Another rival for the lovely deidre79 checks in. It seems like her Friends' List has grown by 2 since I last checked.

 

The Kingdom of Taffy is always accepting applications for parties interested in freeing the sheepios from the oppression of the British crown!!! :excited:

*not_secure_link*photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/6279/196754579126423/1600/661436/gse_multipart31233.jpg​

 

The family of XNXX/GD ...........
Each one of you has strengths and weaknesses. I prefer to see all of you in a good light; and a very entertaining light by the way. Your bantering is at times irritating, at times funny.
You must be good because I am here every night.

The only person I do not comment is myself. My mother in law though me years ago that self praise is no recommendation.

God bless you all and thank you :rose: ..... SNL could use you.

 

He is as real as we would like him to be real. History said Caesar exists, and thus he must; he exists if only because we say he does. Suppose one day history got rewritten and Caesar was skipped out; and thus we say Caesar never existed.

 

You're just mad because she outed you, Filthy Whore. Do you still have that picture in your profile? Still acting like it's you? :lol:

-S-

 

There is no history that says Jesus existed.

-S-

 

I'm not condemning your attraction, Man Bitch, I'm condemning your hypocrisy.

-S-

 

If my affection for deidre79 bothers you so much, what do you have to say about the other 364 members of her Friends' List? BTW, it grew by one member since I checked it yesterday.

deidre79's good moods make her bad moods endurable. You have only one mood. It is repulsive and vile.

 

You just don't listen.

-S-

 

WTF! You missed this discussion 20 pages ago.

You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Texas School Board, would you?

 

Texts

Actually, Josephus is a well-known historian of the period and he mentions the existence and events surrounding the death of Jesus.

 

But the fact of the matter is that there ARE many contemporaneous historical accounts that prove the existence of Caesar. If the same could be said of Jesus, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

For flip's sake people!! This thread's got to be at least as long as the xnxx women thread!! Come on!!

To end this interminable discourse once and for all, I will say that,

"Yes, Jesus did not exist."

Heywuuut? Hunh? Yes he did, or yes he did not?

Hahahahahahaha!! I'm not telling ewe

 

Verifiable accounts

A minimum of 12 people saw something that made changed them from simple people into evangelists that suffered horrible, gruesome deaths (except John who died of old age). Skinned alive, stoned to death, crucified rather than denounce their belief? Not to mention the Temple scribes, which recorded the events, the centurions present, the people who were healed.... And let's not forget Saul of Tarsus, (Apostle Paul) Christian persecutor, who converted and suffered I believe, 57 floggings, stonings, surviving them! twice, and this is based on a vision, he didn't meet Jesus and was beheaded at the end.
Unless EVERYBODY was a victim of mass hysteria at that time, I cast my lot with His existence and passage.
Evolution is compatible with creation so I have no qualms about that, and since I believe we are all special creations, even you are a special one because to say otherwise, would be saying that Father makes mistakes, and I KNOW He doesn't do that!

 

Mass hysteria? Maybe. But don't forget this guy could change water into wine. How do you know the 12 weren't the first ones to try 'superstrength' alcoholic drinks? Being as they were Jesus' mates and all that, he'd give them the best stuff, wouldn't he? :lol:

As to how he turned water into wine? Hmm - I'm waiting for the last HP film to find that one out

 

Good post! There were over 100 separate prophecies about the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled every single one. Some statistician mentioned that the possibility of Jesus NOT being the Messiah was 1:7,800,000

 

I you look at the actual messianic prophesies, those that say up front that they are prophesy and not passages that aren't meant to be prophecy but are forced in to the job to prop up Jesus, he didn't actually fulfill any of them. A lot of prophecy that Jesus supposedly fulfilled was really nothing of the sort. The people claiming it later on were not using prophecy, they were using OT scripture taken out of context.

-S-

 

If Peggie looked at the first 10 pages of this thread, he'd also see that all of his arguments have been answered and debunked. Do you really expect him to go trawling thru the Old Testament if he doesn't even wanna read the conversation he wants to participate in?

 

Face it the people who believe think that those who do not will go to hell or at least Bum-fuck Egypt, those who don't believe think that those who do have their brains dribbiling out their ears. So this could be a never ending thread that could last for eternity!

 

First of all, I don’t care if you want to move on or not because, as I’ve told you several times before, I think it’s a waste of time debating with you. In spite of all the times I’ve demonstrated it to you; you still don’t know that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The fact that the universe is an eternal, closed system is inconceivable to you, but as someone you know from the “Princess Bride” once said, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Contention 1: You claim that your definition of god is in line with science's definition of the Singularity. Provide an outside link from a scientifically credible source that demonstrates that. And, by scientifically credible, a source that is not from a Christian website, magazine or blog or from a Christian apologetics site.

