• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

But, but where could God come from

Elvira said:
Let him without sin...
Click to expand...

I am not casting stones. I am just reporting what the bible you believe in says. Jesus himself that the law would NEVER be abolished. Paul comes along and creates his own religion by saying the law died on the cross. One of these two is right. Who would you expect that would be?
 
Paradoxical said:
I am not casting stones. I am just reporting what the bible you believe in says. Jesus himself that the law would NEVER be abolished. Paul comes along and creates his own religion by saying the law died on the cross. One of these two is right. Who would you expect that would be?
Click to expand...

Well, that is lie which you do not understand what Jesus or Paul meant....
 
RAMOSS said:
Funny thing about that passage. The earlier copies of the Gospel of John didn't have that in there. It was an insertion later. That makes it seem to be just a story.
Click to expand...

lol...tell me something I don't know...yet it still rings true...
 
Tlrmln said:
Non sequitur.

Forgive me if I don't bother going further.
Click to expand...
"Further"? That's hilarious. You're forgiven of course, but you have a gift for comedy and should not waste it.
 
Newsflash for the Internet Skeptics blithering in this thread:

It doesn't matter where God came from.
It doesn't matter to the cosmological argument, and it doesn't matter period.

Wake up!

​
 
Elvira said:
Care to explain it?
Click to expand...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–18)
 
Paradoxical said:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–18)
Click to expand...

You're cherry picking...can you explain what Jesus meant by being fulfilled/accomplished? NM, I'll do it for you...Jesus himself said that all the prophecies concerning the Messiah were certain of realization, “must be fulfilled"...

"He then said to them: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 22:44

"From that time forward, Jesus began explaining to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and on the third day be raised up." Matthew 16:21

Do you get it now?
 
Elvira said:
You're cherry picking...can you explain what Jesus meant by being fulfilled/accomplished? NM, I'll do it for you...Jesus himself said that all the prophecies concerning the Messiah were certain of realization, “must be fulfilled"...

"He then said to them: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 22:44

"From that time forward, Jesus began explaining to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and on the third day be raised up." Matthew 16:21

Do you get it now?
Click to expand...

Nope, I do not "get it now". What is it you do not understand about until heaven and earth disappear/
 
Paradoxical said:
Nope, I do not "get it now". What is it you do not understand about until heaven and earth disappear/
Click to expand...

Everything about Jesus that the prophets said was fulfilled, right down to his death...everything was fulfilled/accomplished...that was Jesus' point, not that heaven and earth would disappear but fulfillment was sure to happen...and it did...he fulfilled the Law...fulfillment brings an end...it is done, finished...when a contract, which is what the Law was between Jehovah God and Israel was, is fulfilled, it is no longer valid...
 
TypicalRussian said:
The Lord of the Rings admit is is fiction so it's true that is is false, the Bible does not do that
Click to expand...

The Bible is a compendium rife with fictional oral tales and traditions handed down by people who never indicated it was anything other than that.


OM
 
Angel said:
"Further"? That's hilarious. You're forgiven of course, but you have a gift for comedy and should not waste it.
Click to expand...

You're entire response to my one-sentence debunking of your silly word game (I wouldn't call it an argument) is to quibble (incorrectly) with my word choice?

That speaks volumes.
 
TypicalRussian said:
what bad logic? God is defined in the Bible:roll:
Click to expand...

God being defined in the bible has nothing to do with the special pleading (bad logic) in the Cosmological argument.

Why not create a sound argument where God being defined in the bible is included in the premises?
 
TypicalRussian said:
God is the greatest thing ever conceived .so it makes sense why nothing else is at his level, otherwise it would be God, but there is only one God
Click to expand...

That's nice. And blue cupcakes are greater than God.

Now back to the Cosmological Argument, and the fallacious special pleading which falsifies the premises, and thus defeats the entire argument.
 
Tlrmln said:
You're entire response to my one-sentence debunking of your silly word game (I wouldn't call it an argument) is to quibble (incorrectly) with my word choice?

That speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't quibbling with your word choice; I was pointing out its absurdity given your one-sentence response, which was not a matter of "debunking," but rather of dismissal.
 
Angel said:
No, I wasn't quibbling with your word choice; I was pointing out its absurdity given your one-sentence response, which was not a matter of "debunking," but rather of dismissal.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take more than one sentence to debunk your so-called argument. One was more than enough. If one premise for a syllogism (and I use the word loosely) is faulty, the entire argument falls apart.

But if you want more reasons, feel free to read them among the other 2400+ replies in that same thread, including several by me.
 
Tlrmln said:
It doesn't take more than one sentence to debunk your so-called argument. One was more than enough. If one premise for a syllogism (and I use the word loosely) is faulty, the entire argument falls apart.

But if you want more reasons, feel free to read them among the other 2400+ replies in that same thread, including several by me.
Click to expand...
This may come as a surprise to you, sport, but a sentence is supposed to have content. Without content it is merely noise. As noise it is simply pollution. If you must pollute, I'd advise that you pollute where you won't get caught by me.
 
Angel said:
This may come as a surprise to you, sport, but a sentence is supposed to have content. Without content it is merely noise. As noise it is simply pollution. If you must pollute, I'd advise that you pollute where you won't get caught by me.
Click to expand...

You're so cute when you flail.
 
JustHanging said:
I see you're asking some tough questions.
Click to expand...

I already did that (well, statements, actually, in case we're being pedantic), and the entire response I got was flailing and self-refuting. I respond to substance with substance and flailing with ridicule. Anything else is a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom