Feed on Posts or Comments 31 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 12 Aug 2012 12:01 am

Rabbi Mark Gelman of The God Squad tries to explain why God won’t heal amputees, demonstrates the insanity of religion instead

This week, in his widely syndicated newspaper column, Rabbi Mark Gelman of The God Squad attempted to explain why God won’t heal amputees. In his answer he displayed to every intelligent person the insanity that religion imposes on people’s thinking. Here is Gelman’s answer:

GOD SQUAD: Miracles happen, but don’t sit and wait for them

That title is misleading, because at the beginning of the article Gelman is forced by reality to state that miracles do NOT happen:

Together these statements explain that God wanted and therefore created a regular, rational, ordered universe. God wanted this so that we could use the brains God gave us to solve problems. If God was in the habit of capriciously and miraculously intervening in nature, then we’d have every reason to just give up seeking to understand anything.

So there it is. The reality we see before us is a “regular, rational, ordered universe” where there are no miracles. This is the only position that an intelligent person can take.

He then takes the intellectually honest next step and states:

The problem for religious folk like me/us is the existence of biblical miracles that seem to violate the laws of nature.

What are we to do with these? He states the obvious and only answer:

Our religious options are all challenging. The first is to take a naturalistic view of the biblical miracles. Theologian Martin Buber wrote, “Miracles are merely natural events viewed by extremely enthusiastic observers.” The problem with this approach is that it basically makes all the biblical miracles false, and this is highly problematic to those who believe every word of the Bible is true.

It does not matter if it is “problematic” – the reality is that “all the biblical miracles false”, meaning that the Bible is a big book of fairy tales, including the fairy tale of Jesus and his miracles. The entire Jesus story is a fairy tale. Every rational, intelligent person sees that.

He then takes it a step further:

The second approach to miracles is to swallow them whole and simply choose to believe that they are all true and happened exactly as described in the Bible. The problem with this view is that it just makes no sense to believe that an animal with no larynx can talk, that the laws of gravity did not apply at the Red Sea, or that the laws of celestial motion did not apply when Joshua stopped the sun at the battle of Jericho.

The choice between rational thought and religious belief does not work out well in the long run for religious belief. It fosters the false idea that only dumb people are religious.

Here he states reality in its clearest possible form, but mis-categorizes it. It is not a false belief. The fact is: “only dumb people are religious”. Only dumb people would believe that “the laws of gravity did not apply at the Red Sea”.

But then Gelman’s own logic collapses in his mind because he wants to believe in nonsense. He sides with the dumb people:

I believe that God has also done miracles for us in the world. The spontaneous remission of cancers, the sudden flashes of genius in science and art and philosophy, and the way people who’ve hardened their hearts suddenly find a soft spot where forgiveness and compassion can enter — all these miracles and more are, for me, evidence that God is with us and cares for us and can, unprovoked, act on our behalf.

So wait Rabbi Gelman, didn’t you say at the beginning of your article that God created “regular, rational, ordered universe” – free from miracles – in order to explain the fact that God does not heal amputees? And now you are saying that God does perform miracles? Rabbi Gelman, this makes you a irrational, illogical, delusional person.

Rabbi Gelman, the intelligent, rational people of the world ask you to reconsider. You are so close. The fact is that we live in a “regular, rational, ordered universe”. The fact is that there are no miracles. The fact is that “all the biblical miracles are false”. The reason for these truths is that your God is imaginary. The reason why God won’t heal amputees, and the reason why we see no miracles ever, is because there is no God. As soon as you understand and accept that, Rabbi Gelman, you will be healed from your delusion.

143 Responses to “Rabbi Mark Gelman of The God Squad tries to explain why God won’t heal amputees, demonstrates the insanity of religion instead”

  1. on 12 Aug 2012 at 1:53 pm 1.Anonymous said …

    When Christians understand why God won’t heal amputees, they turn into atheists.

  2. on 13 Aug 2012 at 6:41 am 2.MIchael Wimborne said …

    My wife Hellen has been diagnosed with Alzheimers about four years ago, I Pray every night for Good/Jesus to heal Hellen and give her back her dignity NAND short term memory as well her fantersies.

    In my Prayers I ask what can I do to help Hellen.

    I look forward to your comments and advise.

    Shalom. Michael Wimborne. Ps I am 80 years young and Hellen will be 80 next birthday.

    Mborne

  3. on 13 Aug 2012 at 4:03 pm 3.Scourge said …

    If you pray to Jesus, why the Shalom?

    Do the honorable thing: Take care of your spouse while there is a hint of your spouse’s person still recognizable, and you are capable of doing it. You are going through a horrible ordeal. There is likely nothing worse.

    There will come a day when the effort is too great for you, and your wife is no longer a hint of the person she was. Then you must do the very difficult thing. You must institutionalize her in the best place you can afford. This is not the best, but you must preserve your health so you can look out for her until she dies. If you wear yourself out and die before she does, who will look after her best interests?

    Good Luck.

  4. on 13 Aug 2012 at 11:54 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    The last but one paragraph in the reference article has some wonderful examples of cognitive dissonance:

    Some human events and human achievements are so transcendent in their beauty, truth and liberating power that I can’t believe they are just the products of unaided minds.So he literally decided “god did it” because that’s what he wants to believe.

    Sometimes we’re just gifted by miracles. We need to believe in miracles so we don’t arrogantly assume that we can understand everything.

    Again with the “need to believe” coupled with another argument from ignorance.

    We can’t depend upon miracles. We can’t wait for miracles and ignore the needs of the world, and we can’t harbor the cruel and invidious illusion that miracles only happen to those who believe exactly as we do.

    So, if “miracles” do happen, they happen to anyone, pretty much at random, just as you’d expect if there was no god?

    Also, note that his examples of godly intervention are not miracles (non-supernatural) but human achievement through hard work and dedication. It’s as if he’s spelling out that there’s no god but he just can’t understand the conclusion to his own argument.

  5. on 15 Aug 2012 at 12:46 am 5.Biff said …

    Thomas makes a HUGE mistake for the atheist’s worldview. Thomas says:

    “The fact is that we live in a “regular, rational, ordered universe”.”

    He admits we have order, laws and a rational creation. So why Thomas would the universe be so “ordered” if there is no God? Thomas if you take paintball gun and shoot 5000 rounds against a wall do you anticipate a Picasso will form from the chaos?

  6. on 15 Aug 2012 at 1:54 am 6.alex said …

    “So why Thomas would the universe be so “ordered” if there is no God?”

    Which god, idiot? Zeus, Ra, Allah? Wrong, none of the above. Your god answer is as bullshit as Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or Davey Jones.

    Even IF Thomas is wrong about everything, how does that validate your god as responsible for an ordered universe?

    Why do you even argue for your god? You still trying to grease the way to your imaginary heaven to make up for the little kids your molested? Or maybe, you can’t get over the fact that you’re a closet gay but your prayers ain’t helping?

  7. on 15 Aug 2012 at 2:00 am 7.Anonymous said …

    Biff, A, whoever you post as. Stop trying to dodge.

    The burden is on you. Either prove that your god exists or do us all favor and fuck off.

  8. on 15 Aug 2012 at 2:18 am 8.alex said …

    “The burden is on you. Either prove that your god exists or do us all favor and fuck off.”

    He can’t, I’m telling you. He’s got some kind of guilt he’s trying to shed. He watches porn like a lot of people, but to make up for it, he shits on this blog.

  9. on 15 Aug 2012 at 2:20 am 9.DPK said …

    5.Biff said …

    Thomas makes a HUGE mistake for the atheist’s worldview. Thomas says:

    “The fact is that we live in a “regular, rational, ordered universe”.”

    Biffer, you’re such a dimwit. First off, it was Rabbi Gelman who made the observation that we live in an ordered, rational universe, and one that clearly is NOT subject to the random interventions of a supernatural god. Second, it is in fact an observation, not a claim. It is undeniable that the universe we live in functions according to certain natural laws… the operable word is NATURAL laws.. not supernatural ones. You see? The universe we observe functions exactly the way we would expect it to IF there were in fact, no god making arbitrary decisions. That is why Rabbi Gelman presented it as a “problem” for believers:
    “If God was in the habit of capriciously and miraculously intervening in nature, then we’d have every reason to just give up seeking to understand anything.”
    Clearly, no god is interfering in the rational, ordered function of the universe… as theists regularly claim he does. This is clearly a problem for YOU, not for Thomas. He is only stating facts we know about the observable universe.
    YOUR problem is reconciling the observable facts with the claims you make about the nature of your god. Because, as Rabbi Gelman so astutely noted: “The choice between rational thought and religious belief does not work out well in the long run for religious belief.”

    Really Biff, do you give ANYTHING any actual thought before you start pounding away on your keyboard and embarrassing yourself yet again?

    BTW… we are still waiting for any evidence that your imaginary god-buddy exists. But, here’s a clue for you… the fact that the universe behaves as we would expect it would if there were no gods making arbitrary decisions and suspending, changing, or fucking with the natural laws of nature definitely does NOT support your case.
    Can’t even say “nice try” on that one, because it wasn’t. It was completely idiotic on your part.

    Wanna try again?

  10. on 15 Aug 2012 at 3:26 am 10.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.Biff biffed …

    “So why Thomas would the universe be so “ordered” if there is no God?”

    First of all, why can’t you and ASS correctly construct and punctuate a sentence?

    To answer your question, there’s order because it’s “natural.” It’s not “natural” for a Picasso painting to form from randomly fired paint-balls. There is no “natural” law or mechanism that allows for that to happen. A Picasso doesn’t from because there isn’t order.

    “Thomas if you take paintball gun and shoot 5000 rounds against a wall do you anticipate a Picasso will form from the chaos?”

    No, because by definition that’s not a Picasso. But if I hold a Picasso such that I see its reflection in a pond, is that because Picasso (or anyone else) caused it? Or is it because some god took the time to cause the light to reflect off the painting, onto the water, and back to my eyes in such a way that I can see it, but a person standing in a different place than me can’t see it? No, it’s because light rays behave in a “natural” way that allow it to happen. Given the same conditions, it will happen that way every time.

    Similarly, if I could fire a paint-ball gun of IDENTICAL paint-balls EXACTLY the same way every time, then those paint-balls would form the same pattern on the wall every time.

  11. on 15 Aug 2012 at 12:19 pm 11.Biff said …

    “There is no “natural” law or mechanism that allows for that to happen.”

    One of the dumbest answers I could have expected. Lou, what “natural’” law created life? What “natural” law created the laws? What “natural” law” created the order? What “natural” law created rational? Claiming “nature diddit” is not an explanation. What “natural” law created nature”? The gratuitous quotes are for your benefit.

    Why are you talking about ponds sport?

    Anyhow, I was hoping the Thomas would respond since he acknowledges this to be true in the thread by agreeing with the Rabbi.

  12. on 15 Aug 2012 at 12:33 pm 12.alex said …

    biff, you’re a moron. let’s just say all atheists are wrong about everything. you offer your foreskin obsessed, 6 day creationist god? i’m converted.

  13. on 15 Aug 2012 at 1:37 pm 13.Lou(DFW) said …

    11.Biff biffed …

    “One of the dumbest answers I could have expected.”

    What do you expect when it’s your analogy that’s the dumbest that we can expect? After all, it IS from you.

    “Lou, what “natural’” law created life? What “natural” law created the laws? What “natural” law” created the order? What “natural” law created rational? Claiming “nature diddit” is not an explanation. What “natural” law created nature”?

    First of all, notice how Biff never answers questions, but only simply refutes with more questions.

    I can play this game, too. What god created your god? And if nature diddit is not an explanation, then how is “god diddit” an explanation? Try to grow a pair and answer both questions.

    But, MY answer is that I personally don’t know how the universe and the laws of “nature” came to be. But there definitely are irrefutable, immutable laws of “nature” that explain how the universe works. They work EXACTLY the same way every time, and without fail. Because we don’t yet know everyone of them doesn’t mean that god did it or that they don’t exist. Why is there a universal speed limit? Because we don’t yet know, is it because god did it? Why do volcanoes erupt? Is that because god did it? Why does lightning strike? All because god did it, right?

    Natural laws don’t answer prayers or perform miracles at the behest of man. They don’t hide in the delusions of people like you.

    One more time, try to grow a pair and answer both questions. Unless you do, it demonstrates that you are intellectually dishonest and a coward.

  14. on 15 Aug 2012 at 1:53 pm 14.Lou(DFW) said …

    11.Biff biffed …

    “Why are you talking about ponds sport?”

    What’s a “ponds sport?” Rowing?

    “Anyhow, I was hoping the Thomas would respond…”

    Why would you expect “the Thomas” to answer you, “the biffer?” You rarely, if ever, answer anyone.

  15. on 15 Aug 2012 at 2:28 pm 15.DPK said …

    Lou beat me too it.
    Biff, once again you fall back to the last resort of theists… the argument from ignorance. The problem is, it has been torn to shreds and shown to be nothing but desperate, deluded babble every single time you have tried to offer it as “proof” of your imaginary god.
    “You can’t explain exactly how ______, therefore the ONLY possible explanation is a magical god did it.”
    Not only that, but only YOUR specific sex obsessed, pork hating, mass murdering, rising from the dead, eat my body and drink my blood god, to boot could possibly be the answer. The only reason you refuse to accept the absurdity of your position is because you think it threatens your chance at living forever in a magical kingdom in the clouds. Please.

    But, this typical diversion is really only to call attention away from the fact that you have failed to answer the original question. The one that YOU called out as an error. If there is a god that interferes in the natural laws that govern the universe by performing miracles, answering prayers, and willfully suspends or changes the laws of nature… why do we not see any evidence of it? Why does the universe, in fact, behave exactly the way we would expect if there were no magic gods calling the shots… ever?

    Until you answer THIS question, your attempts at diversion are pitiful and meaningless.

  16. on 15 Aug 2012 at 5:32 pm 16.Lou(DFW) said …

    11.Biff biffed …

    “Anyhow, I was hoping the Thomas would respond…”

    Also, why do you hope “the Thomas would respond” when apparently you never hope that The 40 Year A-Hole never responds?

  17. on 15 Aug 2012 at 5:39 pm 17.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.Lou(DFW) said …

    Correction: …you never hope that The 40 Year A-Hole ever responds?

  18. on 15 Aug 2012 at 7:20 pm 18.Severin said …

    5 Biff
    “So why Thomas would the universe be so “ordered” if there is no God?”

    Universe is not “ordered” because Thomas “would the universe be so”
    Universe is “ordered” because it follows natural laws which are inherent to matter/energy.
    We discussed it many times before: each single smallest particle or wave of energy “knows” how to behave (“what to do”) under specific conditions.
    Water will evaporate if you let it in a cup on your table. It will boil if you put it on fire. It will disintegrate to H2 and o2 if you heat it further to certain temperature. H2 and O2 will disintegrate to simpler particles under proper conditions. They will produce ions under other conditions, etc, etc.

    Nothing mysterious!

    If matter/energy were created, who/what created the creator?

  19. on 16 Aug 2012 at 1:36 am 19.Biff said …

    “Biff, once again you fall back to the last resort of theists… the argument from ignorance.”

    Lou/DPK

    Problem #1. You don’t know the difference between a question and an argument.

    What I did was ask a question of Thomas. He made a statement; I asked for clarification. Since Thomas will not answer, feel free to give it a shot DPK/Lou/?.

  20. on 16 Aug 2012 at 1:47 am 20.Biff said …

    Severin,

    Thomas says the universe is ordered and rationale. You say it is not. Which is it?

  21. on 16 Aug 2012 at 2:32 am 21.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.Biff biffed …

    “Problem #1.”

    Apparently you didn’t make it to problem #2.

    “You don’t know the difference between a question and an argument.”

    Problem #1 – You don’t know the difference between a question and an answer. You still did not grow a pair.

    Problem #2 – You have a reading comprehension problem. I DID reply to your question.

    Problem #3 – DPK replied to your rhetorical questions “what “natural’” law created life? What “natural” law created the blah, blah, blah… In case you’re still confused, a rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.

    “What I did was ask a question of Thomas. He made a statement; I asked for clarification. Since Thomas will not answer, feel free to give it a shot DPK/Lou/?.”

    It was answered. It’s your reading comprehension problem kicking in again.

  22. on 16 Aug 2012 at 2:40 am 22.Anonymous said …

    “Biff” this is not a cosmology forum. Here’s DPK’s question that you seem deathly afraid of. This is the question YOU need to answer. Or fuck off if you are not prepared to answer.

    But, this typical diversion is really only to call attention away from the fact that you have failed to answer the original question. The one that YOU called out as an error. If there is a god that interferes in the natural laws that govern the universe by performing miracles, answering prayers, and willfully suspends or changes the laws of nature… why do we not see any evidence of it? Why does the universe, in fact, behave exactly the way we would expect if there were no magic gods calling the shots… ever?

  23. on 16 Aug 2012 at 2:40 am 23.Lou(DFW) said …

    20.Biff biffed …

    “Severin,

    Thomas says the universe is ordered and rationale. You say it is not. Which is it?”

    Problem #6 – He obviously made a typo or mistranslated what he meant to write in his first sentence because he then very clearly wrote “Universe is “ordered” because it follows natural laws which are inherent to matter/energy.”

    It’s your reading comprehension problem kicking in again.

  24. on 16 Aug 2012 at 3:43 am 24.DPK said …

    20.Biff said …
    “Severin,
    Thomas says the universe is ordered and rationale. You say it is not. Which is it?”

    Biff, you make an ass of yourself when you can’t even ATTEMPT to make a point without flat out lying about what someone said. What Severin said:

    “Universe is not “ordered” because Thomas “would the universe be so”
    Universe is “ordered” because it follows natural laws which are inherent to matter/energy.”

    And from that, you imply he said the universe is not ordered and rational. You are plainly either a complete idiot, or a complete liar. Either way, that makes your position clearly ridiculous. The only question remains is whether you are stupid, or devious…. I think perhaps both.

  25. on 16 Aug 2012 at 5:10 am 25.Severin said …

    20 Biff
    “Thomas says the universe is ordered and rationale. You say it is not. Which is it?””

    My English is poor, but you obviously can’t read.

    I wrote (#18):
    “Universe is not “ordered” because Thomas “would the universe be so”
    Universe IS “ordered” because it follows natural laws which are inherent to matter/energy.”

    Are you a liar trying to cheat, or just can’t read?

  26. on 16 Aug 2012 at 5:26 am 26.Severin said …

    Biff
    In other words: universe IS perfectly “ordered” (?), but NOT because someone (Thomas?) likes or wants it to “be so”, but because it just is.
    Neither is it (ordered) because god(s) made it “ordered”.
    It is its nature.

    My friend’s granddaughter (11), who is learning English for 4 years now, understood my sentence perfectly. She had some remarks to my English, not to the meaning of what I wanted to say.

    Are you a moron?

    Ancient Egyptians did not know much about universe, but they also thought universe was “ordered”. They attributed the “order” to THEIR gods.
    Muslims say it is because Allah made the universe “ordered”.
    You attribute it to YOUR god.

    Which is it?

  27. on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:07 am 27.Biff said …

    Lou/DPK

    You still have failed to answer the question. I will state the issue again for your convenience.

