Scientific proof that God exists?

[cryptodevil]

What if he starts questioning your actions instead of your faith and shows you videos projected on a cloud of you touching yourself while sniffing a pair of dirty panties? Do you think he would believe that was ok or would he send you to hell?

I believe the reasoning is such that, as long as you weren't hurting anyone and had lived as a 'good' person, his religious laws about not masturbating etc. wouldn't apply because, as had been understood by him, he'd done a pretty shitty job in making it clear what 'He' wanted and who he was. 'He' isn't exactly unambiguous when it comes to 'Holy' texts'n'shit(tm).

[1714589505]

1714589505

[1714589505]

1714589505

[1714589505]

1714589505

[1714589505]

1714589505

[1714589505]

1714589505

[Rmcdermott927]

Here is one of the most profound, intelligent, and logical responses to pascals wager that I have ever heard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs

Where in that saccharine, 'omg, atheists, what if you die and the Xtian god is there!'

I could only get through the first few minutes, if there is anything of substance in that video, please cite at which time point it is said.

"One of the characteristics that has always been attributed to the christian god is omni-benevolence.   If I die, and much to my dismay I am standing in front of god, what would happen?  He would know that I did not disbelieve because I was being rebellious or evil, but because there were simply too many holes in the story.  He would know my morality, and that I am a good person.  He would know my intentions.    I highly doubt that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent god would punish me for all eternity knowing the truth."

Paraphrased of course.

What if he starts questioning your actions instead of your faith and shows you videos projected on a cloud of you touching yourself while sniffing a pair of dirty panties? Do you think he would believe that was ok or would he send you to hell?

If an "all loving god" wants to send me to hell for playing with myself, ok.   I would be kind of embarassed if he projected it on a cloud though.

[QuestionAuthority]

What if he starts questioning your actions instead of your faith and shows you videos projected on a cloud of you touching yourself while sniffing a pair of dirty panties? Do you think he would believe that was ok or would he send you to hell?

I believe the reasoning is such that, as long as you weren't hurting anyone and had lived as a 'good' person, his religious laws about not masturbating etc. wouldn't apply because, as had been understood by him, he'd done a pretty shitty job in making it clear what 'He' wanted and who he was. 'He' isn't exactly unambiguous when it comes to 'Holy' texts'n'shit(tm).

Interesting. So you think all of the things they teach you in church about what not to do isn't what God wants but instead its man controlling man?

Do you think Josh Dugger was wrong to touch his sisters naughty bits if the sisters didn't stop him? Was the Puritan father wrong to turn his son into the police for doing it? Does God not care about that shit?

[QuestionAuthority]

Here is one of the most profound, intelligent, and logical responses to pascals wager that I have ever heard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs

Where in that saccharine, 'omg, atheists, what if you die and the Xtian god is there!'

I could only get through the first few minutes, if there is anything of substance in that video, please cite at which time point it is said.

"One of the characteristics that has always been attributed to the christian god is omni-benevolence.   If I die, and much to my dismay I am standing in front of god, what would happen?  He would know that I did not disbelieve because I was being rebellious or evil, but because there were simply too many holes in the story.  He would know my morality, and that I am a good person.  He would know my intentions.    I highly doubt that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent god would punish me for all eternity knowing the truth."

Paraphrased of course.

What if he starts questioning your actions instead of your faith and shows you videos projected on a cloud of you touching yourself while sniffing a pair of dirty panties? Do you think he would believe that was ok or would he send you to hell?

If an "all loving god" wants to send me to hell for playing with myself, ok.   I would be kind of embarassed if he projected it on a cloud though.

I don't think I'd care if he projected it. It's not like anyone in heaven would turn around and watch a dirty porn of me rubbing one out. If he sent me to hell everytime I rubbed one out I would have to go to hell at least 100 times just for last year. lol

[cryptodevil]

Interesting. So you think all of the things they teach you in church about what not to do isn't what God wants but instead its man controlling man?

Firstly, they don't 'teach' anything in church, they simply indoctrinate into their dogmatic belief system. You don't need to be told that god disapproves of you molesting your infant sisters to know that you have no right to do such a thing to them.

Do you think Josh Dugger was wrong to touch his sisters naughty bits if the sisters didn't stop him? Was the Puritan father wrong to turn his son into the police for doing it? Does God not care about that shit?

Firstly, there were a few instances where Josh Duggar sexually assaulted those girls, sometimes they were asleep, sometimes they were not, every single time, however, they *were* sufficiently brainwashed into believing the patriarchal power he held over them that they simply complained to their dad, who claims they had a 'family meeting' on the first instance of it being reported to him and, on the second a few months later, they took him to 'Church Elders' and eventually a cop who was a good friend of Jim Duggar. A cop, coincidentally, who is currently serving 56 years for possessing extreme child abuse imagery.

So, irrespective of what any 'god' might care about, something we have no basis to assert, *we* the decent human-beings who do not need our morality defined by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders, recognise that the psychologically toxic environment within that family and within that 'Quiverfull' religious sect, leads to raising dysfunctional children with neuropsychiatric disorders.

That is what we care about, taking steps to stand up against the continued normalisation of a parent or organisation's religious 'right' to damage children to the degree they cannot help but harm others.

[QuestionAuthority]

Interesting. So you think all of the things they teach you in church about what not to do isn't what God wants but instead its man controlling man?

Firstly, they don't 'teach' anything in church, they simply indoctrinate into their dogmatic belief system. You don't need to be told that god disapproves of you molesting your infant sisters to know that you have no right to do such a thing to them.

Do you think Josh Dugger was wrong to touch his sisters naughty bits if the sisters didn't stop him? Was the Puritan father wrong to turn his son into the police for doing it? Does God not care about that shit?

Firstly, there were a few instances where Josh Duggar sexually assaulted those girls, sometimes they were asleep, sometimes they were not, every single time, however, they *were* sufficiently brainwashed into believing the patriarchal power he held over them that they simply complained to their dad, who claims they had a 'family meeting' on the first instance of it being reported to him and, on the second a few months later, they took him to 'Church Elders' and eventually a cop who was a good friend of Jim Duggar. A cop, coincidentally, who is currently serving 56 years for possessing extreme child abuse imagery.

So, irrespective of what any 'god' might care about, something we have no basis to assert, *we* the decent human-beings who do not need our morality defined by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders, recognise that the psychologically toxic environment within that family and within that 'Quiverfull' religious sect, leads to raising dysfunctional children with neuropsychiatric disorders.

That is what we care about, taking steps to stand up against the continued normalisation of a parent or organisation's religious 'right' to damage children to the degree they cannot help but harm others.

I agree with everything you said.

[BADecker]

Here is one of the most profound, intelligent, and logical responses to pascals wager that I have ever heard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs

Where in that saccharine, 'omg, atheists, what if you die and the Xtian god is there!'

I could only get through the first few minutes, if there is anything of substance in that video, please cite at which time point it is said.

"One of the characteristics that has always been attributed to the christian god is omni-benevolence.   If I die, and much to my dismay I am standing in front of god, what would happen?  He would know that I did not disbelieve because I was being rebellious or evil, but because there were simply too many holes in the story.  He would know my morality, and that I am a good person.  He would know my intentions.    I highly doubt that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent god would punish me for all eternity knowing the truth."

Paraphrased of course.

Okay. Let's plug a big hole here.

After Jesus arose from the dead, He appeared to His disciples over a period of 40 days before He ascended into Heaven. One of the first times that Jesus appeared to them, the disciple whose name was Thomas was not with the rest of the disciples - John 20:24,25:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

Notice the hole. Thomas didn't see Jesus, so he didn't believe. His buddies who had been with him for about 3 years told him. But he wouldn't believe them, even though they had been buddies for such a long time, and Thomas had seen many miracles that Jesus had done. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

The hole gets plugged - John 20:26-28:

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

The blessing for all who believe without seeing the details, is a blessing that you can claim as your own - John 20:29:

Then Jesus told him [Thomas], “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Pick up the blessing for yourself. The blinder the believing faith, the greater that faith is.

John continues to the end of chapter 20:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

[BADecker]

Firstly, they don't 'teach' anything in church, they simply indoctrinate into their dogmatic belief system. You don't need to be told that god disapproves of you molesting your infant sisters to know that you have no right to do such a thing to them.

This is reasonably true in almost every case. Most people have the law naturally built into them.

The thing that nobody would know about is the forgiveness offered by Jesus sacrifice on the cross, His death, and His resurrection from the dead.

John 3:16... words of Jesus:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Salvation is the most important teaching. They would not know it if the church didn't teach it. And if some people happen to become indoctrinated rather than simply taught, all the better. Eternal life is something that they will receive. This is of paramount importance. Eternal death is no fun.

[BADecker]

If an "all loving god" wants to send me to hell for playing with myself, ok.   I would be kind of embarassed if he projected it on a cloud though.

Do you value your life? If playing with yourself is fun, you must place some value on your life, right?

God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. However, because He controls everything, He will be the One Who sends to Hell those who are going there. But He doesn't do it the way that you think. Here's how He does it.

God gives every person the freedom to select salvation or not... one way or another. Then God does what the person asks for when the person makes his own selection.

Secure salvation for yourself. Believe in the forgiveness that God offers through Jesus. Learn about it by reading the New Testament in the Bible first... then the Old Testament. Doing this will give God the tools to work salvation in you. Don't worry about the other people.

Everyone who reads this post, get the Bible into yourself, in faith, so that God can secure your salvation for you, by working faith in your heart through the words you read.

[QuestionAuthority]

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

And

Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

[mayflor2]

If an "all loving god" wants to send me to hell for playing with myself, ok.   I would be kind of embarassed if he projected it on a cloud though.

Do you value your life? If playing with yourself is fun, you must place some value on your life, right?

God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. However, because He controls everything, He will be the One Who sends to Hell those who are going there. But He doesn't do it the way that you think. Here's how He does it.

God gives every person the freedom to select salvation or not... one way or another. Then God does what the person asks for when the person makes his own selection.

Secure salvation for yourself. Believe in the forgiveness that God offers through Jesus. Learn about it by reading the New Testament in the Bible first... then the Old Testament. Doing this will give God the tools to work salvation in you. Don't worry about the other people.

Everyone who reads this post, get the Bible into yourself, in faith, so that God can secure your salvation for you, by working faith in your heart through the words you read.

.
If he loved us so much, why would he put us in spiritual peril to begin with?  And how do you know how god works?  There is no god or jeebus.   It's 2015, I thought we were beyond this dark ages crap by now.

[Buffer Overflow]

And how do you know how god works?

BADecker doesn't, nobody does. People that claim they do are lying.

There is no god or jeebus.

How would you possibly know that?

It's 2015, I thought we were beyond this dark ages crap by now.

People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed.
We think of the main religions now, such as Christianity, as very old ancient religions. But in reality, they are just brand new ones in the timeline of human existence.
How many have existed and forgotten in the millions of years before Christianity was invented? Hundreds, Thousands? Who knows.

[cryptodevil]

People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed.

I don't think that is a reasonable assertion to make.

Religion is borne of ignorance and a need to imagine the answers to the questions of life, the universe and everything. Since the human species has begun to explore its reality by way of the scientific method of observation, measurement and testing, we have rapidly learned to better understand the cause-and-effect action/reaction processes that make up our universe and are growing increasingly aware of the fact that 'god did it' isn't knowledge of any kind.

That atheism is spreading rapidly in educated cultures tells you that, in time, it will be become harder and harder for adults to deny their children the right to learn critical thinking skills and question what they are told.

In the meantime we are witnessing the writhing and twitching dying of global religions as they lose hold of those able to think for themselves, leaving only the fundamentalist-level militant theists who will continue to disgust the 'moderates' to the degree that they, too, cannot bring themselves to remain part of such a toxic and dysfunctional group-think.

The more the fundamentalists commit atrocities across the world, the quicker they are bringing about the end of their own religions.

In time functional reasoning will see theism committed to the annals of history and held up as examples of toxic dysfunction which contributed to neurological and psychological disorders driving people to commit criminal and harmful acts against each other.

[Buffer Overflow]

People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed.

I don't think that is a reasonable assertion to make.

Religion is borne of ignorance and a need to imagine the answers to the questions of life, the universe and everything. Since the human species has begun to explore its reality by way of the scientific method of observation, measurement and testing, we have rapidly learned to better understand the cause-and-effect action/reaction processes that make up our universe and are growing increasingly aware of the fact that 'god did it' isn't knowledge of any kind.

Trouble I have with this, is science can never disprove God may exist. It's impossible to do.
Possibly science can disprove religion(s), such as the bible. But that's a different thing than disproving God.
To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway,  it would create lots of very very very angry people.

[cryptodevil]

To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway,  it would create lots of very very very angry people.

Given that theism has already been debunked, in that it is *no* different to just making something up and declaring it to be true, I think it is pretty apparent that people often prefer to shut out intellectual honesty in order to soothe their anxieties about not being 'special' to an invisible super-being.

Carl Sagan said it best:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

The Dragon In My Garage

by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you.  Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.  There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say.  I lead you to my garage.  You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely.  "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."  And so on.  I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?  If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?  Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.  Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.  What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.  The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.  You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.  The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind.  But then, why am I taking it so seriously?  Maybe I need help.  At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.  Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded.  So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage.  You merely put it on hold.  Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you.  Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise.  The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch.  Your infrared detector reads off-scale.  The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you.  No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me.  Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive.  All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence.  None of us is a lunatic.  We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on.  I'd rather it not be true, I tell you.  But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported.  But they're never made when a skeptic is looking.  An alternative explanation presents itself.  On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked.  Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath.  But again, other possibilities exist.  We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons.  Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling.  Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

[BADecker]

To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway,  it would create lots of very very very angry people.

Given that theism has already been debunked, in that it is *no* different to just making something up and declaring it to be true, I think it is pretty apparent that people often prefer to shut out intellectual honesty in order to soothe their anxieties about not being 'special' to an invisible super-being.

Carl Sagan said it best:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

The Dragon In My Garage

by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you.  Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.  There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say.  I lead you to my garage.  You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely.  "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."  And so on.  I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?  If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?  Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.  Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.  What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.  The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.  You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.  The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind.  But then, why am I taking it so seriously?  Maybe I need help.  At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.  Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded.  So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage.  You merely put it on hold.  Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you.  Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise.  The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch.  Your infrared detector reads off-scale.  The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you.  No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me.  Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive.  All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence.  None of us is a lunatic.  We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on.  I'd rather it not be true, I tell you.  But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported.  But they're never made when a skeptic is looking.  An alternative explanation presents itself.  On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked.  Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath.  But again, other possibilities exist.  We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons.  Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling.  Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

On the other hand,

There is nothing that explains the existence of the universe and all the marvels that are in it. We have observation of it, but no explanation for it or how it came into being.

Science is dribbles of knowledge combined with a whole lot of science fiction. Religion points at Something that might have created the world, but still has no understandable way that it could have been done.

Since we don't know how or where it all came from, and since we don't have a clue really how to make any of it ourselves, everything is a miracle. It all exists, but other than the fact that we have become used to and comfortable with its existence, the whole universe is a complete miracle.

[celestio]

The bible has already been disproven.

1) Humans do not have complete free-will

2) "God" in the bible has been shown to be largely malevolent(evil) instead of benevolent(good), especially in the Old Testament. For instance, "God" had killed over a 2million people according to the bible, while "Satan" had killed just 10 indirectly through god(God gave him permission to do it; Job's family).

[bl4kjaguar]

What if he starts questioning your actions instead of your faith and shows you videos projected on a cloud of you touching yourself while sniffing a pair of dirty panties? Do you think he would believe that was ok or would he send you to hell?

I believe the reasoning is such that, as long as you weren't hurting anyone and had lived as a 'good' person, his religious laws about not masturbating etc. wouldn't apply because, as had been understood by him [], he'd done a pretty shitty job in making it clear what 'He' wanted and who he was. 'He' isn't exactly unambiguous when it comes to 'Holy' texts'n'shit(tm).

Let me help clarify:

The understanding of your actions is for YOU to learn from.

For example, if you reject this information that I am about to present, it is good to ask yourself: WHY?

This is the most unambiguously prescriptive text ever written on this subject; it is obviously coming from God, so that makes it one of the most important things you will ever read.
If God's written understanding is not important enough for you to read through, then it is good to ask yourself: WHY?

PHOENIX OPERATOR-OWNER MANUAL

Again, you have nothing to lose by gaining TRUTH and insight—but you do have everything to lose in the physical and soul realms by remaining ignorant at the hands of the deceivers who would hide Truth from your eyes and ears.

[bl4kjaguar]

I have no problem with people being "confused victims", as long as they keep their intolerant beliefs to themselves. Once they start to display their intolerance of things due to their religious beliefs, that's when we have problems. Therefore, BADecker is a "bad guy"(And a pretty dumb one at that, in fact the absolute stupidest man I've ever met online so far is BADecker).

God never limits your investigation into all facets of the Truth.

BADecker calls my God the Devil; however, he is no better-informed than anyone else who has not thoroughly read even a chapter of the Phoenix Journals and concludes (in ignorance) that the Journals were NOT produced by God's messenger "GCH".

Since neither parties offer any backing to their claims, their claims can be dismissed.

I have provided this thread with many resources, but I cannot do the reading for the student.

He ("God") went forth and has prepared safe passage and “a place” for each of you who would come within His shelter.  The choice is individual for force is not of God and you have free-will for all choices.

[misterycoins]

i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof