DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?

Religions > Atheism > DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 9

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Bill M"
Date:	15 Aug 2006 03:31:33 PM
Object:	DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?

I posted this question back on 8/4.
" What objective verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any god
actually exists? Why do you believe in something for which there is NO
objective verifiable evidence?
P.S. The Bibles are not objective verifiable evidence. They are nothing more
than the subjective 'opinions
and claims' of 66 or more unknown authors from thousands of years ago. There
are NO original Bibles in existence."
We have no way of knowing their authenticity and veracity."
Interestingly, although there were several hundred replies, NO ONE provided
a legitimate answer.
Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims were made but NO objective
verifiable evidence.
Now maybe limited capacity humans are unable to do this, but why doesn't
this god creator of the Universe
supply an answer?
.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	16 Aug 2006 01:37:39 PM

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

By jingo! Another clever atheist, this one calling himself "Bill M" is
trying to stump the dumb ***** theist hicks with his superior atheist
scientific understanding, his superior atheist reasoning skills, and his
superior atheist rationality. Golly gee, aren't we all so gosh durn
impressed? Well, actually, not at all. This is just another atheist twit
exercising his fingers on a keyboard. But let's play anyway, shall we?
Can you define "objective verifiable evidence," please? Never mind, I will
take a shot at it. Please, do tell me if I go wrong, can you?
You surely must understand that your question implies the theorem that
everything that exists everywhere at every time must be subject to being
proven by "objective verifiable evidence" detectable and comprehensible to
human beings. And that your notion of "objective verifiable evidence" must
mean the phenomena being studied must be subject to qualitative and
quantitative analysis by human senses or instruments concocted by human
beings to extend the capabilities of the human senses. And the necessary
corollary is that nothing can possibly exist that is not detectable through
human senses or human-made extensions of the human senses. You do
comprehend the principles of your own assertions and the corollaries that
flow from them, don't you, Bill M?
I ask because you do not appear to be cognizant of the many flaws in your
world view.
Can you detect the obvious flaws in your tidy little world view that
everything must be false or nonexistent that can not be proven by "objective
verifiable evidence"?
Are you certain that is what you mean to use as your sole epistemological
criteria? That seems kind of goofy to me, but liberty of necessity includes
the freedom to post foolishness on usenet, so be as goofy as you choose.

P.S. The Bibles are not objective verifiable evidence.

Evidence of what? As the sole proof to prove the existence of God, the
Bible is a poor argument. As evidence of many other things, the Bible is
assuredly "objective verifiable evidence." Do you have any idea what
historical events, cultural processes, social mores, economic activity,
liturgical rites, and religious practices that the Bible is "objective
verifiable evidence" of? I rather doubt it because your atheist prejudices
likely blind you to the gems that are discoverable in a modern Bible. Which
is not an assertion that every word in the Bible is some sort of final and
absolute truth.

They are nothing more
than the subjective 'opinions
and claims' of 66 or more unknown authors from thousands of years ago.
There
are NO original Bibles in existence."

Wait a minute. Aren't your very own words above an obvious example of one
of "Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims [that] were made"?
You do not know that "There are NO original Bibles in existence." You can
not know that "There are NO original Bibles in existence." Neither you nor
any other human being knows what manuscripts actually have survived, thus do
exist. No human being even knows the total number of manuscripts of the
entire Bible or portions thereof that are extant today. No exhaustive
search and catalogue of the results of that search has ever been completed,
although there are some in progress.
But surely anyone who published public claims such as "There are NO original
Bibles in existence" is aware of the scholarship concerning Biblical
manuscripts, dating processes, textual criticism, and the history of Judaic
and Christian scripture. But wait, you, Mr. Bill M, are evidently woefully
ignorant of those topics. Yet you posted such silliness as "There are NO
original Bibles in existence" when you obviously suffer from a considerable
absence of knowledge and a concurrent surfeit of certitude. And I thought
you atheists prided yourselves on your superior reasoning skills and
application of logic.
Or do you claim to have access to secret knowledge not available to anyone
but certain atheists? The atheist dolt Darrell Stec made similar patently
ridiculous claims about his expertise in Christian manuscripts, but he seems
to have eaten those words when confronted with minimal evidence available to
the general public. And then the atheist blowhard Stec claimed that atheist
news groups were for "general discussion" thus details of genuine
scholarship were inadmissible. Surely you can you do better than your
fellow atheists Stec, or even the thoroughly misguided Libertarius, can't
you, Bill M?
Nor can you prove using any "objective verifiable evidence," that certain of
the
extant manuscripts from antiquity were not part of an "original Bible."
In fact, I think there is a reasonable case that an "original Bible" or two
may, in fact, be extant. The first collections of texts that roughly
approximates a Bible in the modern sense of the entire Christian canon
contained within a codex or set of codices, were only assembled in the
middle to late fourth century and declared to be the official scripture or
canon of Christianity very late in the 4th century. And since manuscript
Aleph and Manuscript B in the Gregory-Aland catalogue are dated to the
middle of the fourth century and except for lacunae contain the texts widely
accepted as being the canon of Christianity, they may very well be "original
Bibles." Kindly disprove that assertion using "objective verifiable
evidence," if you can.
Or you can attempt to prove your silly declaration that "There are NO
original Bibles in existence" using "objective verifiable evidence." I
don't think you can. But I eagerly anticipate reading of your efforts. Of
course, you atheists do have a way of turning tail and running, or just
quietly disappearing like the atheists Stec, Libertarius, and certain other
of your fellow travelers have done. So I expect that. Kind of.

We have no way of knowing their authenticity and veracity."

We have no way of knowing your "authenticity and veracity," although we can
know the "authenticity and veracity" of your arguments are dubious because
they are neither authentic or veracious, thus fatally flawed. And in view
of your obvious logical and epistemological errors as well as your glaring
mistakes of fact, or lies, your very own authenticity and veracity are
doubtful. It must be either ignorance or dishonesty that caused you to post
such obvious blather. There are no other options. So which was it, Bill M?
Pick your poison.

Interestingly, although there were several hundred replies, NO ONE
provided a legitimate answer.

You are mistaken. Indeed, a "legitimate answer" has been provided
repeatedly. You are simply unaware of the consequences of your own sloppy
use of language.
"Legitimate" is a legal term meaning an act, utterance, or omission that is
lawful, thus not proscribed and punishable by law. And since all notions of
legal are human constructs and the product of human endeavors, why would you
try to analyze the epistemological problem of proofs of the existence or
nonexistence of deities within a framework of legal constructs and
terminology?
Your assertion seems a bit bizarre to me, especially for an atheist, because
any lawfully constituted governing body that passed a statute or motion
acknowledging the existence of any deity renders the existence of any such
deity "legitimate." Why don't you comprehend that, Bill M?
Thus any acknowledgment of the existence of any deity by any lawmaking body
such as the Congress and president of the United States or the British
Parliament or the king of Saudi Arabia is in fact a "legitimate answer" for
the existence of God. And since those lawfully constituted governments have
all acknowledged the existence of God, obviously the lawful governments of
the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and a whole
lot of other governments besides have indeed provided a "legitimate" answer
to your question. And that "legitimate answer" is that God exists.
Congratulations, Bill M! You just disproved your very own thesis!
Do you begin to see where how far astray your careless and subjective
adjectives such as "legitimate" can lead you, Bill M?
Did you really mean something other than "legitimate"? Perhaps a term from
formal logic or the philosophy of science is more appropriate and accurate,
eh Bill M?
Perhaps if you expect finite answers to your existential problems, you could
keep your terminology consistent. If you are going to address issues
properly in the domain of epistemology such as you have here, you should
probably restrict your adjectives to those defined by epistemology, as
opposed to law. What do you think?

Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims were made but NO objective
verifiable evidence.

Aren't your words above an extremely accurate summary of your comments above
concerning the Bible? Yes, of course they are.

The way you formed your questions, "What objective verifiable evidence do
the god believers have that any god actually exists? Why do you believe in
something for which there is NO objective verifiable evidence?" presumed
certain notions of yours to be true in every circumstance at every time and
place. And your notions are assuredly not true in every circumstance at
every time and place. Do you understand the reasons your notions are either
false or contain logical errors?

Now maybe limited capacity humans are unable to do this, but why doesn't
this god creator of the Universe
supply an answer?

Why don't you tell us?
Or could it be that you are deaf to any communication concerning any
phenomena
that can not be subjected to "objective verifiable evidence'?
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	16 Aug 2006 09:23:19 PM

TomP wrote:

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

By jingo! Another clever atheist,

Err No - its Bill.
The difference between a "clever atheist" and a "stupid as a brick"
atheist is not in the actual number of dieties believed in - but rather
in the cleverness of the person not believing in deities.
Complex concept I know.
Mark.
.

User: "Bill M"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	16 Aug 2006 06:31:53 PM

" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44e35fbf$0$24171$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

Don't bother with your personal interpretation.
Here it is directly from Webster's
ob�jec�tive
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm
of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by
all observers : having reality independent of the mind �objective reality�
relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that
follow prepositions or transitive verbs
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without
distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
ver�i�fi�able
capable of being verified
evidence
to offer evidence of : prove, evince
Volume of 'bull *****' does not establish fact or evidence of anything but
'bull *****'!
Why do you find it necessary to post such a huge volume of nonsense to reply
to this simple question?

You surely must understand that your question implies the theorem that
everything that exists everywhere at every time must be subject to being
proven by "objective verifiable evidence" detectable and comprehensible to
human beings. And that your notion of "objective verifiable evidence"
must
mean the phenomena being studied must be subject to qualitative and
quantitative analysis by human senses or instruments concocted by human
beings to extend the capabilities of the human senses. And the necessary
corollary is that nothing can possibly exist that is not detectable
through
human senses or human-made extensions of the human senses. You do
comprehend the principles of your own assertions and the corollaries that
flow from them, don't you, Bill M?

Pure blather.

I ask because you do not appear to be cognizant of the many flaws in your
world view.

Can you detect the obvious flaws in your tidy little world view that
everything must be false or nonexistent that can not be proven by
"objective
verifiable evidence"?

It sure isn't proven as true!

Are you certain that is what you mean to use as your sole epistemological
criteria? That seems kind of goofy to me, but liberty of necessity
includes the freedom to post foolishness on usenet, so be as goofy as you
choose.

P.S. The Bibles are not objective verifiable evidence.

Evidence of what? As the sole proof to prove the existence of God, the
Bible is a poor argument.

Then what are you trying to prove???
As evidence of many other things, the Bible is

assuredly "objective verifiable evidence." Do you have any idea what
historical events, cultural processes, social mores, economic activity,
liturgical rites, and religious practices that the Bible is "objective
verifiable evidence" of? I rather doubt it because your atheist
prejudices likely blind you to the gems that are discoverable in a modern
Bible. Which is not an assertion that every word in the Bible is some
sort of final and absolute truth.

They are nothing more
than the subjective 'opinions
and claims' of 66 or more unknown authors from thousands of years ago.
There
are NO original Bibles in existence."

Get a life. There is no evidence or agreement among scholers that ANY
original Bibles exist.

But surely anyone who published public claims such as "There are NO
original Bibles in existence" is aware of the scholarship concerning
Biblical manuscripts, dating processes, textual criticism, and the history
of Judaic and Christian scripture. But wait, you, Mr. Bill M, are
evidently woefully ignorant of those topics. Yet you posted such
silliness as "There are NO original Bibles in existence" when you
obviously suffer from a considerable absence of knowledge and a concurrent
surfeit of certitude. And I thought you atheists prided yourselves on
your superior reasoning skills and application of logic.

Or do you claim to have access to secret knowledge not available to anyone
but certain atheists? The atheist dolt Darrell Stec made similar patently
ridiculous claims about his expertise in Christian manuscripts, but he
seems
to have eaten those words when confronted with minimal evidence available
to
the general public. And then the atheist blowhard Stec claimed that
atheist
news groups were for "general discussion" thus details of genuine
scholarship were inadmissible. Surely you can you do better than your
fellow atheists Stec, or even the thoroughly misguided Libertarius, can't
you, Bill M?

Nor can you prove using any "objective verifiable evidence," that certain
of the
extant manuscripts from antiquity were not part of an "original Bible."

In fact, I think there is a reasonable case that an "original Bible" or
two
may, in fact, be extant. The first collections of texts that roughly
approximates a Bible in the modern sense of the entire Christian canon
contained within a codex or set of codices, were only assembled in the
middle to late fourth century and declared to be the official scripture or
canon of Christianity very late in the 4th century. And since manuscript
Aleph and Manuscript B in the Gregory-Aland catalogue are dated to the
middle of the fourth century and except for lacunae contain the texts
widely accepted as being the canon of Christianity, they may very well be
"original Bibles." Kindly disprove that assertion using "objective
verifiable evidence," if you can.

Or you can attempt to prove your silly declaration that "There are NO
original Bibles in existence" using "objective verifiable evidence." I
don't think you can. But I eagerly anticipate reading of your efforts.
Of
course, you atheists do have a way of turning tail and running, or just
quietly disappearing like the atheists Stec, Libertarius, and certain
other of your fellow travelers have done. So I expect that. Kind of.

We have no way of knowing their authenticity and veracity."

More nonsensical blather. You seem to have cpmpletely missed the point I
originally made
and that was 'Evidence other than the highlt questionable Bibles'!
You may be attempting to impress others with your obfuscation and hyperbole
but it neither
answers my question or impresses me.

We have no way of knowing your "authenticity and veracity," although we
can know the "authenticity and veracity" of your arguments are dubious
because they are neither authentic or veracious, thus fatally flawed. And
in view of your obvious logical and epistemological errors as well as your
glaring mistakes of fact, or lies, your very own authenticity and veracity
are doubtful. It must be either ignorance or dishonesty that caused you
to post such obvious blather. There are no other options. So which was
it, Bill M? Pick your poison.

Totally silly and unsubstantiated claims and hubris!

Interestingly, although there were several hundred replies, NO ONE
provided a legitimate answer.

You are mistaken. Indeed, a "legitimate answer" has been provided
repeatedly. You are simply unaware of the consequences of your own sloppy
use of language.

"Legitimate" is a legal term meaning an act, utterance, or omission that
is lawful, thus not proscribed and punishable by law. And since all
notions of legal are human constructs and the product of human endeavors,
why would you try to analyze the epistemological problem of proofs of the
existence or nonexistence of deities within a framework of legal
constructs and terminology?

Your assertion seems a bit bizarre to me, especially for an atheist,
because any lawfully constituted governing body that passed a statute or
motion acknowledging the existence of any deity renders the existence of
any such deity "legitimate." Why don't you comprehend that, Bill M?

Thus any acknowledgment of the existence of any deity by any lawmaking
body such as the Congress and president of the United States or the
British Parliament or the king of Saudi Arabia is in fact a "legitimate
answer" for the existence of God. And since those lawfully constituted
governments have all acknowledged the existence of God, obviously the
lawful governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom,
Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot of other governments besides have indeed
provided a "legitimate" answer to your question. And that "legitimate
answer" is that God exists. Congratulations, Bill M! You just disproved
your very own thesis!

Do you begin to see where how far astray your careless and subjective
adjectives such as "legitimate" can lead you, Bill M?

Did you really mean something other than "legitimate"? Perhaps a term
from formal logic or the philosophy of science is more appropriate and
accurate, eh Bill M?

Perhaps if you expect finite answers to your existential problems, you
could
keep your terminology consistent. If you are going to address issues
properly in the domain of epistemology such as you have here, you should
probably restrict your adjectives to those defined by epistemology, as
opposed to law. What do you think?

Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims were made but NO objective
verifiable evidence.

Aren't your words above an extremely accurate summary of your comments
above concerning the Bible? Yes, of course they are.

The way you formed your questions, "What objective verifiable evidence do
the god believers have that any god actually exists? Why do you believe in
something for which there is NO objective verifiable evidence?" presumed
certain notions of yours to be true in every circumstance at every time
and
place. And your notions are assuredly not true in every circumstance at
every time and place. Do you understand the reasons your notions are
either false or contain logical errors?

Now maybe limited capacity humans are unable to do this, but why doesn't
this god creator of the Universe
supply an answer?

Why don't you tell us?

Or could it be that you are deaf to any communication concerning any
phenomena
that can not be subjected to "objective verifiable evidence'?

Pure nonsense and avoidance of answering the original question.
Where is your objective verifiable evidence that your god actually exists???
.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	20 Aug 2006 02:14:37 PM

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FUNEg.61177$vj1.18070@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44e35fbf$0$24171$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

Don't bother with your personal interpretation.

Here it is directly from Webster's

ob�jec�tive

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm
of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible
by all observers : having reality independent of the mind �objective
reality�

relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that
follow prepositions or transitive verbs
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without
distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

ver�i�fi�able

capable of being verified

evidence

to offer evidence of : prove, evince

Volume of 'bull *****' does not establish fact or evidence of anything but
'bull *****'!

Why do you find it necessary to post such a huge volume of nonsense

Why do you find it necessary to respond?

to reply to this simple question?

I counted two questions, viz.: Your first question was: "' What objective
verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any god actually
exists?'"
And your second question was: ""Why do you believe in something for which
there is NO objective verifiable evidence?'"
Which of your two questions do you believe to be "this simple question" you
refer to?

You surely must understand that your question implies the theorem that
everything that exists everywhere at every time must be subject to being
proven by "objective verifiable evidence" detectable and comprehensible
to
human beings. And that your notion of "objective verifiable evidence"
must
mean the phenomena being studied must be subject to qualitative and
quantitative analysis by human senses or instruments concocted by human
beings to extend the capabilities of the human senses. And the necessary
corollary is that nothing can possibly exist that is not detectable
through
human senses or human-made extensions of the human senses. You do
comprehend the principles of your own assertions and the corollaries that
flow from them, don't you, Bill M?

Pure blather.

May I refer you to your own definition of "objective" above which I quote in
part? "' of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in
the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and
perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
�objective reality�'."
That is the definition of "objective" you yourself produced, is it not? Of
course it is, Bill M. And from either your definition or mine, we still end
up with the salient fact that your very own definition limits it's own
application to "an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible
experience . . ." What about "an object, phenomenon, or condition" not "in
the realm of sensible experience"?
Do you assert that every "object, phenomenon, or condition" must be in the
realm of human sensible experience in order to exist?
Try to answer that question directly.
That is an imprudent, intellectually arrogant, and untenable position as far
as I can determine. It is also the inescapable and undeniable corollary of
your theorem. Can you refute that?

It sure isn't proven as true!

What do you mean? What exactly do you believe "sure isn't proven as true!"?

Are you certain that is what you mean to use as your sole epistemological
criteria?

Can't you handle that question?

That seems kind of goofy to me, but liberty of necessity includes the
freedom to post foolishness on usenet, so be as goofy as you choose.

P.S. The Bibles are not objective verifiable evidence.

Evidence of what? As the sole proof to prove the existence of God, the
Bible is a poor argument.

Then what are you trying to prove???

That your argument is flawed on many levels, and that you have not the first
clue concerning the history of the Bible and more importantly the
manuscripts from which the Bible was constructed in the fourth century.

As evidence of many other things, the Bible is
assuredly "objective verifiable evidence." Do you have any idea what
historical events, cultural processes, social mores, economic activity,
liturgical rites, and religious practices that the Bible is "objective
verifiable evidence" of?

Was the question too hard?

I rather doubt it because your atheist prejudices likely blind you to the
gems that are discoverable in a modern Bible. Which is not an assertion
that every word in the Bible is some sort of final and absolute truth.

They are nothing more
than the subjective 'opinions
and claims' of 66 or more unknown authors from thousands of years ago.
There
are NO original Bibles in existence."

Wait a minute. Aren't your very own words above an obvious example of
one of "Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims [that] were made"?

Was this question too difficult too?

You do not know that "There are NO original Bibles in existence." You
can not know that "There are NO original Bibles in existence." Neither
you nor any other human being knows what manuscripts actually have
survived, thus do exist. No human being even knows the total number of
manuscripts of the entire Bible or portions thereof that are extant
today. No exhaustive search and catalogue of the results of that search
has ever been completed, although there are some in progress.

Get a life. There is no evidence or agreement among scholers that ANY
original Bibles exist.

"[S]cholers"?
You have no idea what you are writing about. Where did you get your
information? Atheists.org? Not at all a reliable source. That web page is
in the same category of reliability as, say. Chick.com. In other words,
both are chock full of lies, distortions, and base falsehood.
There is a consensus among specialists in classical antiquity that it is
doubtful that any original or autograph manuscript of any text later
incorporated into the Christian Bible during the 4th century is known to be
extant. Read that carefully. That does not say that no original or
autograph manuscript exists. No one knows what the next manuscript
discovery will yield. And three manuscripts are dated so early in the 2nd
century that there is a tantalizing possibility they are very close to the
autographs. And it is certainly not provable using "objective verifiable
evidence" that P. Oxy. 4404, Gr. P. 457, and P. Egerton 2 are not originals.
(I realize P. Egerton 2 is not canonical. Did you?) But I invite you to
try. Good luck.
You are obviously conflating the manuscripts containing the texts of various
writings that were included in the first Bibles during the 4th century A.D.
with the first Bibles themselves. And anyone foolish enough to make such an
elementary and silly mistake such as you just did should refrain from
publicly commenting on what is and is not in the manuscript record. Because
you don't have any idea, Bill M. Obviously.
And dating methods being what they are, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices
of the middle fourth century are as good candidates for the first Christian
Bibles as any. They are dated to the correct time frame, and all of the
known evidence from all sources and disciplines does not render either
Vaticanus or Sinaiticus as impossible candidates for the original Bible.