    “Lou, what “natural’” law created life? What “natural” law created the laws? What “natural” law” created the order? What “natural” law created rational? Claiming “nature diddit” is not an explanation. What “natural” law created nature”? The gratuitous quotes are for your benefit.:

    Now earlier, Nature diddit” and
    I don’t know” were given as possible answers. Would this be you answer for the question I have restated?

    Lou,

    Also be a sport; stop answering and making excuse for Thomas.

  28. on 16 Aug 2012 at 1:00 pm 28.Lou(DFW) said …

    27.Biff biffed …

    “Lou

    You still have failed to answer the question.”

    Damn, you are dense. I DID answer your question – TWICE! I will answer for the third and last time – I don’t know.

    I’m not going to ask you to answer again, you are obviously a cowardly fraud. So, because you are unable to “grow a pair” and answer any questions, maybe this will help you:

    http://tinyurl.com/73e6s9f

  29. on 16 Aug 2012 at 2:24 pm 29.DPK said …

    Don’t you love the way he simply ignores anything anyone writes, pretends we said something we didn’t refuses to answer any questions himself, but continues to demand answers to his silliness in the hopes that someone will say something that will fall into some little word game he read about, probably on Ray Comfort’s website.
    Next he’ll be claiming a banana is proof of intelligent design! haha.

    Biff, I guess they didn’t teach you this in Christian College. There are 4 fundamental forces of physics. Look it up.
    Where did they come from? I don’t know… neither do you. It would seem they are intrinsic to the nature of matter and energy. Everything else in the universe formed because of these fundamental properties. That they simply “are” IS an acceptable explanation because we can demonstrate that they exist and prove them scientifically.

    Now, if your claim is going to be that there must have been a magical god to create them, you must demonstrate: 1. That this is actually so, 2. Where this god originated, and then where that creator originated… on and on into infinity…( hint, as soon as you say any one of them had no origin you have violated your own premise, and you loose… we’ll check back with you in 30 years and see how your progress is going) and 3. That the magical god that created the universe is in fact the Abrahamic god you claim as you personal friend.

    Then you must explain why the universe we observe appears to function exactly as we would expect if there were no gods periodically intervening and altering the laws, despite the fact that thousands claim he does exactly that, every day.

  30. on 16 Aug 2012 at 2:29 pm 30.DPK said …

    28.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Damn, you are dense. I DID answer your question – TWICE! I will answer for the third and last time – I don’t know.”

    He is not dense… like most christian apologists, he is simply intrinsically intellectually dishonest and devious. He doesn’t realize he would be much better served in convincing people of his belief system if he just kept his mouth shut. Every time he opens it, he convinces more and more people of exactly how idiotic you must be to accept his silly claims about magical sky-gods.

  31. on 16 Aug 2012 at 2:38 pm 31.Severin said …

    Biff,

    I suggest you to leave the Bible and to read “The Hidden Reality” from Brian Greene.
    I have read it translated to my native language, and you are supposed to be able to read in English.

    Would you?

    Maybe you will stop asking stupid question and never answering ones posed to you.

  32. on 16 Aug 2012 at 4:10 pm 32.DPK said …

    He will not read Brian Greene or any other scientist because he thinks he knows more than they do, and they are simply tools of Satan sent here (curiously, by god himself) to tempt us into disbelief so that god may then cast us into the fire-pit of eternal damnation. That Yahweh, such a kidder!!

  33. on 16 Aug 2012 at 6:38 pm 33.Anonymous said …

    He wont read the books for another, more blatant, reason. Biff and his alternate persona have no actual interest in your answers. He doesn’t care what you answer, but as long as you continue to be baited into answering the exact same diversionary question, time after time, he’s going to continue asking you the exact same diversionary questions.

    All he wants is to tie you up in meandering discussion. That way, any salient point that is made that pertains to the subject of this blog is buried either under a mountain of “how do you explain…” questions or in responses to childish insults. Sadly, these ask-and-answered-a-thousand-times questions are helping him achieve his goal.

  34. on 16 Aug 2012 at 7:54 pm 34.Biff said …

    “I will answer for the third and last time – I don’t know.”

    OK, You don’t know. SO do you think possible answers could be:

    “Nature Diddit”
    “Aliens”
    “Creator”

    Severin,

    I have read Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku. Glad you read it Hidden Reality. Would the book be Science or Science Fiction Sev? So you believe in multiveres but no God? Would this be true Sev?

    If they exist, who created the multiverses Sev?

  35. on 16 Aug 2012 at 8:37 pm 35.DPK said …

    “I will answer for the third and last time – I don’t know.”

    OK, You don’t know. SO do you think possible answers could be:

    “Nature Diddit”
    “Aliens”
    “Creator”

    I assume this is directed at Lou, but I would like to answer as well, if that’s ok.
    I think there are many POSSIBLE answers. The only one we can state is true is “I don’t know.” But, I can also state with absolutely certainty… “Neither do you.” Now, Biffer… if you are claiming that you DO know you will need to man up and answer the questions posed to you. Otherwise your claim of possessing knowledge that you in fact do not have, is grandstanding at best, and deviously intellectually dishonest at worst.

    Again: To convince anyone there is any substance to your claim that “god did it,” you must demonstrate: 1. That this is actually so. 2. Where this god originated, and then where that creator originated… on and on into infinity…( hint, as soon as you say any one of them had no origin you have violated your own premise, and you loose… we’ll check back with you in 30 years and see how your progress is going). 3. That the magical god that created the universe is in fact the Abrahamic god you claim as your personal friend.

    Then you must explain why the universe we observe appears to function exactly as we would expect if there were no gods periodically intervening and altering the laws, despite the fact that thousands claim he does exactly that, every day.

    We are still waiting Biffer. No one really cares what books you’ve read, we care about you providing evidence or substance for your claims.

  36. on 16 Aug 2012 at 9:14 pm 36.alex said …

    new guinea tribesman: what causes tides.
    biff: god!

    new guinea tribesman: what causes lightning?
    biff: god causes it!

    new guinea tribesman: why is the earth flat?
    biff: god flattened it!

    new guinea tribesman: how does eclipse happen?
    biff: god does it!

    modern man: why is the universe expanding?
    biff: god did it!

    modern man: what happened before the big bang?
    biff: god did it!

    modern man: what happened to my other sock?
    biff: god did it!

    fucking moron.

  37. on 16 Aug 2012 at 9:36 pm 37.Biff said …

    “I think there are many POSSIBLE answers.”

    Actually “I don’t know” is not a truth it is only a state of the mind. There is a truth on what created life.

    But let us explore. Attempting to make claims for me is superfluous. Let us examine what you think may have happened. It is fascinating No? Severin thinks “The Hidden Reality” is about origins. Do you assume there is a hidden reality DPK/Lou?Alex? If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?

  38. on 16 Aug 2012 at 9:44 pm 38.alex said …

    biff, you’re a troll.

    you say god is the creator? prove it. enough bs.

  39. on 16 Aug 2012 at 9:44 pm 39.Lou(DFW) said …

    34.Biff biffed …

    “OK, You don’t know. SO do you think possible answers could be:”

    The only relevant answer is:

    “Creator” – no.

  40. on 16 Aug 2012 at 9:46 pm 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    37.Biff biffed …

    “If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?”

    It doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant to purpose of this blog.

  41. on 16 Aug 2012 at 9:54 pm 41.alex said …

    tried to debate a dying man once. he wouldn’t give me all his money even after i tried Luke 12:33. i guaranteed him his heavenly destiny with the virgins and all, but no dice.

    there is no point to this post. just like debating idiot theists.

  42. on 16 Aug 2012 at 10:54 pm 42.DPK said …

    37.Biff said …
    Actually “I don’t know” is not a truth it is only a state of the mind.

    No, actually “I don’t know, and neither do you” IS the truth. It’s not a “state of mind”, it is a fact. Until you prove otherwise, that makes you a liar.

    But let us explore. Attempting to make claims for me is superfluous. Let us examine what you think may have happened.
    There is no point in “examining what I think may have happened”. The only salient point would be presenting evidence of what may have happened. If you want to explore the idea that a magical god established electromagnatism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and gravity, then by all means present your evidence that indicates that such a being exists, that he is capable of such a feat, and that he in fact, did so. On the other hand, if you want to explore the idea that Yahew breathed life into a handful of dirt and created a human in a magical garden with a talking snake… ok, present your evidence. Otherwise we can postulate that the universe was farted into existence by a giant invisible turtle with every bit as much validity as any idea you care to propose.
    Evidence, Biffy… it’s what you lack.

    “It is fascinating No? Severin thinks “The Hidden Reality” is about origins. Do you assume there is a hidden reality DPK/Lou?Alex? If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?”

    Completely and totally irrelevant. No one cares about what you find fascinating. This is what we care about:

    Again: To convince anyone there is any substance to your claim that “god did it,” you must demonstrate: 1. That this is actually so. 2. Where this god originated, and then where that creator originated… on and on into infinity…( hint, as soon as you say any one of them had no origin you have violated your own premise, and you loose… we’ll check back with you in 30 years and see how your progress is going). 3. That the magical god that created the universe is in fact the Abrahamic god you claim as your personal friend.

    Then you must explain why the universe we observe appears to function exactly as we would expect if there were no gods periodically intervening and altering the laws, despite the fact that thousands claim he does exactly that, every day.

    This seems to be a major problem for you Biff. Why is that?

  43. on 16 Aug 2012 at 10:59 pm 43.DPK said …

    Curious that those here that claim to have answers to the big questions of the universe and who claim to posses “truth” have a great deal of trouble truthfully answering even the simplest of questions about said “truths”.

    Why is that?

