Reece101

You think you know what you mock, but you don't truly know. If you knew, you would be ashamed. Because you are ignorant, you are forgiven. If you truly knew, it would be worse for you.

Christ himself said it was a hard teaching. But it isn't for you to know, you are not with us. Rather, you even stand against us. Mystagogy is not for those on the outside. What you get instead are parables.

Without humility and charity, it is impossible to come to know these mysteries. As long as you think you know better, the door will be shut.

That is how it works. 

But know this, you will forever be mocking what you don't understand. If you knew what you were mocking, you would certainly not behave the same way.

It is certainly a mystery.

One not for those on the outside.

We certainly do believe that we partake of the body and blood of Christ. 

I am an Orthodox Catholic, not a Roman Catholic.

Before we partake of the eucharist, we sing "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas."

To compare acknowledging The Truth as God with your delusion about a dragon in your garage is patently idiotic, and a testament to your nihilistic ways of thinking

You have no idea what I believe because you are too arrogant.

I don't believe you know as much about orthodoxy as you think you do. You seem pretty dismissive.

Obviously, God's existence is not contingent on any ideology.

That would be a silly accusation considering this is what we have taught for thousands of years.

Yes, The Absolute Truth, that is, God, does not require observation to exist.

I addressed it. You don't like that I addressed it so well, you have no viable comeback.

I have addressed that too. You must read my replies, otherwise, you remain in the dark.

Knowledge is a created thing, it is contingent on a knower. The Truth can not be knowledge.

The God of Truth is greater than knowledge and intelligence.

I addressed this. Just because you're pretending not to have seen it doesn't make it disappear.

Nope. I just want you to use the definition from the context I gave, not your childish idea that words can only have one meaning regardless of context

No it isn't, and this is a nonsensical argument.

Ultimate Reality means that which truly exists, reality in the truest sense of the word. If you deny ultimate reality, you are professing nihilism. In professing nihilism, you remove any ground you could stand on.

If there is no Ultimate Reality, then time doesn't exist. In fact, nothing exists.

The Truth is The Singularity without contingency. It is Uncreated. Everything that isn't divine is creation, having contingency. The Ultimate Reality is not a contingent existence. The Ultimate Reality is God. 

It is more proper to call God pre-eternal. The Ultimate Reality is what gives existence to time, and anything that exists. 

It isn't in a tenporal sense that God precedes time. It is that apart from The Truth, there is no time. The Truth is not contingent on time.

Nope. I will reply to questions and comments that are pertinent. I will not respond to every off the cuff silly little anti-theist pivot that crosses your mind.

I've learned that atheists will ooze to another topic the moment you beat them if you allow it. I am no longer a noob.

If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.

Attributing to me, something I didn't say, is either an error or a lie.

I was being generous to you

False analogy.

Be safe and honest by just quoting me, not using your paraphrase to interpret me.

There was no reason for me to call you moronic, everyone could see that you were.

I never insult anyone without provocation

If it was the same you would not have changed it.

Refine your own words.

 I say what I mean and mean what I say.

 I simply will not be drawn into having to explain your words.

Keep bellyaching, that will not change.

Then there was even less justification for you to change it, no?

Untrue. Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.

What are you fighting for?

To be able to chose words for me?

That will never happen.

Your paraphrase changes my meaning, as evidenced by your erroneous conclusion.

Use my words

Two things are not synonymous simply because they refer to the same thing.

You may beg for me to "concede", but you will win concessions through honest logical arguments, not simple insistence that you get to interpret my comments.

I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.

Because the "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you say is synonymous to "everywhere in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think

 We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time.

We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.

Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! 

Amazing. 

Do you ever lose any arguments?

Your comment to FLRW was future tense about something I had not yet done. If my "faith" is bad, it's because I have none for your prophetic powers

I did not bring up testing, and it has no pertinence here.

You thought it was something I might do, fine, but then you went on to convict me on your prophesy alone as if I was already guilty.

The question has nothing to do with the bible.

It is atheists always coming to a religion board to tell us they find no valid evidence for God. Asking atheists what evidence they would consider valid is a reasonable question. 

You just changed the words again. I never ask militant atheists what would get them to believe in God, because I know nothing will. My question is, "what evidence atheists would consider valid?

