Do you believe in God?

[mikem8634]

Ah Borderline I see you've taken to the old 'I'm going to blatantly ignore your questions' routine.

 

Are you going to pm me your address so I can return your books?

 

Why do our conversations always fallow the same routine?

 

Borderline - Faux pleasentness (presumably in order to try to get me to one of your meetings so you have the backing of your organisation when which you think would somehow convince me your faith is correct)

 

Pali Richard - Matter of fact.

 

B - starts to get aggressive because your tactics of fake pleasentry haven't worked.

 

PL - persists with trying to get answers to questions I have put to you for nigh on a year about scientific and prophetic claims made by you and your organisation.

 

B - Runs away and thinks not answering the questions will make them go away.

 

What I don't get is this, any genuine person of faith would answer the questions even if they thought it went against popular consensus - but you do your utmost to avoid answering them, which leads me to believe you know you can't, that is that under scrutiny you know the answers you would give would collapse like a house of cards in an earthquake.

 

In the echoing absence of response from Borderline that is, indeed, the only conclusion I can draw.

 

I cannot understand how he can be so cavalier with his own, and his organisation's (whatever that is) credibility.

 

To be honest, if somebody had been so slippery, disrespectful and discourteous as to continually avoid some simple questions I would refuse to read their literature on principle.

 

I doubt you'll ever get an answer which, strictly speaking, is all the answer that is needed.

[PaliRichard]

In the echoing absence of response from Borderline that is, indeed, the only conclusion I can draw[/Quote]

 

It simply baffles me, being religious myself, why people have that attitude. Yes there are difficulties in the teachings of all religions when it comes to scientific verification but why would you simply pretend there aren't unless your faith is that insecure that you have to turn a blind eye to those difficulties to accept the faith I'll never know.

 

I cannot understand how he can be so cavalier with his own, and his organisation's (whatever that is) credibility.[/Quote]

 

I'm not going to name the organisation, last tme I did and linked it to what I'm about to say in an email he got tremendously upset and threatened me with legal action.

 

It's a branch of Christianty that is regarded by 'mainstream' Christianity (certainly all of the clergy, and most of the lay followers I have spoken to regarding them think of them along these lines) as a cult.

 

To be honest, if somebody had been so slippery, disrespectful and discourteous as to continually avoid some simple questions I would refuse to read their literature on principle[/Quote]

 

I don't mind reading it, what I do refuse to do, actually I haven't refused, I have said if he can answer a particular question satisfactorily I will do, but in general I have refused to go to their 'Bible study groups' on the basis that to me that 'study' appears to be nothing more than closed reinforcement of their belief.

 

I doubt you'll ever get an answer which, strictly speaking, is all the answer that is needed.

 

I agree, but I'm still going to try because I am genuinely interested in how he would answer.

[macmellus]

I'm very intrigued as to the nature of these questions. Will they be shared with us?

[PaliRichard]

I'm very intrigued as to the nature of these questions. Will they be shared with us?

 

As I said earlier, they are specific to the claims made by borderline and his organisation regarding science and prophesy, they would probably be largely out of context in general.

 

If he asks me to post them in order to answer them I will, I think (though I'm not sure) they may be lurking earlier in this very thread - they have certainly been posted to him in a 'God' thread before.

[gosia_z1988]

I believe, cause if the God doesn't exists and there is nothing after we our death then what it is the point of this life?

[ronthenekred]

I believe, cause if the God doesn't exists and there is nothing after we our death then what it is the point of this life?

 

The point of your life? Do you mean it has no relevance other than something that's related to after you die?

[MrSmith]

I believe, cause if the God doesn't exists and there is nothing after we our death then what it is the point of this life?

 

To make new life and allow your genes to be passed on, you pass part of yourself to your offspring and they to their offspring, so you go one for as long as your descendants have children.

[Phanerothyme]

That's cool, but it doesn't make this any truer...

Even if there were a race of beings which we could mistake as being the creator of everything and omnipotent etc, it wouldn't mean that they actually ARE gods.

Why not? Aside from the fact I'm arguing that "gods" probably exist, not "God" the omnipresent prime mover.

Unless, of course, they actually DID create everything and were omnipotent, but then we wouldn't be mistaking them for gods, they would actually BE gods.

Our epistemology isn't up to it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

There's always a possibility that this could be so, but that falls far from it being "safe to assume that gods exist"

I didn't actually say it is "safe" to assume, I said "fair".

[PaliRichard]

I'm very intrigued as to the nature of these questions. Will they be shared with us?