  44. on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:36 pm 44.DPK said …

    Note too readers, that every question that has been asked of the atheists here has been answered; directly, completely, and honestly. But note that Biff has been asked simple, direct questions… multiple times, and has failed to address ANY of them.
    If you are “on the fence” of making a decision as to which “side” has something to “hide”, that is something worth considering carefully.
    How about it Biff? You aren’t doing a very good job representing theism to the masses. Is this because you are a complete fraud? Why don’t you just prove us wrong and dazzle everyone with the brilliant answers that your all powerful god-buddy should have provided you. If, of course, he actually existed.

    What’s that we hear from Biffer??? More diversions, or simply silence?
    Biff will now disappear and a new sock puppet will emerge. Hmmm… I predict perhaps the Astrophysicists… with more dodges and red herrings. Curious how an Astrophysicist has remained silent on a discussion regarding the basic physics of the universe. You’d think as an accredited scientist and capital “A” Astrophysicist (as opposed to the garden variety lower-case astrophysicists) he would have something incitement to add to the discussion.
    Hmmm… guess not.

  45. on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:53 pm 45.Biff said …

    Lou/DPK

    Don’t be scared. Severin thinks “The Hidden Reality” is about origins. Do you assume there is a hidden reality DPK/Lou? If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?

    Considering our origins possibilities; do you find Aliens, Nature or s Creator are equally valid options? If “The Hidden Reality” is true, who/what created the universe. Maybe you guys don’t even consider the origins of the universe?

    Why are you afraid to engage in conversation? This is why atheists have such a bad reputation.

    Again, attempting to make claims for me is superfluous.

  46. on 17 Aug 2012 at 12:02 am 46.alex said …

    every atheist is wong, end of that shit.

    now your proof?

  47. on 17 Aug 2012 at 1:39 am 47.40 Year Atheist said …

    Theists, it is asserted, have the burden of proof. As I have demonstrated before, burden of proof is a debating term referring to the party making an assertion at the start of a debate. That person makes the case for his point. Then the opposing side has the burden of rebuttal, being required to refute the case being presented using the same standards for acceptance and rejection as are used for the original case; then the rebuttor makes a counter case, the validity of which is, again, subject to the same standards for acceptance and rejection.

    What the Atheists at sandwalk demand (I read only half of the comments) is a theodicy that can pass scientific evidentiary standards, or if not a theodicy, then actual material evidence of God. While Moran made the challenge in terms of “proof”, there is no logical proof that would ever pass the Atheist ability to charge it with fallacy. This is because, minimally, the premises will be declared non-valid due to lack of actual evidence, meaning material evidence.

    Also ironically rejected are theodicies which are based on scientific hypotheses, because the science can never be finalized (which is a characteristic of science). Yet it is scientific evidence, material in nature and experimental under the rules of empiricism which the band of Atheists resident at sandwalk demand of evidence for God.

    Arguments of an experiential nature – experiencing the deity or a spiritual experience – are rejected as “brain farts” in the words of one Atheist. All experiences are explainable in terms of brain states and / or brain chemical imbalances. Correlation is causation it is presumed. Another claims that experiences cannot be trusted because the cause of the experience cannot be correlated with the content of the experience(!)

    By labeling all intuitive knowledge as fallacious, chemically imbalanced, brain farts, the Atheists have Poisoned the Well, and have used that tactical fallacy to shut down any argumentation of personal experience as delusional.

    So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.

    Thus the demand itself is self-contradictory, self-refuting, and Atheists who have any logic in them at all know this. A non-coherent demand, being irrational, does not merit a response, of course, in spite of some theists attempting to respond (with arguments which cannot possibly satisfy the non-coherents making the non-coherent demand). Because the demand is non-coherent, no answer can suffice, so there is the spectacle of theists being chewed up in their attempts to match rational arguments to an irrational question, and Atheists sneering at their failures. Rationally speaking there is no rationality involved.

    But more to the point, Atheists must respond with a rebuttal that adheres to the same restrictions, same rules. And that is the Challenge to Atheists:
    Prove that there is no God. Place your proof here or wherever you wish to post it. But make certain that your rebuttal follows your own rules: The proof must be coherent and material; after all material is all there is under your Materialist rules.

    Now I will narrow the challenge by giving a basic view of what constitutes the term “God”, thereby hopefully eliminating the Atheist confusion of “many, many gods”:

    There are two levels available for Atheists to attempt to refute.

    First is the perceived necessity of an originating cause of the universe; for example, the cause of the original quantum field from which Hawking’s (fallacious) “spontaneous creation from nothing” theory derives. In terms of Cause and Effect, such a cause would be expected to be larger, more powerful, totally coherent, able to construct coherent structures (i.e. rational), necessary and sufficient, able to implement causation at a distance (per quantum mechanics). Note that a story such as that of “infinite universes” does not defeat the need for an original cause, it merely moves the cause back a step by using imaginary, unfalsifiable stories of unobserved objects or processes; the logical need for an originating cause persists.

    Second is the theist notion of a personal relationship with the deity described in the First level. The occurrence of the relationship is internal to the individual person; is not a scheduled event; is not empirically, experimentally replicable; and most importantly it is not falsifiable using Popper’s criterion for separation of non-empirical from empirical entities. Such an event cannot be experienced by anyone other than the targeted individual, but it can be related in muted terms that are insufficient to describe the event(s) with accuracy and completeness due to their non-material, independent nature.

    These two levels are necessary and sufficient to justify theism. Refuting these levels would refute the existence of a deity. However, the only refutation allowed to the materialist (Atheists are materialists) is a material refutation. Arguments without material support for their premises are incapable of containing meaning within the constraints of materialism; this is the Atheist requirement for argument as exemplified by the demand for material evidence to support an argument FOR a deity.

    So refuting using anything other than material evidence is meaningless in terms of supplying any rational deniability for the existence of a deity, under the conditions set out by Atheists themselves.

  48. on 17 Aug 2012 at 1:48 am 48.Anonymous said …

    Let me sum up the 40Y-asshole’s post.

    There is no evidence whatsoever for a deity. None at all. Zip, nada, not a sausage.

    Therefore because he can’t prove his delusion to be real to the satisfaction of anyone who doesn’t share it, he demands (here he underlines his ability to be a grade 1 asshole) that people disprove the existence of the deity that he cannot prove exists using methods and mechanisms that he has already defined his delusional best friend not to be subject to.

    That’s what all his gish-gallop boils down to. “I (Stan) can’t prove fuck all but you can’t disprove it because it’s all in my mind and it doesn’t exist in reality”. That’s what he said. Really.

  49. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:21 am 49.MrQ said …

    40YA

    non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine

    Yet our ignorant ancestors, without any knowledge of space-time, somehow managed to have two way communications with this entity. Somehow they were able to IMAGINE. (See IMAGINE, all capitalized.) How else could they define the world around them?

    Slowly, 40YA, you’re getting there.

  50. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:25 am 50.Lou(DFW) said …

    47.40 Year A-Hole said …

    “As I have demonstrated before, burden of proof is a debating term referring to the party making an assertion at the start of a debate.”

    So what? The acceptance of faith-based governmental and educational policies is not one of a simple debate. It has real impact on people and society.

    “So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.”

    Are you referring to your imaginary god or to Santa Claus? Either way, your description applies to both – if they existed.

    As a matter of fact, substitute “Santa Claus” for god in 40YA-H’s comment, and it will be obvious how fallacious his entire argument is. Can you imagine if we all had to jump through his hoops to conclude that Santa Claus doesn’t exist?

  51. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:28 am 51.MrQ said …

    Biff,

    Give me an idea of your beliefs, would you? I need to see if you’re view is at the Ken Ham / Phelps Baptists end of the spectrum or closer to Francis Collins.
    Look up http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/ken-ham/bio/ or biolos.org for more info. Don’t worry, they’re both theists, christian at that.

    Looking forward to your reply.

  52. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:52 am 52.DPK said …

    Considering our origins possibilities; do you find Aliens, Nature or s Creator are equally valid options? If “The Hidden Reality” is true, who/what created the universe. Maybe you guys don’t even consider the origins of the universe?

    Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. May I suggest you Ty the forum at talk origins.net or some other site for your questions.

    The only questions at hand that are relevant to the discussion here are the ones you are obtusly refusing to address. Why is that?

  53. on 17 Aug 2012 at 3:56 am 53.s0l0m0n said …

    The reason why God does not heal amputees is a blessing itself to the victim.If one is healed his limbs might go around doing mischiefs. This is a way one could have less sins.

  54. on 17 Aug 2012 at 4:09 am 54.s0l0m0n said …

    HI HO ALL ATHEISTS!!!!
    Theres God. Get back to God before (((HELL))) comes to you…

  55. on 17 Aug 2012 at 9:57 am 55.alex said …

    s010mon, santa loves you. keep on believing.

  56. on 17 Aug 2012 at 11:09 am 56.Anonymous said …

    Biff,

    This video would answer your questions if you would take the time to watch it:

    http://youtu.be/ZQGJnE8Y6n8

  57. on 17 Aug 2012 at 11:39 am 57.Lou(DFW) said …

    54.Anonymous said …

    “Biff,

    This video would answer your questions if you would take the time to watch it.”

    He knows about those explanations. He’s not here to learn anything. He’s only here to troll. Not only does he not have any answers to arguments against his belief in an imaginary god, he won’t answer any questions about origins.

  58. on 17 Aug 2012 at 12:37 pm 58.Curmudgeon said …

    “But more to the point, Atheists must respond with a rebuttal that adheres to the same restrictions, same rules. And that is the Challenge to Atheists:
    Prove that there is no God. Place your proof here or wherever you wish to post it.”

    40 they will attack you personally, they will dance around the challenge and they will claim they believe nothing. Some have already started as I predict this.

    The reason they postulate in this way is they do realize their hypocritical position on evidence and the demands they make. Thanks for pointing this out so clearly.

  59. on 17 Aug 2012 at 12:49 pm 59.Lou(DFW) said …

    56.Crum said …

    “blah, blah, blah”

    Right on cue, the 40YA-H sock-puppet fluffer parade begins.

