God knew all about it

If the glories of the heavens above, and the wonders of the earth below are not enough…

further proof for the existence of God is His knowledge that man would not only resist Him,  but deny He exists,

vehemently oppose they who have accepted Him, malign the nation He chose for Himself,  slander the patriarchs and apostles as delusional,

mock the character of good men and good women, question the sanity of children, cast aspersion on the sanctity of marriage,

portray his book as devilish,  laugh at sin, but more importantly,

 the Creator knew that the same men would make gods of themselves, and by so doing, create their own followers to mock Christ,

to further supplant the God of heaven, ALL with God’s foreknowledge.

 

Skeptics have no answer as to the immutability and  impeccability of  God’s word.  Indeed, it is forever settled in heaven.

And in spite of all this, God extends a hand of grace to the very miscreants who despise Him. This is the true Lord and God. There is none other like Him.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Unbelief (ahem: atheism) and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to God knew all about it

  1. Wally Fry says:

    ColorStorm

    Well…I don’t know. The skeptics seem to have plenty of answers;in fact, they act as if they have an answer for everything, don’t they? Kind of amazing that God did know all of this and still made it all. He knew how each and everyone of us would react, and still did it.

    I just wish they would come to understand that none of what they have done matters to Him, or would not matter if they would just give it up and accept Him. God is never going to hate them like they hate Him..is He?

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Any one of the things mentioned above alone would be plenty to say ‘hmmm, maybe there is something to a true God,’ but collectively its incriminating evidence.

      ‘Be careful that ye offend not one of these little ones.’ How many paint the young ones as mindless dupes for believing in a Creator?

      In spite of the disrespect, your thought of grace Wally in the last sentence is true indeed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • tildeb says:

      As an atheist, I hate your god exactly as much as you hate Xantico, meaning, not at all. Why you continue to believe as you do – that a rejection of your god claim automatically categorizes the reasons to be nothing more than an strongly felt negative emotional impulse – is just another example of you thinking that your beliefs about reality makes it so.

      That’s delusional thinking, Wally, and that charge has nothing to do with the contents of the beliefs but everything to do with the method you use to define and describe reality, namely, assuming that your beliefs about reality (in this case, the motivation for atheists not to believe) make it align with your beliefs. I keep telling you that you’re incorrect but you seem unable to cope with that by altering your belief even fractionally but maintain it in its entirety steadfastly in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary.

      The truth is that none of us invest emotional fuel to ‘hate’ what we don’t believe exists. You don;t reject Santa Claus because you ‘hate’ Santa Claus; you don;t believe Santa Claus is real because you have no compelling reasons to think the positive claim is true. There’s no emotional baggage to it.

      It’s a very silly assertion about ‘hatred’ by atheists you continue to make to explain their rejection of your positive claim that your god exists as an interactive, creative, divine causal agency in reality. You assert this and then rely on the power you grant to the quality of your beliefs rather than the reality you assert you are describing. The problem is that there seems to be no means for you to alter these factually incorrect beliefs you continue to maintain as long as you continue to have confidence in this method. That should worry you.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Tilldeb, you are correct about my rejection of Santa Clause. I also reject the Easter Bunny. Not a problem. On the other hand, I have nothing to say about either of them. Moreover, I don’t see another’s belief in them as harmful in any way. Most importantly, I don’t take extraordinary measures to make sure that any mention of them is blotted out of existence….just sayin.

        Also, I reject your argument that my belief is a positive assertion, and your disbelief is not (therefore requiring no proof.) First of all, God requires zip for proof; He has proven Himself. You may not like it, and may think I am a nutcase, but basically too bad so sad for you on that one.

        But let’s look at assertions.

        I believe God exists. Yep…that’s a positive assertion, requiring proof. God has provided that.

        You frame your argument as not being a positive assertion, but it is. Try this, instead of saying you disbelieve God:

        I believe God DOES NOT exist. Bingo. Positive assertion. Have a good one Tilldeb.

        Liked by 1 person

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      You really don’t get it, Wally – to the best of my knowledge, none of us “hate him” any more than we, or YOU, could hate Mickey Mouse, Ronald McDonald, or any other imaginary character – though I’ll readily admit I’m not overly fond of the Energizer Bunny!

      Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      If God knew all about it, then why create it? If God created it, why blame it for its failings?

      If I design a bridge that I know ahead of time will fail due to a flaw that I consciously and deliberately put into the design, then why would I build that bridge, and how can I blame the bridge when the bridge collapses? Why would I punish the bridge for the bridge’s failings when I’m responsible for the bridge’s design?

      When you grant God the attribute of foreknowledge, then you turn God into something less than what one might expect from an entity capable of creating universes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        I think I can explain that, David – you see, their god has these “mysterious ways” that he works in, and you just have to trust that this god, concocted by desert nomads, who believed the earth was a flat disk, covered by a dome, and that the sun revolved around it – knows what he’s doing, and that anything that might “look” like a mistake to the untrained eye, is actually part of a brilliant master-plan that we will never understand until after we die. They call it “faith.” The first step in acquiring faith requires that all sense of logic be thrown out of the window. As Mark Twain once put it, “Faith is believin’ what you know ain’t so.

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Hey Wally,

        Go ahead and answer David since he addressed you.

        Hi David, welcome back

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        David-

        Of course God knows all things, past, present, and future. He is surprised by nothing, and is not aloof in any fashion.

        If the bridge fails, it is because you didn’t maintain it, the architect did his part.God cannot be charged. The bridge (from God’s point of view) was made perfectly.

        Please see my post on Epicurus, as it addresses some of your concerns.

        Look at the very good comments too, they may be helpful.

        Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      If the bridge had been perfectly designed, then it wouldn’t have failed. By definition, a perfect entity can’t fail.

      Not only did the one bridge fail, but every bridge ever built fails because of the design flaws. The bridges are, in fact, impossible to maintain. They all fail. Every one. And you would blame the bridges or the maintenance crew?

      The designer has absolute certainty that the bridge will fail, but builds it anyway? Why?

      Or to put it more directly, what is the point of creating a sentient entity when you know ahead of time that you will be torturing that entity for all eternity? This is either stupidity or sadism or both.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        David,

        I’m gonna give this a shot, you seem to be curious and I want to help you with this..if possible. Not because you are slow or anything…but the very subject is really unexplainable. I will use some scripture to help…if it will. Some things we just don’t get…God’s ways are higher than our ways. I’m quite okay with that…with not getting it all.

        God knows the future perfectly..Matthew 6:8

        God is in control completely..Colossians 1:16,17; Daniel 4:35.

        We are accountable..possessing free will…Romans 6:23, Romans 3:19

        We just don’t get it…Romans 11:33-36..nor can we.

        As far as condemnation? God wills that all be saved…2 Peter 3:9 he loved us enough from the foundation of the world that He made us a way of salvation…Romans 5:8…He knew we would sin yet provided a way out for us.

        God is in control, God knows the future..and we have free will. Adam and Eve could have made a different choice than they did…absolutely. God did not force them to rebel…they chose it and are accountable…and so are we as a result.

        But…David..we STILL have free will…we can choose Him…or not….nobody is condemned against their will…Jesus said to His Father..not my will but thy will be done…..God eventually will say that to us if we reject…ok, fine…not my will but yours.

        Hope that helps…God bless you

        Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          Wally, there you go again… making the ridiculous claim that Adam and Eve could have made a different choice than they did…absolutely. God did not force them to rebel…they chose it and are accountable…and so are we as a result.

          Adam and Eve aren’t historical figures, Wally. They were never real people and they were never our founding couple. We did not descend from them. We did not ‘inherit’ anything from them. They are characters in a story. That’s it. They had to make the choice they did because that’s the choice the author made for them. The characters are not accountable; the author is. And this has absolutely nothing whatsoever literally, factually, historically, genetically to do with any human in existence today. You’d have us inherit a metaphorical ‘sin’ from a story and then live life as if this claim had any validity at all. It doesn’t… in reality. It exists only as metaphor.

