We have been through this.
Something cant come from nothing in this physical universe. The NATURALIST which is effectively what you are cannot prove that something comes from absolutely nothing.
Gods realm is in the supernatural (4th dimension) What do we know about the properties of the universe. You are effectively trying to apply a physical property or premise.
Look, at the end of the day, these 500 odd posts all count for nothing, cause
WE CANNOT PROVE PHYSICALLY OR DISPROVE PHYSICALLY GODS existence.
FACT.
But u better hope u made the right decision. 
EVEN after Einstein researched he came to the conclusion that a God exists, even though he didnt believe it was a personal one.
Furthermore, Einstein in a formulae he developed INTENTIONALLY added a zero to it cause he couldnt face the fact that his research found a very strong sigb post to God. mathematicians later debunked his forumale and he admitted that he misleadingly added the zero to avoid God.
Rostos -
This is my 3rd request.
Are you going to source this or not? I am curious if this is indeed a fact. I would like to learn about it.
You posted it as a fact, and I dont think you would just make it up - but since I cant find this anywhere - I would like for you to at least state where it came from and where I can read more about it. Im sure you just didnt make it up.
This is my favorite conundrum about religion:
God gave us a brain to use for critical thinking.
Critical thinking leads us away from god.
God punishes us with eternal hellfire because we use the brain he gave us.
Religious people tell us we need faith. Faith is the key. But god gave me this brain that wants facts, not faith. And I am going to burn forever because of it?
Do you believe that we are the only living beings in any way shape or form in the entire universe?
Do you believe that we are the only living beings in any way shape or form in the entire universe?
Rostos -
This is my 3rd request.
Are you going to source this or not? I am curious if this is indeed a fact. I would like to learn about it.
You posted it as a fact, and I dont think you would just make it up - but since I cant find this anywhere - I would like for you to at least state where it came from and where I can read more about it. Im sure you just didnt make it up.
Rostos -
You are really going to just totally ignore this?
You have zero credibility. None. You post something as fact, and then totally ignore sourcing it or even explaining it in favor of pretending you never said it?
Jeesh. What a clown.
kit-kat
your view on science has the warning, beware of false science so called.... to which you box the narratives of rostos.
what rostos is trying to underline is that god is self existence.
in the question of god, your question where art thou creator rise from, is not scientific, but it is clear of your intention.
you seek to know where the 'cosmos' comes from, that is the word you require to ask such a question without hitting a wall.
then the answer raises the question for you, who created the cosmos. this is the question rostos has been responsive with, as by god in his sincere reply.
at this point, the discussion arrives at a point you can ask of rostos... who or what is god?
kit-kat, your thinking, and that attitude on the part should be encouraged, as to why i'm translating what rostos is saying. for both of you seek truth + common ground, that can only be found in a fluent + clear lanuage
rostos believes god is the deity of all things. you may call him first cause, you may call him logos, or you can refer to the situation as personified power. you can use any title you so desire. though, the point is, behind the appearence of the universe there remains a person who is the author of all created things, he is life inherant.
kit-kat, this is the point where you have passed on in your please explain arrival in the discussion in presenting the question of, who made god?
you are not being scientific in your lanuage to which you are obligated to be for the matter of the question... otherwise, rostos in essense is answering the question, but leaving you confused with out an understanding.
then rostos is trouble shooting the crossroads with asking you then to "think about it" without any direction. leaving you trying to ponder the sentence, "no one made god" and that something cant come from nothing hocus pocus talk.
rostos is stating nobody made god, that god is life inherent. for, there are two types of life in the universe. creature life- which is life transmitted. the life of diety- is life inherant thus establishing by existence per say a creator. that he was self existence, means there is no other term for an infinity that is personified, more expressive, than inherant being. god always was, for there could be no begining to deity.
at the point of arrival of the latter paragraph, kit-kat, you state in your own words that this formula isnt scientific, and that of an established house of no evidence. this is where both parties return to square one, due to rostos leaving you kit-kat to think beyond your z', which only creates the shaking of the head.
the duty of rostos to explain to you at the - you are here point, needed a more sobering guide. in what seems a borderline spiritual world where you are trying to progress in a straight line, which goes automatically beyond the z' passing the threshold of clarity. you need to be taken back towards your a'.
