Do you know why atheists are generally miserable?

[ding]

Hee haw. Obviously you have never understood the knowledge that ancient man passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years in the accounts of Genesis. Specifically:

1. God created existence

DU UH NO.

The universe, the solar system, and this planet were already in existence for billions of years, ("The world was without shape or form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep") when God said "let there be light" and created heaven and earth, a world above, my world, and the world below, your world, by giving the law as a light to the nations.

The story has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the "big bang" beginning of the material universe.

No. Ancient man was describing the creation of existence in Genesis. And they pretty much nailed it to. We know from science that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation.

I will tell you something. Try to hear.

You are a fucking idiot.

According to the story, unlike scientific facts, the world was already in existence before God said "let there be light ".

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Wrong. According to their account God created everything.

 

[deannalw]

People of faith are, on average, happier, commit murder and suicide less, far more likely to get married, which is much healthier than remaining single. They also give more not only to churches but also to secular organizations, to friends and family, more blood to blood banks and more time volunteering and helping out.

Calling me names and proclaiming how supremely intelligent you are personally will avail you nothing. But I realize, it's all you have.

This is pure BS. The only miserable people I know are religious and poor.

What a load of crap.

 

[ding]

People of faith are, on average, happier, commit murder and suicide less, far more likely to get married, which is much healthier than remaining single. They also give more not only to churches but also to secular organizations, to friends and family, more blood to blood banks and more time volunteering and helping out.

Calling me names and proclaiming how supremely intelligent you are personally will avail you nothing. But I realize, it's all you have.

This is pure BS. The only miserable people I know are religious and poor.

What a load of crap.

Taxman is one of the smartest people
he knows

 

[hobelim]

Hee haw. Obviously you have never understood the knowledge that ancient man passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years in the accounts of Genesis. Specifically:

1. God created existence

DU UH NO.

The universe, the solar system, and this planet were already in existence for billions of years, ("The world was without shape or form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep") when God said "let there be light" and created heaven and earth, a world above, my world, and the world below, your world, by giving the law as a light to the nations.

The story has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the "big bang" beginning of the material universe.

No. Ancient man was describing the creation of existence in Genesis. And they pretty much nailed it to. We know from science that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation.

I will tell you something. Try to hear.

You are a fucking idiot.

According to the story, unlike scientific facts, the world was already in existence before God said "let there be light ".

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Wrong. According to their account God created everything.

Damn..


There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only light in life is a lie. (Hobelim 4:20)

 

[ding]

Hee haw. Obviously you have never understood the knowledge that ancient man passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years in the accounts of Genesis. Specifically:

1. God created existence

DU UH NO.

The universe, the solar system, and this planet were already in existence for billions of years, ("The world was without shape or form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep") when God said "let there be light" and created heaven and earth, a world above, my world, and the world below, your world, by giving the law as a light to the nations.

The story has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the "big bang" beginning of the material universe.

No. Ancient man was describing the creation of existence in Genesis. And they pretty much nailed it to. We know from science that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation.

I will tell you something. Try to hear.

You are a fucking idiot.

According to the story, unlike scientific facts, the world was already in existence before God said "let there be light ".

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Wrong. According to their account God created everything.

Damn..


There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only light in life is a lie. (Hobelim 4:20)

When one has logic on his side he argues reason. When one has truth on his side he argues facts. When one has neither he does what you just did.

 

[ding]

Hee haw. Obviously you have never understood the knowledge that ancient man passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years in the accounts of Genesis. Specifically:

1. God created existence

DU UH NO.

The universe, the solar system, and this planet were already in existence for billions of years, ("The world was without shape or form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep") when God said "let there be light" and created heaven and earth, a world above, my world, and the world below, your world, by giving the law as a light to the nations.

The story has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the "big bang" beginning of the material universe.

No. Ancient man was describing the creation of existence in Genesis. And they pretty much nailed it to. We know from science that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation.

I will tell you something. Try to hear.

You are a fucking idiot.

According to the story, unlike scientific facts, the world was already in existence before God said "let there be light ".

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Wrong. According to their account God created everything.

Damn..


There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only light in life is a lie. (Hobelim 4:20)

The argument of reason:

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

Hee haw. Obviously you have never understood the knowledge that ancient man passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years in the accounts of Genesis. Specifically:

1. God created existence

DU UH NO.

The universe, the solar system, and this planet were already in existence for billions of years, ("The world was without shape or form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep") when God said "let there be light" and created heaven and earth, a world above, my world, and the world below, your world, by giving the law as a light to the nations.

The story has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the "big bang" beginning of the material universe.

No. Ancient man was describing the creation of existence in Genesis. And they pretty much nailed it to. We know from science that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation.

I will tell you something. Try to hear.

You are a fucking idiot.

According to the story, unlike scientific facts, the world was already in existence before God said "let there be light ".

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Wrong. According to their account God created everything.

Damn..


There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only light in life is a lie. (Hobelim 4:20)

The argument of fact:

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Vandalshandle]

People of faith are, on average, happier, commit murder and suicide less, far more likely to get married, which is much healthier than remaining single. They also give more not only to churches but also to secular organizations, to friends and family, more blood to blood banks and more time volunteering and helping out.

Calling me names and proclaiming how supremely intelligent you are personally will avail you nothing. But I realize, it's all you have.

Golly! I didn't know that I was miserable! I guess I didn't get the memo from Pat Roberts....