          Of course, you’re good with accepting the morality of an historical figure being literally crucified to death in order to ‘pay’ for this metaphorical inheritance of a metaphorical sin that supposedly taint you in the here and now, so your grasp on the role that such fiction plays in society doesn’t garner a great deal of confidence.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Tildeb. …here’s the beauty of all of this….your confidence in me….my intellectual prowess…or even my sanity….my need for your confidence doesn’t even show up on my radar. ..but thanks so much for the concern

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          Sorry, let me more blunt: your claim is factually wrong. That means all the religious tenets you balance on it are also factually wrong.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well…gee..since you put it that way….guess I’ll chuck it all out of the window. You can say it bluntly, loudly, and repeatedly…that does not render it true, my friend…sorry to pop your bubble.

          Psalm 2
          1 Why do the nations conspire[a]
          and the peoples plot in vain?
          2 The kings of the earth rise up
          and the rulers band together
          against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
          3 “Let us break their chains
          and throw off their shackles.”
          4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
          the Lord scoffs at them.
          5 He rebukes them in his anger
          and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
          6 “I have installed my king
          on Zion, my holy mountain.”

          7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

          He said to me, “You are my son;
          today I have become your father.
          8 Ask me,
          and I will make the nations your inheritance,
          the ends of the earth your possession.
          9 You will break them with a rod of iron[b];
          you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

          10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
          be warned, you rulers of the earth.
          11 Serve the Lord with fear
          and celebrate his rule with trembling.
          12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
          and your way will lead to your destruction,
          for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
          Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

          So sayeth the Lord.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Wally, it’s not me putting it that way. It’s YOUR DNA. Go quote bible verses at it… I’m sure it will alter itself to suit your beliefs.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          As went Ozymandias, so will go your fearsome god, it’s just a matter of time:

          I met a traveller from an antique land
          Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
          Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
          Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
          And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
          Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
          Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
          The hand that mock’d them and the heart that fed.
          And on the pedestal these words appear:
          “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
          Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
          Nothing beside remains: round the decay
          Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
          The lone and level sands stretch far away.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          And here we have little Milo hitting his first home run, while ArcH without God can only render foul balls.

          Really arcH- give in to the grace of God already, why do you kick against the goads?

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          …why do you kick against the goads?” – I don’t, I kick against the gods.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Their problem, Tildeb, could lie with their need for a definition of the word, “metaphorical” – you’re not exactly dealing with the brightest bulbs on the tree – to use a Christmassy metaphor, after all, ’tis the season —

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Some things we just don’t get…God’s ways are higher than our ways. I’m quite okay with that…with not getting it all.

          I wondered how long it would be before someone came up with that old Christian fall-back: “God works in mysterious ways –“

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Arch,

          That’s not a fall back…that’s a fact. Think about it, if I could get God totally, then He would be just like you or me..hardly worth Worship. I’m not disturbed or dismayed by that fact, I am comforted and reassured.

          Like

    • David says:

      Wally,

      I appreciate your interest in my questions and your efforts to answer them. However, if some things are “really unexplainable” and if “some things we just don’t get”, then I think this acknowledges that maybe there really aren’t any answers after all, not even in the Bible. If you conclude that something is “unexplainable,” then I think that this raises the possibility there is simply something wrong here. Maybe the “mystery” is a clue that that the Bible isn’t inerrant at all.

      We have the logical contradiction of (1) God knows all and is in total control of everything versus (2) humans have “free will”. I think that the problem is that we want both to be true. We like the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing god who is in charge of everything, and so we assign these traits to a theological construct that we call “God.” At the same time, we like the idea of free will and we find it necessary (for societies to function) to hold individuals accountable for our actions. So, we put this into our sacred writings, too.

      However, in reality, (1) and (2) are very difficult to logically reconcile. If God knows everything that is going to happen, then we are all simply following a predetermined script and free will is an illusion. If God already knows that I will reject God until I die, then there is nothing that I can do to change the outcome. I can’t pull a switcharoo and accept Jesus, because then God would have been wrong about the future. If the Bible says that God controls everything and is in control of everything AND that humans have free will (and you claim that the Bible does both), then maybe the Bible is offering a logical contradiction and is just plain wrong.

      Besides, do we really have a choice to not sin? If 100% of all humans commit sins, then is this really a choice that we make? You might well say that humans can choose between breathing and not breathing. If one is alive, then one will breathe. It’s part of the design. It’s an inevitable and unavoidable part of life. Likewise, if one is alive, then one will inevitably, unavoidably sin. It will always happen. It’s as much a part of the design as breathing. There’s no “free will” here or any real accountability. The flaw and failure are inherent in the basic design, the design is imperfect and the design is God’s design. Who is at fault here?

      Now, you’ve noted that God “provided a way out for us.” However, this is not true for everyone, is it? The way out is through Jesus, but millions have lived and died with zero chance of knowing anything about Jesus. These sentient beings were created by God, they had no way out and no path to salvation. They lived, they died and are now being tortured for all eternity. Why would God create such beings? If you knew with absolute certainty that a life that you created would be tortured for all eternity, would you create that life? Why would you do this?

      PS: “Jesus said to His Father..not my will but thy will be done.” And there goes the Trinity.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        David…you have raised more questions than could ever be answered in a simple comment thread. God’s Word does provide answers to all of them…maybe some blog posts at some point in the future might be forthcoming…hear that ColorStorm?

        In the meantime..I hope you will keep reading here as well as my blog…many of these questions will probably be written about before it’s all over. Thanks for your continued interest.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          …many of these questions will probably be written about before it’s all over.” – and all with the same degree of absence of evidence that we have come to expect from ColorStorm and Groupie.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Arch,
          Yay…I’m a groupie now LOL. How about some evidence from the other side? You have yourself made an assertion that you believe God does not exist. Perhaps you would care to offer your theory and its proof concerning the origins of the universe. And remember, all proponents of your theory have to completely agree, it has to be something I can actually observe, and you simply cannot draw any inferences whatsoever based on evidence.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          OK, that’s a bit confusing Wally – you want, “some evidence from the other side,” without “any inferences whatsoever based on evidence.” First, I’d like to see some evidence from your side, that doesn’t rely on inferences from the Buybull. And by “evidence,” I’m not referring to little Milo over there, bawling his eyes out in the corner.

          Like

    • David says:

      Wally,

      Fair enough, I did raise a lot of questions. How about if I pick just one.

      If you knew with absolute certainty that a life that you created would be tortured for all eternity, would you create that life?

      Any interest in offering an answer to this one question?

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        David,
        Lots actually..not tonight though…it’s bedtime for me LOL.Remind me in the future and we will talk ok? Next day or two for sure. And ColorStorm…if you get some free time, please jump right on in…it’s your blog David and I have kidnapped..hope you are not perturbed?

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        David-

        We tend to ask the wrong questions to avoid facing the excellent questions that have already been asked and answered.

        Your question is pretty much ‘how can I (or you) believe in a God with dark purposes?’ (tortured for eternity) This assumes wrongly that God has ulterior motives like man.

        Rest assured, God has no defects, evil motives, and stands completely blameless and un-accused. His ways are perfect, and he judges with an impeccable standard. God is not on trial; man is.

        I could never give an answer that would satisfy you. Only God can. His word is not a dime store magazine where the careless of thought can turn to a page and say: ‘here’s the answer to this question.’ His entire word must be brought into the context, and the heart needs to be soft.

        But there is a better question to be asked David, and once you understand, your other question will melt into awe. It may take a while for you to see this, but the effort will be well spent.

        This is the better question:

        How can an all holy, all knowing sinless and perfect God, who is an all consuming fire, justify sinful man, who is not holy, and who is full of sin and spots, without compromising his own intrinsic, eternal perfection?

        Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I like Dave’s question better – who can design a faulty bridge, then blame the bridge for falling down?

