmetics for men.[/quote]

:shock: :shock: :shock: This is new to me because I do not watch TV (surprise surprise huh)

anyway wouldnt it be said that the industry was fueled by the fact that deep inside we all are preoccupied with self.

People were worrying about their appearance long before there was even the thought of an industry

Re: Straight to the business at hand

going to start a new thread about consciousness so perhaps some who do not frequent this thread will participate

post your thoughts on human consciousness there

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;385604]I am not saying that the double standard is people not taking the leap. The double standard I speak of is the fact that many have said that there is no ?proof? without physical evidence i.e as science could prove.

I am saying that evidence does come non-physical, non-chemicla forms and others here say that the only evidence is that which can be proven through science

If that is the case then the big bang has the exact same amount of discredit that God does as far as science goes because the big bang can not be proven with any tests.[/QUOTE] I would say that this statement goes to the very root of what many here have been trying to get across to you. You can't prove the big bang (though attempts are being made) and you can't prove god. Hence the term, belief. ;)

Re: Straight to the business at hand

actually we can prove the big bang. through chemical analysis of our planet, and other planets as well as comets and tests done in space. not to mention that last year the hubble captured another big bang.

please just end this stupid debate you cant prove god exists, that is why it is called faith not history.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

i hate to be contrary but that was the whole point of starting the thread because you can prove that God exists through evidences left just as science can prove other things by evidences left.

I will say it again. There are clues left in the Bible that are simply undeniable even if science wanted to disprove them it never could. There are scientific evidences left by the writers that are thousands of years ahead of their time and that IS evidence of, at the bare minimum, of some intervention.

Again I will state that even in the face of such undeniable evidence people will still not accept it. That does not mean that it is not true it just menas that it is not true to that person. That is where people start throwing the word faith around. When they do not want to believe something, people will say it is a matter of faith.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;385828]i hate to be contrary but that was the whole point of starting the thread because you can prove that God exists through evidences left just as science can prove other things by evidences left.

I will say it again. There are clues left in the Bible that are simply undeniable even if science wanted to disprove them it never could. There are scientific evidences left by the writers that are thousands of years ahead of their time and that IS evidence of, at the bare minimum, of some intervention.

Again I will state that even in the face of such undeniable evidence people will still not accept it. That does not mean that it is not true it just menas that it is not true to that person. That is where people start throwing the word faith around. When they do not want to believe something, people will say it is a matter of faith.[/QUOTE] Seriously cdj, I've been trying to participate in this discussion with you intelligently, but you continue to make the same logical errors time and time again and each time that people, myself included, have called you out on it, you've had yet another way of avoiding that fallacy.

Stop calling it undeniable evidence just because you have accepted it as such. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about this subject, you need to actually substantiate your premises somehow and just because the bible says so doesn't make it a fact. You really need to step off your high horse, if you'd actually like to discuss and debate the issue.

Now on to your claims this time around. You're now claiming that because the bible has scientific evidences that were years ahead at the time it was written is evidence of intervention. Is the knowledge that the Egyptians had at the time of building the pyramids another sign of godly intervention? Is the knowledge that the Mayans had that was so ahead of their time also proof of godly intervention? If so, why is "god" intervening on their behalf? The Egyptians for the most part now follow Islam and the Mayans had their own religion. Maybe we should follow their religious beliefs instead of your own.

And to take that one step further, just because there are scientific facts in the bible that are way ahead of their time doesn't lead to the conclusion that it had to be god who intervened. You're still not proving god...you're merely deciding that to you that is the best explanation, ie. faith/belief, call it what you like. I could just as easily decide for myself that there was a man that was so smart, but afraid to make his scientific knowledge public (as most scientists ahead of their biblical time are subject to threats and very often death) so he buried it in a book for generations to figure out later. Why isn't that just as plausible? It fits all the facts and just like you can't prove that god exists, I can't prove that this brilliant man exists, but they're both possibilities nonetheless. You've just chosen one over the other. That is not "undeniable" proof, merely a belief of your own.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

substantiate, now there is a good word.

and CDJ, you still have yet to give one credible peice of evidence. your closest thing is a quote from bible mentioning water during creation. which logically can be traced to the red sea and its behaviour....

please, if you really think you can 100% undeniably prove it, do it, stop quoting a analagous (spelling) book used to control the jews from a thousand years ago. come out and say, hey, if you look at this rock, here is the proof, because right now as it stands, when i look at a rock, i can pick it up, look at it from all angles, take it to a lab, carbon date to discover its orgin, do a chemical analysis on it to determine its properties an dconduct other valid tests on it.

nothing in the bible can be tested. it is FAITH.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

rubyraks I understand your point. I really do but the things I talk about being scientific evidence does not compare to the technological advancements you listed. They are different.

I am also aware that religon is the most volatile topic that people can discuss. Why is it so? Because you can not look up in the sky and see God in a white robe looking down at you waving and saying "Here I am son all will be well" If that is the only way that people will come to the belief that God is who He says He is then that would negate the God given choice of deciding if you want to follow God.

What I mean by that is the Bible makes it very clear that a person is not forced to follow God. God wants people who follow because they want to love Him on their own will. If you could look up and see God then what choice would you have other than to follow what He says. If you can see Him then obviously one would be seriously deterred from doing anything wrong as to avoid the judgement and hell that is spoken of therefore limiting if not completely taking away the choice to follow.

Think about that for a minute. If you could see God and then in turn that would prove the existence of hell how many people would follow God from their hearts? It would be out of fear of the coming judgement that people would follow God.

I also know that proving God is a long process and takes some serious reading. If it seems that I am arrogant and condescending because I say I know that facts of the Bible then I am sorry but what kind of person would I be if I said something was a fact and then when the pressure was laid on by others who say it is not, I crumble under so as to not offend them. That would make me a fence straddler as we say here in Texas. And as we all can know a fence straddler does not really believe what he says he believes if he can not make up his mind as to which side of the fence he will fall on.

I am going to go ahead and post the things that I refer to as fact and then as always let others decide. That is the beauty of being agents of free will.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

ok, but dont post something similar to this.

the bible says noah,moses,whoever sacrificed an lamb under gods wish, and we know lambs exist, therefore god is real.

no it doesnt. it means an author working for the religion at the time used a lamb as an example of how to sarifice yourself and others if neccessary for god wishes.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;385877]rubyraks I understand your point. I really do but the things I talk about being scientific evidence does not compare to the technological advancements you listed. They are different.[/QUOTE] Why are they so different? The pyramids have a scientific and astronomical precision to them that wasn't even understood until over 4000 years after they were built. So why can't this be attributed to god and used as proof of god's existence?

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^ | because only HE can prove god exists man, don't you get it?!

you need to do more research. much more.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I'm trying...

Re: Straight to the business at hand

ben, screw it, lets go to happy hour and get shit faced.

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I am just about done with the mental masturbation...not easy to do with an ungodly hangover ;)