What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[techboy]

43 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

  To confirm, have we proven the Big Bang Theory to be fact via scientific method? 

 

An additional thought... The answer is yes. As it happens, Collins covers this at the same time he explains why Intelligent Design is not science. http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Intelligent Design/IDRNT.htm.htm

 

The relevant excerpt:

 

Quote

On the other hand, the major problem I see with ID's claim that we should include the hypothesis of a transcendent or generic designer as part of science is that it is not what I have called scientifically tractable. Typically, when scientists propose an explanation of some set of phenomena, that explanation can be filled in using other branches of science. For example, consider the big bang theory. The postulated "fireball" that resulted in our current universe provides a detailed explanation of such things as the microwave background radiation and the abundance of elements because we can use current particle physics to elaborate this fireball's internal dynamics. If its internal workings were forever beyond the realm of current science to investigate, it is doubtful such an hypothesis would be of much scientific interest. Ditto for the theory of evolution and other scientific theories.

Insofar as the hypothesis of ID invokes a transcendent or generic designer, it lacks this characteristic. One cannot use current science to elaborate the internal dynamics of a transcendent or generic designer (though one might for a specific sort of non-transcendent designer, such as an extraterrestrial intelligence). Yet, lacking this characteristic is no small matter, since it is what allows scientific hypotheses to provide detailed explanations and predictions, and it gives scientists something to work with. It is not sufficient for advocates of ID to reply that intelligent design is the best explanation of various features of the natural world: many theists argue that God is the best explanation of the big bang and the laws of nature and many platonists argue that the existence of an immaterial realm of mathematical truths is the best explanation of the success of mathematics in science, but clearly this is insufficient to make the God hypothesis or platonic hypothesis part of science. So, whether or not one wants to consider ID as part of science, this significant and relevant difference between it and regular scientific hypotheses should be acknowledged.

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by techboy

[Renegade7]

31 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

No one's going after science. We're just insisting on using it in the correct manner.

 

Your fixation with using science to prove or disprove the existence of God is similar to attempting to use an electron microscope to measure the acceleration of gravity. It's the wrong tool. It doesn't matter how advanced your electron microscope becomes, it's still the wrong tool.

 

 

That came out wrong, I'm sorry, I am frustrated by this take on science, but noted a couple times I was willing to let that go to move on with the conversation and focus on philosophy and mathematics instead.  Please take me up on that so we don't have to use any more pages on it, I'm trying to meet you halfway even if its outside my comfort zone. If you recommend checking out those links, I will, I hope you're not just ignoring my points in the meantime (because I'm not ignoring yours).

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

On 4/5/2018 at 8:44 AM, PeterMP said:

 

How are they self-evident?  Are they self-evident to everybody?

 

(I'm not quite sure you and I are actually talking about the same thing.  I can believe that the universe is real and not believe that tomorrow gravity will be the same as it is today.  I'd 100% disagree that the universe being logical is self-evident.  I don't find quantum mechanics very logical at all.)

 

"I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?" Werner Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy (1958)

 

"Then, unexpectedly, the third stage begins. The student suddenly says to himself, “I understand quantum mechanics,” or rather he says, “I understand now that there isn’t anything to be understood.” " Freeman Dyson

 

"Does it seem absurd? It also seemed absurd to Einstein. On one hand he proposed Heisenberg for the Noble Prize, recognizing that he had understood something fundamental to the world, while on the other hand he didn’t miss any occasion to grumble that this did not make much sense." Carlo Rovelli

1

 

 

A little bit out of context, even though the quantum mechanics don't seem to make sense, the rules that govern them are still consistent within itself which would make them sense imo. It isn't like in quantum mechanics 2+2= 45, that isn't what is happening. I feel a lot of that is just bias, when I was told matter could behave as a wave, I accepted it because it what's been proven. These scientists were so certain in their understanding that they were shocked to be wrong. Remove your bias that you understand how the laws of the universe work and accept what the proof tells you. It's not like one day the wave function of an electron works and the next it doesn't. Plus, if you look at the infinite path integral it is also mathematically consistent with classical mechanics. The Lagrangian in classical mechanics is explained by the principle of stationary action, but this is proven by quantum mechanics and the infinite path integral. 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

also one of you said logic is circular, okay but math is a logical and math is observed to be real in the universe and to work. Or else I wouldnt be typing on this message board right now so then is  it still circular?  