    Immediately followed by the usual lies:

    “they will dance around the challenge”

    Except that “they” don’t dance around the challenge.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

    http://godisimaginary.com/

  60. on 17 Aug 2012 at 12:50 pm 60.Biff said …

    Anonymous/Lou/DFW

    I watched the video. They do not know where the universe came from. Thanks – how enlightening. They also utilize very poor logic as they equate the principle of aerodynamics with origins. Origins (First Principles) is a one time event while the principles of aerodynamics are laws we live with everyday. Do you guys actually review your links or do you just post them because they originate from WWGHA?

    Le me ask again. “The Hidden Reality” is about origins. Do you assume there is a hidden reality DPK/Lou? If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?

    Considering our origins possibilities; do you find Aliens, Nature or s Creator are equally valid options? If “The Hidden Reality” is true, who/what created the universe. Maybe you guys don’t even consider the origins of the universe?

    Its OK to think. If you like, take 40 YA’s challenge instead.

  61. on 17 Aug 2012 at 12:56 pm 61.alex said …

    dont know what happened to my other sock.

    god did it. fuckin moron.

  62. on 17 Aug 2012 at 1:24 pm 62.Lou(DFW) said …

    58.Biff biffed …

    “Anonymous/Lou/DFW”

    Biff, what part of “It doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant to purpose of this blog” don’t you understand?

    If you want to present your evidence that god is the origin of the universe, then do it. When you do, THEN we will discuss it when it’s part of the purpose of this blog. But we know you won’t because you have no such evidence.

  63. on 17 Aug 2012 at 1:26 pm 63.Lou(DFW) said …

    59.alex said …

    “dont know what happened to my other sock.

    god did it. fuckin moron.”

    And all this time I thought it was the clothes dryer taking my socks.

  64. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:20 pm 64.A said …

    40

    Your posts are well written and reasoned. However, you have forgotten one important condition. Consider your audience. You are speaking way above the heads of lou/DPK/alex/anonymouse. You make them feel inadequate and they wilt under the strain of attempting to measure up.

    They are at their best with name-calling. parroting and posting videos.

  65. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:22 pm 65.A said …

    LoLo, I post this at your level.

    LoLo, what part of “It doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant to purpose of this blog” don’t you understand?

    If you want to present your evidence for the origin of the universe, then do it. When you do, THEN we will discuss it when it’s part of the purpose of this blog. But we know you won’t because you have no such evidence.

  66. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:23 pm 66.Lou(DFW) said …

    The fluffer sock-puppet parade continues.

    62.ASStrophysicist said …

    “40

    Your posts are well written and reasoned.”

    This one is from a guy who can’t master sentence punctuation.

  67. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:33 pm 67.Scourge said …

    #48 and #49 I think you are mistaken about 40YA. Assholes tend to have some vitality. 40YA has none. I would say that she rates at most a twerp. Who is her intended audience? The absurd pomposity and vacuity is worth a few chuckles before the tediousness blunts even that.

  68. on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:46 pm 68.Lou(DFW) said …

    For the sock-puppets:

    Exactly what is it that you think you are accomplishing by all this phony congratulating of 40YA-H’s posts?

  69. on 17 Aug 2012 at 3:09 pm 69.Lou(DFW) said …

    62.ASStrophysicist said …

    “They are at their best with name-calling. parroting…”

    Then:

    63.ASStrophysicist said …

    “LoLo, I post this at your level.

    LoLo, what part of “It doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant to purpose of this blog” don’t you understand?

    If you want to present your evidence for the origin of the universe, then do it. When you do, THEN we will discuss it when it’s part of the purpose of this blog. But we know you won’t because you have no such evidence.”

    ASS, do you want a cracker?

  70. on 17 Aug 2012 at 3:30 pm 70.MrQ said …

    Cur/40YA/A

    Do you fellows claim that a god created the universe some 14 billion years ago? That a god created the planet Earth 4 billion years ago? And then the same god sparked life on Earth 3 billion years ago? Is that your idea?

  71. on 17 Aug 2012 at 7:22 pm 71.Biff said …

    “Exactly what is it that you think you are accomplishing by all this phony congratulating of 40YA-H’s posts?”

    Irrelevant to the purpose of the blog. Lou, enough with the distractions. Stay on topic.

    Let me ask again. “The Hidden Reality” is about origins and referenced by Severin. Do you assume there is a hidden reality DPK/Lou? If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?

    Considering our origins possibilities; do you find Aliens, Nature or s Creator are equally valid options? If “The Hidden Reality” is true, who/what created the universe.

    If you like, take 40 YA’s challenge instead.

  72. on 17 Aug 2012 at 7:56 pm 72.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.Biff biffed …

    “Do you assume there is a hidden reality DPK/Lou?”

    What’s a “hidden reality DPK/Lou?”

  73. on 17 Aug 2012 at 8:11 pm 73.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.Biff biffed …

    “Let me ask again.”

    Why do you need permission? You’re obviously unable to follow any rules or instructions.

  74. on 18 Aug 2012 at 12:26 am 74.MrQ said …

    Moderator (aka Thomas?)
    Will you stop with the “Your comment is awaiting moderation” with every friggin thing that I write. I am the only one, likely, that has to put up with this BS.

  75. on 18 Aug 2012 at 2:03 am 75.DPK said …

    Biff, forget about your unhealthy obsession with aliens and other things not relevant to the topic and answer the simple questions put to you that are relevant:

    This is all that matter with regards to creator gods.

    Again: To convince anyone there is any substance to your claim that “god did it,” you must demonstrate: 1. That this is actually so. 2. Where this god originated, and then where that creator originated… on and on into infinity…( hint, as soon as you say any one of them had no origin you have violated your own premise, and you loose… we’ll check back with you in 30 years and see how your progress is going). 3. That the magical god that created the universe is in fact the Abrahamic god you claim as your personal friend.
    Then you must explain why the universe we observe appears to function exactly as we would expect if there were no gods periodically intervening and altering the laws, despite the fact that thousands claim he does exactly that, every day.
    This seems to be a major problem for you Biff. Why is that?

  76. on 18 Aug 2012 at 9:02 am 76.Severin said …

    Biff
    “If they exist, who created the multiverses Sev?”

    You hit the wall with your stubborn head and ask yourself who created the creator.
    If your answer would be “no one, he/she/it (creator)’just existed’,”, then hit the wall again with your head and ask yourself WHY, THE HELL, would the same answer be wrong for ANYTHING ELSE BUT CREATOR? For example for matter/energy?!

    WHY a “creator” does not need a creator, and matter/energy does? WHY? WHY can’t we say for matter/energy that it “just exists”, as you claim for your god (and each other theist claims it for HIS/HER god)?
    Matter and energy are all around us, and no one ever saw a god creator.

    If you don’t explain it, you are in deep shit.

  77. on 18 Aug 2012 at 9:07 am 77.Severin said …

    Biff,
    “Do you assume there is a hidden reality DPK/Lou? If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?”

    “Hidden reality” were once:
    rainbow
    lightning
    diseases
    galaxies
    earth orbiting sun
    semiconductors
    …, …, …

    Then they were explained without need for gods!

  78. on 18 Aug 2012 at 9:13 am 78.Severin said …

    56 Curmudgeon
    “40 they will attack you personally, they will dance around the challenge and they will claim they believe nothing. Some have already started as I predict this.”

    They will not.
    It was YOUR claim that god exists, not ours.
    We did not claim anything but that without evidences, your claims are bullshits.
    So, please, support your claim with some evidences.
    Not that we claim there is no god, NO!
    We just do not believe YOUR claim without evidences.

    After you expose your evidences, I swear I will believe there is a god.

    YOUR turn!
    EVIDENCES!

  79. on 18 Aug 2012 at 11:31 am 79.Severin said …

    45 Biff
    “Severin thinks “The Hidden Reality” is about origins.”

    I don’t think anything of the sort!
    Greene and Kaku aren’t the writers of SF, but serious physicists who are trying to explain the universe.
    They are obviously doing it very well, plus, they are nicely closing it to us less educated in physics.

    “Origins” are very simple: matter/energy that exists and changes its form according to laws of nature that are “built in” it. is the “origin” of everything.
    We understand SO MUCH MORE about matter/energy than we knew only a few years ago. We don’t know all yet, but I do not doubt we will eventually.
    Only a year ago no one even dreamed that High’s boson will be proved to exist (and only some 70 years ago no one knew anything about galaxies and expanding universe).

    It MUST be something very wrong with your brain if you can accept something is eternal and “self standing” (non-created), (god), and something else can’t be (matter/energy). What is your problem?

    What are “origins”?
    A god whom you can’t explain or prove, who never appeared to anyone, which is in no equation of natural laws (and each idiot invents a god for himself), or matter/energy (+time + space) which is visible, touchable, understandable, and fit every equation?

    Something is VERY wrong with you!

  80. on 18 Aug 2012 at 11:51 am 80.Severin said …

    Biff,
    “If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?”

    Realistic possibilities to the formation of life are 100%.

    Namely: life EXISTS, living creatures are ALL made of clearly recognizable parts, not of microscopic angels, all parts connected with recognizable links, chemistry well explored, … no gods in formulas that explain their existence and their behavior.
    If I see a cell made of MATTER, which follows lows of physics and chemistry, and I see well known compounds in there, and I know those compounds exist independently, and I also know mechanisms they mutually react, I have all reasons to think they were “combined” natural way. There is NOTHING in there directing me to any gods.

    Oh, maybe you think life is something very special?

    “Life” is chemistry and chemistry ONLY. There are many “things” in our world that could be defined as “living”: some crystals, viruses, for example, but “not quite”. So, life itself is nothing easily definable, it depends on criteria.