          Like

    • David says:

      ColorStorm,

      I see that rather than answer my question, you chose to change the question. I didn’t ask what God would do, I asked what YOU would do. So, I’ll ask again.

      If you knew with absolute certainty that a life that you created would be tortured for all eternity, would you create that life?

      A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

      “I could never give an answer that would satisfy you. Only God can.”

      I honestly don’t mean to be rude here, but this answer is not helpful.

      “Rest assured, God has no defects, evil motives, and stands completely blameless and un-accused. His ways are perfect, and he judges with an impeccable standard. God is not on trial; man is.”

      Simply stating that something is so does not make it so. What you offer is human mental construct of what a god might be or should be. You offer no evidence that it is so.

      Further, by declaring God to be perfect from the start, you leave us with no way to test the hypothesis that this statement about the nature of God is true or accurate. No matter the evidence, observation or argument, you will always reject it on the grounds that God is, by definition, perfect. It’s a neat trick, but you offer an untestable hypothesis, and this is not very persuasive.

      For example, I could argue that if God created highly flawed human beings, then this suggests that God is not perfect or without defect. There are other argument which also doubts about the perfection of God (use of eternal torture is another). But if you simply declare, define and presuppose God as perfect from the start of the discussion, then any evidence or argument to the contrary will be rejected before we even begin So, I guess we’re at an impasse here.

      If I may ask one more question … if your hypothesized description of God is wrong, how could or would you know that it was wrong? What evidence would you accept that your particular hypothesis about God is incorrect? Let me be clear. This is not a question about the existence of some entity which might be given the label of “God.” Instead, I’m asking a question about your particular version of God.

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        David-

        Was wondering if I know you under another name, just out of curiosity.

        Anyway, I’m impressed that our opinions matter so much to you, or do they?

        I did answer your question, it was not however as you expected. You may want to read it again.

        Some questions are multi-tiered, and require more than a yes or a no, for instance: ‘Did u stop beating your wife?’

        It’s loaded of course, but u get the point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        David-

        As to your last paragraph here- a proof of the unreliability of God that you would be more apt to understand, and would be safe to assert on my part that God is fraudulent?

        The moon. He promised to let it shine in perpetuity as his oath to protect the nation of Israel. In short, if the moon disappeared tomorrow, then yep, no God.

        However, WHO keeps the moon in orbit… ? Me, I’m sticking with God who does so with no effort. After all, he displays the rainbow without sweating also.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          However, WHO keeps the moon in orbit… ?” – not “WHO,” but WHAT – the moon is held tenuously in place by a balance between centrifugal force and Earth’s gravitational attraction. Interestingly, the moon is gradually slipping away from the Earth at the rate of 1/4 inch per year. Of course, long before it flies off into it’s own orbit around the sun and Israel melts into oblivion, you’ll have long since raptured.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          1/4 inch arcH-

          Now I am impressed, but are you sure its not 3/8ths or 11/32nds? A mere fraction of wrongness may throw your entire atheistic vision kaput.

          A slight bit off in calculating, and heck, you could end up being off by a billion years or so.

          Again, I’m stickin with WHO, and you can have your WHAT, whatever that may be.

          Since you refer to children, picture Junior spinning the top. Yep, takes intelligence to spin it. Just sayin.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Maybe if Junior offered it to Milo, he’d stop his infernal caterwauling! Just sayin’ —

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          ColorStorm, regarding the planetary orbits, you say to arch Since you refer to children, picture Junior spinning the top. Yep, takes intelligence to spin it. Just sayin.

          sigh

          Why don’t more people actually learn some basic physics?

          Good grief, but Galileo put this chestnut permanently to bed. You’re only a half millennium out of date in your understanding of astrophysics, ColorStorm, meaning you’re a bit late in being aware why this claim of yours is wrong, that motion requires agency. It doesn’t. It requires gravity, meaning mass. That’s it. There’s your ‘intelligent’ agency… a lump of material.

          I guess you still need a bit more time to let your basic, basic, basic scientific learning catch up with the rest of us, eh? Any timeline on that?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I like the chestnut idea.

          But you can spin that folklore till the cows come home Tild- Motion requires gravity, yep, seems like a requirement for a designer, eh…….

          Sakes alive, even the 2nd law of thermo speaks against you, and calls for divine order..

          (put a mass of dead bodies in a room, see what kind of motion you will get. 2nd law…

          You are thinking too small, and giving far too much credit to nothing. Your argument breaks down at every level in a universe apart from God.

          ‘In the beginning God…………..

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          Not surprisingly, you don’t understand the Second Law of thermodynamics… not that you care about learning it. And you don’t need a ‘designer’ for gravity. Gravity is a property of mass. No requirement for Oogity Boogity to step in at this point so that you can exercise your pseudo-explanation of ‘Godidit’. To understand basic physics, I suggest you stop looking in the Bible. It’s not there. Start looking at introductory physics videos and you might even be able to follow the bouncing ball to arrive at understanding why the second law chestnut is such a patently ignorant argument.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Well tild-

          I’m of the opinion it takes an Architect, and one quite capable at that to design all the plans and systems for this thing call life and all thats in it.

          Like

    • David says:

      “I did answer your question, it was not however as you expected. You may want to read it again.”

      In the absence of a clear yes or no from you, in looking over your response, my interpretation of your comments would be that you wouldn’t do it (create a doomed soul), but God would and does. And somehow, that’s ok, because God is perfect. And it’s a mystery. Is this correct? Your answer is really not clear to me.

      If my interpretation of your response is correct, then I must say that this makes you a much better fellow than God. You, I could like. God? Not so much.

      I was expecting a yes or no answer, because it seemed very much like a question which could be answered yes or no. This was not at all like the “wife beating” question, because it’s not about past actions which you may or may not have ceased, instead, it’s about what you would or would not do in the future. It’s a very simple, straight-forward, no tricks involved question. I think that you prefer to dodge and talk about “multi-tiered” answers, because you know very well that you’d never do as you claim God would do, and that might be a little troubling to you.

      “How can an all holy, all knowing sinless and perfect God, who is an all consuming fire, justify sinful man, who is not holy, and who is full of sin and spots, without compromising his own intrinsic, eternal perfection?”

      Ok, I give up. What’s the answer? Seriously, I don’t know what the answer is here. It seems like a philosophical word salad to me.

      Do you know me under another name? I honestly don’t know. You’ll have to be more specific.

      I find your opinions interesting, because they are different from mine. It’s boring to just hang out with the choir.

      Finally, in all sincerity, thanks for allowing me to comment here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        Sure no problem David-

        Not trying to be vague but fair. If u are a decided unbeliever, I am more than careful to answer, but rest assured, God sends nobody to perdition. Men create their own footprints.

        Yes he is sovereign, but man is ultimately responsible. My hesitance to answer ‘yes or no,’ does not imply I am at odds with God in the least.

        Prudence is the word for the day.

        Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      (Oops, I think I initially put this in the wrong place.)

      “The moon. He promised to let it shine in perpetuity as his oath to protect the nation of Israel. In short, if the moon disappeared tomorrow, then yep, no God.”

      The moon will, in fact, stop shining one day because the solar system has a finite life span. The moon will not shine in perpetuity.

      At some point in time, the Sun will expand and probably wipe out the Earth and the Moon (assuming that the Moon has not completely slipped away from the Earth by then). Even if the Moon somehow survives, it will go dark when the Sun subsequently shrinks and goes blinks out. (I suspect that the ancient Hebrews didn’t fully realize that the Moon does not generate its own light.) Unfortunately, we obviously won’t be here to see it, so I won’t be able to show you the the moon will not shine in perpetuity. However, if you accept astronomical science, then I think that we may have just disproved your particular version of God and/or we can conclude that God is “fraudulent.”

      Ironically, since blind non-theistic celestial mechanics leads us to conclude that the moon will, in fact, shine tonight, it would actually be a better proof of God if the moon flew away. This would truly be an inexplicable miracle.

      Speaking of rainbows, were there rainbows before Noah’s Flood?