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, techboy said:

 

I'm not suggesting that at all. We can prove lots of things, within certain frameworks. Take, for example, this classic:

 

1. Socrates is a man

2. All men are mortal

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

 

 

 

This serves as a refutation of the criticism that belief in God is not warranted because the existence of God cannot be proven... even if you ignore all arguments in favor of the existence of God, which I personally find persuasive, Peter less so I think.

 

 

That make sense, what I don't want is someone coming behind me and saying something stupid like "Socrates may not have been mortal, and faked his death to keep people from catching on to that or any other reason".  I'm afraid that Peter's assertion that nothing is provable opens us up to that which I don't want because a comment like that that I just made for this point sounds f'n stupid and would make this or any other discussion impossible.

 

I appreciate the evidence others have put forward to suggest God does exist, but my faith that he does supersedes anyone's ability to prove any of that (right or wrong), it doesn't depend on it (again not saying you or anyone else in here is).  I like the idea of using what we have to try to corroborate these examples of faith, I also feel that some are spending more time trying to do this instead of considering the message behind it all (which some messages on an individual basis aren't asking to be proven to make sense).

[Renegade7]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

also one of you said logic is circular, okay but math is a logical and math is observed to be real in the universe and to work. Or else I wouldnt be typing on this message board right now so then is  it still circular?  

 

Interesting point.  2+2=4, that's not up for debate, is it?

[thinwhiteduke]

7 hours ago, techboy said:

 

Peter is making a subtle point based on science. Let me make it more direct.

 

How do you know you can trust your own senses?

 

Can you prove I exist? How do you know you're not in a coma experiencing vivid hallucinations? Or a brain in a jar somewhere being stimulated by electrodes? Or just a program in a simulation?

 

Can you prove your experiences are real? That your senses are telling you the truth?

 

Before you answer, think carefully. I can point you to lots of small examples where your senses can definitively be shown to fool you.

 

How do you KNOW?

Dude, you're way behind. I've already given lectures on perception and reality here. 

He isnt making any point. He's going in circles while I've already explained that beliefs  don't exist. Lol at think carefully.im the only one here who doesn't believe everything he's told in the first place. You know your senses can fool you yet people still believe things they can't see? What he's saying is irrelevant because it's all based in -believing- something. 

 Science has nothing to with an all knowing being who lives outside time and space.  

Edited April 8, 2018 by thinwhiteduke

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

 

 

A little bit out of context, even though the quantum mechanics don't seem to make sense, the rules that govern them are still consistent within itself which would make them sense imo. It isn't like in quantum mechanics 2+2= 45, that isn't what is happening. I feel a lot of that is just bias, when I was told matter could behave as a wave, I accepted it because it what's been proven. These scientists were so certain in their understanding that they were shocked to be wrong. Remove your bias that you understand how the laws of the universe work and accept what the proof tells you. It's not like one day the wave function of an electron works and the next it doesn't. Plus, if you look at the infinite path integral it is also mathematically consistent with classical mechanics. The Lagrangian in classical mechanics is explained by the principle of stationary action, but this is proven by quantum mechanics and the infinite path integral. 

 

Just to be clear, the problem with quantum mechanics these people are talking about is not that particles have wave like properties.  Even at the time of the Bohr and Heisenberg discussions (and Einstein grumbling it doesn't make any sesne), that wasn't shocking.  Much less people like Freeman Dyson and Rovelli who are writing for modern audiences where quantum mechanics has been accepted for essentially people's whole lives.  That light had wave and particle like properties had already been widely accepted and reconciled.  That electron diffraction patterns showed that electrons behaved like  waves had already been accepted.  At the time, the Bohr model (which was built on the idea that electrons have wave like and particle like properties) had been proposed and disproven.

 

In that context, even the likes of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Einstein had a good grasp of things (and again, Dyson and Rovelli are well removed from that time and talking about their experiences with modern people).

