I Know That God Does Not Exist

Let me be even more emphatic if I can. You want something "positive" and I don't know what you mean by that, but all I have to say is that unbelievers absolutely do not have the ability to judge spiritual things. "They are spiritually discerned," as scripture says, and unbelievers do not have the spiritual sense to discern them.We acquire the spiritual sense by believing in the biblical revelation of Christ's salvation as the Messiah. Our spirit is "regenerated" when we believe, which is the same thing as being born again, meaning that the spiritual faculty in us that was lost at the Fall is regenerated. If that is not regenerated we simply cannot understand anything about spiritual things.So the way you keep taking seriously what unbelievers say about these things makes me cringe. I believe you are saved but you aren't acting from your spiritual sense for some reason since you take these fleshly opinions seriously. Before we were saved we didn't understand any of these things either.Do you know the scripture about the man whose breath is only "in his nostrils?" That means the person who is only flesh without a regerenated spirit, his breath is not the breath of the Holy Spirit but only of the flesh through his nostrils. He has the life of the flesh, the life of the body, the life of the first birth as a baby; he does not have the life of the spirit given by the Holy Spirit when we trust in Christ.Of course fleshly people object to God's judgments, and it's always God's judgments they object to. God killed whole tribes of people as judgment on their sins. The flesh hates that of course, but it's righteous judgment against sin. We are to learn from it that sin is a terrible offense that will be severely punished by the Moral Law. God wiped out the whole human race except for Noah and his family in the Flood, as judgment for the sins that had overtaken the whole planet. Read carefully the passages up to the Flood. Violence in the land etc.The fleshly person doesn't like the idea of being judged by God. Judgment hurts, it hurts us all, believers don't escapte it in this life either, but you have to believe it is deserved or you don't understand anything about the Bible at all, and unbelievers do not understand any of it. Taking ANYTHING they say about these things seriously is a big mistake, Phat.So maybe this isn't "positive" but it's the truth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm a believer and understand that you simply create the "spiritual" crap you want, make God and the Bible in your own image and blaspheme the Holy Ghost.

That you just assert you are, "a believer" doesn't mean anything. If you disagree with what the bible unequivocally states about the spiritual man and the natural man then you don't believe that which you barely assert that you do.A "believer" as in the born-again-genuine spiritually born believer Faith knowledgeably talks about, is something the bible specifically describes in many places. I can certainly quote the passage Faith is referring to so how can she have "created" what you call, "spiritual crap", and call the Christian bible, "spiritual crap" if you are a born again Christian?And how can we make the bible in our own image and blaspheme the Holy Spirit for if we invented the bible then we invented the Holy Spirit so how can we do something wrong against something we invented if we invented it to say those things we say are correct?That's like saying this; "Jar you have created the gospel of Jar and you blaspheme the gospel of Jar by saying creatards are stupid."(I just use the word, "creatard" as a best guess of what type of word the likes of Jar would use if he wrote his gospel, given the history of his brainless, rhetorical propaganda at this forum).But of course what you more likely meant was that we are reading into the bible something about the spiritual and natural man. But I am afraid the verses that refer to it are UNEQUIVOCAL, meaning that can only mean one very clear thing, that those born of the spirit have the life of God and can discern the spiritual things and the natural man not born of the spirit, cannot.So you are either a liar or have simply never bothered to read that part of the bible. it is written in 1st Corinthians chapter 2;What Faith says EXACTLY LINES UP with what the bible says, and it was written thousands of years before she was born; Conclusion: Have you got anything smarter to offer for debate than some feeble epithets and lies?COMMENT:Faith is absolutely correct, bang on. Phat was always someone on the precipice of spiritual maturity but because of his own personal issues he has not progressed and is still on what the bible would call, "milk" as a Christian, mixing the philosophies and opinions and beliefs of men with the bible. I remember his SNAKE FASCINATION with me when I struggled in I think the year 2006, with my own faith and told myself I was an agnostic, and I had become an agnostic. Did you know what happened? Phat became my best friend all of a sudden, he was all over me like a rash. Then when I got over my year of doubt it was like I didn't exist again. He has this fascination with people, and is compelled by them, even people that are very overtly against Christianity.I do believe deep down Phat does believe, and I am as ever, very fond of him as he is a harmless and affable person, but I think he has definitely been DUPED into accepting a lot of the world's trash, such as evolution theory. He is basically accepting evolution or saying he is, because of group peer pressure from evolutionists on EvC. He wants their acceptance.No offence meant by any of this Phat. I just observe things I can't help but observe.

It would be very obtuse of me to put it down to coincidence that you pretty much say with these words, and echo my thoughts almost exactly.Not that it's my intention to pick on Phat, or judge him either, but I have noticed these traits.The word, "thug" comes from, "thuggy", which was a band of people in I believe India who would strangle people to death so as to offer all of their blood to a god they believed in. Arguably the biggest cult to ever exist, whom allegedly killed thousands over the centuries.I don't connect that meaning to Phat of course, as that would be a very crude attempt at a genetic fallacy indeed. Just wanted to explain where that word originated, if my source information is correct of course.Personally I think Phat has this fascination with people, it could even be (though I don't accuse him) a sort of worship of people, a snake fascination, especially with non-believers. I see this in the world a lot with celebrity worship too.Ultimately I can never know why Phat believes he has to accept the unbelievers arguments. It could be what I used to suffer from in the early noughts, the belief I had no intellectual counters to offer so I had to accept defeat, for a long time I had not reached the intellectual capacity to find out any incorrect claims the opposition were making, I had no skills, felt bullied and felt I had to "accept the science".I think a lot of young believers feel that way and the evolutionists see it and USE IT against them knowing they have spent years being studious of evolution and can basically bamboozle/discombobulate them.Not all evolutionists of course, many are honestly duping themselves that they are correct about everything.

It means that I am a believer, one that understands that the Bible is a collection of stories that were written by an unknown number of mostly unknown authors who each wrote what they believed at the time it was written and for the audience living in their immediate environment at the time.It was later edited and redacted by an unknown number of unknown editors and redactors to reflect their beliefs at the time of the editing and redacting and again, for their immediate audience.For the vast and unknown quantity of stories other unknown people selected certain stories to create a number of different compilations called Canons, each Canon designed to fit the beliefs and desires of a particular sub-group of believers.I understand that the various Canons contain stories that are often fantasy, often contradictory, often factually in error and in all cases created as propaganda to market individual and group beliefs.I understand that there is absolutely no evidence to support any claims of spiritual or spirituality beyond the individual beliefs of an unknown body of again, individuals.I am honest enough to admit that there is no consistent "God of the Bible" but rather a whole series of evolving God(s) that each reflect to beliefs of the author of that particular description and revised to also meet the beliefs of the unknown redactors and editors and translators and compilers over time.I am honest enough to understand that GOD if GOD exists is unlikely to match any of the various God(s) or god(s) we have created in our own images.

But if that is all the bible is, then there is no foundation for any claim. You can then make the bible mean anything. So what are you a believer in? But that's a historical claim. Even if they did do that is God incapable of providing the truth through the bible? If we cannot take ANYTHING the bible says about God, to be true then the claims of spiritual knowledge would not be experienced like me and Faith have experienced them. the things the bible says follows true belief in Christ, would not occur. Well, you're half right but I know someone that has read the english, the Aramaic and Hebrew, he was someone that experienced pretty much all forms of religion, and he said all of the purported contradiction only exist because of the translation into english. Have you studied the original texts? Exactly. So it is misleading for you to say you are a believer when Faith described the belief the bible refers to. We don't believe Jesus Christ is an invention, we know the Lord for real, we experience answered prayer, obey the gospel, believe Christ rose from the dead, experience His hand in our lives, we are not, "guessing" but we are as true witnesses AFFIRMING that the part of the bible I quoted is true from our own experiences.That you call our true experiences, "marketed propaganda" is to SUPERIMPOSE a false motive onto us.It's a guilt-by-association fallacy, all you have to do is LUMP us in with all those people who truly are running around with those dark motives you describe, then pretend we are the same.That's not proof of anything except a cynical mind.It's also a problem if you go with "any god is God" because then we really can put words in God's mouth. After all Jar do you believe I want my family to perish in hell for all eternity as well as my friends since they all do not believe? Obviously not, so then how can I be writing into the bible or seeing something into the bible I am putting there?No but rather I would simply believe in universalism if I had my own way - meaning there MUST be an objective meaning to the bible, and the New Testament letters. There is an UNDENIABLE theme to it, showing the selection is not based on the motives you described. It says Christ came, the Messiah, to pay for sin, rose again, then the commission in acts, to spread the gospel, or good news message that by faith in Christ we are saved and the whole theme of the New Testament describes how the law of the spirit of life through Christ saves us from the law of sin and death, and how by faith in Jesus Christ we are saved. It matches up also with Christ's own unequivocal words; "nobody comes to the Father except through me", and that "he who believes in me shall never die".There is a consistent spiritual theme, and you yourself with your own words have defined yourself as the natural man by admitting that;" there is no consistent "God of the Bible" but rather a whole series of evolving God(s) that each reflect to beliefs of the author".So then according not to Faith, nor me, but to Corinthians itself, you cannot understand that the Lord truly exists because you are the natural man, chasing your own desires, which is HATE of Christians, true ones like us, not false ones like you that pretend to be Christian.

Mike, you are not new here. I have explained many times what I believe. And yes, all of the evidence shows that not only can you make the Bible mean anything, every Chapter of Club Christian makes the Bible mean what THEY want it to mean. In addition, every Canon makes the Bible contain a whole different set of stories, the shortest even excludes all of the New Testament and much of the Old Testament while the largest includes over 80 different books.

Happy New Year, Mike! This coming from Thugzy to "The Wiz". (Shall we research the word, "Wiz"? ) Of course I am not involved in some ancient Indian Blood Cult, but how thoughtful that you noticed! I am up bright and early on this New Years day primarily because I believe that it is better to start a new year fresh, sober, and enthusiastic rather than end a year high as a kite, sleeping in late on the morning of the New Year. And before we go any further in this reply, I want everyone to note that I am transferring this post and this discussion from a Science Topic, where Stile lays out a basic evidence based argument on God to the Apologetic Thread. This post will appear in both threads, but I want to draw a clear line between evidence based thinking and Biblical Inspiration, which our fascinating friend jar trashes as a PT Barnum Circus sideshow.
*******************************************************************
To all who seek to reply to this post, I shall offer you two choices.
No webpage found at provided URL: Faith Based & Apologetic Responses here.
Any Evidential Science Based Responses simply stay here in this topic.
****************************************************************The "mainstream" explanation for a literal Biblical Flood differs from the "mainstream" explanations for inspired scripture. Lets again pick on our "fascinating online friend" jar of Texas. I agree wuith your conclusion, Mike, but there is no way that we can scientifically prove that we *know God* any more than the evidence of our daily ives. EvC and I have argued this basic theme endlessly for quite a number of years. I have mentioned before that I am a believer, and in that realm I have had quite a few subjective experiences which have defined my belief. My critics will charge that I create God in my own imagination, preference, and desired reality. While I can agree with their charges, I emphasize that one thing that you, I, and Faith have in common is that we allow our belief to trump any evidence based arguments. I would argue that many of our ideological opponents allow evidence to trump their belief. The problem is that it waters down their belief until they have none...except for a belief in the validitry of empiracal science. Reminds me of this old cartoon

Well said. Grammarly prompted me to add the two words. I am assuming, of course, that you represent the chapter of Club Christian that YOU belong to. Seeing as how this is an evidenced-based topic, let's go from there. Mike is used to shooting ducks in a barrel over at Evolution FairyTales, but he has to contend with the likes of you here, as do I. He does have an argument based loosely on scripture, but I think he gets carried away. But a couple of questions first:
1) Was the Apostle Paul, in your mind, part of the subgroup of "apologist" hucksters?
2) Scientifically speaking, do you see a difference between applying evidence-based thinking to refute the Flood(Times Square BottleNeck Argument) which impressed me, by the way, and evidence-based thinking on human nature, belief, and inspired scripture as well as "inspired Christians"?

The evidence shows that if the Bible is accurate then at least at times he definitely was an Apologist Huckster. That's pretty much just word salad Phat. We can never know what others believe beyond the clues that are evidence based. Is there be any reason to doubt that they believe what they claim to believe? Human nature is subject to evidence based analysis and as a species we have made great strides in understanding human nature.But I see no evidence that any scripture is inspired by anything other than the authors beliefs.But all writings (and that is all the term scripture really means) can provide insight or knowledge or data.Remember, none of the material found in any versions of the various Canons was writing to become part of "The Bible". All of the Bibles are anthologies of anthologies and so reflect the choices and decisions often a committee made for a wide range of reasons, most often based on politics or power or control.As to "inspired Christians" all the evidence shows that any inspiration is the direct product of their imagination.And because the Bible is not some actual thing but rather only what some Chapter of Club Christian decides to declare as authoritative and each individual within each Chapter of Club Christian either accepts that the Bible declared authoritative in their Chapter of Club Christian actually says what is written or conversely accepts that what is authoritative is what our pet Apologists says it really means regardless of what is actually written, it seems that we really do create God and the Bible in our own image.

You say it's unfair to tell people their experiences of gods or space invaders are not reality-based. But aren't you being just as unfair by denying that their gods (or extra-terrestrial visitations) are what they claim them to be but instead are some sort of demon from your personal mythology?As for the existence of real extra-terrestrial life, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect there might be some, considering the myriad star systems and planets out there. Our solar system doesn't seem that unusual, so why should it have life while no others would?

If your concept of illogical was fully thought out, you should be able to give some examples of logical errors in the concept of gods. Appeal to popularity? Ad hominem? What are the errors? There's a difference between not real and not logical. We had no reason to think that platypuses were real until we discoveted that they are. But there was never anything illogical about platypuses.

Some things might appear at first glance to be illogical. For example, suppose it's the year 1880, summer, out on a long, hot, flat stretch of West Texas. Someone takes a long walk out of camp to the nearest stream to get water. They come back with an outlandish story about the water being so cold it numbs the hands, with fish stunned and unmoving, floating in the freezing current.Illogical? Everyone back at camp says so.Is there a logical, rational basis for it, or is our pioneer a victim of heat stroke hallucinations?It turns out the stream of icewater is, in fact, rational. But deities? No, whether Poseidon or Vishnu, Anansi or Yahweh, whatever. And unlike the stream of icewater, you can't do a search of the web and find anything to make the concept of gods rational.

What I think is unfair is absolutely denying what people tell you about their experiences, telling them they're crazy as some here do, or that it's all their imagination and so on.It's not terribly polite I suppose to reinterpret their experiences but at least it isn't telling them outright that they can't recognize a real experience when they have it.Calling Christianity my 'personal mythology" is in fact extremely rude of you but I guess things have gone so bad in the West that nobody even recognizes how totally Christian it all used to be and what a sad situation we'd be in if it hadn't played such a large part in our history. But I understand: the West has gone to hell in a handbasket and it's getting worse every day. Yeah I guess it seems reasonable enough mathematically, but as long as we're predicting, I predict that Earth is it, and we're it, all the life there is in the whole shebang.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm currently travelling through Germany, the origin of your version of Lutherian beliefs. You'd be very surprised if you did a similar journey. You'd actually understand that the majority of all Christianity is and always was Catholicism. It was a religion but it was secondary to its political, military and financial power - the religious element was simply a useful method of subjugating the gullible masses.I'm sitting in Koblenz looking at an enormous castle which was the Catholic garrison and treasury. There's an admin 'campus', at the foot of the hill it sits on and an ancient Cathedral in the town. You have no comprehension of the power these institutions held, none at all. The church ran Europe, legally, financially and militarily controlling kings with one or all of those tools. You should get yourself a passport and educate yourself - get yourself a sense of historical perspective, you're sat in a tiny echo chamber staring at a screen not seeing the real picture.And before you complain that Catholicism was the work of the devil, it and its offspring Orthodoxy was - and is - the entirety of Christianity for thousands of years. Lutherism is a late and tiny branch of it. And, by-the-way, the Lutherian church here is almost as gaudy as any other.