But surely anyone who published public claims such as "There are NO
original Bibles in existence" is aware of the scholarship concerning
Biblical manuscripts, dating processes, textual criticism, and the
history of Judaic and Christian scripture. But wait, you, Mr. Bill M,
are evidently woefully ignorant of those topics. Yet you posted such
silliness as "There are NO original Bibles in existence" when you
obviously suffer from a considerable absence of knowledge and a
concurrent surfeit of certitude. And I thought you atheists prided
yourselves on your superior reasoning skills and application of logic.

Or do you claim to have access to secret knowledge not available to
anyone
but certain atheists? The atheist dolt Darrell Stec made similar
patently
ridiculous claims about his expertise in Christian manuscripts, but he
seems
to have eaten those words when confronted with minimal evidence available
to
the general public. And then the atheist blowhard Stec claimed that
atheist
news groups were for "general discussion" thus details of genuine
scholarship were inadmissible. Surely you can you do better than your
fellow atheists Stec, or even the thoroughly misguided Libertarius, can't
you, Bill M?

Nor can you prove using any "objective verifiable evidence," that certain
of the
extant manuscripts from antiquity were not part of an "original Bible."

In fact, I think there is a reasonable case that an "original Bible" or
two
may, in fact, be extant. The first collections of texts that roughly
approximates a Bible in the modern sense of the entire Christian canon
contained within a codex or set of codices, were only assembled in the
middle to late fourth century and declared to be the official scripture
or canon of Christianity very late in the 4th century. And since
manuscript Aleph and Manuscript B in the Gregory-Aland catalogue are
dated to the middle of the fourth century and except for lacunae contain
the texts widely accepted as being the canon of Christianity, they may
very well be "original Bibles." Kindly disprove that assertion using
"objective verifiable evidence," if you can.

What's the matter, Bill M? Can't you handle such an elementary proof?

What happened here, Bill M? Can't your prove your own assertion? I knew
that. Of course you can't. For the most excellent reason that you have not
the vaguest idea what you are writing about.

Of
course, you atheists do have a way of turning tail and running, or just
quietly disappearing like the atheists Stec, Libertarius, and certain
other of your fellow travelers have done. So I expect that. Kind of.

We have no way of knowing their authenticity and veracity."

More nonsensical blather. You seem to have cpmpletely missed the point I
originally made
and that was 'Evidence other than the highlt questionable Bibles'!

Actually, it was a most sensible refutation of your nincompoopery, Bill M.
You painted yourself into a logical and epistemological corner, and are so
darned ignorant you don't even realize it. You spout the atheist line about
the Bible and are not even clever enough to realize you posted complete
falsehood. And that you posted nonsense and falsehood is indeed provable.

You may be attempting to impress others with your obfuscation and
hyperbole but it neither
answers my question or impresses me.

I don't care what you think. Geez, you post utter nincompoopery like you do
and expect anyone to take you seriously?

We have no way of knowing your "authenticity and veracity," although we
can know the "authenticity and veracity" of your arguments are dubious
because they are neither authentic or veracious, thus fatally flawed.
And in view of your obvious logical and epistemological errors as well as
your glaring mistakes of fact, or lies, your very own authenticity and
veracity are doubtful. It must be either ignorance or dishonesty that
caused you to post such obvious blather. There are no other options. So
which was it, Bill M? Pick your poison.

Totally silly and unsubstantiated claims and hubris!

You lied about the original Bible. That you lied from ignorance does not
change the indisputable fact that you lied. You posed an epistemological
theorem that if a god exists, this god must be discernible through the human
senses. Either every and any god is an exception to your epistemological
theorem, or every phenomena must be subject to "objective and verifiable
evidence" accessible through human senses as a pre-condition to existence.
Re-read the definition you yourself purloined from some web page. Which is
it, Bill M.? Make up your mind here.
And you were not and still are not smart enough to discern the inescapable
consequences of your theorem. Figure it out yet, Bill M?

Interestingly, although there were several hundred replies, NO ONE
provided a legitimate answer.

You are mistaken. Indeed, a "legitimate answer" has been provided
repeatedly. You are simply unaware of the consequences of your own
sloppy use of language.

"Legitimate" is a legal term meaning an act, utterance, or omission that
is lawful, thus not proscribed and punishable by law. And since all
notions of legal are human constructs and the product of human endeavors,
why would you try to analyze the epistemological problem of proofs of the
existence or nonexistence of deities within a framework of legal
constructs and terminology?

Your assertion seems a bit bizarre to me, especially for an atheist,
because any lawfully constituted governing body that passed a statute or
motion acknowledging the existence of any deity renders the existence of
any such deity "legitimate." Why don't you comprehend that, Bill M?

Thus any acknowledgment of the existence of any deity by any lawmaking
body such as the Congress and president of the United States or the
British Parliament or the king of Saudi Arabia is in fact a "legitimate
answer" for the existence of God. And since those lawfully constituted
governments have all acknowledged the existence of God, obviously the
lawful governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom,
Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot of other governments besides have indeed
provided a "legitimate" answer to your question. And that "legitimate
answer" is that God exists. Congratulations, Bill M! You just disproved
your very own thesis!

Do you begin to see where how far astray your careless and subjective
adjectives such as "legitimate" can lead you, Bill M?

Can't handle this question either, eh Bill M? "Legitimate" was a singularly
bad choice of adjectives on your part. Did you figure out why that is the
case yet, Bill M?

Did you really mean something other than "legitimate"? Perhaps a term
from formal logic or the philosophy of science is more appropriate and
accurate, eh Bill M?

Perhaps if you expect finite answers to your existential problems, you
could
keep your terminology consistent. If you are going to address issues
properly in the domain of epistemology such as you have here, you should
probably restrict your adjectives to those defined by epistemology, as
opposed to law. What do you think?

Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims were made but NO objective
verifiable evidence.

Aren't your words above an extremely accurate summary of your comments
above concerning the Bible? Yes, of course they are.

The way you formed your questions, "What objective verifiable evidence do
the god believers have that any god actually exists? Why do you believe
in
something for which there is NO objective verifiable evidence?" presumed
certain notions of yours to be true in every circumstance at every time
and
place. And your notions are assuredly not true in every circumstance at
every time and place. Do you understand the reasons your notions are
either false or contain logical errors?

Now maybe limited capacity humans are unable to do this, but why doesn't
this god creator of the Universe
supply an answer?

Why don't you tell us?