this thought process represents the universe expanding + contracting. our thinking travels from a' to z', and then back to a' and the cycle repeated untill a fact is created.
to approach this now in reverse, rostos needed to not answer but ask, but instead just made a conclusion because thats the best he can do at this point. so, the z' point was god always was, or there could be no begining to deity. the reverse process will define what rostos believes in this.
so kit-kat, to have a clearer understanding, you needed to be asked for a scientific answer where the universe came from. based on your posts, your answer is that it evolved.
now to establish out of what... on your presentations, it is a nebulus mass of gas and matter.
and where does the latter come from? there is only one paralel on the melody principles of your presentation, that being that is was created.
so, in this running sheet of answers, who or by what was it created? your theory titles it nature.. then, who or what is nature.
when one suggests mother nature, and nature does this or nature acts like that, it is the sayings of the language of nothing. because nothing is said. just like when you concluded rostos's point that i cited equaled the house of no evidence on your behalf.
if he loses, so do you. you will understand why.
nature is a term like gravity or electricity. everybody will understand what your talking about, but you wont. everybody understands your meaning but you cant define it.
thats not scientific, and its not clear. rostos doesnt know nature. who is nature? if nature is the creator, then who is nature, rostos wants to know.
you are forced into answering nature being the first cause for everything, the primary begining.
so, who made nature + when did nature begin? your theory on nature was that nobody made nature, that nature always was. that is what your post says, though i have used my choice of words.
and rostos cant except that because its not scientific and you both arrive back at square one + it just feels like the other is playing a rhetorical broken record.
you see, both of you are talking about the same identical person, or in your case kit-kat, force. same thing under two different names.
and hence, the problem that rostos see's in your theory and fact gathering is that you are serving a idol of science.
why?
because god told rostos in romans 1:21-22 as taken from the kjv:
21. because that when they knew god, they glorified him not as god. neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
rostos identifies what he is seeing as god, who told rostos you are observing the same force, but glorify him not... you are both talking about the same person or force, no questions about it. some of the greatest minds hated the fact when they concluded their force was no different to saying creator or god.
rostos - may i have translated correctly what you are trying to detail in your space race to prove a god to the intelligent kit-kat.
remember, one should bet with their head and not over it. if god created the heavens + the earth, the stars, the suns + the moon. if he is the alpha e.c.t... you will find evidence of creation on earth.
this discussion is best served with larger objectives between that upon the earth using the realms of science before graduating to the heavens.
otherwise the end result is the same as getting a push on a line bet in the nfl. its like going to ibiza and dancing with your sister.
let me know when you return to earth.
Rostos -
You are really going to just totally ignore this?
You have zero credibility. None. You post something as fact, and then totally ignore sourcing it or even explaining it in favor of pretending you never said it?
Jeesh. What a clown.
i could have saved you time van and told you that about this dude along time ago..................
sims_key
dominating talk about earthly matters has been directed about morals concerning a holy book, then challenging each other in the realms of the universe. to prove god and what you think of him are not interchangable.
the atheist is better served looking for a creator, then identifying his name. the christian would be better proving the creator beyond reasonable doubt, + then briefing as to why they know him by name.
all the splender on earth which one can disect in great detail and prove if their really is an invisible man. here one can look for gods signature. if indeed that signature is the god of rostos, then his business card is the holy bible. but first one must find evidence.
but why is it the human mind always seek to evade an issue that does not coincide with its individual prejudice, that feed on theory but not fact. anyone want to talk about the circle of life in the animal kingdom. of course not, because the possibility of a creator lives and dies with if noah got two of every kind onto an ark. not the science of biology + its findings.
design means a harmonious assembling of various parts into an orderly form towards a common goal. going by this, one would have no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design. this is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people + cargo. in realisation of this goal, various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in a factory.
can a bird and the mechanics of its flight be a design as well? on evaluation we did in the example of the car. the goal, in this case, is to fly. for this purpose, hollow, light-weight bones + the strong breast muscles that move these bones are utilised together with feathers capable of suspension in the air. wings are formed aerodynamically, and the metabolism is in tune with the bird's need for high levels of energy.
does that not say let us now enter the realms of science like biology to disect it + find evidence of a creator, and what do the finding conclude with a fact towards evolution or a creator.
