Straight to the business at hand

[palmer]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

cdj what do you think of scientology?
their story is just as preposterous....



if I had to join any religon I would join those cats.... at least their story is interesting and up to date.....

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I am taking the night of as well.

Not spent much time with the family because I have been here.

Anyway just a quick answer to the question about the scientific proof.
The things you speak of were done in "real time" as in at that moment the work was being done.

What I will be posting is things that were spoken of and the writer had no way of knowing what he was even talking about much less the theory behind it. Things taht would not be known to the world for hundreds, even thousands of years.

But not tonight.

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

after two straight nights of late night debaucherous drinking and concerts and another one coming up tomorrow, I'll be taking the evening off.

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

i dunno, im walking out of this place in 24 minutes and heading right for a tap.

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I'm trying...

[day_for_night]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

you need to do more research. much more.

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

Why are they so different? The pyramids have a scientific and astronomical precision to them that wasn't even understood until over 4000 years after they were built. So why can't this be attributed to god and used as proof of god's existence?

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

ok, but dont post something similar to this.

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

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

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

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

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

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

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

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

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

substantiate, now there is a good word.

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

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

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

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

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

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

Seriously cdj, I've been trying to participate in this discussion with you intelligently, but you continue to make the same logical errors time and time again and each time that people, myself included, have called you out on it, you've had yet another way of avoiding that fallacy.

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

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

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

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

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

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

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

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

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