i am too perfect to have not been designed

[forumwarrior]

there i was the other day. sweating my butt off. just a walking down the street. not even singing doo wa diddy diddy dum diddy do. and as my sweat was diverted from my eyes by my brow, i thought to myself "you know what self? thats just too damn slick to have happened by chance"

i could feel the the sweat going from the middle of my forehead, around my caveman brow to the SIDES of my eyes. i was amazed. i was flabbergasted. i was in awe! i thought to myself "im not burning my eyeballs out with blinding salty sweat because GOD is a hell of a craftsman! "

and as i was sweating and walking in the heat, i saw turds all over the ground. and i thought to myself "you know self. i wonder why human beings evolved to NOT go sniffing on turds and urine like every other mammal in the world." wouldnt an enhanced sense of smell be USEFUL? doesnt evolution KEEP useful traits and get rid of unuseful ones?

even chimps, our "closest cousins" run around smelling on turds and piss. then why cant i sniff a turd on the ground and get anything but a bad smell out of it? why cant i smell some urine and instinctively know which way to go to get me some action? why would time and evolution deprive me of that?

i know why. because time and evolution had no part in it. GOD did it. but id like to hear what any science lover would have to say to the contrary.

[Janx]

Let's remove any and all particles from the area, the glass is perfectly sealed by a cover and the water is inside it. We have achieved a 'perfect pump'.

The mass (in weight) of the entire universe is hanging on the rope attached to a disk on the bottom of the glass of water. Use your imagination, .. something must enter the glass to replace the water, or else, the whole universe will just dangle there forever.

Using your imagination, knowing about microwaves, light waves, tacheons, dark matter and whatever else we can think of, could we create (in our minds) a perfect vacuum?

No Odon, the universe would not hang on this rope. If this experiment was done in space it would take even less force because because there is no atmospheric pressure or gravity holding the water in.

I believe we are on to something my friend. You just defined a 'perfect vacuum' as was understood 'yesterday', but our imagination can perform everything needed for this experiment, for free.

No. I explained perfect vacuum in parallel to it's definition.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are trying to say is that we cannot create a part of space that doesn't exist. Even if you take out all matter and energy from region of space that space still belongs to this world. Did I get it right? This is not absolute vacuum. I don't know what to call this, nothing would not suffice because anything that can be conceived and/or tested becomes something.

I hope you understand how your are wrong about black holes too. They are not creating nothing.

You keep using false facts and misinterpretations in an attempt to disprove that which you don't understand. It's a little bit like not being able to solve an algebra problem and claiming that "algebra is boloney because I can't solve an algebra problem". I don't get you sir. Why do you go half way in your pursuit of knowledge? Why not actually learn about that which puzzles you?

The universe cannot take up space in nothing, So the Bible is RIGHT, and I just proved it, God said he IS, or that 'I Am' and there is NONE besides Him, and as I proved that nothing, or that perfect-vacuum cannot exist, so as the Bible says, God is 'everything'.

Again, 'something' cannot exist in nothing, no matter how big or small you imagine the 'nothing' to be.

Now imagine the possibilities with a 'lot of things', then how about with 'Everything' which includes all power, all knowledge, all substance, and all possible and impossible possibilities. And if there is something yet unimagined in God, He can create it, .. as I said, "endless possibilities".

Okay Odon. You call everything a God. I call everything nature.

You still have a long way to go before this everything becomes God of the Bible. The Bible God is personal. It's a being that thinks, possess will, gets emotional, changes it's mind, talks to people and sends itself to earth in the form of Jesus and many other things. When you start proving to me that this everything around us possess qualities of your God I will stop calling it nature and join you.

Until then: try again.

Cheers

[Janx]

We cannot achieve a perfect vacuum because it CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. The universe cannot take up space in nothing, So the Bible is RIGHT, and I just proved it, God said he IS, or that 'I Am' and there is NONE besides Him, and as I proved that nothing, or that perfect-vacuum cannot exist, so as the Bible says, God is 'everything'.

The first gods explained specific natural phenomenon and attributed it to the Gods. The Greeks said that Zeus brought down lightning upon us. They saw lightning and said it was proof of Zeus. The Christians simply took this concept further. They said that the whole world was a part of God. With this belief the whole world became proof of God. This is no different than a child showing presents as evidence of Stanta.

Again, 'something' cannot exist in nothing, no matter how big or small you imagine the 'nothing' to be.

The fact that something exists simply proves that something exists. Now it's time to prove that this is something more. What defines a Bible God to you? What makes your concept of God unique over natural phenomenon and other god concepts? Find those unique characteristics and show them in the world around you.

[arian]

Let's remove any and all particles from the area, the glass is perfectly sealed by a cover and the water is inside it. We have achieved a 'perfect pump'.

The mass (in weight) of the entire universe is hanging on the rope attached to a disk on the bottom of the glass of water. Use your imagination, .. something must enter the glass to replace the water, or else, the whole universe will just dangle there forever.

Using your imagination, knowing about microwaves, light waves, tacheons, dark matter and whatever else we can think of, could we create (in our minds) a perfect vacuum?

No Odon, the universe would not hang on this rope. If this experiment was done in space it would take even less force because because there is no atmospheric pressure or gravity holding the water in.

Please Janx, If I may ask you, how much mathematics, physics do you have under your belt? Or, do you understand the basics of general relativity?

I have very little math equivalent to 5th grade I would say. So I do listen to those that 'know more on the subject'. But that does not mean I will accept everything they tell me. If I see that they are wrong, I don't care how much schooling they have, if I can prove they are wrong, .. they are wrong.

Now I believe that this is also true going the other way. If someone with 'very little schooling' comes up with a problem/question, just because he has little education doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

I was hoping others would jump in here to back you up, ... or to back me up (like that will be the day)

It is obvious to me you don't understand my theory.

What you are saying is similar to this

Dummy: "If I add a drop of water to the Atlantic Ocean, how much would it make the ocean rise?"

Person with a four year college degree: "The amount is insignificant, .. it is a dumb question. It could not be measured. You don't know nothing! First learn basic math, and then come and ask this question." etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are trying to say is that we cannot create a part of space that doesn't exist. Even if you take out all matter and energy from region of space that space still belongs to this world. Did I get it right? This is not absolute vacuum. I don't know what to call this, nothing would not suffice because anything that can be conceived and/or tested becomes something.

I am using physics, using physical evidence in trying to create 'a perfect vacuum'. You are limiting your mind to what you can see and understood so far. You are either incapable or are afraid to go beyond this in your head.

This is a very real problem with atheists. God is something frightening to them, so they simply say: "He doesn't exist"

It is sad. Jesus called this limitation a 'spiritual death'.

I hope you understand how your are wrong about black holes too. They are not creating nothing.

My answer to that might offend you, so I will humbly recede, but to try to maintain my 'honesty' in our debate, I will leave you with what you are telling me next. Another words, read your next quote as if I was telling you this:

You keep using false facts and misinterpretations in an attempt to disprove that which you don't understand. It's a little bit like not being able to solve an algebra problem and claiming that "algebra is boloney because I can't solve an algebra problem".
I don't get you sir. Why do you go half way in your pursuit of knowledge? Why not actually learn about that which puzzles you?

Okay Odon. You call everything a God. I call everything nature.

That's like me saying; "I walk on the earth" while another person says: "I walk on dirt."
Dirt is only a 'part' of the earth, there is a lot more to it.

You still have a long way to go before this everything becomes God of the Bible. The Bible God is personal. It's a being that thinks, possess will, gets emotional, changes it's mind, talks to people and sends itself to earth in the form of Jesus and many other things. When you start proving to me that this everything around us possess qualities of your God I will stop calling it nature and join you.

Until then: try again.

Yes, Bible God IS personal, and we see those same traits in His image 'man'. I was hoping to prove to you through physics and beyond, what the OP asked, that "I am too perfect to have NOT been designed." But we can't seem to go beyond the indoctrinations you have allowed your mind to be bound by.

Thank you Janx.

Odon.

[arian]

We cannot achieve a perfect vacuum because it CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. The universe cannot take up space in nothing, So the Bible is RIGHT, and I just proved it, God said he IS, or that 'I Am' and there is NONE besides Him, and as I proved that nothing, or that perfect-vacuum cannot exist, so as the Bible says, God is 'everything'.

The first gods explained specific natural phenomenon and attributed it to the Gods. The Greeks said that Zeus brought down lightning upon us. They saw lightning and said it was proof of Zeus. The Christians simply took this concept further. They said that the whole world was a part of God. With this belief the whole world became proof of God. This is no different than a child showing presents as evidence of Santa.