      Like

    • David says:

      “Perpetuity as it relates to the earth and his covenantal promise.”

      From the dictionary…Perpetuity. Everlasting, infinity, eternity, the state of continuing forever. If you’ll pardon the cliche, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      You see, this is what makes testing the God hypothesis impossible. Word games. Doesn’t matter what I say, words can always be manipulated to give you the answer you wish. In this case, perpetuity simply means what you want it to mean.

      “As to the rainbow, interesting indeed. None before the deluge. ”

      Now, about rainbows.

      Here we have another way to test the hypothesis about your particular God. I might be wrong here, but I think that you are saying that your inerrant book of absolute truth states that rainbows didn’t exist before the Flood. But how can this be so? I believe that you might make the argument that one can find evidence that God exists in the order and regularity of nature. Well, if nature is ordered and regular, thanks to the hand of God, then there should have been rainbows before the Flood, too.

      So, what changed after the Flood? Was it the wavelengths of visible light? The size and shape of raindrops? The angle of the Sun? These are the things that create rainbows. Either they existed as they do today before the Flood (and so there were rainbows before the Flood, or God must have changed his perfect universe after the Flood? Which is it?

      Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        God said: ‘The bow will be in the clouds, and I will look at it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures on earth’

        This is the sign of the covenant that I have confirmed between Me and every creature on earth’ Seems to be the first rainbow.

        Everlasting in this context simply means that in the generations of man God will honor his own word (in perpetutiy, my word)

        5,000 years ago His promise was good, 2,000 his promise was good, today His promise is good, and if so, 2,000 yrs ahead His promise will be just as good. In perpetuity.

        By the way, in eternity, there will be no need for the sun.

        Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “Apart from intelligence, there is no reason for a moon whatsoever. ”

      The moon doesn’t need a “reason” to exist. It just does. It’s an emergent product of the way the universe works. It’s there because of the way masses and gravity interact with each other. There’s no reason for the Ebola virus to exist, either. It just does.

      Like

    • David says:

      “Seems to be the first rainbow.”

      Ok. So what changed between the time before the Flood and the time after the Flood?

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Please do not hold me to it, but it is possible, it is very possible that it never rained before. There was a ‘mist’ that suggests there was a ground up greenhouse perfect mechanism, but scripture is silent as to anything more.

        It was a different earth to be sure; man lived longer, the blood line was purer, there were giants, (Goliath etc) It was a brave new world. So yes, it makes sense that seeing the rainbow for the first time was something that was spectacular, just as it is today.

        I’m a simple man who believes the scriptures, I hate to disappoint, I do not have any special knowledge.

        Like

    • David says:

      (Arrggh! I put this in the wrong place again!)

      “There was a ‘mist’ that suggests there was a ground up greenhouse perfect mechanism.”

      So, now we have to imagine a world without any sunshine ever, a world in which the relative humidity is 100% at all points around the Earth. Do you have any idea of the kinds of problems this would cause for most terrestrial species, including humans? This is great if you’re a fungus, but it’s a horrifying world for humans.

      So, what changes as a result of the Flood such that the planet has a climate that is radically, radically different after the Flood? Some set of extraordinary physical conditions must have existed to create the perpetual mist, and then these physical conditions must have radically changed to give us our current global climate. To pull this off, it’s going to require far more changes in far more variable than just a change in the shape of rain drops.

      And you wonder why people who can accept the possibility of Milo’s home run might find it difficult to accept your version of God? Honestly, and I don’t be to in the least bit snarky here, is it really that hard to understand why someone might find it incredibly difficult to accept “the testimony of the good book”?

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        As was said to you, I do not pretend to know ‘what it was like,’ I wasn’t there, and neither were you. Obviously there was sunlight, and the mist is not hard to understand at all.

        One thing I do know though, the Genesis account explains quite a bit, I suggest you study it.

        Difficult to accept the word of God? A lot easier than to suggest that no intelligence is responsible for life.

        Surely u have videos of tsunamis and flooding. The devastation and earth changes within seconds are tremendous. Massive water pressure on a large scale explains quite a bit.

        You are right though, extraordinary conditions did exist, beginning in Eden.

        Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      Obviously there was sunlight, and the mist is not hard to understand at all.

      I didn’t say “no sunlight”, I said no sunSHINE. Rainbows are created by the sunSHINE shining through raindrops. Rainbows are created with light waves reach the raindrops with relatively little scattering before hitting the rain drops.

      “One thing I do know though, the Genesis account explains quite a bit, I suggest you study it.”

      I’ve studied it. f it does say that the Earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, then it’s very, very likely that it’s wrong. This “explanation” is contradicted by countless observations.

      “Difficult to accept the word of God? A lot easier than to suggest that no intelligence is responsible for life.”

      I think that you’re presenting a false dichotomy. To repeat myself from Wally’s blog, you’re making a argument for deism, not theism. And this is certainly not an argument for Christianity. There could be “an intelligence” responsible for life that has absolutely nothing to do with your version of God.

      “Surely u have videos of tsunamis and flooding. The devastation and earth changes within seconds are tremendous.Massive water pressure on a large scale explains quite a bit.”

      I’m afraid that simply don’t fully appreciate the scale that we’re talking about here. This goes way, way, way beyond a tsunami.

      “You are right though, extraordinary conditions did exist, beginning in Eden.”

      Was Eden a perfect world? Try living at 100% relative humidity for 100% of the time. This is an experiment that you can actually run today. Let me know how it goes.

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Well David-

        I would venture a guess and say the climate of Eden was perfect In every way. Sunlight/shine? Yea, God had that under control too.

        Dontcha think the difference alone between the age of Adam when he died, and the age of Noah was notable insofar as something drastic occurring?

        Perhaps some thoughts on the waters above and the waters below may help filter through your mind a bit.

        The account is either all true which in turn explains everything, or a lie which explains nothing.

        In the beginning God ……yep, explains everything

        By the way,Cindy and Wally expressed some great insights, hope you were able to take some with you to think upon.

        Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “I would venture a guess and say the climate of Eden was perfect in every way.”

      So, why not test the hypothesis? Try living at 100% RH for 100% of the time. Seriously, this is a testable claim, so why not test it?

      If the climate of Eden was perfect, then the climate today is not perfect. Since God has everything under control, then God is responsible for an imperfection. God has created something that is imperfect (today’s climate). God does control climate, right?

      “Sunlight/shine? Yea, God had that under control too.”

      So, was there sunshine or not? I confused about what you are saying here. If there was sunshine, then there were rainbows. If there was no sunshine, can we call such a world perfect?

      “Perhaps some thoughts on the waters above and the waters below may help filter through your mind a bit.”

      Not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

      “The account is either all true which in turn explains everything, or a lie which explains nothing.”

      Well, the evidence overwhelming contradicts at least some of Genesis, so at least some of it is almost certainly not true. So…

      “In the beginning God ……yep, explains everything”

      This is just a statement of a deism. My argument is not with deism.

      It’s not hard to invent mental constructs that “explain everything.” All it takes is a little imagination. Humans have come up with ideas that “explain everything” for thousands of years. It doesn’t make the idea true. The trick is to create ideas and constructs that are testable so that they can be discarded if not true. You seem unwilling or unable to test your hypothesis.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Hey David…glad to see you around still..hope you are enjoying all of this. I just had a question…an open one really. OK..fine…what Christians believe is bogus…let’s say that’s true(of course I don’t feel that way)…then I really want to hear your best idea as to origins. Not evolution, etc…origins…where was the start? And what started it?

