How ironic that your faith in “no God” is based on fiction, when it is atheists who claim it is Christians believing in fiction. By the Laws of Logic, either there is a God or there is not a God: one statement is true, one is false; both cannot be true. Light has an origin, a source from the beginning when God said, “Let there be light.” I shall go with God, as the evidence is overwhelming. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse — Romans 1:20 |
DP - You don't know what "evidence" means, apparently. And I suspect you are actually an atheist troll, because it's hard for me to accept someone actually utilizes the idiotic logic you present. FYI, you are not helping. |
I am neither a troll nor an atheist. The PP bases his atheism on an episode of Star Trek, a work of fiction. To me, that is irony because it is the atheists who claim we Christians believe in a fictional God and a book of fiction called the Bible. The evidence for God is abundant and clear. Spiders are not taught, neither learn on their own how to spin a web. Spiders do this in the dark without using their eyes. This says the knowledge to spin a web to catch its food must have been programmed into their tiny brains. Science (so-called) uses the fiction of Evolution to claim, without demonstrating with evidence, how this information entered the spider and is passed on to each generation. And oh the lucky chance this information happened at rhe same time the spider evolved silk glands, spinnerets, and oiled feet, and both male and female both happened to evolve within each other’s lifespan. Poppycock! The spider was created by God, both male and female at the same time with all the information and body parts needed to spin webs, catch and eat food, and reproduce. Who taught the bird with its tiny brain to sit on its eggs until they hatch? Who taught them to sing and build nests? Who taught the wasp to chew wood into paper to build its nest? Multiply these examples by millions or more and you see clearly that it is impossible for all this to have occurred by The Theory Of It Just-so Happened. Romans 1:20 stands true. |
Many claims. No evidence. No proof. Not even a foundation premise for a simple syllogism that shows that any of those creatures needed to be taught. Because your entire world view is based on a presupposition that a god exists. But that is not how logic works. So you fail, completely. |
Do you say "shall" a lot, or only when you're trying to impress people? |
DP. We know. Talking to the atheists on this board is like talking to an anti-vaxxer. It doesn’t matter what you say. No one is more confident than someone with a third grade education who watched a 15 minute video on YouTube. |
Pp doesn't base his atheism on a work of fiction. It's just that when watching a fictional TV show that it hit him that religion was not accurate. |
This is classic ad hominem. If you had a decent, substantive response, you would provide it. You do not, so you insult, malign, insult, sh*tpost.... anything to deflect and soothe the sting. You also fail completely, but at least the failure before you tried. You are worse. WAY worse. |
NP. Why do you care what someone else believes? Why should that person have to "prove" it? |
Most members of the National Academy of Science are atheists. |
That faith, similarly to love, cannot be rationalized. |
I don’t think anyone will be suffering for the eternity. They don’t know Jesus, but he knows (and loves) them. I do believe, however, that they are missing out big time in this life. Faith is like a third dimension, which gives my life so much depth and joy. |
Why do you care why I care? Don't you see the irony of your post? This is a discussion forum. We are discussing it. You're here voluntarily, as am I. Now, do you have evidence that what you believe is true? Or would you prefer to just insult again? |
"cannot be rationalized" = "irrational" I genuinely give you credit for admitting that. It kind of ends the discussion, if that is your objective. Although I strongly disagree that love "cannot be rationalized". A google search of "why do we love" turns up many, many rational explanations, from physiological, evolutionary, societal, and psychological. |
Okay? None of them are posting here. |