Or could it be that you are deaf to any communication concerning any
phenomena
that can not be subjected to "objective verifiable evidence'?

Pure nonsense and avoidance of answering the original question.

No, actually, your original questions were not coherent enough to answer.
(Note the plural. You did ask two questions, not one. Even residents of
the lunatic fringe such as yourself ought top be able to successfully count
to two.) And then you confused the questions by inserting comments about
subject you are obviously ignorant of. Why don't you try to formulate a
coherent epistemology, then reformulate your question so it approaches
sensibility?

Where is your objective verifiable evidence that your god actually
exists???

Do you habitually argue from facts not in evidence?
"Objective verifiable evidence" is not a pre-condition to existence. Thus
your question is moot in the form in which you formulated it. Care to try
again?
You, like many of your atheist fellow travelers, make the unwarranted
assumption that everyone and anyone who points out the obvious factual
errors, mistakes of logic, gross historical misconceptions, and flawed
epistemology by any atheist must of necessity be a fundamentalist
evangelical Christian. Actually, you yourself and certain other woefully
ignorant but excessively certain atheists and a certain group of woefully
ignorant but excessively certain fundamentalists of various religious
persuasions are the lunatic fringes of the theist spectrum, in which I
include atheists. And the arguments of both extremes are characterized by a
black only or white only world view, propound gross ignorance, and suffer
from extreme infections of excessive certitude.
So why don't you do some deep breathing exercises or yoga or exercise
violently or whatever it is you do to regain your equilibrium, and try to
deal with the issues your post raised?

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	16 Aug 2006 01:33:52 PM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:37:39 -0500, " TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

The dishonest theist cops out of his burden of proof after he has
begged the question.

Can you define "objective verifiable evidence," please? Never mind, I will
take a shot at it. Please, do tell me if I go wrong, can you?

Translation: you have nothing.
But here's a clue: if you kept it to yourself instead of rudely and
stupidly talking about it as though it were real, to people outside
your religion you wouldn't be told to prove it.
Stop pretending you don't understand the concept of "put up or shut
up".

You surely must understand that your question implies the theorem that
everything that exists everywhere at every time must be subject to being
proven by "objective verifiable evidence" detectable and comprehensible to
human beings. And that your notion of "objective verifiable evidence" must
mean the phenomena being studied must be subject to qualitative and
quantitative analysis by human senses or instruments concocted by human
beings to extend the capabilities of the human senses. And the necessary
corollary is that nothing can possibly exist that is not detectable through
human senses or human-made extensions of the human senses. You do
comprehend the principles of your own assertions and the corollaries that
flow from them, don't you, Bill M?

Complete and utter ***** that fools nobody but yourself.
Why don't you shut the ***** up because you seem to have grasped that
you can't put up otherwise you wouldn't need to resort that kind of
dishonesty?

I ask because you do not appear to be cognizant of the many flaws in your
world view.

A liar as well as an idiot.

Can you detect the obvious flaws in your tidy little world view that
everything must be false or nonexistent that can not be proven by "objective
verifiable evidence"?

What "tidy little world view", lying theist?

Are you certain that is what you mean to use as your sole epistemological
criteria? That seems kind of goofy to me, but liberty of necessity includes
the freedom to post foolishness on usenet, so be as goofy as you choose.

Look up "straw man", dishonest lying theist.

P.S. The Bibles are not objective verifiable evidence.

The bible is no more relevant in the real world outside Christianity
than the Koran is outside Islam, the Greek myths are outside the
ancient Greek religion, etc.

They are nothing more
than the subjective 'opinions
and claims' of 66 or more unknown authors from thousands of years ago.
There
are NO original Bibles in existence."

Wait a minute. Aren't your very own words above an obvious example of one
of "Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims [that] were made"?

Are they, liar?

You do not know that "There are NO original Bibles in existence." You can
not know that "There are NO original Bibles in existence." Neither you nor
any other human being knows what manuscripts actually have survived, thus do
exist. No human being even knows the total number of manuscripts of the
entire Bible or portions thereof that are extant today. No exhaustive
search and catalogue of the results of that search has ever been completed,
although there are some in progress.

We know that it is a mish mash of religious propaganda put together
300 odd years after the alleged events of the NT are supposed to have
happened.

So provide them, moron. And they had better be contemporary with the
alleged events, not some later written compilation of an oral
tradition.

Or do you claim to have access to secret knowledge not available to anyone
but certain atheists? The atheist dolt Darrell Stec made similar patently
ridiculous claims about his expertise in Christian manuscripts, but he seems
to have eaten those words when confronted with minimal evidence available to
the general public. And then the atheist blowhard Stec claimed that atheist
news groups were for "general discussion" thus details of genuine
scholarship were inadmissible. Surely you can you do better than your
fellow atheists Stec, or even the thoroughly misguided Libertarius, can't
you, Bill M?

Nobody is claiming that outside your deluded fantasies.

Nor can you prove using any "objective verifiable evidence," that certain of
the
extant manuscripts from antiquity were not part of an "original Bible."

Demonstrate that these "manuscripts from antiquity" were written at
the time of the alleged events.

In fact, I think there is a reasonable case that an "original Bible" or two
may, in fact, be extant. The first collections of texts that roughly
approximates a Bible in the modern sense of the entire Christian canon
contained within a codex or set of codices, were only assembled in the
middle to late fourth century and declared to be the official scripture or
canon of Christianity very late in the 4th century. And since manuscript
Aleph and Manuscript B in the Gregory-Aland catalogue are dated to the
middle of the fourth century and except for lacunae contain the texts widely
accepted as being the canon of Christianity, they may very well be "original
Bibles." Kindly disprove that assertion using "objective verifiable
evidence," if you can.

Thank you for making his point for him. These merely describe what
Christians believed 300-400 years after the alleged events.

Or you can attempt to prove your silly declaration that "There are NO
original Bibles in existence" using "objective verifiable evidence." I
don't think you can. But I eagerly anticipate reading of your efforts. Of
course, you atheists do have a way of turning tail and running, or just
quietly disappearing like the atheists Stec, Libertarius, and certain other
of your fellow travelers have done. So I expect that. Kind of.

What "fellow travelers", deliberately ]nasty Christian liar?

We have no way of knowing their authenticity and veracity."

More deliberate nastiness. All to cover up for the fact that you have
nothing and can't bring yourself to shut up even though you can't put
up.

Interestingly, although there were several hundred replies, NO ONE
provided a legitimate answer.

You are mistaken. Indeed, a "legitimate answer" has been provided
repeatedly. You are simply unaware of the consequences of your own sloppy
use of language.

You have no "legitimate answer" because you have nothing in the real
world that stands up to any scrutiny.

"Legitimate" is a legal term meaning an act, utterance, or omission that is
lawful, thus not proscribed and punishable by law. And since all notions of
legal are human constructs and the product of human endeavors, why would you
try to analyze the epistemological problem of proofs of the existence or
nonexistence of deities within a framework of legal constructs and
terminology?

An admittance that you have nothing.