        Like

    • David says:

      What started it? I think you need a physicist here. Personally, I don’t know.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Well…David. Please, go talk to any physicist you know. Write them letters, find their blogs, buy their books. What you will find is….they don’t know! No clue whatsoever..none that is observable, verifiable or even agreed on by more than a few. On the other hand…you have God’s Word. It tells us about origins…how can you simply discount it when you openly acknowledge that you have to idea? Just think on what you and ColorStorm have been discussing. It’s the truth, God’s truth. It’s for everybody David..every person. It does take faith…but faith is all it takes.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          On the other hand…you have God’s Word” – Actually, that’s not true Wally – what you have is a man’s word that that’s what his god said. I’ve been trying to point that out to CS, but it just doesn’t seem to penetrate.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well…it won’t penetrate here either, Arch. Like it or not, any response to any question you pose will be answered in light of that Word. If that dismays you, then you probably ought to find another Christian to argue with.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Well…it won’t penetrate here either” – I would expect that of you, Wally, I’ve seen your blog. I didn’t stay for much the same reason I don’t make fun of a Down’s Syndrome child. I could feel nothing, upon reading it, except compassion and pity, wondering what a sad childhood you must surely have had. It was your mother who brow-beat you with the Bible, wasn’t it Wally, and convinced you that if you didn’t walk a very narrow path, you would burn forever in hell? What kind of thing is that to tell a child?

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Really Arch? You know my childhood? Well, my friend, you are so off base it’s not even funny. Me? I was more anti God than you until a few years ago..My parents never even had a Bible in the house, nor would my father have had one. Maybe you ought to watch the assumptions you make, eh? I kicked against the goads for 45 miserable years….then I surrendered. Sorry to break your heart…my conversion was not the result of some horrible childhood of cruel indoctrination…bur rather the result of a life of rebellion…followed by conviction..then gloriously by salvation.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Oh…and by the way…walking the narrow path never saves us…by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God. NOT of works, lest any man should boast…..We don’t earn our way…God’s grace gives us the way.

          Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        True story – I found a dime the other day on the sidewalk. I don’t know who lost it, but just because I didn’t know the source, gave me no reason to believe it dropped out of a god’s pocket.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          By the way Milo, I mean ArcH-

          Your dime? In what sense is it REALLY yours? Do you own the mineral and mining rights to the earth? Is the periodic table of the elements yours?

          Can you pick ANYTHING up off the ground and claim title to it, as in distinctly yours? Didn’t think so.

          So in your mocking way that you are accustomed to, yes, it really is God’s dime now isn’t it?

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Do you own the mineral and mining rights to the earth?” – Nope, just the mineral and mining rights to the dime.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Your answer sheds much insight arcH-

          Clever yes. Untruthful, yes. Everything u have comes from the hand of Another; perhaps u will see someday.

          Like

    • David says:

      “What you will find is….they don’t know! No clue whatsoever..none that is observable, verifiable or even agreed on by more than a few.”

      Well, this is not my area of expertise, but I think that you slightly exaggerate when you say “no clue whatsoever”. I think that there may be at least a few tiny clues out there. And to the extent that they might have a clue, the “clue” is based, at least in part, on observations about how the universe works. So, I think it may be going a bit too far to suggest that physicist know absolutely nothing about this. Don’t want to go too far in your description of what is known, right?

      “On the other hand…you have God’s Word. It tells us about origins…how can you simply discount it when you openly acknowledge that you have to idea?”

      Well, first, I don’t “simply discount it”. As previously stated, there is overwhelming evidence that Genesis does not provide us with a literal history of life on Earth. Like any hypothesis about origins, it needs to be tested.

      Second, You are presenting a false dichotomy. The fact that I have no idea in no way increases the odds that you have the right idea. It’s not either/or, Maybe neither one of us knows the answer.

      Third, how do you know that it’s “God’s word” instead of the words of humans? How can you tell? Countless cultures have traditions that “tell us about origins.” They believe that they have the answer to the question of origins, too. Maybe some other culture got it right. Or maybe all cultures, including the ancient Hebrew culture, got it wrong.

      “It’s the truth, God’s truth.”

      Is it? How do you know?

      “It does take faith…but faith is all it takes.”

      Again, no rudeness intended here, but the same can be said for belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

      Finally, to quote Richard Feynman, I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.

      Like

    • David says:

      A god who drops dimes on sidewalks? Now, I could get into a god like that.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        David…the one true God can drop much more into your life than a crummy dime..just sayin.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Most gods expect you to follow them, and I decided this one I thought might actually be worth the effort, but he gave me the slip – turned into a burning bush, then a pillar of fire and off he went across the countryside.

        Like

    • David says:

      I have modest needs. I’d settle for dimes.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Ah….but you can have so much more. Do you know how God gives? …From the abundance of His riches…all the good gifts and perfect gifts are from above…an so on and so forth.

        Like

  2. archaeopteryx1 says:

    I believe God DOES NOT exist. Bingo. Positive assertion.” – I don’t say that Wally, I say that I have seen no evidence that a god, any god, exists. As Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it:

    “God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    How many paint the young ones as mindless dupes for believing in a Creator?
    Clearly that isn’t happening as often as you (plural) like, or theists wouldn’t consistently be trying to find ways to skirt the 2nd Amendment and shoe-horn religion into public schools, knowing full well that in those younger, formative years, the un-developed brain is more susceptible to the power of suggestion.

    Like

  4. tildeb says:

    Thanks to archeopteryxt1, the point you do not, have not, and seems will not understand is that your assertion that non believers hate your god is true only in your head. My point is that you keep making this assertion in spite of compelling evidence from atheists to the contrary. That point is what I and archeopteryxt1 say you do not get. It’s time to get it.

    Like

  5. archaeopteryx1 says:

    I don’t know what it’s like on your end Wally, but you’re coming through loud and clear here.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. archaeopteryx1 says:

    No hidden agenda” – Wally, you’re such a nice guy that I can’t POSSIBLY imagine you as ever having a “hidden agenda”!

    Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      Arch..nope no hidden agenda here…all up front and in the open. My sole and only purpose is to share the wonderful Gospel of Jesus Christ with a lost world…you caught me…oh my!

      Like

  7. Wally Fry says:

    Tildeb and Arch

    I do have a question..and it’s a real question. Let’s assume Neil Degrasse Tyson is correct, and believers are eventually going to be swallowed into the every shrinking pocket…then why hurry it along. Truth is, all the opposition merely keeps the “fallacy” alive. If we are doomed to be sucked into the hole of logic, common sense and science…why not just let us all die out naturally?

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      Naturally, Wally, I can’t speak for Tildeb, but for myself, I never go on ANY theist’s blogsite, espousing my points of view, until that blogger – much like CS – comes on one of the atheist sites I post on, proselytizing, as CS did. If you guys (not you) would stay on your side of the road, I’d have no problem staying on mine, but guys like CS insist on taking his half out of the middle.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Ok Arch…fair enough…as far as WP goes. But…that’s my question expanded. Seems that there is a desperate desire for folks like me to simply completely shut up and be silent. I many not “cross the road” here…but I certainly wade right across that sucker in real life. It”s as if the overriding objective is to remove faith from any expression other than a completely private one. Have faith, but don’t dare tell anybody. It’s not hate which compels me to tell The Story, it’s love. Since I do believe what I believe with all of my heart, then the natural result in my mind is that to NOT tell it, and share it, would actually be an expression of hatred.

        I am the last person proposing a theocracy. But the 2d amendment not only prohibits the establishment of religion, but the de establishment of any. And, the truth is, that seems to be the goal of many non theists. Not saying its true for you…but it is for many.

        Big example…school prayer. Huge difference between state sponsored prayer being forced on people…and not allowing personal expression by a single person, such as a student. And that is the direction it has taken in many places.

        Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Wally, again, I can’t speak for other atheists, any more than you can hope to speak for all theists, I can only tell you my personal point of view – I have no desire to “shut you up” – on the other hand (metaphorically speaking), you have every right to swing your fist, but that right ends just short of my nose. You say, “It’s not hate which compels me to tell The Story, it’s love,” and that’s good and fine, but do you ever first ask if the person in question wants to hear it? My ears are as much my private space, as is my nose.

          Yet there are those theists, in this country, who would like to see Christianity become the national religion.

          “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
          — John Adams —
          (founding Father and second President of the United States)

          Huge difference between state sponsored prayer being forced on people…and not allowing personal expression by a single person, such as a student.

          Your people (theists) have homes in which you can pray your hearts out – churches, same thing – and before and after school, the entire WORLD to pray in – furthermore, no one can control the thoughts of any student, who is free to issue a silent prayer at any time without consequences. But that isn’t the theist agenda – it’s to slide religion back into the schools, one innocuous inch at a time, until on future incursions, they can point back and say, “See? There’s a precedent!

          “If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.”
          — H. P. Lovecraft —

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Ok…Arch…let’s say I pray at the table next to you and it reaches your ears…is that tromping your rights? And FYI…I inflict myself on unwilling ears every chance I get. Complete strangers in fact. Is that tromping their rights? I hush if they say go away..but is the fact that I even said it inherently wrong?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Reverse that Wally – make yourself the recipient and fist-swinging the offense, do you think another has a right to invade your personal space in such a way without permission?

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Praying so you hear it and punching you are not the same…sheesh.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Praying so you hear it and punching you are not the same” – What’s the need, Wally – doesn’t your own NT tell you to pray in secret and your god will reward you in public? Unless, of course, you have an agenda, and you WANT the person next to you to hear you, for some more devious purpose than simply having a chat with your god.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          ArcH

          When Paul the apostle stood on the ship in the midst of all unbelievers, he unashamedly ‘gave thanks’ for the bread, thanking God for His providence, and safety. This was not ‘closet prayer’ here.

          Wally is simply saying, he is not ashamed to give thanks publicly whereas many believers are not comfortable praying in public.

          Yea, if he turned to them and gave a sermon, you would have a case. But simple thanks is respectful, recognizing that everything comes from God above.

          I am of the opinion that some unbelievers are secretly jealous that some have such courage.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          many believers are not comfortable praying in public” – because in the NT, your Yeshua is quoted as telling them not to – they likely feel uncomfortable disobeying their god.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          So…..the goal is for us to all just shut up…sorry Charlie….the same NT you so freely and quite wrongly quote also tells me to proclaim the Gospel. ..I reckon that puts you in quite the pickle. Cus I ain’t shuttin up any time soon.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I’m not the one in a pickle, Wally – your own book tells you to pray in secret – are you saying I’m wrongly quoting that? Because I really don’t want to go to the trouble of looking up the exact chapter and verse, but I can if you insist I’m wrong. If you’re at least as well-versed in the Bible as I am, and you certainly should be, then you KNOW it’s in there.

          Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      OK Arch…this debate is crazy. You know darn well the Bible does not instruct me to only pray in my closet…that is absurd and you know it. To couch my doing otherwise is simply misdirection. If I pray in public, which I if fact do…to thank Him for some meal in particular, and you are offended just because you hear it…too bad really for you. Are you offended by other things? Should all diners remain silent unless their views are approved by you? What other views do you ban in public? Why just this one? Why why why is is so particularly harmful? Arch, the louder you holler, the closer you are…come on over my friend.

      And honestly the idea of arguing about my prayer life with somebody who thinks prayer is stupid is just….stupid.

      If you want to answer, answer quickly…I’m heading down shortly to meet with the other cave people for some indoctrination…you know, Wednesday church?

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        I don’t want to argue with you Wally, I just don’t understand why you feel the need to put on a show, by doing what the Bible tells you to do in private – you even quoted the closet thing, something I never mentioned, so I KNOW you know exactly which verse I’m referring to.

        I’m heading down shortly to meet with the other cave people for some indoctrination…you know, Wednesday church?” – That would be your reinforcement meeting, that you attend to solidify your confirmation bias and get your dopamine fix that comes with having everyone around you, agree with you. We all do that, just differently – some go to bars, others to AA meetings, while many hobbyists belong to clubs – same thing.

        Like

      • tildeb says:

        What’s the hardship in praying privately? Why this unreasonable need to have to broadcast it… and then claim victimhood if told to stop doing that?

        Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          No hardship in it at all. I do it privately often…I also do it outside as well…any place I feel the need to. What is the problem If pray so you hear me? How precisely are you harmed, other than you feel the conviction of your rejection?..Just sayin..and btw Im done with this debate…lets pick it back up on the next post gentlemen.

          Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “The moon. He promised to let it shine in perpetuity as his oath to protect the nation of Israel. In short, if the moon disappeared tomorrow, then yep, no God.”

      The moon will, in fact, stop shining one day because the solar system has a finite life span. The moon will not shine in perpetuity.

      At some point in time, the Sun will expand and probably wipe out the Earth and the Moon (assuming that the Moon has not completely slipped away from the Earth by then). Even if the Moon somehow survives, it will go dark when the Sun subsequently shrinks and goes blinks out. (I suspect that the ancient Hebrews didn’t fully realize that the Moon does not generate its own light.) Unfortunately, we obviously won’t be here to see it, so I won’t be able to show you the the moon will not shine in perpetuity. However, if you accept astronomical science, then I think that we may have just disproved your particular version of God and/or we can conclude that God is “fraudulent.”

      Ironically, since blind non-theistic celestial mechanics leads us to conclude that the moon will, in fact, shine tonight, it would actually be a better proof of God if the moon flew away. This would truly be an inexplicable miracle.

      Speaking of rainbows, were there rainbows before Noah’s Flood?

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Perpetuity as it relates to the earth and his covenantal promise. Israel! No other nation like it.

        Apart from intelligence, there is no reason for a moon whatsoever. Thank God for his genius to make a light for night.

        As to the rainbow, interesting indeed. None before the deluge. That’s a whole other topic.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Arch-
    How are ya?

    I’m fine, but I see you’re delusional as usual.

    Didja read the post here? You may want to address the merits” – Oh, I read it, but I’ve yet to find anything you’ve written to ever HAVE any merits.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Delusional? It appears I am rising up in esteem.

      But do tell, WHICH of the lines in the post is not true?

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        But do tell, WHICH of the lines in the post is not true?” – The ones that can’t be backed up with empirical, testable evidence.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Nice arcH-

          Isn’t portraying patriarcHs and apostles as ‘delusional’ one of your favs?

          IS THIS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE? Has it not been TESTED by my posts alone and by your replies?

          You are tightening the noose around your own neck arcH. C’mon give in to the grace of God..

          You would also be in the Resisting mode. Paragraph 2. Empirical evidence. I would add incontrovertible also.

          Not only arcH is your statement not true, you cannot find a flaw in what you deem un-testable.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Not only arcH is your statement not true, you cannot find a flaw in what you deem un-testable

          Well, a couple, actually – both contained in your statement, “…further proof for the existence of God is His knowledge that….

          First, I would need to see testable, verifiable proof that your “god” exists, then, that he had foreknowledge of anything that followed your statement – but other than that —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          You are missing the point arcH-

          Your present behaviour was fore-told by the Creator. Your attitude toward Him, and your recalcitrance toward others who rely on Him is palpable.

          This is one piece of evidence you asked for, and which you deny. Observable, testable, provable, verifiable.

          If you don’t believe the evidence that is seen, how will you believe greater things?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Your present behaviour was fore-told by the Creator.” – Evidence, please —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Well arcH-

          I wrote a post about it, you said u read it.It explains it all.

          How much more proof do u need? How many scriptures do u want?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          How many scriptures do u want?” – As many as you have CS, that don’t involve a man SAYING that he’s quoting what his god said – no hearsay, please.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          ArcH ArcH-

          It is ALL God’s word, therefore any text will suffice. May I refer you to the book of Jude. No hearsay, straight from the heart of God.

          You are not far from the kingdom of God ArcH-
          seek and ye shall find

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          It is ALL God’s word” – Evidence, please:
          a) That there is a god
          b) That the god in question is the god of the Bible
          c) That the words of the Bible are all this particular god’s words.

          May I refer you to the book of Jude. No hearsay, straight from the heart of God” – Entirely hearsay, it was written by a man called Jude, not a god named Yahweh.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Some people are just hopeless arcH- hope u are not one of them. ‘For ever oh Lord thy word is settled in heaven.’