though, since all wants to talk morals as the order of the day + the invisible realm, let it be. strange how one wants to discredit a creator they cant see, but are not willing to see if they are really seeing him through his work, but instead get dizzy trying to explain a non-visible like morals.
was there any doubt that this topic was going to arrive at complaining god wont pick-up the invisible telephone to tell him of ones fallings. why would god want to pick up to someone who only made contact when the the chips were down.
so, lets talk invisible things with the creatures. when ever someone doesnt have an answer for the mysteries in the world of biology, they fall back on the word i-n-s-t-i-n-c-t.
when one doesnt know what there talking about they use "instinct", which is one of those words like nature or morals. sounds like an answer but is not.
so what is instinct. it like saying what is gravity. nobody knows, your not supposed to ask, you just have to accept those things as being answers when there not.
instinct is a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse or capacity.
the conduct of a tiny spider common in the north pacific coast makes her nest in any bivalve of that of a clam to one of a gigantic abolone.
this spider has a remarkable technique of construction in the arrangement of the establishment of her home. she swings this shell lying disregarded in the vicinity by two strong silk end cables to the over hanging bow of some low shrub. this shell must be lifted from twelve to twenty inches above the ground in order that she may rear her brood in saftey.
the raising of this material is an engineering problem that can only be comprehended when we graduate it to the ratio of humanity.
the spider half an ounce, the shell may weigh half a pound. if you had to raise thirty-six hundred tons of concrete + steel eighteen hundred feet in the air how would you do it.
if you had the scientific knowlege + engineering technique sufficient to the job could you do it.
by true enginerering enginuity and application to a science principle this spider can lift the equivalant to our human calculations by herself. somewhere this spider learned the laws of physics that a drying object will shrink + contract.
she locates her shell in relation to her bow + swings down leaving behind her a thread as wet as she can make it. this thread she ties to one edge of the shell and waits for it to dry. the contraction of this drying thread raises this shell a tiny bit from the ground.
the spider than swings down to put another thread at the opposite end of the shell + waits for that to dry. laboring thus day + night without rest she spins numeral threads, raising one edge after another only about a few microns at a time untill she swings that shell into the position she has selected.
then she spins her threads into a strong united cable untill two slender ropes support her future home.
she then lines the shell with silk. spins a water proof covering over the hole + cuts a tiny door on the outside. ending the patience + enginuity she enters into this place to rest + rear her brood in peace + saftey.
Q. how did a tiny spider know that a drying thread would shrink + retract + raise that shell?
A. through instinct, which is inherent memory says the genius.
so, the spider inhereted the instinct from her mother, who inherented from the grandmother back to the first spider learning from the preceeding generation. this means that the first spider sat down + figured it out. there can be no other conclusion. because if instinct is inhereted memory. the first of every species + every order possess this remarkable wisdom in the world of biology studied these laws + mastered these laws by reason.
every one had an opinion on morals, that ran away from science. instinct now has a problem, because of this first spider. dont worry about god not picking up the invisible telephone, because evolution just got their line disconnected in all the damage from something we cant see.
forget what the definition, instinct is imparted wisdom in the very dawn of creation. the creator imparted to every creature the knowlege essential to survive in its own environment. with that conclusion logic can find no fault. nor can science marshal one fact to rebuke it. we are talking about something we cant see, that of instict.
dogs learn many tricks, but the memory is never inherited by the puppies that are born from theses accomplished parents.
start disecting things you can see, not morals, value + instict and then you will get your evidence. not theory, but absolute fact upon observation. if you think the universe is beyond our reach, wait till you see the secrets of humans. you start to come of age that evolution is the illlusion of adults no different than the belief in a santa as an infant. evolution is a combination of you know no different, and that you want to believe it.
the blind man said i see, but he didnt see at all.
i'm proud of your loyalty + strength to your faith + the way you represent it 
I stated it in the title, and then again many times.
Proving that a search function at covers ever worked is harder than proving the existence of god.
Did we imagine it?
BTW - your buddy Jesus was certainly a socialist.
But this is not a political thread. You seem to be hung up on this, because since I posted this about a month ago, you have only addressed me with the word socialism in your post. Get over it. Go start a thread about it somewhere, and post in it. Im not interested in a political debate, I am bored, this thread is for entertainment, and it is about religion - you seem not to like that - so just ignore it.
kit-kat - the following will be my final post here; would like to respond to your post from extraterrestrials to christianity and a few things in between.
in cognition to your perception on the world, the universe, and all that exists. the single fundermental reason in my view that seperates rostos from that of yourself is; rostos is refined, by where you are raw in a divide achieved through reverse methods.
rostos in his method see's the universe through god. essentially, looking at the physical universe though the bible + see's all matter in its proper relationship to its spiritual varities.
the reverse method is taken by yourself to which you look at the bible through the universe, which creates a fog perception of its gospel. a method that doesnt apply the bible as a microscope to looking at the universe.
the shallow percentage on the existence for a creator as the appearence behind the universe in a measure to my confidence, in analogy, a ramus of botany where by we become seperate branches connected to the same trunk.
for natural science, is the interpretation of the physical universe by the observation of trained men/ women. a naturalist is simply a ordinary human being who's eyes are open who see what they looks at. most of us never see what we look at, or in essense, do not obserb what we see.
the scientist actually has been trained to see facts, to recognize them as such + corelate them in their relation with one another.
between scientist + schools of science, the only disagreement of fact concerning nature are concerning the interpretation of those facts. the distortion of these plain + varnished facts is the saddest efforts of the illogical method of atheism.
as the prelude to the atheist theory asks one to be blind + in the dark before entering into science, except things the way they are in its manufactured distortion + reject the exsistence of design + creator that the very facts declare. facts that declare it is utterly unable to concieve matter if there were no mind to feature that existence.
so, the starting position in the grid of myself is one that has aknowleged a higher power at sciences very begining. a starting lane that i consider to be pole position. then required essential findings in deeper study + observation in advanced science assessment, that i believe to declare a creator + an established law of design.
though, do i identify with the god of rostos as the supreme creator? now i will avoid my own question + instead state that the errors that christianity are challenged to explain, are made in the image of the very asking atheists own belief.
the church recieves greater criticism than the faith, and in particular to their connection with great wealth. this is church inc. + atheism is of no difference.
atheism is in essense not a theory of science, but structured like the private sector. for a business has a mission statement with goals + agenda. atheism in its mission statement to market its doctrine of evolution entered a premeditated mission to distort the facts.
an atheist is convinced that a christian is under the enchantment slave doctrine of persuassive spell. though, are not the share holders of atheism aware they themselves trade in a currency of no value. as the theory of evolution has no facts foundations.
an atheists weapons of contradiction are questions that have no oxygen, and there for no life. should we daylight why? and once doing so, ask the atheist a question... but, christians have all the answers, so their perfect god should speak through them right? and the atheist never declared they had the complete encyclopedia of answers to begin with... though, the atheist is still accountable to being asked to validate their question.
so we begin: the word of the god of rostos, has become a doctrine for sale under christianity incorporated. the bible business is a multi-national publishing financial boom. if you recieved a single dollar from every christian on the globe, that constitutes a substancial return. this is the reason why there are so many editions, be it king james, new international standard e.c.t.
before one can cast doubt on the god of rostos, you need to find fault in gods words. now, god condemed any individual that taketh away or added to his word. so only the scripture in its puriest form can be challenged, otherwise one is not challenging gods word, but that of man, where contradiction cant be passed on to god. one who challenges the bible must except this fact, because god does not recieve royalties on custom editions, and there is no evidence to suggest he inspired them.
the primary editing of the gospel has been to forge + merge the science knowlege of the day into its writings. science is the father to technology. to get to the father, you must go through the son. if technology is being upgraded, so is science being outdated. so when this latter occurs, the custom bible also becomes outdated, but at to whose fault, god or man.
the original order from god was to not take or add to his word. so is it not a contradiction on the asker if they are sourcing the evidence from an outdated bible. was its god's contradiction or that of mans. one needs to access if they have a qualifed question to ask, because god would not require man to defend his word, his word should be able to defend itself and stand to mans testing, right?
now we have established that the question needs to be presented from the authentic word of god. i will return serve with a question for any atheist to give explanation for on a christian contradiction many years ago.
life is in the blood, right?. so, any question between atheists + christians always need to have blood, thus having life. and the theads lead article was a post about paul the apostle, so let ask r the question about paul the apostles.
before we begin in the next post, one doesnt require to have read the bible...