Your assertion seems a bit bizarre to me, especially for an atheist, because
any lawfully constituted governing body that passed a statute or motion
acknowledging the existence of any deity renders the existence of any such
deity "legitimate." Why don't you comprehend that, Bill M?

Another admittance that you have nothing.

Thus any acknowledgment of the existence of any deity by any lawmaking body
such as the Congress and president of the United States or the British
Parliament or the king of Saudi Arabia is in fact a "legitimate answer" for
the existence of God. And since those lawfully constituted governments have
all acknowledged the existence of God, obviously the lawful governments of
the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and a whole
lot of other governments besides have indeed provided a "legitimate" answer
to your question. And that "legitimate answer" is that God exists.
Congratulations, Bill M! You just disproved your very own thesis!

Demonstrate that there is anything to acknowledge, lying theist.

Do you begin to see where how far astray your careless and subjective
adjectives such as "legitimate" can lead you, Bill M?

To dishonest theists going off into red herrings.

Did you really mean something other than "legitimate"? Perhaps a term from
formal logic or the philosophy of science is more appropriate and accurate,
eh Bill M?

Where is ANY objective evidence?

Perhaps if you expect finite answers to your existential problems, you could
keep your terminology consistent. If you are going to address issues
properly in the domain of epistemology such as you have here, you should
probably restrict your adjectives to those defined by epistemology, as
opposed to law. What do you think?

Not his existential problems. liar.
Just the total inability of theists to shut the ***** up when they
can't put up.

Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims were made but NO objective
verifiable evidence.

Aren't your words above an extremely accurate summary of your comments above
concerning the Bible? Yes, of course they are.

How so, lying theist?

No, moron. They presumed the real world, after all, that is where
theists are making their baseless claims.

Now maybe limited capacity humans are unable to do this, but why doesn't
this god creator of the Universe
supply an answer?

Why don't you tell us?

He was asking theists who make baseless claims and neither put up nor
shut up.

Or could it be that you are deaf to any communication concerning any
phenomena
that can not be subjected to "objective verifiable evidence'?

Yet another lie.
.

User: "Joseph"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	17 Aug 2006 08:39:48 PM

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

I posted this question back on 8/4.

" What objective verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any
god
actually exists?

The only proof that Radio Waves exist is to turn on the Radio Receiver,
likewise the only proof Spirit exists is to turn on the Spiritual Receiver.
Do you want personal proof God whom is Spirit exists, or do you just want to
argue? If you want personal proof God whom is Spirit exists, just follow the
steps below, it works for anyone that believes, and it will not work for
anyone that does not believe. If you believe, it will lead you into
receiving and turning on the Spiritual Receiver so that you can worship God
by Spirit and Truth, and receive his answers for yourself.
John 4: 23 "But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall
worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: for the Father seeks such to
worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him
in Spirit and in Truth."
We must worship God by Spirit, not by our hands or by the works of our
hands, because that is what he wants.
Acts 17:24 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he
is Jehovah of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands; 25
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing,
seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And had made of
one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and
had determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their
habitation; 27 That they should seek Jehovah, if haply they might feel after
him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him
we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets
have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold,
or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of
this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to
repent: 31 Because he had appointed a day, in the which he will judge the
world in righteousness by that man whom he had ordained; whereof he had
given assurance unto all men, in that he had raised him from the dead."
John 3: 16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that
the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believes on him is not
condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the
condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness
rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that does
evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved. 21 But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may
be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
If you find yourself hating what you just read, repent, which means put off
your evil deeds, and receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and
said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what
shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to
your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as Jehovah our God
shall call.
See here the Creator's name and the title of his uniquely begotten Son.
Psalm 110: 1 "A Psalm of David. Jehovah said unto my Adown, Sit you at my
right hand, until I make your enemies stool your feet."
Romans 10: 1 "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is,
that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of
God, but not according to acquaintance. 3 For they being ignorant of God's
righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have
not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the
end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. 5 For Moses
described the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which does
those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith
speaks on this wise, Say not in your heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?
(that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the
deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what says it?
The word is nigh to you, even in your mouth, and in your heart: that is, the
word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if you shall confess with your mouth
the Adown Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him
from the dead, you shall be saved. 10 For with the heart man believes unto
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For
the scripture says, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed."
Psalm 81:" 8 Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto you: O Israel, if
thou wilt hearken unto me; 9 There shall no strange God be in you; neither
shall you worship any strange God. 10 I am Jehovah your God, which brought
you out of the land of Egypt: open your mouth wide, and I will fill it."
Open your mouth wide and breath in, then the first sound that you hear speak
it, and then the next sound and keep speaking them as they come, and you
will be praising and worshipping God by the Spirit of Christ giving you the
languages of men and Angels.
Peter on the day of Pentecost after Holy Spirit was first poured out, he
addressed first the men of Judaea, whom are men of Judah and Benjamin, then
he speaks to Israel.
Acts 2: 14ff "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice,
and said unto them, You men of Judaea, and all you that dwell at Jerusalem,
be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken,
as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that
which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last
days, says Jehovah, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see
visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my
handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall
prophesy: And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth
beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The Sun shall be turned into
darkness, and the Moon into blood, before that great and notable day of
Jehovah come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of Jehovah shall be saved. You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus
of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and
signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves also
know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of
God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God
has raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible
that he should be held of it. For David speaks concerning him, I foresaw the
Adown always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not
be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover
also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because you wilt not leave my soul in
hell, neither wilt thou suffer your Holy One to see corruption. You have
made known to me the ways of life; you shall make me full of joy with your
countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto
this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spoke of
the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his
flesh did see corruption. This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we all are
witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth
this, which you now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the
heavens: but he says himself, Jehovah said unto my Adown, Sit you on my
right hand, Until I make your foes to stool your feet. Therefore let all the
house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you
have crucified, both Adown and Christ."
Since Pentecost this same Jesus that sits upon the throne of David has come
within our flesh as the promised Salvation from Judah, which Spirit of
Salvation has become the inheritance of the Heirs by birthright and the
Fellowheirs, and the Apostle Paul of the tribe of Benjamin our Fellowheir,
was called to make the Gentiles Fellowheirs.
Ephesians 3:6 "That the Gentiles should be Fellowheirs, and of the same
body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"
Colossians 1:27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the
glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope
of glory:"
1John 2:18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that
antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know
that it is the last time."
1John 2:22 "who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is
antichrist that denies the Father and the Son."
1John 4:3 "And every Spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is not of God: and this is that Spirit of antichrist, whereof you
have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
2John 1:7 "for many deceivers are entered into the world, who confesses not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist."
Many of the deceivers say that there is no uniquely begotten Son of God, or
they say that Jesus is not the uniquely begotten Son of God or is not
Christ, others say that there are no Sons of God, others say that there is
no Father whom is the Most High God of Gods and Lord of Lords, others say
that you are not Gods or Lords, others wrongly say that the Son is the
Creator, others say to pray to Spirits of the dead or to Spirits of Saints
or to Angel Spirits or to Devil Spirits, whom are all other Gods than the
Most High and are called "strange Gods" in the Scriptures, others say pray
to the Godship, which is rightly translated from the Hebrew word Elohim, but
they not knowing that the Father and the uniquely begotten Son and they and
the Angels are named Godship or Elohim, they pray but to their own name that
the Father named upon all the living creation.
Godparents and Godchildren, should anyone pray to and worship any God but
the Most High God? Gods and Goddesses, Lords and Ladies, burn the incense of
pray to and worship the Most High God, the Father of the uniquely begotten
Godling, Jesus Christ, the Godling of Adopted Godling, believe upon the name
of the Father, and receive the Son as the promised Salvation from the loins
of Judah, and the Father shall adopt you as his own Godling.
Jesus is the only man that ever died, and was resurrected and ascended into
heaven, and was poured out as glorified Spirit. All the dead Saints are like
David, they are dead and their graves remain with us unto this day, how can
anyone get an answer from a dead person that will not live again until the
last day?
John 6:39 "And this is the Father's will which had sent me, that of all
which he had given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day."
John 6:40 "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which
sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will
raise him up at the last day."
John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father who has sent me draw
him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:54 "Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I
will raise him up at the last day."
John 11:24 "Martha said unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the
resurrection at the last day."
John 12:48 "He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that
judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
last day."
O Rome and all your followers, hear these words and repent of your
wickedness.
Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and
the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven, and to
pour out drink offerings unto other Gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
O Rome and all your followers, hear these words and repent of your
wickedness, for you have said;
Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of
our own mouth, to burn incense unto the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out
drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings,
and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem:
for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
O Rome and all your followers, hear these words and repent of your
wickedness, for this is what you will say;
Jeremiah 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven,
and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and
have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
O Rome and all your followers, hear these words and repent of your
wickedness, for Jehovah spared not the children of Judah in Egypt that
burned the incense of prayer to the Queen of Heaven, and now he says that he
will not spare you, repent of your wickedness.
Jeremiah 44:25 "Thus says Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; You
and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your
hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn
incense to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her:
you will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. 26
Therefore hear you the word of Jehovah, all Judah that dwell in the land of
Egypt; Behold, (Now all Rome and your followers that dwell anywhere upon the
earth) I have sworn by my great name, says Jehovah, that my name shall no
more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt,
(Now all Rome and your followers that dwell anywhere upon the earth) saying,
Adown Jehovah lives. 27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for
good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt (and now all
Rome and your followers that dwell anywhere upon the earth) shall be
consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them. 28
Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return out of the land of
Egypt into the land of Judah, and all the remnant of Judah, that are gone
into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose words shall stand,
mine, or theirs. 29 And this shall be a sign unto you, says Jehovah, that I
will punish you in this place, that you may know that my words shall surely
stand against you for evil:"
O Rome and all your followers, hear these words and repent of your
wickedness, Jehovah is Lord of Lords and King of Kings in the Kingdom of
God, Jesus is the promised Messiah, promised to come from the loins of
Judah, and of the house of David, uniquely begotten in and born of the
virgin of the house of David that you exalt as the Queen of Heaven, but the
Father exalted the Son as Adown and Christ and King set upon the throne of
David, having restored the Kingdom to Judah, but it was not yet time to
restore the Kingdom to Israel.
In service of God and Country
Joseph
PS After receiving the Spirit of Christ, if you see visions write them down,
and God will reveal the meanings.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	18 Aug 2006 12:06:23 PM