 

[Andylusion]

People of faith are, on average, happier, commit murder and suicide less, far more likely to get married, which is much healthier than remaining single. They also give more not only to churches but also to secular organizations, to friends and family, more blood to blood banks and more time volunteering and helping out.

Calling me names and proclaiming how supremely intelligent you are personally will avail you nothing. But I realize, it's all you have.

This is pure BS. The only miserable people I know are religious and poor.

Well, I would not say "religious" because that I know many people that believe in the magic powers of cosmic light, and really goofy stuff.

I would say "non-christian".

Of the non-Christian people, I would say more than half are unhappy.
Of Christian people, in my experience, maybe a tenth are unhappy.

By a fairly large portion, Christian people are generally very happy and content with life. In fact, even some of the poorest Christians I've met, seem really happy.

 

[harmonica]

People of non-faith are, on average, happier, commit murder and suicide less, far more likely to get married, which is much healthier than remaining single. They also give more not only to charity but also to secular organizations, to friends and family, more blood to blood banks and more time volunteering and helping out.

Calling me names and proclaiming how supremely intelligent you are personally will avail you nothing. But I realize, it's all you have

 

[harmonica]

People of faith are, on average, happier, commit murder and suicide less, far more likely to get married, which is much healthier than rhowemaining single. They also give more not only to churches but also to secular organizations, to friends and family, more blood to blood banks and more time volunteering and helping out.

Calling me names and proclaiming how supremely intelligent you are personally will avail you nothing. But I realize, it's all you have.

how old are you? 17?

 

[hobelim]

DU UH NO.

The universe, the solar system, and this planet were already in existence for billions of years, ("The world was without shape or form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep") when God said "let there be light" and created heaven and earth, a world above, my world, and the world below, your world, by giving the law as a light to the nations.

The story has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the "big bang" beginning of the material universe.

No. Ancient man was describing the creation of existence in Genesis. And they pretty much nailed it to. We know from science that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation.

I will tell you something. Try to hear.

You are a fucking idiot.

According to the story, unlike scientific facts, the world was already in existence before God said "let there be light ".

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Wrong. According to their account God created everything.

Damn..


There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only light in life is a lie. (Hobelim 4:20)

The argument of fact:

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Horse hooey.



According to science light was in existence before the earth.

According to scripture the earth was in existence before light.

There is no other way to honestly resolve that contradiction except for the way that I have shown.

The argument of truth:

You have allowed Satan to enter your mind to perpetuate falsehood. You have no love for God or truth consequently you have no life in you.

So go to your priest and tell him to tell God just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove it get down on your knees and worship and eat something made by human hands that has no life and doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food as if it was the living God and source of eternal life.

In full view of heaven and earth you have deliberately become a completely false person.

fuck off with your bullshit.

 

[ding]

No. Ancient man was describing the creation of existence in Genesis. And they pretty much nailed it to. We know from science that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation.

I will tell you something. Try to hear.

You are a fucking idiot.

According to the story, unlike scientific facts, the world was already in existence before God said "let there be light ".

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Wrong. According to their account God created everything.

Damn..


There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only light in life is a lie. (Hobelim 4:20)

The argument of fact:

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Horse hooey.



According to science light was in existence before the earth.

According to scripture the earth was in existence before light.

There is no other way to honestly resolve that contradiction except for the way that I have shown.

The argument of truth:

You have allowed Satan to enter your mind to perpetuate falsehood. You have no love for God or truth consequently you have no life in you.

So go to your priest and tell him to tell God just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove it get down on your knees and worship and eat something made by human hands that has no life and doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food as if it was the living God and source of eternal life.

In full view of heaven and earth you have deliberately become a completely false person.

fuck off with your bullshit.

Stop reading the account literally, Bond.

You think it is a scientific journal?

It is saying that God created existence. What man sees was created in steps and man is a product of that creation.

 

[ding]

So go to your priest and tell him to tell God just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove it get down on your knees and worship and eat something made by human hands that has no life and doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food as if it was the living God and source of eternal life.

That didn’t take long for your real purpose to reveal itself.

How many different accounts do you post under here, Breezewood?

 

[Tax Man]

So out of nowhere comes a person who creates, what!?! How do you get a being from nothing? Must be dog as who created the dog? Fairy tales much?.

 

[ding]

The universe, the solar system, and this planet were already in existence for billions of years, ("The world was without shape or form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep") when God said "let there be light" and created heaven and earth, a world above, my world, and the world below, your world, by giving the law as a light to the nations.

The story has absolutely nothing to do with the "big bang" theory about the beginning of the material universe.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer an expert in physics disagrees with you.

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“...At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

So out of nowhere comes a person who creates, what!?! How do you get a being from nothing? Must be dog as who created the dog? Fairy tales much?.

It’s called inflation theory, Einstein. It’s the leading cosmological model and it literally states that the universe was created from nothing.

 

[ding]

So out of nowhere comes a person who creates, what!?! How do you get a being from nothing? Must be dog as who created the dog? Fairy tales much?.

Ready to learn some science?

 

[ding]

You know... hobelim the moderators eventually figured out that mudda and Taz were one in the same.

how long before you think they will be able to catch you and BreezeWood ?

 

[Hollie]

Do you know why atheists are generally miserable?

They’re not.

Do you know why angry religious extremists spend so much time promoting hate and derision?