    I can’t wait results from “Curiosity”!
    I am an old man, and if Curiosity fails, I will not live long enough for other possible results.

    I wish you to live as long as necessary to meet proofs for existence of extraterrestrial life!

    WHAT will you say THEN?!

  81. on 18 Aug 2012 at 12:07 pm 81.Severin said …

    Biff
    “So you believe in multiveres but no God? Would this be true Sev?”

    Some moron asked Galileo centuries ago: So you believe in earth orbiting the sun? Could this be true, gal?”
    It turned that was the truth.

    I can’t see what could be WRONG with possibility of existence of parallel universes.
    WHY NOT, is the right question!

    I do NOT say the parallel universes exist. I only ACCEPT the possibility if it is well supported with arguments.
    I will accept the FACT in case it will be PROVEN, and I will reject the possibility in case it will be proven false.
    As simple as that!

    As EVERYTHING in science!

  82. on 18 Aug 2012 at 12:27 pm 82.Biff said …

    “Why do you need permission? You’re obviously unable to follow any rules or instructions.”

    Lou, you really have a difficult time staying on the purpose of the blog. Would you be so insecure that you cannot answer a simple question.

    One more time. Lou, enough with the distractions, making up cute names and deflection. Stay on topic.

    Let me ask again. “The Hidden Reality” is about origins and referenced by Severin. Do you assume there is a hidden reality Lou? If so, what are the realistic possibilities to the formation of life?

    Considering our origins possibilities; do you find Aliens, Nature or s Creator are equally valid options? If “The Hidden Reality” is true, who/what created the universe.

    If you like, take 40 YA’s challenge instead. It is a great challenge to help you think.

  83. on 18 Aug 2012 at 12:31 pm 83.Severin said …

    Biff,
    “If “The Hidden Reality” is true, who/what created the universe.”

    If god exists, HE created universe.

    Now:
    1. Prove that god exists
    2. Tell us where god originates from
    or
    3. Shut the fuck up before you say something that will make you even more stupid than we think.

  84. on 18 Aug 2012 at 12:37 pm 84.Biff said …

    “I do NOT say the parallel universes exist. I only ACCEPT the possibility if it is well supported with arguments.”

    Then maybe you should keep your mouth shut about the question of others being stupid and provide a thoughtful answer instead of referencing some book irrelevant to the topic.

    The theory is NOT well supported with arguments. It is all theoretical physics and faith.

    I challenge you to provide 3 facts that support multiverses and not a Creator, Nature or Aliens.

    Now the question as asked earlier.

    What “natural” law created the laws? What “natural” law” created the order? What “natural” law created rational? Claiming “nature diddit” is not an explanation. What “natural” law created nature”? The gratuitous quotes are for your benefit.

  85. on 18 Aug 2012 at 12:41 pm 85.Biff said …

    “Some moron asked Galileo centuries ago: So you believe in earth orbiting the sun? Could this be true, gal?””

    Please provide me a reference for this quote. Also, I will need proof the one asking the question had a mental age between 8-12 yrs of age.

  86. on 18 Aug 2012 at 12:43 pm 86.Biff said …

    Is is a psychological disorder that all atheists seem to result to sexual references when they get frustrated with their inability to answer a question?

  87. on 18 Aug 2012 at 2:44 pm 87.Lou(DFW) said …

    82.Biff biffed …

    “Lou, you really have a difficult time staying on the purpose of the blog.”

    Show me the stated purpose of this blog. When you do, and if your question is within that purpose, then I will answer it.

    It’s that simple. But you won’t.

  88. on 18 Aug 2012 at 2:46 pm 88.Lou(DFW) said …

    86.Biff biffed said …

    “Is is a psychological disorder that all atheists seem to result to sexual references when they get frustrated with their inability to answer a question?”

    Please provide any evidence of that. Unless you do, that makes you a liar.

  89. on 18 Aug 2012 at 2:53 pm 89.Lou(DFW) said …

    74.MrQ said …

    “Will you stop with the “Your comment is awaiting moderation” with every friggin thing that I write. I am the only one, likely, that has to put up with this BS.”

    Do you have links in your comments? If there are several, then that automatically activates the moderation. Split them across comments.

  90. on 18 Aug 2012 at 5:30 pm 90.Severin said …

    84 Biff
    “The theory is NOT well supported with arguments. It is all theoretical physics and faith.
    I challenge you to provide 3 facts that support multiverses and not a Creator, Nature or Aliens.”

    I cant believe my eyes!
    Books written by top scientist of today are NOT well supported with arguments. They are all (only!) theoretical physics!
    What IS, for you, the “theory well supported with arguments”?
    Genesis?

    “I challenge you to provide 3 facts that support multiverses and not a Creator, Nature or Aliens.”
    Why me?
    I never made any claim about parallel universes.
    I only said “why not?”, and added that I will either accept or refuse the idea according to evidences available.
    I said exactly the same for god: at the very moment I see evidences, I will believe in god.
    Why not? I am not a deluded stubborn, but rational human being.
    Are you deliberately twisting my words (lying) again, or you again have difficulties with understanding what you read?

  91. on 18 Aug 2012 at 5:56 pm 91.Biff said …

    “I cant believe my eyes!
    Books written by top scientist of today are NOT well supported with arguments. They are all (only!) theoretical physics!”

    Believe them and then follow this link to Theoretical physics to learn about the field. You seem unaware.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

    ““I challenge you to provide 3 facts that support multiverses and not a Creator, Nature or Aliens.”
    Why me?”

    Because you reference the book as if it would answer the question I asked. Well? Can you provide even one fact that supports multiverses but not God, nature or Aliens? You read the book.

    Lou, I’m done with you. You are just a troll.

  92. on 18 Aug 2012 at 6:01 pm 92.Severin said …

    84 Biff
    “What “natural” law created the laws? What “natural” law” created the order? What “natural” law created rational? Claiming “nature diddit” is not an explanation.”

    It is too ‘fine” for you to say you are dishonest!

    I answered all your questions the best way I could, and you never ever answer ANY question.

    To be a little bit “masochistic” I will answer those questions the best way I can AGAIN:

    It is my opinion that no one and no thing “created” matter, energy and laws of nature that are built in them. They EXIST WITHOUT BEING CREATED. They just ARE.
    That is exactly what you and other theists say for god.
    Difference is: I can NOT prove matter/energy/laws were not created, but I CAN prove matter, energy and laws of nature exist and function perfectly and repeatably for billions of years.
    There is NO proofs about any god, anywhere.
    So, if an intelligent individual sees matter and energy functioning, and does not see god, it seems to me logical to accept that matter, energy and natural laws JUST EXISTS.

    I gave my best, now YOU:

    1. Give us evidences for existence your specific god, or any other god.
    2. If god created universe, who/what created god?
    3. If you say god needs no creator, why, the hell, matter/energy/laws need it?

    If you don’t answer those questions, you are a dishonest asshole.

    Do your best!

  93. on 18 Aug 2012 at 6:05 pm 93.Biff said …

    “Only a year ago no one even dreamed that High’s boson will be proved to exist”

    LOL, do you mean Higgs Boson Severin? It doesn’t belong to High, it is a man’s name. Actually we thought for decades the God particle (sorry, that is the name) existed, now an experiment has shown it to be true. Decades ago when the SuperCollider was going to be built in the states, we felt certain it would be discovered.

    What does that have to do with origins and possible solutions of God, nature or Aliens? For that matter, what does a possible multiverse have to do with this? I agree multiverse may exist. Now can you answer the question?

  94. on 18 Aug 2012 at 6:07 pm 94.Biff said …

    “It is my opinion that no one and no thing “created” matter, energy and laws of nature that are built in them.”

    How can matter energy and laws exist infinitely? What scientific law would support this position? Why would laws that are rational exit in the first place?

  95. on 18 Aug 2012 at 6:25 pm 95.Severin said …

    Biff,
    “Because you reference the book as if it would answer the question I asked.”

    You ARE a dishonest asshole.

    I referenced the book, but I did not write it.
    I thought you could learn something from a book, not specifically about multiverses, but generally about “beginning” of universe.
    It was YOU who “caught” to multiverse, for which I still say ONLY “why not?”.

    About theoretical physics: don’t you know that MOST of actual physics origins in mathematics?
    Don’t you know that many mathematically exposed theories had to wait for decades to be proven experimentally?
    Ingenious people like Einstein et all. used “translated” their great intuitions to the language of MATHEMATICS, to POSTULATE some theories, most of which were impossible to prove experimentally at the time they postulated them, but WERE proved experimentally later?

    You are not only a dishonest asshole, you are illiterate.

    Go on, instead of shitting here, prove existence of god!
    That is ALL we need.

    Now, WIKI back to your face:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

  96. on 18 Aug 2012 at 6:47 pm 96.Curmudgeon said …

    “You are not only a dishonest asshole, you are illiterate.”

    Severin is calling Biff illiterate? Pot let me introduce you to kettle. Learn to spell, punctuate and make a complete sentence before you drop illiterate on another poster.

    I have never seen anyone use “et all” or refer to Boson as High.

  97. on 18 Aug 2012 at 7:44 pm 97.alex said …

    If Science is proven to be bullshit and Jesus is the truth, I have to abandon Science. Amen?

    Most theists, with their indoctrination won’t even consider this: “If Jesus is proven bullshit, I have to abandon Christianity”. Given this, how the fuck are we suppose to debate these morons?

  98. on 18 Aug 2012 at 9:01 pm 98.MrQ said …

    Whoa there. Let’s establish some facts we can all agree on and then debate origins.

    Let’s step back for a minute.
    The theists spouting off here should (but never will) state the age of the universe and planet earth. Otherwise you could be dealing with folks who believe the planet Earth to be only 6000 years old (or less than 10,000 years old, think Ken Ham).
    After we get some common footing we will see how fast the xtian doctrine dissipates. It’ll last as long as a rice cracker in a raging river of reason.