 

Their issue is because to use your 2+2 analogy, quantum mechanics would answer well most time it equal 4, but it is possible that equals something (quantum mechanics does not literally say that about 2+2, but just for the analogy)

 

(Since you seem to understand the issues at some level, the fundamental issue is that you have a wave equation that is converted into a probability function by squaring, but the wave equation itself has no physical relationship to the behavior of the electrons.  It isn't someting that can be derived.  That's where Bohr and the Bohr model failed.  Bohr thought the wave equation of the electron should describe some property of the electron itself (e.g. its orbit around the atom).  The Bohr model is logical, but failed.  The Schrodinger equation is essentially made up math that works, but appears to have no physical implications itself (the square turns into a probability function).

 

More quotes:

 

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."  

 

"Where did we get that [equation] from? It's not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger."

 

Richard Feynman (Noble Prize Winning Physicists), in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

 

And again, Feynman is somebody that would of come through at least his schooling with the idea that things can have wave and particle properties being accepted.

 

Essentially, all of quantum mechanics is based on an equation that even today can't be derived from anything, itself has no known physical meaning, and was one man's guess.)

Edited April 8, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

That make sense, what I don't want is someone coming behind me and saying something stupid like "Socrates may not have been mortal, and faked his death to keep people from catching on to that or any other reason".  I'm afraid that Peter's assertion that nothing is provable opens us up to that which I don't want because a comment like that that I just made for this point sounds f'n stupid and would make this or any other discussion impossible.

 

I appreciate the evidence others have put forward to suggest God does exist, but my faith that he does supersedes anyone's ability to prove any of that (right or wrong), it doesn't depend on it (again not saying you or anyone else in here is).  I like the idea of using what we have to try to corroborate these examples of faith, I also feel that some are spending more time trying to do this instead of considering the message behind it all (which some messages on an individual basis aren't asking to be proven to make sense).

 

Whether you like it or not, it is reality.

[PeterMP]

29 minutes ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Dude, you're way behind. I've already given lectures on perception and reality here. 

He isnt making any point. He's going in circles while I've already explained that beliefs  don't exist. Lol at think carefully.im the only one here who doesn't believe everything he's told in the first place. You know your senses can fool you yet people still believe things they can't see? What he's saying is irrelevant because it's all based in -believing- something. 

 Science has nothing to with an all knowing being who lives outside time and space.  

 

My questions don't really have to do with science.  They have to do with belief and proof, and I can't help but notice for the 2nd time, you have failed to answer them, so I'll ask again:

 

Do you think that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today?  That's not a scientific question.  Science cannot prove or disprove that or say it is likely or unlikely.  It is a question about belief.

Edited April 8, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

44 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

That make sense, what I don't want is someone coming behind me and saying something stupid like "Socrates may not have been mortal, and faked his death to keep people from catching on to that or any other reason".  I'm afraid that Peter's assertion that nothing is provable opens us up to that which I don't want because a comment like that that I just made for this point sounds f'n stupid and would make this or any other discussion impossible.

 

I appreciate the evidence others have put forward to suggest God does exist, but my faith that he does supersedes anyone's ability to prove any of that (right or wrong), it doesn't depend on it (again not saying you or anyone else in here is).  I like the idea of using what we have to try to corroborate these examples of faith, I also feel that some are spending more time trying to do this instead of considering the message behind it all (which some messages on an individual basis aren't asking to be proven to make sense).

 

I'm going to quote this again because I want to make another point:

 

I think it is important that we focus on the message.  But as somebody that has taught Sunday School (which being Catholic and of a certain generation I still call CCD) and seen the complete focus on message (and being Catholic, doctrine and tradition) taught there, I do think it makes sense to focus some on the basic question of why believe in God at all.

 

Otherwise, you just create people that run into the first "atheist" that says you can't prove that God doesn't exist, and it is stupid to believe in him, and then when they have something bad happen in their life, they have a crisis of faith and move away from God (and therefore the message).

 

The message is much more powerful when people have a strong belief that is being re-enforced by other strong believers.

 

And while I readily admit, I can't prove that God exist (and again, outside of basic math, I don't think you can prove much of anything (I'm also a fan of, I think therefore I am)), I can give a logical/reasonable philosophical framework where a belief in God is at least reasonable.

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Whether you like it or not, it is reality.

A reality that you can't prove because you say nothing is provable.