This is what I mean by you’re making unreasonable and deceptive request for proof. You want me to give you a link to a physics site that will state that my definition of God is in line with the cosmological definition of the Big Bang Singularity. Why would something like that exist? Cosmological sites don’t make those kinds of comparisons because that is outside of their area of expertise. And why would you need that anyway. I submitted my proposition as a logical proof. Using the facts at hand, I made a logical comparison. I said, if A=B and B=C than it follows that A=C. If you can’t accept my logic, it’s up to you to argue against my logic by proving that my logic is faulty. Don’t try to skirt your obligation by asking me to provide you with scientific confirmation.

Contention 2: Using the same standards for credibility as before, prove that the universe is a closed system.

This is something you just don’t get no matter how many times I say it. (from wikipedia) “The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day.”

When cosmologists speak of the universe as being "open" or "closed" they are not referring to a closed or open system as referred to by the 1st law of thermodynamics but rather to whether the curvature of space is negative or positive. In a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a final singularity they termed the Big Crunch. However, if the universe is an open universe, it has a large amount of dark energy and the expansion of the universe could continue forever. That is what is meant when cosmetologist says that at this time it is unknown if the universe is open or closed. Got it?

As you can see, the cosmological use of the terms open and closed universe have nothing to do with the “open and closed systems” described by the 1st law of thermodynamics. What thermodynamics means by an open systems is a system in which energy is free to flow in and out. A closed systems is one in which energy is locked in and can not enter or escape.

So you see, by definition the Big Bang universe is a closed system because it evolved from a Singularity that created time, space and everything that exists. Therefore the universe is all that exist and nothing exists outside of the universe. For the Big Bang universe to be an open system it would require something to exist outside of the universe into which energy could escape. For God’s sake, don’t make me repeat that again!!! Please, somebody explain that to this …. Person.

Contention 3: Explain how science can have knowledge of the universe to define the singularity in a manner that is consistent with your claims given that in the absence of a Unified Theory, having any knowledge of that time is pure speculation and completely outside of our ability to test or even reliably theorize.

The scientific definition and explanation of the Big Bang Singularity comes straight from the cosmological description of the universe according to the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. The absence of a unified theory does not disprove the current belief nor does it imply that if there were a unified theory that it would be contrary to the current explanations and beliefs. Therefore, the current definition holds and your supposition, that maybe a unified theory would change everything, is only a supposition and not evidence that the current definition is invalid.

Contention 4: Given that nothing can be known about the actual nature of the Universe before 10^-34 seconds and that all known universal laws cease to function or apply and 2) given that we don't know now whether the universe is closed or not (barring conclusive proof to be provided by you) and it is also impossible to know whether it was open or closed at t=0, explain how the First Law of Thermodynamics can possibly be used to support your position.

Again, I refer you to my above answer about a closed universe and restate that you don’t understand what the term, open and closed, means as it applies to the universe. You also don’t understand or at least overestimate the implications of science not knowing what happened during the 10^-34 seconds after the Big Bang. What you refer to as the Planck Epoch is actually an incredibly tiny amount of time. I asked a physicist to describe 10^-34 seconds. The following is his answer “this number is in scientific notation but it is not complete. The actual notation is NN.NN*10^-43 and it means N.N times 10 to the -43 power. In simple terms it would be 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, or 1 with 43 zeroes before it.

Contention 5: See part 2 of Contention 4


While it is true that scientist don’t know exactly what happened at the very instant that the Big Bang Singularity began to expand, it has never been suggested that the universe could have been an open system at that time because as per the definition of the Big Bang Singularity, the universe could not have unfolded as it did if it had been on open system.

Because while I am a bit flippant in my responses at times, I spend a great deal of time hunting for true answers. I can provide sources for every scientific claim I've provided. The 1st Law, the Planck Epoch, the virtual particles, etc. You have not. For instance, your constant abuse of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You simply skate by it as if it were of no consequence but your entire assumption rests on it. If I'm flippant with you, it's because I find your avoidance of such things annoying and infantile and I loose my patience.

I’m sure you have spend a lot of time finding your information and it must be really hard for you because you don’t really understand what you are doing or what the information you find really means. That’s not my fault. Nor is it my fault that you can’t understand my answers. Maybe you shouldn’t be in this debate.

Oh, and by the way, if you are now saying that you never said that the existence of God is impossible, that makes you an agnostic because you are now not sure whether there is or isn’t a God. That’s a step forward. Good for you.

Another thing, I have a nine year old daughter and she loves “The Princes Bride.” I’ve seen it a number of times and two things puzzle me about you. Why are you so familiar with that movie? And, don’t you remember what happened to the Sicilian?

HD