  99. on 18 Aug 2012 at 9:30 pm 99.CastBound said …

    alex,

    Prove it.

  100. on 18 Aug 2012 at 9:42 pm 100.Lou(DFW) said …

    96.Crum said …

    “Severin is calling Biff illiterate? Pot let me introduce you to kettle. Learn to spell, punctuate and make a complete sentence before you drop illiterate on another poster.”

    First, English is not his primary language.

    Second, Crum, you obviously don’t understand the concept of context and how it defines a word. Any person with half a brain can understand which definition of illiterate to which Sev referred.

    You’re such a moron.

  101. on 19 Aug 2012 at 12:13 am 101.CastBound said …

    “After we get some common footing we will see how fast the xtian doctrine dissipates. It’ll last as long as a rice cracker in a raging river of reason.”

    Alright then, the age is whatever age you would like to make it. The rice cracker is now in play. Let us marvel as you as your dissipate it. This should be fascinating drama.

  102. on 19 Aug 2012 at 12:23 am 102.CastBound said …

    English is not my first language but I can put together a more coherent sentence than Severin. I also knew Higgs Boson was not High’s bosom.

    #excuses
    #ignorelou

  103. on 19 Aug 2012 at 12:46 am 103.Lou(DFW) said …

    102.CastBound said …

    “English is not my first language but I can put together a more coherent sentence than Severin. I also knew Higgs Boson was not High’s bosom. ”

    It was a typo, asshole.

  104. on 19 Aug 2012 at 2:47 am 104.Michael said …

    Hello Scourge.

    Thank you for your comments, you ask “why Shalom?”. Shalom is peace the most wonderful wish that I can give to all who read, peace of mind is wonderful and comes with love for Jesus.

    So I leave you with peace, may you always have peace.

    Michael.

  105. on 19 Aug 2012 at 2:58 am 105.alex said …

    castbound..

    i polled all 28 of my religious relatives and they wouldn’t even say: “If Jesus is proven bullshit, I have to abandon Christianity”.

    do you want me to prove “Most theists, with their indoctrination won’t even consider this…”?

    the difference between me and you idiot theists is that i can admit if i’m wrong. now, let’s take a poll. all you theists say: “If Jesus is proven bullshit, I have to abandon Christianity…”

    if you can’t utter the words, then you’re full of shit. there would be no possible way for me to prove it.

    don’t invoke the “the name of the lord in vain” bullshit. i know y’all work on the sabbath and eat pork.

  106. on 19 Aug 2012 at 5:26 am 106.MrQ said …

    Alright then, the age is whatever age you would like to make it.

    Castbound is the first idiot to avoid the question. Try growing a pair and then answering.
    Next….

  107. on 19 Aug 2012 at 6:23 am 107.Severin said …

    94 Biff,
    “How can matter energy and laws exist infinitely? What scientific law would support this position? Why would laws that are rational exit in the first place?”

    How can GOD exist infinitely? What laws support this position?
    Why would gods exist, in the first place?

    What are the natural laws that you call “rational”?
    What means “rational” on Saturn, or in the center of a neutron star, or in the center of earth?

    Laws of nature are not “rational”. They ARE perfectly arranged, they function with no exception, they are repeatable, but RATIONAL? Rational to whom?
    “Rational” is the attribute given to somebody who has ratio. Nature has NO ratio. Nature is not an entity with its own will. Inherent laws are its “will”, and it CAN NOT FUNCTION OTHER WAY BUT ACCORDING TO THOSE LAWS. Maybe we could call it a (very complex) “machine”. NATURE IS BOTH IRRATIONAL AND INDIFFERENT (NEUTRAL TO ANYTHING AND ANYONE).
    Yet, it functions perfectly and predictably.
    PEOPLE (also animals) more or less rationally use natural laws, on the place (earth, for now) where conditions (that are “rational” for THEM) enabled them to live. THEIR behavior (laws, actions) could be called “rational” or “irrational”, but ONLY from their OWN point of view.
    Nothing “rational” in the air for a fish! Nothing “rational” for any living being in the vacuum of space.
    No matter how the “machine” is complex, god who you claim “created” it, must be much more complex. That one HAD to have not only capability to do something against natural laws (to create nature and its laws), but also his own WILL.

    Now, if I have to chose between infinite existing of two “things”, an extremely complex “god” (who, if we accept the concept of creation, must NECESSARILY also be created!), and less complex matter/energy, AND if I, as rational being, see NO traces of gods anywhere, not a tiniest trace of proof of their existence, and matter and energy “bombard” me from all sides, I understand it, I can measure it, use it, … , what do you think I will chose? Imaginary (invisible, unproved, no traces of them) gods, or the “machine” that obviously surrounds me, and I have a great deal of understanding of it?

    For me: if anything can exist without being created, it is matter/energy.
    WHY is it possible that extremely complex gods exist eternally, without being created, and less complex matter/energy can not exist eternally, without being created?
    WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM in understanding this question?

    Why are you so dishonest in this debate?
    Why are you ONLY posing questions and never answer any?
    Why you never try to support YOUR claims with YOUR arguments?

  108. on 19 Aug 2012 at 6:51 am 108.Severin said …

    Curmudgeon,

    English is not my second language. It is something about the forth.
    I am 70 now, and I learned English myself, from books, when I was about 60. I never learned it systematically, and I had no much opportunities to USE it.

    I know about “et al.” from my high school (16), where I, (unlike you), learned Latin language, and for Higgs Boson from the very moment it was first mentioned.
    Unlike you, I have read “Alice in Wonderland”, “Tom Sowyer and Huckelberry Finn”, “Some Came Running”, “Young Lions”, “The Brothers Karamazov”, “The Death in Venice”, and thousands of other books.
    Unlike you, I have university degree in chemical technology, specialization ground oil.
    Unlike you, I am still very good in math, chemistry and physics.
    Unlike you, I have some rewards for WRITING (in my native language).

    I do not doubt that you perfectly understand all my posts, regardless my poor English.

    You morons and assholes, when have nothing cleverer to say, attack people’s language.

    Why don’t you expose some evidences for your god?

  109. on 19 Aug 2012 at 8:18 am 109.MrQ said …

    From Biffy:

    How can matter energy and laws exist infinitely? What scientific law would support this position?

    Ever hear of the first Law of Thermodynamics? Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

    Energy, in some form, has ALWAYS existed. Gods, on the other hand, have only existed since the time that people invented them.

    Looked in the Biffy, time to flush again.

  110. on 19 Aug 2012 at 1:15 pm 110.Lou(DFW) said …

    108.Severin said …

    Curmudgeon,

    “Unlike you, I have read “Alice in Wonderland”, “Tom Sowyer and Huckelberry Finn”, “Some Came Running”, “Young Lions”, “The Brothers Karamazov”, “The Death in Venice”, and thousands of other books.
    Unlike you, I have university degree in chemical technology, specialization ground oil.”

    Crum is too ignorant to understand how word meanings are determined by context. It’s part of the same problem he and his sock-puppets have. For example, they think that “delusional,” as we use it here, means “a mental illness.” They’re too illiterate to understand what you meant by “illiterate.”

  111. on 19 Aug 2012 at 6:30 pm 111.alex said …

    Let’s settle this shit.

    In keeping with the blog title, all I would need for a god proof is for a deity, any diety, to show up and regenerate an amputee’s limb in front of my eyes. Sure, the deity could be a magician or a space alien, but I don’t care. I’ll get down on my knees and acknowledge the Superior Being. I’m not speaking for all atheists, but that’s all I would need.

    What about you theists? How the fuck are atheists supposed to prove your non existent god? Give me a clue. I bet if Allah were to show up and pull a thunderbolt out of your ass, that still wouldn’t be proof. That’s because your indoctrinated ass won’t allow anything as proof.

    Theists, stop moving the goalposts. Tell everyone. What is your proof requirement?

    Same with atheists, what proof do you need for a god?

  112. on 19 Aug 2012 at 6:41 pm 112.alex said …

    come on theists. regenerating a limb is cake for a god. what? god doesn’t like to be tested?

    what about your proof requirement for your non existent god? thor flying down with his swirly hammer and smacking you around enough for you to renounce christ? what, can’t think of anything?

    just as advertised, you just want the moving the goalpost option, don’t you? fuckin brainwashed moron.

  113. on 19 Aug 2012 at 6:55 pm 113.CastBound said …

    Mr Q,

    I will go with whatever you say regarding the age of the earth. We agree.

    Now on to your destroying God”s existence. How will you begin?

    I hope I don’t need to post my life’s story on this blog.

  114. on 19 Aug 2012 at 7:00 pm 114.CastBound said …

    Mr Q

    I would like to see your proof that energy has always existed. Sounds interesting.

    #nonsense

  115. on 19 Aug 2012 at 8:58 pm 115.MrQ said …

    CB,

    Grab a set. Show everyone that you’re not a eunuch.

    You’ve already showed what I have predicted many times about an unwillingness to state an age of the universe and/or Earth. Hmmm, sounds awfully familiar. I had the same experience during a thread some months ago. Have you heard of Curmudgeon? He followed the same pattern as you are doing. We got nowhere.

    So, to get some common footing, I ask you again: What is the age of our planet Earth and the universe?

    Stop stalling, it’s a direct question for you. If all you’ll say is that you’ll go with whatever I say, then I say that your god, like all other gods, is a man made myth. Glad you agree.

  116. on 20 Aug 2012 at 1:05 am 116.CastBound said …

    Mr Q

    You seem like a phony and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is usually a duck. Two claims and you have yet to support any of them. Here is a link to what the age of the universe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

    Now, will you continue to quack or will you follow through destroying Christianity and then shows me the proof that energy has always existed?