Santa is the evidence of Santa. There a millions of books explaining who Santa is, where he lives, his little elf children, his big elf wife, his characteristics like being omnipresent and all knowing, and so on. To make sure they don't loose faith in this old Elf, people even take the kids to the mall, to church to see Santa with their own eyes.
You want more proof, look at all the 'pictures' parents take of Santa with their kids sitting on his lap, and them bawling their eyes out in terror as they look upon this demonic creature of the underworld.

Santa, just as Zeus is just another of mans alternate-gods to suppress that need, that calling to know his Real God and Creator.

Again, 'something' cannot exist in nothing, no matter how big or small you imagine the 'nothing' to be.

The fact that something exists simply proves that something exists.

Good, that's a start. We know this for a fact, right? Now let's go back to the big-bang theory that you believe in, and let's ask: "What is the pin-sized universe residing in?"

You answered; "We really don't know, it might be 'nothing'."

Then with my experiment I proved that; 'something' cannot exist in nothing, no matter how big or small you imagine the 'nothing' to be
Why?

First, because as I showed you, we cannot create nothing, or a perfect-vacuum.

Second, if something, anything, even a pin-sized universe was in nothing, than that would not be 'nothing' anymore. This was in my water in glass experiment as proof, that no amount of power, nor gravity the size of the mass of the universe could create a 'nothing', or a 'perfect vacuum/void'.

Now just in case 'nothing' really existed, my experiment would not let that 'nothing' into the glass because of its perfect seal. My idea was to 'create' nothing, or a 'perfect-vacuum'. The result is obvious, it cannot happen, so it does not exist.

So if the pin-sized universe was NOT in nothing (as I proved this), then what was it in?

Now I ask, .. theoretically, can a 'Black-Hole' in our universe suck in our universe or not?

The answer is yes, for that is the 'fear' created by the theory (built on a lot of assumptions) that a black-hole could eventually suck-in the entire universe, and I added that this is very simular (actually, .. is just like) the pin-sized shrinking universe before the big-bang. I have not read that the pin-sized universe was emitting light, .. so did it?

In that 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in, did it emit light? If not, then it was just like a black hole.

Now I also proved that 'TIME' had to exist in this 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in and getting smaller and smaller, by the very definition of time;

TIME
system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events.

If the tiny universe emitted light, or moved by getting smaller and smaller, or exploded, these are all 'distinguishing events', no? So TIME WAS PRESENT, and the theory of the big-bang is false.
Now we come to your next question:

Now it's time to prove that this is something more. What defines a Bible God to you? What makes your concept of God unique over natural phenomenon and other god concepts? Find those unique characteristics and show them in the world around you.

We have a thread devoted to this already by Susma: "The universe is evidence of God" which is my answer to your above question; the universe is proof of God, and many other things like thoughts that create beliefs in our minds. These are all very real.

Unless of course, ... you have blinded your mind to the knowledge of GOD which the physical universe is screaming with evidence of?

Odon.

[McCulloch]

This is a very real problem with atheists. God is something frightening to them, so they simply say: "He doesn't exist"

You fail to understand our reasons for denying the existence of God. Please do not speculate about these things.

So if the pin-sized universe was NOT in nothing (as I proved this), then what was it in?

One might argue that nothing is a concept, and since concepts are things, the concept of "nothing" itself is a thing. This logical fallacy is neatly demonstrated by the joke syllogism that contains a fallacy of four terms:

1. A sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than God.
3. Therefore, a sandwich is better than God.

It is a misrepresentation of the big bang to picture a pin-sized universe expanding into pre-existing empty space. There was no space for the universe to expand into. Space itself expanded.

I have not read that the pin-sized universe was emitting light, .. so did it?

No. There was nowhere for the light to go.

In that 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in, did it emit light? If not, then it was just like a black hole.

No it was not. A black hole exists within the universe, it has mass, spin and energy and it emits Hawking radiation. The universe did not reside in anything.

Now I also proved that 'TIME' had to exist in this 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in and getting smaller and smaller, by the very definition of time;

TIME
system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events.

Time did not exist until the first event. There is no North at the North pole.

[...] and the theory of the big-bang is false.

Thank you for that. You can present your evidence and arguments to the Nobel commission.

[arian]

Arian,

Macgregor and McDougal are drinking tea. Macgregor notices that McDougal takes his tea with cream.
No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream! says Macgregor.
I drink my tea with cream! McDougal answers.
As I said, replies Macgregor, no true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.

Thanks McCulloch, (and thanks for that monkey/Jane Goodal tramp cartoon, I loved it.)

As I can see, the oxymoron 'True Scotsman' was created by atheists to keep their slowly deteriorating foundation from being completely washed away.

May I ask you if there is some written law by some Scotsmen who have defined who a Scotsman is? Can we go to this written law and read and define for ourselves who is and who is NOT a True Scotsman? Can we weigh it on a balance against the no-true Scottsmans?

Where did Macgregor get the idea that 'no Scotsman takes cream in their tea'?

What authority has been given to Macgregor to determine what a True-Scotsman does or doesn't do, and who gave it to him? Maybe Macgregor is an English spy stirring up trouble by creating a division between the True Scotsman? We have to have a 'foundation in rock', otherwise it is all just some talk over some 'paint'.

The irony is killing me...
Arian, you have no authority to tell us who is a true Christian or not, you have no authority to tell us who is going to heaven and who is not.

You are just a man that makes statements of opinions as if they are facts. You are no different than Macgregor!

Exactly, who am I to come up with my own defenition of God, or say who is going to heaven or not, and who is a Christian or not. That is why God sent His messangers, His Prophets to proclaim his Word explaining all these things, and they are written in the Bible, as a clear message, and answers to any questions we might have on this earth regarding our Creator, and the path leading to His Kingdom.

Thanks

Odon

[Clownboat]

Arian,

Macgregor and McDougal are drinking tea. Macgregor notices that McDougal takes his tea with cream.
No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream! says Macgregor.
I drink my tea with cream! McDougal answers.
As I said, replies Macgregor, no true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.

Thanks McCulloch, (and thanks for that monkey/Jane Goodal tramp cartoon, I loved it.)

As I can see, the oxymoron 'True Scotsman' was created by atheists to keep their slowly deteriorating foundation from being completely washed away.

May I ask you if there is some written law by some Scotsmen who have defined who a Scotsman is? Can we go to this written law and read and define for ourselves who is and who is NOT a True Scotsman? Can we weigh it on a balance against the no-true Scottsmans?

Where did Macgregor get the idea that 'no Scotsman takes cream in their tea'?

What authority has been given to Macgregor to determine what a True-Scotsman does or doesn't do, and who gave it to him? Maybe Macgregor is an English spy stirring up trouble by creating a division between the True Scotsman? We have to have a 'foundation in rock', otherwise it is all just some talk over some 'paint'.

The irony is killing me...
Arian, you have no authority to tell us who is a true Christian or not, you have no authority to tell us who is going to heaven and who is not.

You are just a man that makes statements of opinions as if they are facts. You are no different than Macgregor!

Exactly, who am I to come up with my own defenition of God, or say who is going to heaven or not, and who is a Christian or not. That is why God sent His messangers, His Prophets to proclaim his Word explaining all these things, and they are written in the Bible, as a clear message, and answers to any questions we might have on this earth regarding our Creator, and the path leading to His Kingdom.

Thanks

Odon

I said, "you are just a man that makes statements of opinions as if they are facts".
You replied, "exactly".

Thank you for your honesty. I'm sure you realize, and especially in the science forum, that your opinions count for nothing.

If only you had some evidence for your outlandish claims.

[McCulloch]

Thanks for that monkey/Jane Goodal tramp cartoon, I loved it.

I think that he may have been thinking about Dian Fossey, who researched great apes and was murdered, probably by humans. Fossey's skull had been split by a panga (machete), a tool widely used by poachers, which she had confiscated from a poacher years earlier and hung as a decoration on the wall of her living room adjacent to her bedroom.

[arian]

Thanks for that monkey/Jane Goodal tramp cartoon, I loved it.

I think that he may have been thinking about Dian Fossey, who researched great apes and was murdered, probably by humans. Fossey's skull had been split by a panga (machete), a tool widely used by poachers, which she had confiscated from a poacher years earlier and hung as a decoration on the wall of her living room adjacent to her bedroom.

Yes, .. that is exactly what I remember hearing about. My mistake on confusing the two, Thanks again McCulloch.

My next post to you is in hopes of making a better point with a little more evidence. I eagerly await your opinion on it. I love debating with you.

Your friend;

MacGregor

[arian]

This is a very real problem with atheists. God is something frightening to them, so they simply say: "He doesn't exist"

You fail to understand our reasons for denying the existence of God. Please do not speculate about these things.

These are my observations, not speculations of most atheists. Of course there are much more reasons than just fear, a lot of it is because of the resentment that is created by those calling themselves Christian. I can understand that too.

Hello McCulloch

So if the pin-sized universe was NOT in nothing (as I proved this), then what was it in?

One might argue that nothing is a concept, and since concepts are things, the concept of "nothing" itself is a thing. This logical fallacy is neatly demonstrated by the joke syllogism that contains a fallacy of four terms:

1. A sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than God.
3. Therefore, a sandwich is better than God.

In my glass experiment I demonstrated that 'nothing' or a 'perfect void cannot be created, thus does not exist.

I agree with you on the 'concept' of nothing, like if I had a million dollars, and someone in need asked me for a buck, and I gave him nothing, not a penny, and this mans wife later asked him:

"Did Odon give you any money?"
he would answer; "no"

she could then ask: "Not even a dollar?"

He would say: "No, not even a penny, .. nothing."

The 'nothing' here is the money. Just because I did not give the needy any money does not mean that there is no money, or that money is really nothing. It only means that I did not move that money to where it was needed. I could have a million of it, yet I gave him 'nothing'.

Now the real 'nothing' does not exist, and cannot be created as I have demonstrated. The glass full of water that refuses to come out is waiting for 'nothing' to be created, and we could see it, or at least imagine this should it appear, as a 'void', a 'space' developing between the water and the bottom of the glass. In my mind, I have defined a real physical nothing, and the experiment proves that such a 'nothing' does not exist, because it would not create a 'void' with nothing' in it. So 'nothing' does not, and cannot exist, other than in concepts we described.

It is a misrepresentation of the big bang to picture a pin-sized universe expanding into pre-existing empty space. There was no space for the universe to expand into. Space itself expanded.

Another words, the universe expanded 'nothing' before time, creating space and time?
Where did the nothing go? Or is it still there holding space and time within it? Why am I pushing this? Because I really do 'see' this 'nothing' as GOD who is EVERYTHING. I will try my best to prove this.

As I have just proven with my experiment, 'nothing' cannot exist, and something cannot exist in nothing either. Nothing exists in nothing, thus the universe could NOT have existed in nothing, which proves this 'Big bang' never happened.

The theory of the Big bang is false, baseless, without foundation as far as science goes, for science is the study of the physical world, right?

Now the Big-Bang story does make a cute fairy tale (a come-back to you guys for calling the stories in the Bible, fairy-tales) , but should NOT be confused with science.

I have not read that the pin-sized universe was emitting light, .. so did it?

No. There was nowhere for the light to go.

Well yes, because light cannot exist in nothing, and neither can the pin-sized universe, agreed? This should also prove the hypothesis of the speed of light is wrong, for the speed is imagined to travel in a perfect vacuum, or nothing which is an impossibility in science. We cannot calculate and give a definite, or even a rough answer to a concept that is impossible to achieve or to even comprehand, thus it should not be used as a scientific means to measure distances.

Now the question is, what is the real speed of light?

By these obvious observations, we can throw out the red-shift theory, and come up with a more scientific theory to redefine the size of the universe, .. or at least the visible, observable universe.

We cannot start with nothing.
Nothing can exist in nothing,
Nothing can shrink - in nothing,
And as you said; even light cannot go anywhere in nothing. So obviously, NOTHING can explode in nothing, it has nowhere to explode into.

So according to this, the theory of a big-bang is well, nothing.

In that 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in, did it emit light? If not, then it was just like a black hole.

No it was not. A black hole exists within the universe, it has mass, spin and energy and it emits Hawking radiation. The universe did not reside in anything.

Thank you McCulloch, I looked up Hawking Radiation in quantum mechanics.

The cat in the box theory was interesting, which led me to quantum superposition. You have once again led me to understand, actually to define my coming to know God better.

If I understand the basics of quantum mechanics (I will need more then a few hours of study LOL) I can already see that this also will prove more on the existence of God. Actually, the more I read on quantum mechanics, the more it is like the way I see the Spiritual realm.

Quantum Superposition actually explains how I came to reading the Bible which revealed God whom I already knew, just wasnt yet aware of it.