" Satan "believes" in God.

Do you detect a contradiction?

If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.

Quote me, don't put words i n my mouth and then get bent when I point out your error.

If it was the same you would not have changed it.

I did explain what I said. I cannot explain what you said. If you cannot explain what you said then you have a problem don't you?

I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does not flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.

Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! Amazing. Do you ever lose any arguments?

Precision is important. Words mean things, and their order is paramount.

I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say

I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say.

Correct.

And immutable and eternal.

You'd have to tell us, since its you saying God simultaneously exists throughout time.

Sorry, I only do logic

Correct.

No comment about how you were wrong? OK

No. God is not synonymous with religion. God is superior to, and precedes, all.

If you have a question about my beliefs, just ask, instead of giving me the current militant atheist talking points about it and expecting me to know what you're blathering about.

Christianity begins with the creation of the universe. What's your religion that's older than that? You got a pre-big bang religion? Every other religion has logical errors.

I don't know what you mean, but your comment was wrong. Each person in the trinity is not ⅓ God, with the 3 adding up to one. Each person in the trinity is fully God in Hinself., yet they make one God.

I don't agree with that. And you have not shown a logical error. The only thing you've shown so far is they you either don't know of what you speak, or you don't care if you lie. Either way you are less than logical.

Is that a truth you created?

Why would I lie to myself when tragedy happens? Oh, ah, you want me to take on your half-baked beliefs. No thanks.

My. Life has meaning. It probably because I don't substitute my beliefs for reality. If you did that, you might find you life less meaningless.

That probably made sense to you inside your head. But your comment was still wrong. Throw up a million tangents and you'll still be wrong.

The father is not the son, who in turn is not the Holy Spirit, who in turn is not the Father. God did not "sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself"

The only people who say this are either dishonest people trying to take a shot at Christianity, or ignorants who actually are dense enough to think they have found a logical error after billions of people missed it for 2,000 years.

And God is not saving us from Himself. That is like a little child telling the parent they could just overlook that he's taking drugs and skip the correction and the problem would disappear. Either dishonest or ignorant

My guess, based on years of experience with militant online atheists, is that you are not ignorant, you're dishonest. You know your comment is not a true representation of Christian doctrine, but you will throw away your integrity for a cheap shot at God. But I could be wrong.

You said "only enough to get a single pixel"

What? No it's not even necessary to answer those because your interpretation of how this is done is flawed fundamentally, that has to be rectified before anything else

your interpretation of how this is done is flawed fundamentally,

First off, you wanted solutions, there they are,

second of all, still no. You can measure certain aspects of the planet sure, but you can't accurately map out an environment and all chemicals and properties of the organic matter, non-organic matter, unicellular life that may exist. So no, you cannot get the entire biochemistry of a planet, and again, these aren't indicative of all of the planets, 

we can't even accurately measure how the light travels in a lot of instances

Getting the supposed climate of a planet and the atmospheric composition is only one small part of the puzzle, there is a lot more before you can get to: obviously there is no life here.

Even our own measurements of climate can be flawed here, hence the need for more advanced tools to measure. Again, you don't know what could be causing that methane on other planets, neither do scientists in some cases, none of this is a problem, its not a paradox at all.

A reasonable suggestion might be that if universal progression is governed by physical laws, then evolutionary progression is governed by the same laws.

To that end, why should  it be expected that any other sentient organic civilisation/s, would be more advanced in terms of acquired knowledge and technology?.....Isn't that just the expectation of science fiction?

I would therefore suggest that if "alien" civilisations do in fact exist, then they are just as likely to be stranded by the vastness of a solar system and outer space, as we are.

A) We have no capacity to even be near half of the things we are studying, and while bigger things (like the big bang) are still easily provable and such, other things such as the literal biochemistry of a planet is out of our capability to accurately measure. In other words: There may be life and we have missed it because our tools are relatively shitty

ESTIMATED. We do not have concrete numbers, we do not concrete measuring tools, we do not have concrete anything in this regard, humans?

The earth existed for 4 billion years before we even came close to existing

and only through mutation does evolution work, so it is very possible that evolution if it is in effect, is still in a very minor regard.

Not to mention you have not at all answered the other solution (not being able to accurately test it)