<Joseph> wrote in message
news:2-KdnWHdosLCh3jZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

I posted this question back on 8/4.

" What objective verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any
god
actually exists?

Oh brother. What a crock of *****.
Sorry, but we're not gullible believers. Please go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Pastor Frank"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	19 Aug 2006 03:24:23 AM

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4kma5jFcp7krU1@individual.net...

<Joseph> wrote in message
news:2-KdnWHdosLCh3jZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

I posted this question back on 8/4.

" What objective verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any
god actually exists?

Oh brother. What a crock of *****.
Sorry, but we're not gullible believers. Please go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.

Yes. Spiritual symbolism and metaphor really stumps you, don't it? Ask
Jesus in faith of Him to shed some light, and you will see.
.

User: "Gordon Hill"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	18 Aug 2006 09:31:52 PM

Joseph wrote:

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

I posted this question back on 8/4.

" What objective verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any
god
actually exists?

The only proof that Radio Waves exist is to turn on the Radio Receiver...

If you want to make a valid point I suggest you begin with a valid
premise. Since the scientific proof for electromagnetic and
electrostatic phenomenon is beyond question, you are drilling a hole in
the bottom of your boat to let the water out.
So sad. Read a good book on electricity.
<snip the irrelevant>
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	17 Aug 2006 09:17:05 PM

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:39:48 -0500, <Joseph> wrote:

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

I posted this question back on 8/4.

" What objective verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any
god
actually exists?

Can't you assholes ever say anything without preaching?
And it's not up to us to do your work for you when YOU beg the
question.

John 4: 23 "But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall
worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: for the Father seeks such to
worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him
in Spirit and in Truth."

Who gives a ***** what the bible says?

We must worship God by Spirit, not by our hands or by the works of our
hands, because that is what he wants.

Why MUST we, moron? And this kind of question-begging stupidity is
what begets the demands for the very proof that you dishonestly cop
out of giving.
[rest of this garbage deleted]
.

User: "Pastor Torch"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	16 Aug 2006 08:13:12 AM

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

I posted this question back on 8/4.

" What objective verifiable evidence do the god believers have that any
god
actually exists? Why do you believe in something for which there is NO
objective verifiable evidence?

P.S. The Bibles are not objective verifiable evidence. They are nothing
more
than the subjective 'opinions
and claims' of 66 or more unknown authors from thousands of years ago.
There
are NO original Bibles in existence."

We have no way of knowing their authenticity and veracity."

Interestingly, although there were several hundred replies, NO ONE
provided a legitimate answer.

Many nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims were made but NO objective
verifiable evidence.

Now maybe limited capacity humans are unable to do this, but why doesn't
this god creator of the Universe
supply an answer?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God choose to be taken by FAITH.... if the proof you request was availible,
FAITH would not be needed.
The evidence you request is therefore NOT availible.
NO ONE can provide something GOD was careful to avoid.
So I have a question for you. How easy was it to create an entire universe
and leave no bonifide proof that
you even exist? Do you think you could do that?
I suppose you are the kind of person that believes in evolution.
I suppose you think that is a much more intelligent belife, hmm?
What proof is there that evolution has actully occured? Where is it?
If you take everything the schools teach about evolution, and delete
everything that includes weasle words, you would
have nothing left. You know what weasle words are? Ref: Dilbert Comics...
Weasle words are, "may have, could have,
scientist think that, evidence suggests..." These are words and phrases
that clue the listener into the fact that they don't
have positive proof.
Is life common or special. Evolution says it is a natural process, Creatino
says it is something special.
The evidence says: Consider the entire known universe. We are living on
one rock out of billions that are floating
around in space. We have a telescope now floating about in space for the
best view ever attained from this planet.
We have send numerous probes into space which have sent back photos from
distances un-anticipated. We have
radio telescopes listening for any non-natural signal broadcast from
anywhere in the universe. With all that we have
done to explore this universe, and to search for life elsewhere, here is
what we have found. NADA! Not only are
there NO OTHER populated planets out there, but we havent even found
anything that would support life such as
our own! Is this evidence of a natural and commonly occuring process or a
special creation? Think hard!
Now I wonder how the authors of those 66 books that had none of our
technology nor our science nor any of our
knowledge... how did they get it right? How could they have been so
accurate? Huh? But then I suppose you
could be right that YOU are much more worthy of being believed than they
are. After all, your not a one of
those loonies that believes in God.
-And the fool hath said in his heart, 'I am wise.'
-Pastor Torch.
.