    I doubt you come through Mr Q. I came here a few months ago and simply asked why I should embrace atheism. Never got a good answer. Atheist seem to ask many questions but never answer any.

  117. on 20 Aug 2012 at 1:25 am 117.A said …

    Castbound

    Q is constantly asking about the age of the universe. He might be attempting to have it retired due to old age or he is just psychotic. I can tell you with absolute certainty he will not answer either of your questions.

    Just tell him the age of the universe is not the purpose of the blog and sign it Looney Louie.

  118. on 20 Aug 2012 at 2:21 am 118.Lou(DFW) said …

    117.ASStrophysicist said …

    “I can tell you with absolute certainty he will not answer either of your questions.”

    Yes, that is one thing about which you are an expert – not answering questions.

    But you’re a complete idiot when it comes to understanding the discussion. Let’s review what Mr.Q wrote:

    “The theists spouting off here should (but never will) state the age of the universe and planet earth. Otherwise you could be dealing with folks who believe the planet Earth to be only 6000 years old (or less than 10,000 years old, think Ken Ham).”

    It should be obvious to any one with half a brain (ASS, you are off the hook) that this is relevant to a discussion about god because it’s claimed by theists that god created the universe within that time.

    And notice that ASS has taken to “parroting” my practice of modifying the theist posters name to reflect their particular stupidity after he wrote:

    62.ASStrophysicist said …

    “They are at their best with name-calling. parroting…”

    ASS, I know that you can never compete at a higher level with me, but I do consider it a compliment that your only alternative is to mimic me. But you really can’t do it well, so just stick to what you’re best at – avoiding answering questions by posting irrelevant, off-topic questions.

  119. on 20 Aug 2012 at 2:21 am 119.MrQ said …

    A,
    As an astrophysicist, you will have some idea of an answer. The blog has numerous discussions….a discussion of origins should include a timeframe.

    So Mr Astrophysicist, do you agree with Castbound and wikipedia that the age of the universe is around 14 billion years and our Earth is some 4.5 billion years old? Surely you too can reference Wikipedia for some of the information also.

    It seems we are getting somewhere now!!

    I always like finding the common ground.

  120. on 20 Aug 2012 at 12:10 pm 120.Severin said …

    116 CB
    To answer the question about age of universe, you offered a link in which we can see that universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

    In another link, for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

    we can see that solar system is approximately 4.6 b. years old.

    Now, just for the sake of further debate, I have 3 simple questions:

    Do you accept data from the link you offered?
    Did god create universe at the time claimed in the link you offered?
    Are you a Christian?

  121. on 20 Aug 2012 at 12:12 pm 121.Severin said …

    CB

    Feel free to ask me whatever question you want.
    Unlike all theists “debating” here, I will answer it.

  122. on 20 Aug 2012 at 3:32 pm 122.MrQ said …

    Castbound

    Mr Q

    You seem like a phony

    How did you figure me out? A, the astrophysicist, is the real deal….. as are you. Quack, quack.
    Cb:

    will you follow through destroying Christianity

    I’ll do no such thing without some help from you.
    Cb:

    shows me the proof that energy has always existed?

    Let’s both agree that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Or do you have a better model?
    Cb:

    simply asked why I should embrace atheism.

    Embrace whatever floats your boat. Speaking of boats, would you mind telling me if the biblical version of Noah’s Ark is literally true or is it an impossibility, considering it’s relatively small size and crew. IMHO, It is another biblical origins story since all eartbound life emanted from the boat once it docked and the passengers checked out. And this occurred, what was it, less than 10,000 years ago?

    As always, looking forward to your reply.

  123. on 23 Aug 2012 at 6:25 pm 123.MrQ said …

    Another dead thread.
    Castbound and A have left the sandbox.

    Anyone else find it strange that this theist collective (which includes the likes of Curmudgeon, Horatiio/Horatio aka The Hor, Xenon, Asher, etc, etc) always seem to have problems finishing a discussion? This isn’t the first time. They must be part of the same church/parish/prayer group; either that or it’s just a person (or a couple of people) with nothing better to do than make fake ids and post their fundamentalist beliefs in the hopes that people are stupid enough to bite. Could it be Phelps Baptist(s)? Hmmmm….

  124. on 03 Sep 2012 at 3:36 am 124.s0l0m0n said …

    To ((((HELL)))) with the socks….
    I’am delivering truth.
    Evolution is a ((((HOAX)))).
    No evolution could happen without the first design of things or creation.

  125. on 03 Sep 2012 at 8:25 am 125.s0l0m0n said …

    The story of Noah’s arc and everything regarding it is very true and can’t be refuted.

  126. on 03 Sep 2012 at 12:26 pm 126.MrQ said …

    Solomon,
    Get back to the pharmacy. Seems the meds have run out and you best renew the prescription.
    Once you regain normal human functions: Present the evidence.

  127. on 03 Sep 2012 at 7:26 pm 127.Anonymous said …

    Mr Q, to 123. Agreed, the sock puppets are one or at most two people who, every time they are cornered, switch to another one of their other identities. It’s telling that not only do they all not finish a conversation, but none of the above ever answer a question. They just go “tag, you’re it” to another sock and hide out until they feel safe to play again.

  128. on 09 Sep 2012 at 8:02 pm 128.Blessed and Only Potentate said …

    God won’t heal amputees because well – How else would we have Paralympics?

    God is ahead of you there.

    Way ahead of the curve.

  129. on 09 Sep 2012 at 8:07 pm 129.alex said …

    “God won’t heal amputees because well – How else would we have Paralympics?”

    you got me. god won’t cure muscular dystrophy because jerry’s telethon won’t make sense.

  130. on 07 Oct 2012 at 4:00 am 130.Anonymous said …

    I wish you and your dear wife Helen well. I would not suppose to post my thinking about prayer at this time in deference and respect for you and her.

    I would say this: There is no reason not to do everything you can to comfort her at this time.

    Take care

  131. on 28 Dec 2012 at 9:47 pm 131.Wouldubelieveit said …

    What part the gospel do you deny in front of man? salvation you don’t deny or do you, healing yes you deny, gifts of the spirit yes you deny. The same spirit that raised JESUS from the dead lives in you, you deny. What good are you? You denying Christian. Read the bible find out what is given to you. You were given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God why do you deny his word? WHY? W H Y? Do you let satan steal from you, you chase the lust of the world. And it kills the power of God in you. Are you that blind. I pray God open your eyes so you can see the gospel and open your ears so you will hear the gospel. Read Mark 4 Until you see were you are at in life as a believer of the gospel are not. The word that was sown in you is either growing or dying which are you? What parts of the word of God are you letting die in your life because of your unbelief?

  132. on 28 Dec 2012 at 10:39 pm 132.Wouldubelieveit said …

    I have a friend who does the math for the Mars rover project, take off and landing. Found out that the earth is about a day behind were it should be according to cosmos. The lose of the day add up to be about little over 4000 years ago. Wounder What caused that?

  133. on 28 Dec 2012 at 11:10 pm 133.blasphenr said …

    132.Wouldubelieveit said….

    Only Allah can save you. Read the Koran, and you will open your blindness, raelizing that the bible is flase and wiked. Another had to be created (you heathens call it the “new testment”) just to address the lies on the first. I pray you will open your blindenss soon.

  134. on 29 Dec 2012 at 12:51 am 134.alex said …

    “What caused that?”

    thor?

    i took a shit and it measured 12 inches. it equals exactly a foot. wtf? your goddidit?

  135. on 29 Dec 2012 at 1:11 am 135.alex said …

    “Only Allah can save you. Read the Koran, and you will open your blindness, raelizing that the bible is flase and wiked.”

    fucken messenger, with his other persona. mispellings and all. dude, go to your church.

  136. on 31 Dec 2012 at 5:39 pm 136.Wouldubelieveit said …

    So AllaH watches over his word to preform it, I see the fruit of his ways . A lot of angry and mean people who follow this allah god. I don’t thing this allah god is good for the world maybe a few men who are in charge of the followers but the followers are expendable. Jesus said I want all to have life and that more abundantly.

  137. on 31 Dec 2012 at 5:53 pm 137.Anonymous said …

    But, W, accepts that Allah is real and is a god? A curious stance for a Christian.

    Maybe I misread you? In that case, how do you know Allah is not real but your god is? Careful here. Your argument must not disprove your god, nor can it be one that could be used by a Muslim to prove Allah’s existence. In other words, you can’t use the bible because everyone’s holy book says their good is real.

  138. on 31 Dec 2012 at 5:55 pm 138.Anonymous said …

    Autocorect fail: c/good/god/

  139. on 31 Dec 2012 at 7:53 pm 139.DPK said …

    So, he likes Jesus god better than Allah god, so therefore Jesus god is real, and Allah god is imaginary… Get it?
    That’s the reality of how your mind works when you choose to just make shit up and claim it is real. From his perspective, why not? This is common to all religious faiths. They ALL claim their god is the only true one, and everyone else’s god is clearly imaginary.

  140. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:51 pm 140.Wouldubelieveit said …

    I never said your god was not real just said that his believer are expandable.

  141. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:52 pm 141.Wouldubelieveit said …

    Expendable.

  142. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:15 pm 142.Anonymous said …

    140.Wouldubelieveit said …

    “I never said your god was not real”

    Who’s god is it exactly that you are saying is also real, in addition to “your” god? Are you saying they are “all” real? Or are you referring to specific ones? Please provide us a list of which gods you think are real, and which ones are simply imaginary.

    [I] “just said that his believer[s] are expandable [expendable].

    Is this part of the christian doctrine now? Followers of other gods are “expendable”? Is this the teaching of your Jesus god, or are you, like messenger, just making shit up as you go along?

  143. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:18 pm 143.DPK said …

    Before ASSmuch outs me for sockpuppeting… 142A was me. DPK.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply