Posts by Viviane

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Viviane

Science has never observed life naturally developing from non-life on its own, therefore, the scientific position would be to assume that it did not naturally happen on its own (This points to either an Initiator/God or to extraterrestrials seeding and engineering life on earth and beginning evolution).

Science is a process and method for obtaining information about the natural word. It cannot observe anything. Since you don't know what science is or how it works, any claims you make about it are drawn from a lack of knowledge and therefore useless.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Viviane

The universe and earth appear to be very unlikely and improbably fine-tuned to support life. Even Stephen Hawking and other leading scientists admit this.

No they don't.

Second point is wrong, any conclusion based on this is therefore also wrong.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Viviane

Many leading scientists, including Stephen Hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the Singularity/Big Bang. Time itself did not exist, and then it came into existence.

No they don't.

First premise is wrong, therefore anything based on this is wrong. I don't even need to read the rest of your post.

35

Do you consider this site Godly or Ungodly

by Truthexplorer in

over the years, i have seen a change in heart with the country i grew up in and the general view of what they perceive as how everyone should view things in relation to morality.

a strictly religious country for centuries now forever changed within a short number of years.

i have also seen the viewpoint on this site gradually change in many ways.

Viviane

For me, Gods standards NEVER change. I fully believe that Gods word was inspired and that his moral standards are for our (mankind's) benefit....absolutely. Wake up people The world is upside down in their thinking.

So you're advocating for slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, women having to marry their rapist, women being property, eating shrimp and bacon being a crime, etc.?

Goodbye everyone. This is my very last post.

Hey, maybe miracles do happen.

86

What are you gonna do when the existence of god is disproved?

by Doltologist in

in 1897, j.j. thomson discovered the electron.

this was the first constituent part of the atom which, for 2,000 years, was thought to be indivisible.

today, we know of 18 elemental particles following the recent discovery of the higgs boson, the so-called god particle.. back in 1897, most people believed in god because there weren't even any theories as to how the universe came into being.

Viviane

There is no end to the physical universe it goes on forever. It must go on forever because if it had an end there would be something beyond that end and mankind would do all he could to get beyond that something.

So, you're very first sentence uses, at best, specious and speculative reasoning that relies upon conjecture and opinion. Any reasoning based that is equally useless.

86

What are you gonna do when the existence of god is disproved?

by Doltologist in

in 1897, j.j. thomson discovered the electron.

this was the first constituent part of the atom which, for 2,000 years, was thought to be indivisible.

today, we know of 18 elemental particles following the recent discovery of the higgs boson, the so-called god particle.. back in 1897, most people believed in god because there weren't even any theories as to how the universe came into being.

Viviane

You can't disprove the existence of god/gods/spirits/angels/unicorns or an invisible, heatless, non-corporeal floating invisible dragon in my basement.

76

By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

by FadingTruth in

august 2015 awake .

quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

Viviane

There are many, many ways that the Bible can harmonize with and complement modern science.

Name three, please.

73

God's Spirit

by Hold Me-Thrill Me in

jw
friends

what is god's spirit?

.

i ask this of those who believe in god.

Viviane

you are always asking questions of believers and here I ask you (and other interlopers on this thread - myself included I guess) a simple question and you tell me to look it up.

I asked what was meant in the context the word was used because,in the context of the discussion, what is meant by "significant deviation" isn't clear. Deviations can vary by order of magnitude depending on context. Hence the request for clarification.

I don't ask people to define words from a dictionary, I ask for the contextual nuance critical to understanding what they are saying.

So I repeat what do you (and anyone who does not believe in god) think process means?

You're still free to look it up. There is no contextual nuance.

73

God's Spirit

by Hold Me-Thrill Me in

jw
friends

what is god's spirit?

.

i ask this of those who believe in god.

Viviane

No I am not

Of course you are, Fisherman. You've not been able to objectively show us there is anything call spirit. Being spiritually blind is the conclusion. You're attempting to skip over the "show it exists" part and simply claim we just can see it. That's assuming the conclusion is true in the premise.

Simply attempting to say blind people can't see red, therefore Jesus because empirical evidence shows that not only do you need to re-take that physics class, but also learn a bit about blind people and what they can do (you wouldn't imagine), learn about how to construct an argument and use critical thinking.

73

God's Spirit

by Hold Me-Thrill Me in

jw
friends

what is god's spirit?

.

i ask this of those who believe in god.

Viviane

The spiritually blind (it is a blindness of the mind) are spiritually deaf too. They do not understand.

You're assuming the premise in the conclusion. That's a giant error on your part. You cannot explain spirit, spirituality, what it is, how we can objectively determine if it exists, detect it, etc. You've done nothing but claim it exists and then proceed from there. You've given no reason for anyone to think you done anything.

You have all your work ahead of you.

Not only did I look at the experiment, but I also observed, understood and concluded.

That has nothing to do with this. A blind person could also perform that experiment. I've no idea why you brought that up.

God's Holy Spirit is "empirical" evidence of God

If you can't show or otherwise demonstrate it to me, then it's not empirical in any way, quotation marks or not. You apparently need to re-take that physics class to learn what empirical evidence is.