 

macmellus, I have decided to post the questions I asked for you as requested. The reason being that borderline's organisation cite the issues I question as evidence that God exists and these questions/requests for clarification directly relate to the evidence they claim.

 

I ask you to remember that these were formulated as both a direct response to claims made and after several weeks of correspondence with borderline so they may not all make perfect sense from general reading.

 

Finally I would like to stress that thy are not questioning borderline's, or anyones personal belief, as far as I'm concerned we are all entitled to believe what they will - they relate strictly to claims that science provides evidence for God and that predictions of the future in the Bible can be shown to be 100% accurate.

 

When I use the term, you, or your or any other such term they relate to borderline, as this was who the questions were put to. I am still awaiting answers to them from borderline despite having first amalgamated them on the 21st of June last year, they were asked individually, more than once, before then.

 

1. Your man said that a scientist creates a theory, or an opinion, but a theory is not an opinion, it is a theory only after the hypothesis (idea/opinion) has been repeatedly tested and shown to be the most likely outcome of the available evidence. A theory is a scientific fact (see below), he confounds this more by saying 'It's important to know what can be proved, and what is a theory, that can't be proved'. It makes no sense to say this unless you haven't got one ounce of understanding about science and the scientific method.

 

There are no such things as facts (in the permanent, non changeable sense) in science, a scientific fact is that which best fits the evidence at this present time, ie, a theory. The video is trying to separate them, a theory is scientific fact, even if it is later proved to be wrong, that is because you can only disprove in science.

 

2. Your video also says that red shift can't be proved, that depends on whether you understand science or not. If you think a theory is different to a scientific fact then you will more than likely be unwilling to accept the evidence of red shift. Learn more about red shift here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift, there is plenty of proof to suggest that's what is occurring given the evidence we have, in relation to the theories (that is scientific fact) we have.

 

Another gem which relates to both the above is 'The big bang theory is just a theory (based, they claim, on the red shift being unproved) and can't be looked on as a scientific fact'.

 

Except a theory is scientific fact. And red shift has been proved.

 

3. Your video also asks 'Why do we see well defined species in the fossil records? Why no intermediary species?'

 

Well there are, take a look at this, http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html, take particular note of the statement 'At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers.' Transitional btw, is the same as intermediary.

 

The video also states the difficulty of Triolobytes suddenly appearing. But if we look at the details the early Cambrian period where the Triolobytes were first discovered was between 549 to 542 million years ago. That's a period of seven million years where they were 'first' discovered in their complete form. Only there weren't just a complete form as your site suggests, there were 17,000 species. The earliest found in the fossil records was fallotaspids and it appears (that's science talk for they did) their features and characteristics changed (that's science talk for they evolved) during that time.

 

4. Your video also claims that in the beginning the Earth was present. I can almost hear you straining to tell me that the materials it was formed of, that is, the atoms were present and that's what it means, but that's not what it says.

 

It says in the beginning the Earth was present, it says day and night existed when the earth was formed (which shows that the Bible means the Earth was literally there, not metaphorically present in its pre existing components)

 

In the beginning the Earth was not there, it's only 4.5 Billion years old, the universe is 13.7.

 

It claims in the beginning there was water, that's contrary to science. The Earth was originally a dry rock, we don't know how water first appeared but a leading theory is that it arrived on comets.

 

It also says life appears in the sea and air before on the ground, it certainly appeared in the sea, but not in the air.

 

That's the first four. I realise they don't look like questions, they are more counter claims. I have asked you, since I first sent you that list of questions to provide counter claims to them. I have asked you, if you cannot provide those counter claims why is the video making them still on your website (and it is, I checked). So I will ask you one last time, can you (or your colleagues) provide counter claims to my disputes. And provide evidence for claims such as 'The Earth was present in the beginning'. Not by using vague Biblical language, these claims are made on a Science video, so I would appreciate it if science was used in providing the evidence.

 

5. The list of prophesies you provided is too long to go into detail here. My question refers to every one you have sent to me, and every one included in your prophesy videos.

 

Why does your website claim that the prophesies in the Bible are clear and precise, and there is no doubt what they mean, yet the verse given to me by you predicting Jesus wasn't clear and precise. It also says 'See the Bible predicted with 100% accuracy'.Not one of the predictions is carried out with 100% accuracy, most of them involve either selective interpretation or interpretation after the fact.

 

So of every single prophesy you have offered me, not one passes the claims of your own website. That being the case why make these claims to begin with?

 

Also, what can you offer to counter my claim that your predictions are no more likely than the ones that Islam takes from the Bible? What specifically makes your predictions more plausible?

 

6. I know this one came under the umbrella of the predictions, but you seemed to give it special attention so I will. You claimed the predictions about the Jewish people have been fulfilled. I made several statements based on your claims that you failed to address, so here they are again. You claimed the Jewish people had fulfilled prophesy by returning to Israel. But that Prophesy has not been fulfilled because many Jewish people still live outside Israel, the Prophesy says 'I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land', which suggests that they will all return. Your video says 'The Bible predicted that they will remain a distinct nation', but there are Jews who have absorbed the culture of those where they went, or even abandoned their culture altogether, so that again has not been fulfilled.

 

You also said that Jews had gone to every nation, but that is nor specific to Jews is it? I asked you specifically to provide evidence that Jews had gone to more nations than other people 'of the book', you have not done so. I asked you to show me specifically where the Jewish people had undergone more suffering than any other religious/ethnic group over the course of their history, you have not done so.

 

7. Just before we leave predictions you said 'Psalm 83 is happening now I believe' to which I replied 'That's your belief and you are entitled to it. Let me ask you though, as you believe it's happening now, what timeframe do you apply to its fulfilment? (there is none in the Psalm), what will you do if God doesn't make them 'perish in disgrace', if God doesn't 'Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord, that you alone are the Most High over all the earth'. Will you make excuses as some others have who have said that Biblical events are unfolding like 'I misinterpreted the time scale' or will you acknowledge that what you believe may be wrong?'

 

Note my final question which you did not answer, I would be interested in the answer 'If the Psalm isn't fulfilled in X amount of time, will you try to glaze over it by saying something like 'I misinterpreted the time scale' or will you acknowledge that what you believe may be wrong?'

 

8. You said righteousness is 'Being right with God'. I responded with 'What exactly do you mean by 'being right with God'? Sin hasn't got anything to do with good and evil (and I agree that most, not just some others wont agree with you). Sin, according to Christian belief, is a flaw in humanity, created by Adam and Eve (or more correctly the man and woman) in Genesis. Technically speaking good and evil are outside that sin. Our nature is sinful, what we do is good and evil, but even if we do good we are still sinful according to the Christian doctrine'.

 

As you failed to answer I will ask you again. What do you mean by 'righteousness is 'Being right with God''?

 

9. I have stressed continuously that I am willing to look further if you give me more 'meat' to look further into. You have said that I will understand if I attend a 'study group'.

 

You have given 'evidence' that people have given their lives and made it their life's work amongst other things to try to prove Christianity is unique, but none of your examples are unique to Christianity, people of all faith's (indeed most ideologies) have done the same, this doesn't make them an authority on 'truth'.

 

My question is what can you give me that is not offered by any other religion that would convince me that yours is the one 'true' religion worth looking into? What, on the surface, before I take the next step, can you offer to suggest that your faith has something that all the others are lacking? I need to know this before I even consider looking further into your beliefs. So far you have offered me no more than Hinduism/Taoism/Islam etc can offer someone who doesn't believe, that is, mere assurances that if you study you will 'know the truth'. You cannot all be right, you need to offer some real evidence before I would even consider studying further.

 

10. Regarding the Garden of Eden. I'm not repeating the whole lot because it's far too long. I condensed my interpretation into a question, which was regarding the man and woman. My question was 'Please show me where their death has anything to do with the events in the garden'. You have yet to answer this question.

 

You also said 'They then try and shift blame and are cast out to die', and I asked you 'Where exactly do they shift the blame?' Once more you failed to answer.

 

You also said 'Sorry if I misused scenario' relating to the Garden account, I asked you what you meant by this, you have yet to reply.

 

11. You said you viewed my religion as 'Idol worship', I asked you 'How can a religion that has no worship of any kind be seen as idol worship?' You have yet to answer this question.

 

12. In response to you saying Christianity works and you weren't brainwashed, and because of this you became angry with other religions I made the comment 'I don't understand why your 100% faith would make you angry with other religions. Most religious people I know (from all religions) have 100% faith but they don't hate other religions because of it'. You didn't respond, so I will ask you again 'Why does your faith make you angry with other religions?'[/Quote]

 

macmellus

 

I hope these questions provide interesting reading/food for thought and as I said I apologise for any vagueness regarding them, if you would like me to expand I will be more than happy to

[Guest]

Regardless of any human religious experience, I think it's fair to assume that gods exist.

 

Why gods?

People have a hard time trying to gather enough understanding if a god exists- why go plural?

IMO it makes it harder and more complex- a lot more difficult to explain.