Remember in other posts I tried to explain that it wasnt my parents who forced me to read the Bible, which in turn made me (think) I believe in God. Another word, I was NOT indoctrinated into Bible-God, it was by me observing from the outside, as if I wasnt even a part of this world (and most of the time I really wasnt because of the confusion created in my mind from my terrible abuse) and this gave me a perspective apart from me being part of that which I was observing. Quantum Superposition explains this in greater detail, which is almost impossible for me to have understood without this knowledge.

Thanks to you, now I can also understand a little more about the difference between the Black-Hole and the Big-Bang theory. Two separate laws apply, right? Looking at each one separately, but as one, as a whole the way I understand it.

Looking at only one, like the Big-bang theory, creates paradoxes like the ones I explained, that you cannot have the pin-sized universe residing in nothing and explode. You even admitted that even light couldnt emanate from the shrinking universe, then how could it explode, right?

Another paradox is time. If time was created after the Big-bang, the universe could not have been shrinking, much less explode. Too many things would be happening before the big-bang which are distinguishing events that define time.

Now I also proved that 'TIME' had to exist in this 'whatever' that the pin-sized universe was residing in and getting smaller and smaller, by the very definition of time;

TIME
system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events.

Time did not exist until the first event. There is no North at the North pole.

There is no North Pole without the North Pole either, and without the North Pole we dont have a North, right?

Likewise, you cannot have a Big Bang without getting there. Something had to have happened before the big bang. It was shrinking by a number of things happening to it, right?

The universe shrinking is like traveling towards the North Pole, so north is still a ways off and shows up on my compass. Even quantum superposition fails to explain this, for it can only deal with things already there, not before they happen. Or, predict one thing happening in many places at once. Basic quantum mechanics cannot expain this either, for once you define something and record it; someone has to read this and all kinds of paradoxes arise, and can be created by the inerpreter, right? Besides, even in quantum mechanics you need at least something in motion.

But what I understand you saying is that, you can come from the South (time-existing universe, today) and travel North ( back in time, Big Bang- first event) without the North (big bang) ever having yet come into existence.

So because this creates a problem, they say to ignore everything before the Big Bang, like where and why it happened. This of course creates a huge paradox because science claims to know why and how it happened, only the where part is a puzzle, and is meaningless to be even mentioned.

Well, I mention it, and ironically, scientists dealing with science admit it was in nothing and before time, which is impossible to comprehend, because science deals only with something measured by distinguishing events, or time.

Now they say: Maybe something always existed, only this causes even bigger problems, like the claimed age of the universe for one, counting back to the few seconds after the Big Bang.

Now the questions can arise that; 'How long did the universe exist before the big bang, and in what?'

You said light could not emanate from the pre-big bang universe because light had nowhere to go, so if no light could shine, then no bang could happen either, am I right?
No big bang, then were back to a tiny rock existing in nothing, doing nothing, just waiting for time to come around.

Illogical, I'm sure Spock would agree with me.

and the theory of the big-bang is false.

Thank you for that. You can present your evidence and arguments to the Nobel commission.

Yeah.. right.

The Nobel commission does not deal with spiritually minded people trying to prove that the physical universe is no more real then a dream. They are limited to the carnal mind, rewarding only those pounding their chests in their carnal knowledge of the finite physical universe, which I consider a dream, like a mist, here today, gone tomorrow.

Just look at the responses to my posts, this same thing happens when I talk to Christian Ministers with their Dr. before their names. They admit what I say is Scriptural and true, but would never admit this publicly, and even shun me in their churches so I would leave.

Look how many Christian scientists go to church, and believe in the big bang theory thinking now they have it all covered. What science cannot explain, God will, instead of the other way around; What God didnt mention in the Bible, we should find it in science.
It is in us all to prove the existence of God, but because for the love of sin, we limit our search to the physical realm. "God is Spirit, and only those walking, thinking in the spirit can know Him"

As Always McCulloch, you are a big help in building my faith in the Lord, and I honestly thank you. It is an honor to have crossed paths with you, and you will always be my friend.

Christians with their doctrines and scientists with their theories are always trying to keep God out of the picture, even to a point of denying they are an image of their Creator, claiming to be evolved animals that came about by nothing.

God is not far from any of us and just as the Children of Israel at the foot of the Mountain of God ran when He spoke to them, we do so now too. This is what I meant by atheists being afraid, but you're right, I should not judge like that. Most atheist actually 'question' their beliefs, and most Christians simply accept indoctrination into many false versions of Christianity.

My appologies.


Odon