 

What's to stop me from using any logical fallacy or fantasy explanation I want to counter any argument you make if you insist that nothing is provable?  I agree with you on certain things and want to agree with a lot of what else you're saying, but you're making it difficult by continuously coming back that.  What is the fail-safe to protect our civilization from falling apart with that argument?  Is there one?  I'm fine with leaning on what we think we know as a basis for what else we think we know because it makes sense even if we can't technically prove any it to at least have a functional society and continue to advance and maintain our civilization and technology that supports it. 

 

You're making me nervous, man, like idea of ceasing to exist when I die nervous right now.  Is the "nothing is truly provable" argument something we just try not to talk about even though we can see the argument for it so the whole thing doesn't blow up in our face?  Does our conversation about this even matter if that's true?  I really want it to matter, that's another reason I made this thread.

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

And while I readily admit, I can't prove that God exist (and again, outside of basic math, I don't think you can prove much of anything (I'm also a fan of, I think therefore I am)), I can give a logical/reasonable philosophical framework where a belief in God is at least reasonable.

No BS, that's really encouraging to me you saying that.  Thank you.

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

A reality that you can't prove because you say nothing is provable.

 

What's to stop me from using any logical fallacy or fantasy explanation I want to counter any argument you make if you insist that nothing is provable?  I agree with you on certain things and want to agree with a lot of what else you're saying, but you're making it difficult by continuously coming back that.  What is the fail-safe to protect our civilization from falling apart with that argument?  Is there one?  I'm fine with leaning on what we think we know as a basis for what else we think we know because it makes sense even if we can't technically prove any it to at least have a functional society and continue to advance and maintain our civilization and technology that supports it. 

 

You're making me nervous, man, like idea of ceasing to exist when I die nervous right now.  Is the "nothing is truly provable" argument something we just try not to talk about even though we can see the argument for it so the whole thing doesn't blow up in our face?  Does our conversation about this even matter if that's true?  I really want it to matter, that's another reason I made this thread.

 

The first line is very good.  I might use that some how in the future.

 

But yes, in the end for the most part that's the case.  There is a debate whether we are a computer simulation:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

 

(And then this gets into a very interesting question, which I do puzzle over some times and am not quite sure that I have an answer I like:  Assuming we are a computer simulation of some other "natural" intelligence is evidence of a God in our "universe" evidence that God exist in the real "universe"?  I lean towards yes, but I'm not quite sure.) 

 

Basic math, I think has to be provable.  I think therefore I am (somehow) seems like it must be true.

 

Beyond that, I think we are limited to what seems likely, what we believe, and what we can support with "reasonable" evidence.  Science for the most part deals with p-values.  The people that "found" Higgs-Boson didn't really "find" Higgs-Boson.  They found a particle that seems to met the properties of Higgs-Boson with some extremely extremely small chance of it not having those properties.  In other words, they most likely found the Higgs-Boson, but there is some very small probability that they didn't.  This is essentially true for all of science.

 

(To go back to @Dr. Do Itch Big post and be technically correct, it wasn't actually proven that electrons have wave like properties.  It was found very likely, but with some very very small probability of being wrong, that electrons have wave like properties.)

 

Reasonably (whether through evolution or because of God (or both)), most of us have a mind set and a frame of reference to be willing to accept certain things as true (i.e. natural laws exist).  This common mind set makes discussions of what can and will happen much easier.

 

(To just add, again, science doesn't exclude some crazy things.  Quantum mechanics actually says there is some probability that you will pass through something solid (walk through a wall, fall through a floor, etc).  It just says the probability is extremely extremely small and given the number of people on Earth, it is very very unlikely that it has happened (assuming there is only one "universe"/"dimension" of Earth.))

Edited April 8, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

 

25 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

No BS, that's really encouraging to me you saying that.  Thank you.

 

To me, the key is do you believe that natural laws exist.  If you believe that since gravity has always seemed to be the way it is, is good evidence it will be that way tomorrow, then a belief in God has to be at least reasonable.

 

(And I've only ever met one person that said he didn't believe natural laws exist.  And I don't think he was being (intellectually) honest because if you don't, you should logically live a very different life than everybody else who does.)

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP  I can live with that.  I was not comfortable with the idea of allowing something we are 0.000001% certain about to have the same level of legitimacy as something we are 99.999998% certain about.  As long as we're not doing that, I'm willing to move on : )

 

I posted a video from the series "Through the Wormhole" about the illusion of gravity and is reality real.  Did you have a chance to check either of them out?  I'm still trying to keep up with the links and books others have recommended looking at that were long, but I think you'd really like it, and if you have cable, you can go to Science Channel website (like I do), and watch full HD video instead of that bootleg stuff people put out that I posted (which I'm glad they did).  The rabbit hole is deep, my friend.

 

As for the question of "God in the matrix meaning God in the land of the real", I'd say no, because if the idea of something like the matrix is written in code, like how I think of C or Python, then its software that's going to allow or need a user with Superuser permissions.  Linux comes with a user called "root" that can do anything it wants down to editing code at the kernel level.  Windows has a user similar to that, too (not quite same level of power, since Windows is closed source and Linux is Open Sourc), called "system", that is so uniquely different then a local Administrator user for the OS, that if you get a command prompt with "system" level permissions, the command prompt is Red instead of black (or blue like powershell).  In essence, if the reality we live in is software of some kind, a user with rights to do anything is easy, you actually need that for the Operating System to function properly.  That doesn't mean whoever wrote the operating system has that same level of power in real life.

 

A god should totally be able to create another god, though.  I can't imagine a situation that any entity would want to create something more powerful then them to accomplish anything if they were in the same reality or if either could crossover with that same level of power.  It reminds me of our infatuation with AI and how some people think that software that becomes self-aware won't want equal rights due to feeling equal or superior to its creators.  If something did create God, that'd be crazy to think He wouldn't know about it, though (possible, but extremely unlikely).  I say that thinking one of a couple possible reasons in that in that hypothetical scenario where whoever created God wouldn't let God know is because they wouldn't want God to follow them home without any idea of how that would go or what to do if it didn't go well (especially if God had equal or more power to them).  You can say that's an argument for why God wouldn't want us to find him, but I don't think he's scared of us and for all we know is testing us instead of daring us.  

 

You ever done something that was wrong but some people said was the right thing to do anyway?  I have.  

Edited April 8, 2018 by Renegade7

[techboy]

2 hours ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

also one of you said logic is circular, okay but math is a logical and math is observed to be real in the universe and to work. Or else I wouldnt be typing on this message board right now so then is  it still circular?  

 

Math is probably the closest we can come to actual proof, but even math is based on assumptions we can't actually prove. These, for example, are the axioms of algebra: http://www.aaaknow.com/lessonFull.php?slug=vocabAxioms

 

We use those to prove everything else, but they themselves cannot be proven. We just operate as if they are true, because they work.

 

Or again, even more basically, we all operate under the assumption that we can trust our senses. We can't prove that, because any attempted proof would involve our senses and would thus be circular.

 

And of course, you need your senses to do math, or type on a message board, or observe that things work.

 

These are all properly basic beliefs, and allow us to function.

 

1 hour ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Dude, you're way behind. I've already given lectures on perception and reality here. 

 

I missed the lecture, sorry.

 

I also missed the part where you explained to me whether or not you trust your own senses.

 

If so, why? Can you prove that your experiences are reality?

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

Is the "nothing is truly provable" argument something we just try not to talk about even though we can see the argument for it so the whole thing doesn't blow up in our face?  Does our conversation about this even matter if that's true?  I really want it to matter, that's another reason I made this thread.

 

The reality is that for most people, it's not something they consider because they're living their lives. We all have properly basic beliefs which we live by, and most of the time we don't even think about them. We trust our senses because it's always seemed to work for us, and we've never had a good reason not to (what philosophers would call a defeater). Same with logic, same with the natural laws of the universe, same with the basic axioms of mathematics.

 

Within that framework, we can prove things. We can say that Climate Change is man made, and call on politicians to take action. We can say that the Big Bang Theory is how the Universe began. We can say that 2+2 is 4. We can convict Jeffrey Dahmer of murder. We don't need to slide into chaos and uncertainty.

 

It only really comes into focus when we do philosophy and really examine our beliefs and how we can justify them. It can be a little uncomfortable, but if you go back to a focus on what works, it's easy to see what's properly basic and what is just crazy, at least in our day to day lives.

 

For example, I hold a properly basic belief that I can trust my senses. I can't prove it ("I think therefore I am" only covers that I exist. It says nothing about you guys), but it's worked for me. It allows me to live my life.

 

Similarly, I would agree with Alvin Plantinga (and PeterMP) that belief in God is a properly basic belief. I don't need to prove it... it allows me to live my life in a way that makes sense of the universe, and some of the other properly basic beliefs such as the uniformity and reliability of natural laws, our ability to reason, the existence of objective moral values and duties, free will, and so on.

 

If this all makes you nervous, you might find another point made by Alvin Plantinga reassuring, which is that it is rational for a theist to hold onto a belief in God due to a personal experience with Him even in the face of arguments against His existence which might be considered defeaters.

 

The example he gives (and I am paraphrasing), is to imagine you have been accused of a crime, and all the evidence points against you, except that you know you're innocent. You would be rational to continue to hold to the belief that you are innocent even in the face of the apparent defeaters.

Edited April 8, 2018 by techboy

[techboy]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

A reality that you can't prove because you say nothing is provable.

 

I missed this the first time through, but this is a good point, and another reason it is rational to hold to properly basic beliefs: Radical skepticism is also literally self-refuting. Taking the position that you can't prove anything means that you can't prove your own position, and it falls apart.

 

We pretty much have to hold certain beliefs that we can't prove. We don't have a choice.

 

*EDIT* I just wanted to add, for clarity, that there is a difference between rejecting the claim that belief in God is irrational, and proving that God exists.

 

The properly basic belief line of reasoning defeats the first, as pressed by some skeptics, but doesn't really do much for the second (other than in the sense that any proof for the existence of God doesn't first have to get by the hurdle that a belief in God is irrational).

Edited April 8, 2018 by techboy

[Renegade7]

@techboy  You blew my mind with that "we can't prove 2+2=4, we just know it works" line.  I can see some kid in elementary school going to class and driving their teacher up a wall with that 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Renegade7

[techboy]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@techboy  You blew my mind with that "we can't prove 2+2=4, we just know it works" line.  I can see some kid in elementary school going to class and driving their teacher up a wall with that 

 

Well, of course I am a teacher, and should one of my Physics students assert that I can't actually prove that F=ma, I would agree, and then point out that he or she can't prove that the F on the test paper is real, but the experiences about to follow may not be pleasant.

[MEANDWARF]

I am a Christian that has issues. 

Not perfect in any stretch of imagination, but who is? You'll be hard press to find anyone in any religion that is.

Use to be Catholic. 

Borrowed this from First Colony. Thanks buddy!!!

(modified it a little)

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried;

he descended to the dead.

On the third day he rose again;

he ascended into heaven,

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

 

 

Love Billy Graham. Bottom line to him was The Cross. He loved it, preached it to millions up until his final day. Then he went home.

 

Amen

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

n/m, mods ain't dead, ty

Edited April 9, 2018 by Renegade7

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, MEANDWARF said:

I am a Christian that has issues. 

Not perfect in any stretch of imagination, but who is?

Where’ve you been? Missed you round here.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

i’m the only one here who doesn't believe everything he's told in the first place.

Uh huh. I’ve ranked every poster in this board in terms of their passion for knowledge. Turns out you’re actually last. Automatically believing everything is a lie without doing any sort of research or providing any evidence doesn’t make you smart or a free thinker. It’s dumb, it’s lazy, and it proves you to be every bit the automaton that you like to accuse everyone else of being.

 

BOWIE: ”Global warming, Russian interference in our election, and the Parkland massacre are all fake!!!”

 

ME: “Oh wow. How did you discover that?”

 

BOWIE: “I didn’t. I knew it as soon as I heard about it.”

 

ME: “So you have nothing to support that?”

 

BOWIE: “Support isn’t real! There’s no such thing as evidence or proof or facts. I’M THE SMART ONE!!!”

Edited April 9, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[MEANDWARF]

18 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Where’ve you been? Missed you round here.

Thanks my friend. Just needed to take a break from the internet if you know what I mean.

Glad to be back.