kit-kat - atheists once stated that the continuity theory was an established fact in the arcade days of biology. this was break through knowlege that predicated on the sub position that all cell structure was the same. early investigators discovered that the cells of all living things contained a substance called protoplasm. thus, jumping to the conclusion that all protoplasm was the same + all cells were the same.
builing up the evolutionary hypothesis that by a continuity of life transmission through one form to another, the various species arrived through a process of evolution. that was the continuity theory. no one wants to touch it today, it was a scientific theory that atheists feed the christians about their faith having errors because a bible believing christians believed that there was a specific + scientific difference in basic structure between every to groups of living creatures.
christians were asked to prove it, but it was a matter of faith which is the substance of things hoped for on evidence of things not seen. the christians only had the writings of paul to prove it.
so it ended up at the that the atheists said if you cant prove your right, you cant prove the continuity theory wrong... sound familiar.
but if thoses atheist were alive today it would be different. according to science today, apostle paul shoud be credited with being a very accomplished phytologist.
labratories came up with antihuman precipitin. this has been largely used by the scientific criminal investigations departments.
if you had bone, flesh, skin or organic substance that was alive or had been alive, no matter how old that substance might be + you wanted to know what design of living creature it had become. the method would be simple.
there was a time when murders with a blood stained garment had the ability to avoid justice they had killed a rabbit or chicken or some other meat animal + the law couldnt prove the contrary. those days are gone forever.
if we had dried blood, the stain of blood, or live blood + put it into the test tube with an antihuman precipitin, and almost instant result would reveal if it was animal, or if it was human.
it cannot tell the difference between two varieties of animals, or two varieties of man, but will instantly conclude the once living matter under investigation was animal or human. if it is human there are other chemical devices now that can be applied to bone + tissue and they can even tell you what race the human being belonged to.
if the indication is it is animal there are analogical means of which the kind of animal may be classified.
in other words... if we (everyone) was asked to find the latest phytology finding of our generation we could do no better than turn to:
1st corinthians 15:39
all flesh is not the same flesh: but there is a different kind of flesh of men, an other flesh of beasts, another of fishes and another of birds.
we will get real deep, though, how could paul the apostle known this modern wisdom? evolutions claimed them all the same.
in "acts" its gives seven reasons to finding god. the third reason is the argument for typology, "and hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth".
there is no scientific argument against this statement of paul.
if an inquirer should bring into a labratory a doctor for this type of work + seven drops of blood + ask for the classification of the blood, the problem would be simple for someone who is trained in the field of science. the seven samples from the vains of an ape, horse, a goat or chicken and a man e.c.t. a quick procedure would show where each specimen of blood came from.
if the same investigator should bring in to the labratory seven drops of human blood + ask for a classification from these types of blood he would seek such information in vain. it is impossible to tell the difference between the blood of a chineese to an anglo-saxon, a german to an irishman. they are all just human blood.
the lastest pioneer of phytologist can not over throw what was written over two-thousand years ago. paul said all human blood was identical, when racism was at its highest point in history. how did paul a born roman come to the conclusion the fact that modern science has established by research when there was segregation from mixing blood lines with percieved lesser races.
this is one fact more than evolution has, so i just cant understand followers of darwins theory who himself said it was a failure. he proved his own theory wrong.
Rostos -
This is my 3rd request.
Are you going to source this or not? I am curious if this is indeed a fact. I would like to learn about it.
You posted it as a fact, and I dont think you would just make it up - but since I cant find this anywhere - I would like for you to at least state where it came from and where I can read more about it. Im sure you just didnt make it up.
I don't know if this is what he was reffering to, but I was curious and did some searching myself and found this...
kit-kat - as for e.t's visiting our solar system, i grade it doubtful. i've never witness chariots in the sky myself but my conclusion is unless they put us here, they dont know we are here. the nearest galaxy to the milky way is two million light years distant. this means that if there were e.t's there, it would take them longer than two million years to reach earth.
the reason i have for e.t's not detecting us is we have been sending radio waves for less than one hundred years. It will be another two million years before those signals reach our closest neighboring galaxy. the light that they now see represent the way the earth looked two million years ago. e.t's in other galaxies would have no way of knowing that advanced life forms existed in our galaxy.
too many visual tranparent idioms to think about. some people are not clear if we even landed on the moon. i'm a contender to wait for more prime real estate in the universe in a nailed shut box.
- hoodwink
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