User: "Bill M"
Title: Re: DOES ANY REAL GOD EXIST?	16 Aug 2006 12:30:11 PM

"Pastor Torch" <PastorTorch@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:12e66f8dq1as9d3@corp.supernews.com...

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:v9qEg.15225$0k4.4928@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Now I wonder how the authors of those 66 books that had none of our
technology nor our science nor any of our
knowledge... how did they get it right? How could they have been so
accurate? Huh? But then I suppose you
could be right that YOU are much more worthy of being believed than they
are. After all, your not a one of
those loonies that believes in God.

-And the fool hath said in his heart, 'I am wise.'

-Pastor Torch.

Christopher answered all of your nonsense pretty thoroughly but this last
bit.
You are truly showing your ignorance of the Bibles.
The foundations of all Christian religions are the Bibles and Jesus Christ.
The Bibles are the literature of pure 'faith', not of scientific
observation, evidence or historical fact or demonstration.
The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
veracity. The books of the Bibles were written more than 1,000 years before
the invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
supposedly written by 66 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They
are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And
the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their
followers belief in their Bible stories.
There is NO - NADA _evidence the Bibles are the word of any Gods. They are
no more than the words of hundreds of errant religious leaders motivated to
impress and control their flock.
It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion, civilization
and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human
and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.
The Bibles quite obviously contain mostly myths, fables, legends.
contradictions and totally impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written
during Jesus' 'CLAIMED LIFE TIME'. Time and distance was required to allow
the creation of fictional stories and the embellishment of history.
There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
yet only four
made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
to support their personal motives and ambitions..
The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the
church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which books
were unacceptable and why. The general consensus of opinion among scholars
is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
prevailing theological thought and motives at the time. In other words, the
only books accepted were the ones that agreed with the opinions, desires and
motives of the church leadership at the time
It is interesting to note that NONE of the Bibles were written during Jesus'
claimed life time. It seems time needed to pass to permit the creation of
tales and the embellishment of history.
According to Bart Ehrman, professor and Chair of the Dept. of Religious
Studies at the University of North Carolina, The Bible is not the error-free
word of any god. There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the
basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have
uncovered more thousands of differences in those texts.
The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the
text years later -- and these are the only verses in that book that mention
Christ reappearing after his death.
Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy
Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of
Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in
the entire Bible -- and it appears to have been added to the text centuries
later, by an unknown scribe.
For a man who originally believed the Bible was the inspired Word of God,
Ehrman sought the true originals to shore up his faith. The problem: he
found there are NO original manuscripts of ANY of the Bibles - Old or New
Testaments!
If the history of the resurrection of Christ had not really happened, the
message . . . according to the authority of the apostle Paul, had to be
'null and void'. Ehrman slowly came to a horrifying realization: There was
no real historical record. It was, he felt, no more than myths and fables,
told by illiterate men and not set down in writing for decades that
followed.
There is no solid agreement even within the Christian community on the
interpretation of the Bibles. There are 18 English versions alone. There are
thousands of variations and opinions as to the meaning of various Biblical
statements.
If Jesus was God, why did he not leave behind his recorded record of his
rules and commands? Why are there NO Biblical documents written during his
'claimed' time on earth? The Old Testaments were written 'before his birth'.
The New Testaments were written '60 and more years after his death' by men
that could never have known Jesus personally. NONE were written during his
'claimed' life time.
There is NO objective verifiable evidence as to their authenticity and
veracity. The Bibles contain both historical and scientific errors. They
contain manifest absurdities, unfulfilled prophesies, immoralities,
indecencies, obscenities, atrocities, barbarities, myths, folklore and
legends. They are nothing more than hearsay, myths, contradictions and
implausible tales.
Here is just a small sampling of implausible Bible stories.
The story of creation
A totally illogical Biblical story is the story of creation. It is obviously
pure fiction.
Genesis says that God created first the earth, then the Sun and Moon.
We know from astronomical data that our Sun and Moon is much older than the
earth. And all of these are older by eons than man. Only uneducated
egocentric humans could have written such nonsense.
Biblically, God created the world about six thousand years ago. 'Scientific
Evidence' indicates the Universe, as we now know it, began more than 13
BILLION years ago or more.
In the Bible, the Universe is a firmament and the Earth is a fixed (not to
mention flat) Planet and the Son, Moon and other planets revolve around the
earth. This was believed until modern scientific inquiry showed this was
totally false. We now KNOW the Earth revolves around the Son and the
Universe is over 20 BILLION light years in diameter and is made up of
trillions of Stars and Planets of which our planetary system is a very
miniscule and inconsequential part. There was no concept of a 'Universe' in
Biblical times.
Everything beyond our immediate Son and planets was considered Heaven.
In the Bible the earth is created in the first day, before the Son, Moon and
Stars. Objective scientific evidence is that the Earth did not form until
approximately 10 BILLION YEARS after the beginning of the present Universe
and after the formation of the Son, and many other stars.
The Creation of the World
Genesis
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was
without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a
mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters. God said, Let there
be light, and there was light; and God saw that the light was good, and he
separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness
night. So evening came, and morning came, the first day. God created light
before he created the Sun and the Moon!
Astronomical evidence shows the Son existed long before the Earth; therefore
the earth was not created before the Son. It is equally obvious that the
writers of that time thought the World was the center the firmament and that
they had no conception of the size and nature of the Universe. Everything
beyond the Sun and Moon was considered to be gods Heaven
God said, Let there be a vault between the waters, to separate water from
water. So God made the vault, and separated the water under the vault from
the water above it, and so it was; and God called the vault heaven. Evening
came, and morning came, a second day.
God said; Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, so that
dry land may appear; and so it was. God called the dry land earth, and the
gathering of the waters he called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then
God said, Let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the earth
plants bearing seed, fruit-trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its kind. So it was; the earth yielded fresh growth, plants bearing seed
according to their kind and trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its king; and God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning came, a
third day.
And this good and loving God created animals that eat other animals (and
man) and poisonous plants and snakes that kill!
God said, Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to separate day from
night, and let them serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years. Let them also shine in the vault of heaven to give light on earth. So
it was; God made the two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the
lesser to govern the night; and with them he made the stars. God put these
lights in the vault of heaven to give light on earth, to govern day and
night, and to separate light from darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Evening came, and morning came, a fourth day.
Ancient man erroneously thought the stars beyond the Sun and Moon to be
Heaven. The Moon was NOT considered a reflection from the light of the Sun
but a lesser light.
God, said, Let the w