          -Who? the Lord
          -what? His word is settled
          -where? in heaven
          -When? forever

          Again, the post today is clear as a bell, and no more help will be given u on this thread

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I don’t need help, just evidence, of which you seem to be in short supply. Should you ever come up with any feel free to get back to me.

          Like

  9. koppieop says:

    Wally Fry or Color Storm: Can you explain to me why teachers feel it necessary to teach people a religion? And why it is that (literally) EVERYTHING that tutors conveyed to me, word for word, was exaclty what made me doubt, think for myself, what made me rebel against inconsistent story-telling and circular reasoning, and what made me draw (at the age of 15,16, long, long ago) the eye-opening and heartwarming conclusion that I don’t need any religion to be a good person who looks at mankind, the universe and nature with unending awe?.
    Many good things are made in the name of religion, but they are also made without religious considerations. Of course, the same happens with bad things; the difference is that criminal nonbelievers do not invoke atheism to commit wrong acts.
    Greetings..

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Hi Koppie-

      I looked at some of your other comments elsewhere, so I would have a better context for answering you. Tkx for visiting. I can’t answer for others, but I do know that all the issues of life can be found in God’s word. It is not a religious book.

      I agree with you, you do not need ‘religion’ to be a good person. The world is full of people who do good things. But morality is not spirituality, and this is a world of difference.

      Many appreciate the splendor of the world apart from God, but again, where did awe spring from and is it important?.

      The ultimate question however, is what is the origin, purpose, and destiny of life and death? Many answers are good, but Wally and myself, and countless others, believe there are absolute answers.

      Your thought of ‘why’ people and most cultures search for a spiritual identity is rooted in the conscience which knows by birth, that there is a Creator.

      Hope I helped a little. Come back any time, and please visit Wally at his place too!

      Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      Koppie

      Thanks for the question. Sadly, you are so correct, much bad has been done in the name of religion. Also, religion is not needed to do good, either. But my faith is not “religion” in the sense I think you may think of it. It’s a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. To sum up, it is about origins and endings. Where did all of this, and me, come from; and ultimately, how will it all end? Not sure that is helpful, but feel free to come visit me. I mostly write about the topic of that relationship and how one get’s it and develops it. Thanks so much for asking, and God Bless you.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. koppieop says:

    … many good things are done in the name of..
    Sorry.-.

    Like

  11. ColorStorm says:

    Tag team is good-
    same message, different words 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  12. koppieop says:

    ColorStorm and Wally: You wonder where awe for the splendor of the world springs from?
    Six hundred years ago, I would have agreed with you on the origins of life and the universe, because God was (gods were) the only possible explanation. So obvious, and so easy and also, so limited. But science caused the development of two kinds of mindsets, two ways in which neurons form cognitive circuits. In the beginning, almost all neurons establish the same basic connections; one group (A) of individuals seem to remain satisfied with that knowledge; neurons of the other group (B) become aware that there is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any philosophy, and they seek new associations, gather information, facts, experiences. This is not obvious, nor easy. And the sky is not the limit.
    The answer to your above question is, in your opinion, God, I say I don’t know. What is wrong with not knowing an answer to such a difficult question? Let it be a mystery, a beautiful enigma. I was given this life to live, to make the best of it. I am grateful for the challenge, but I don’t feel the need to worship a supernatural being for it. And if there is no afterlife, it does not bother me, I love my existence, and I’m perfectly comfortable with my lack of knowledge about the origin, purpose, and destiny of life and death. – And one more thing: if – if – I would ever come to believe in a God, it will certainly not be an anthropologic, personal God.
    The difference between belief and unbelief speaks for itself, a convergence would be a contradiction in terms.
    Thanks for your reply, and thus, the opportunity to express my thoughts.-

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wally Fry says:

      Koppie

      You are quite welcome..anytime you want to visit..you can come see me too at
      http://truthinpalmyra.wordpress.com/
      Hope ColorStorm doesn’t mind the link LOL.

      Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Kopp-

      Just a little house-cleaning.

      When you say I wonder as to the ‘awe’ of nature, it is not wondering, as in not knowing; it is wondering as in Wonderful, knowing From whom, Of whom, and To whom this Creation belongs to.

      It is a marvelous thing for creatures on earth to give honor to the God of all that is. And yes, He is personal and can be known. By the way, what was true 600 years ago, was true a thousand years ago, is true today, and still will be true 2000 years from today. .

      Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      What is wrong with not knowing an answer to such a difficult question?
      Because they’re terrified of burning in that mythological place they call hell. Just look at the last comment:

      “11 Serve the Lord with fear
      and celebrate his rule with trembling.
      “12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
      and your way will lead to your destruction,
      for his wrath can flare up in a moment.”

      It’s all about fear – what kind of life is it, if it’s spent fearing and trembling?

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Ohhhh..Arch…I so don’t serve out of fear. I have none whatsoever. I do have an abundance of gratitude and love for the God who, despite how I personally did all the things above…still cared enough to provide me a way to be reconciled to Him.

        Like

  13. Wally Fry says:

    Also, David if you remember Faith to Think? She visits my blog some…she is a great and willing source if you want more than one perspective. I just noticed she was answering another question for you over on my blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Wally Fry says:

    Some of the questions sound familiar to me….oďd

    Like

  15. David says:

    “There was a ‘mist’ that suggests there was a ground up greenhouse perfect mechanism.”

    So, now we have to imagine a world without any sunshine ever, a world in which the relative humidity is 100% at all points around the Earth. Do you have any idea of the kinds of problems this would cause for most terrestrial species, including humans? This is great if you’re a fungus, but it’s a horrifying world for humans.

    So, what changes as a result of the Flood such that the planet has a climate that is radically, radically different after the Flood? Some set of extraordinary physical conditions must have existed to create the perpetual mist, and then these physical conditions must have radically changed to give us our current global climate. To pull this off, it’s going to require far more changes in far more variable than just a change in the shape of rain drops.

    And you wonder why people who can accept the possibility of Milo’s home run might find it difficult to accept your version of God? Honestly, and I don’t be to in the least bit snarky here, is it really that hard to understand why someone might find it incredibly difficult to accept “the testimony of the good book”?

    Like

  16. David says:

    Sorry, meant to put this at the end.

    Like

  17. archaeopteryx1 says:

    I found this especially enlightening:

    The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, found in 2012 that evangelicals accepted the attitudes and beliefs of the Pharisees—religious leaders depicted throughout the New Testament as opposing Christ and his message—more than they accepted the teachings of Jesus.

    Like

  18. archaeopteryx1 says:

    The Newsweek article that Colorstorm will never have the courage to read:

    (Editor note:
    This poster included a link to Newsweek and the comment thread there. Go take a look if you wish,its called ‘The bible, so misunderstood its a sin’) CS

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Of course I saw it arcHx1, many atheist sites are having fun playing in this sandbox of foolishness; perhaps some of your own members are laughing as well.

      I did find it quite amusing, of all the useless charges made, the writer had a lying tongue when he said ‘he, nor a tv preacher, nor you or I have read the bible.’ He may be right about himself, and you, and others, but his pretentiousness as to WHO read it, is rather embarrassing and insulting, to himself that is.

      Comical that you too would find useful, a word from a man who mocks christian and bible, yet believes not one word of the book he is condemning.

      I’m never surprised at the lengths people will go (you also) to dismiss a book in which they have no interest. I’m thinkin many like to find fault in others to rid themselves of what the good book without a doubt convicts them of.

      At the end of the day, the ruling on the field stands:

      The word of God is true, and every man is a liar.

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Clearly you didn’t read the article, or you didn’t understand it – OR, another possibility, since it wasn’t written in 17th Century English, there’s a possibility you were INCAPABLE of understanding it.

        When the article’s author said, “he, nor a tv preacher, nor you or I have read the bible,” he was saying that the Bible on bookshelves today is not the original Bible as it was written, due to the many, MANY changes that have been made to it over the past 3,000 years since the Yahwist Source decided to set down their version of the history of the Jews. Maybe a course in comprehensive reading would benefit you, but I doubt it.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          So arcH-

          The words of a clever man have impressed you.

          The KjV is fine and dandy, and the proof is in the time tested results, both here and abroad. It is unchanged, and has been since 1611.

          The writer can accuse and malign as to ‘what’ is the word of God, and many will follow his pernicious ways. but many are not moved.

          He reminds me of the average modern seminary student who doesn’t believe a word of the good book.

          I’m guessing he laughs at the idea of a great flood eh. His type are a dime a dozen; scripture is full of warnings about this type of fellow.

          Not impressed.

          (by the way, have you read the thread at Newsweek? there are some quality comments about the petty article.)

          Like

      • tildeb says:

        You know it’s in this ‘sandbox of foolishness’ that mining and resource extraction companies invest billions if not trillions of dollars based not on a maybe/maybe-not pretend world you think you inhabit but on the sound knowledge of geology and geography and hydrology the rest of us inhabit…. you know, the real world where this knowledge comes from… and tested all the time by the structural demonstration of what is that shows us in no uncertain terms that no world flood occurred some 5-12K years ago. You don’t care. The evidence that should be there if your model were a reasonable explanation is not there. You don’t care. No amount of contrary believing will make it appear. Again, you don’t care.

        You don’t care that reality has some say in claims made about it.

        Talk about arrogance.

        You know CS, I find it fascinating that you present your take on the flood as if it were an explanatory model that works and you throw in a few chestnuts long debunked but, hey, you don’t care about any of that. This model that you think works doesn’t work to explain the evidence… evidence just as available to you as it is me. You don’t care. A model that does seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time – the one these companies rely on for their businesses – is not some equivalent but different model; it’s one that really does incorporate all the evidence and accounts for it. Your model does not.

        But you simply don’t care, do you?

        Your faith-based belief suffices.

        What we find as a result of your confidence is very telling. You present your ignorance and determination to refuse reality’s arbitration of your claims as if it were a badge of honour rather than shame. You present your piety as if were a righteous shield against exercising justified skepticism and accruing new knowledge. This kind of faith is a defensive belief that will brooke no alteration. No evidence from reality can alter it. It is set and the gate is closed. What you see as apillar of strength – your faith-based beliefs – is from this side of the demonstration that of mind closed.

        What I see with your posting and commentary is an advertisement of all that is pernicious about religious belief, demonstrating time and again intellectual dishonesty against ever correcting your factually wrong beliefs, lying for Jesus, and believing yourself virtuous for maintaining not just endearing childish credulity but intentional gullibility in the name of piety to remain an ignoramus.

        Too harsh? Well, consider…

        You don’t care about respecting what’s true; you care only about your faith-based beliefs. You don’t care about what’s accurate; you care only about your faith-based beliefs. You don’t care about acquiring new knowledge and alterning misconceptions and misunderstandings; you care only about your faith-based beliefs. You don’t care about intellectual integrity; you care only about your faith-based beliefs. You impose on reality only what agrees with your faith-based beliefs and then post as if there are good reasons other than your faith-based beliefs for people to join you in your religious delusion that is dismissive of the reality we share and fraudulently presented; after all and without question, you care only about your faith-based beliefs and offer nothing of honest value to those who try to crack open your mind enough for you to see the travesty you have made of your natural curiosity in the name of your faith-based beliefs. You are welcome to remain proudly and arrogantly encapsulated in the ignorant cocoon of your own delusion.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          ‘Cocoon of your own delusion.’ You do get style points for that ending flourish.

          Do you have this opinion regarding ALL people of faith, or only selective ones?.

          I’ve said it before, I know many individuals in academia who are, ahem, learned in the sciences, but who also see the agreement of scripture, and their insights into both sort of embarrass what you say here.

          By the way, ‘what is this ‘lying for Jesus’ stuff you preach?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I know many individuals in academia who are, ahem, learned in the sciences, but who also see the agreement of scripture, and their insights into both sort of embarrass what you say here.

          You might know OF “many individuals in academia,” but I have serious doubts that you actually KNOW ANYone in academia! Except maybe your 6th grade teacher. Are you aware that a full 85% of the Academy of Science are atheists?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Archx1-

          You are too careless in your reading, i did not say ‘OF’ as u wrongly assume. This is why u have trouble connecting the dots.

          As a fact, one fellow in particular relays to me (PHD 25 plus year biology) that his colleagues admit they are skeptical to their atheistic/evolution position, but that they simply cannot tolerate the alternative; ie, a Creator.

          They see nothing BUT intelligence, and simply deny the hand of God.

          Your 85% sounds low though. That leaves room for quite a few eh, who have jumped off the A-train.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          They see nothing BUT intelligence, and simply deny the hand of God” – At least we agree on something, the “hand of god” DOES seem to be reserved for the unintelligent —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          ArcH-
          You really should try to read carefully.

          They see nothing BUT intelligence, as in CREATED INTELLIGENCE———— the results are inescapable TO THEM. They simply refuse to submit to One greater than themselves, who has proven Himself.

          A true scientist who denies God is a lying scientist.

          They are no different than you, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools……………..and denied the Creator…….and His creation.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Sorry I didn’t respond sooner, but I was over on the blog of of someone who is actually KNOWLEDGEABLE about religion, rather than merely parroting verses.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          I’m talking about you, specifically, ColorStorm. I’m talking about your absence of concern to be accurate, your absence of concern to understand, your absence of concern to learn, your absence of concern to align your beliefs with reality, your absence of concern when your beliefs do not align, and so on. That’s why I say you live in a cocoon of your own making in that your only concern is to promote your faith-based beliefs. Nothing else seems to matter. Hence, the closed mind. And you’re quite satisfied to live in this way. So be it.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Tilb-

          I have to be civil and thank u for your attention, and
          I’m impressed that you have gleaned so much, especially in a few interchanges. Let’s review:

          You say I have an absence of concern in:
          -accuracy
          -understanding
          -learning
          -aligning beliefs with reality
          -so on…

          I would ask you:

          Where is the inaccuracy?
          What is the misunderstanding?

          When Peter wrote of the flood of Noah, did he live in the cocoon of his own making? What did he not understand?

          My only concern is to promote faith based beliefs? I wish that were true, but its easy to get side tracked.

          But if you look at the heading on my site, its pretty clear that I ‘blend the issues of the day with the truth of scripture,’ so why would you be surprised?

          Still not sure tild when u say ‘I lie,’ that’s kind of a serious charge. You may want to cite an example.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          When Peter wrote of the flood of Noah, did he live in the cocoon of his own making? What did he not understand?” – As an illiterate fisherman, he of course would have had no awareness that the Gen 6-9 flood story was a plagiarism of the Sumerian flood story found in “The Epic of Gilgamesh, written about 2900 BCE, or that that fictional flood story was a dramatic retelling of an actual flood that took place in Iraq a hundred years earlier, when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks to a depth of 22.5 feet (15 cubits), and covered an area the equivalent of three modern counties.

          “em>But if you look at the heading on my site, its pretty clear that I ‘blend the issues of the day with the truth of scripture,’ so why would you be surprised?”

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          …your only concern is to promote your faith-based beliefs.” – Except that he’s not even good at that, outside his very tiny circle of back-patters.

          Like

    • David says:

      “Where is the inaccuracy?”

      It’s in the flood story.

      “A true scientist who denies God is a lying scientist.”

      Which God are we talking about here? Yahweh? There are lots of gods, so you need to be clear about this.

      Like

    • David says:

      “Where oh where have I heard that question? Hmmmmmm….odd.”

      If you could be more clear, perhaps I could help you with respect to the oddity.

      Regardless, the point is, if one is going to accuse scientists of lying, it would be helpful to know, specifically, what they are alleged to be lying about. This is a rather strong charge, so clarification is needed.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s