| Folder | |
| Adventure | 19 |
| Alternate Universe | 14 |
| Comedy | 28 |
| Crossover | 10 |
| Dark | 29 |
| Human Anthro | 10 |
| Main | 49 |
| NSFW | 14 |
| Random | 2 |
| Romance | 21 |
| Sad | 22 |
| Slice of Life | 28 |
| Tragedy | 24 |
God is an awesome God! And in his word he says to his disciples to spread the word to others. If you are a Christian, I encourage you to do this with others on this website. If you are not a christian, post and comment questions that I and others can answer.
Thanks, and God Bless.
For some reason, this group is also a good place to promote any and all of your stories. Just drop them in appropriate folders and watch the view count on them rise.
Administrators:
Majorshane
Bad Dragon
Page generated in 0.039 seconds
Total duration
768 users online
934,065 hits today, 1,960,719 yesterday
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
448657
Welcome back!!!
No, I am not assuming that it can form naturally. I don't know how the universe formed (if it even did have a start or is eternal). I am just not assuming it can't have formed naturally (unlike you). On the origin of the universe my answer is the same as mainstream science: unknown at this time.
You can't say that (well you can, but it's not accurate-feel free to cite a scientific article to prove me wrong tho!). We are currently unable to observe anything before the big bang, we don't have any data about the origin of the universe before it. We can't say anything scientifically about what it is or what it isn't when we can't observe it. That means it's inappropriate for you to say it can't be natural, and that's the reason why you will never catch me saying it can't be supernatural.
No that's not accurate. Also the laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive, so if it turns out we observe something that goes against them then we would rework them. Observing how things work within the observable universe is fine, but our observations do not necessarily map onto the universe/cosmos as a whole.
No it doesn't. The laws of physics (our understanding of reality based on observation and testing) are not unchangeable-nothing in science is. Moving forward if you are going to make claims about scientific theories or principles, can you please provide a citation?
Sure (assuming the universe/cosmos is not infinite). Where did it come from? I don't know, do you?
How did you reach the conclusion that this is a logical explanation, how can you test and falsify it, and more importantly how did you rule out all other possible candidate explanations (including as of yet undiscovered explanations)?
I'll be honest: conspiracy theory thinking like this is not going to work with me. The numbers and measurements are not 'invented' to try to disprove god, that is simply a lie you have been sold on. The idea that 'the world' is desperate to try to disprove your god is not the case (not to say there are not individuals somewhere that fit that description, but this is not the foundational doctrine of the scientific community). There is no need to disprove something that has yet to be proven in the first place. Science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural, it is limited to natural explanations and is completely incapable of detecting supernatural causation for a phenomenon. (If you want to get more into the philosophy of science let me know-it's pretty foundational to my atheism and I suspect the biggest source of our disagreement).
Lol, no there isn't. YEC is a dishonest pseudoscience that falls apart under the slightest of scrutiny. Here is some info about comets.
This is assuming that the rate of the moons movement has consistently been 1 cm per year forever, other than trying to disprove the scientific consensus what justifies that assumption? (Also again: moving forward please link to your claims, from what I found it's actually moving away at 3.78 cm per year atm, and that the moon has been drifting away from the earth at a variable rate for 2.5 billion years out of it's 4.5 billion year life.)
I think that it might be better to talk about how we reach conclusions, how we process evidence, and stuff like that instead of throwing facts and assertions back and fourth. If we can agree on the method of reasoning we are using to tackle these questions then we are less likely to talk past each other.
448574
I’m figuratively hitting myself for forgetting about this for 3 weeks! Anyway, I’m back.
You make good points there that I didn’t consider otherwise. Now, onto the main show!
This whole bit about the universe has a large underlying presupposition: that the universe can form itself from purely natural processes. However, this is not the case as observed by science. The law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form (energy becoming matter, or matter becoming energy). The Big Bang theory flies in the face of this natural law (an unchangeable principle of the universe). Other theories face the same fundamental problem: that all the matter and energ in the universe must have come from somewhere. The only logical explanation is that matter (and the universe) was supernaturally created by a being that is eternal.
“Evidence” that shows an old universe is usually numbers estimated by scientists trying to figure out ways the universe could have been created without God: stuff like the red-shift in distant stars. However, these are numbers, as mentioned, invented to support hypothesis trying to disprove the young earth, and then being flaunted as facts.
Conversely, there is a large amount of much clearer evidence to support a young earth, the best known example are the comets which orbit the Sun. I assume you know this already, but comets (made of ice and rock) lose a chunk of themselves every time they pass by the Sun, which they do at regular intervals. If the solar system was more than even a few dozen-thousand years old, the comets would have long since disappeared.
The next exhibit is the Moon. Now I have many’a lessons about the Moon, but the most relevant one is that the Moon moves approximately 1 cm away from the Earth a year. Now, with ~6000 years, this isn’t that much, but with the millions of years of evolution required for all the processes to form the earth we know today, it wouldn’t have been that long ago that the Moon would have been so close that life on Earth would have been impossible.
That’s all I have for now. It’s late and I’m tired. I’m also glad that we can both approach this as civilised men.
448573
No, that would not be my answer (and it’s definitely not correct).
My answer would be that we compare the Statue of Liberty to other things that we know are artifical (like other statues or other structures made with treated metal and stuff) and based on how it’s similar to those and different from naturally occurring things (trees and mountains and the moon and stuff) we would conclude that it was likely man made.
Complexity is not how you determine design (if anything it’s simplicity), that’s just silly creationist garbage. We tell design by contrasting designed things with undesigned things. If the universe were designed then we would have no way to tell that the Statue of Liberty were designed just from observing it because we would have nothing undesigned to compare it to. It’s like standing on a beach of watches in front of a sea of watches and picking up one watch and using your intuition to say ‘boy this looks designed!’. How so, it would look the same as everything else!
With the universe: What does a designed universe look like? What does a natural universe look like? How does our universe compare to the other two? We don’t have another universe to contrast ours with, we only have one universe to observe. Pointing to it and saying that you subjectively feel like it was designed won’t get you anywhere. How can you test that hypothesis?
If is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. There’s no good reason yet given to believe the universe was created, but if you showed that then you still have to show it was the god of the Bible and that it took 6 days (and explain all the data we have observed that shows the universe is 13.7 billion years old with a dramatically different formation order than your creation account).
With all that said, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and authenticity of your response and I look forward to our conversation!
448567
(Ps. I did my absolute best to get an image of the Statue of Liberty, but this site is more fussy than my printer and my cat combined, so just go here and image there’s one)
What is the image above? The Statue of Liberty: a gift from the French to the new United States of America.
If I asked you for the proof that someone designed it, you might answer that the evidence is the existence of the statue itself - and you’d be right. The existence of the statue is enough proof that someone designed and built it, even if you know nothing about the actual architect. This is because the idea of something like the statue building itself by random chance is ludicrous.
Now apply that same logic to the universe, which is exponentially more complex than the Statue of Liberty. From the photosynthesising leaves of a tree to the incredible structure of the human eye - something that we still can’t replicate - to the large-scale ecological balancing of the Earth and the majesty and beauty of the stars; the universe shows immense creativity and excellent design. For something so complex to come into existence, it needs to have a designer and creator - just like the Statue of Liberty. That is my evidence for God.
I can sit and argue all day about minute details, but this is the greatest proof I have. I did write an entire essay before settling on this one point, and I’ll gladly follow this up with that if you’re still not convinced. However, I did not come here to say “you’re wrong and stupid and silly and I’m smarter than you.” If God did create the universe in six days, then everything said in the Bible is true (2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness). If so, then that needs to affect your life. There’s not much else I can say then urge you to recognise your sin, and realise the sacrifice Jesus made for you by taking the punishment for your sin.
448563
Anything that is logically valid and sound. Something verifiable and demonstrable. Yes I accept uniformitarianism. You can use apologetics but I’ll probably reject the asserted premises unless you can back them up (like that the Bible is the word of god for example).
> Christian group
> NSFW section
🫤
438747
What are the parameters for this challenge? Can I use apologetics? Are you a uniformitarian? I’d like to take a few shots.
438752
No, it’s not an attempt to convince you there is no Jesus. It’s to help you manage your stress and anxiety.
Yes we did talk about evidence, you said it can be twisted and I pointed out that that’s not evidence.
Do you even read what I write you you? Clearly not.
If you are ever ready to have a good faith conversation where you don’t accuse me of things I’m not doing, you know where to find me.
438751
If this is some pathetic attempt to convince me that there’s no Jesus, then no. Thank. You.
Yes. You are. You say that you’re open to believing in Jesus if evidence is given to you, yet you always debunk that evidence as not being proof at all. And if I recall correctly, we talked a little bit about how ‘evidence’ can be easily manipulated, and that you can’t officially confirm something to be true after just seeing it. It’s like judging a book by its cover.
Now, I’d like to be officially done with this conversation, so no more responses. I’m tired of talking to you, and I’m leaving this group for good.
438750
This isn’t about making a point, it’s just a question about your mindset.
Ok then, thank you for your honesty. By your own words, you are completely close minded to a view point other than your own. I definitely have gotten that impression from you (and other religious people) before, but it’s refreshing to hear it spoken of so plainly and openly. I agree with you that there is no point in continuing the conversation because you are not interested in truth, only in maintaining your current beliefs. (And yes you can claim that your beliefs are true, but that’s really just you repeating what you believe and specifying that you have a high degree of confidence in them. I’m asking about truth: that which evidently comports with reality, not your personal confidence level in your favourite mythology).
No, this is a lie. This is you projecting your close mindedness onto me. I’d ask you again to stop, but you haven’t stopped before when I asked so what’s the point.
No, I am not deeply rooted in what I believe. You are again projecting your own shortcomings onto me when I do not and will not share them. I’m open to being convinced of anything that I don’t currently believe: the existence of aliens or your god or a flat earth! The thing that’s going to convince me is evidence, not empty assertions. There is a point for me to have these conversations because I’m interested in truth. You aren’t (at least for the moment), so I agree that it’s pointless for you.
Fair enough, I’m sorry that having your religious beliefs questioned gives you anxiety. I recommend that you reach out to something like the secular therapy project for assistance, because the anxiety you feel is a safety mechanism installed by the Christian world view to protect it from scrutiny.
I’m not disappointed really. I mean, I’m always a little disappointed when a conspiracy theorist fails to demonstrate their beliefs. That said, every time I’ve spoken with you I’ve been pleased and impressed with your honesty. You give these conversations your best shot and you don’t just go copy/paste apologetics that you don’t fully understand. Thanks for the illuminating conversation, have a good day my friend!
438749
Would there really be any point?
Anything that tries to convince me that Jesus isn’t real is only going to convince me more that he is real, just like any attempt to convince you that Jesus is real would only convince you more that he isn’t real. Basically, the two of us are polar opposites that are deeply rooted in what we believe in, which only makes any of us trying to convince each other all-the-more pointless.
I’m really more interested in moving on from this, because the debates we’ve been having are making me feel anxious and depressed. Along with that, there are other things that I’d like to focus my time and energy on, and the conversations here have been getting in the way of the things I want to commit myself towards.
I’m sorry if this disappoints you in any way, really I am.
438748
A professional pastor might be more charismatic, but they don’t have any better reasons either.
Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong about the existence of your god?
438746
I already know the truth. And that truth is that Jesus is real, and everything the Bible says is true. As well as that whatever claims people have made to try proving that the Bible is incorrect is a lie. I know he exists because I made my choice to let Jesus in my heart so long ago, and it has provided me with a greater outlook than anything else in the world.
I’m not interested in trying to prove anything to you because I’m not the right guy that you should go to for this sort of thing. I’ve also found that, if I did try to prove God’s existence even when the evidence is in front of both of us, I’d be making pointless efforts in the long run. If you really want to know, talk to a professional pastor about it, because I’m pretty sure he or she would be better at this sort of thing that I’d be.
438743
For now, can you give me just one of these signs?
(And please make sure it’s both logically consistent and demonstrably true.)
438743
Maybe I will deny any evidence you present, or maybe I’m actually open minded but I’m noticing that the evidence you present is not sufficient for your claim. Are you interested in the truth, or do you just want to keep your comforting beliefs? Let me know if you want to and we can go though your ‘evidence’ and I can explain in detail the issues with it. Maybe I’m wrong and when we go through it you will educate me and change my life!
The problem I have is that you are claiming to know my motivations. News flash: you can’t read minds. You keep saying that no matter what you show me I’ll deny it, please stop these lies. Go to an amputee wing of a hospital, pray, and get your god to heal them. I would accept that!
Obviously I don’t find your words compelling. Water and animals are evidence for water and animals. I am asking for evidence of god, something I’m still waiting for you to give. I’m not interested in being right, I’m interested in what’s right. I’m open and enthusiastic about being proven wrong, but you actually have to come with proof. To be clear: I’m not saying god doesn’t exist. I’m saying that I don’t believe he does exist due to a lack of evidence.
Perhaps you should go talk to a wall, it will listen to everything you say and won’t ask questions (just like a good little Christian).
Edit: sorry for the snarky-ness at the end here, but I’m tired of you lying about my motivations and blaming me for not just accepting what you say without any logic, reason, or evidence.
438734
For your information, the reason I didn’t respond before was because I wasn’t interested. But, since you oh-so insist on having a response from me, I’ll give you one.
There are several reasons behind why you wouldn’t believe me if I presented evidence.
My evidence comes from the grass, the earth, the water, the animals, and even you and me. Even before I started believing in Jesus, I literally couldn’t deny that everything was made and designed with a purpose. Every time I’d examine something outside of a manmade object so closely, I’d notice that it all seems to be made like it was handcrafted.
The reason why I say that you wouldn’t believe me if I presented something to you, even if it’s right out of the ordinary, is this:
No matter what I show you, and no matter what answers I give, you’re always going to deny it. There are many signs that show how logical the existence of God is more than the other way around, but you’ll only pass them off. You claim that you’re open to seeing how the existence of a loving Lord is possible, yet you’re only going to pass it off as false anyway because you want to be the one with the answers and you want to be the right one.
That is why I haven’t seen much point in trying to convince you, because every time I do...it’d be like talking to a wall.
438463
438461
I’ve given you a few weeks and while I still welcome your response, it’s time I corrected this lie.
I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. If you give me evidence, or an argument, then I will examine it honestly. If I notice an issue with it then I will point it out. If it doesn’t have any issues (it’s not logically fallacious, it’s testable/falsifiable, and it’s demonstrable) then I would enthusiastically accept it and any conclusions that it leads to.
This idea that you have the evidence but you won’t tell me what it is because I’ll just discount it automatically is bull****. It’s a cop out, a way of dodging actually having to admit you don’t have good evidence. It’s not just you, anyone caught up in a cult that peddles conspiracy theories (like flat earthism or the abrahamic magic man in the sky mythology) falls victim to this way of thinking (yes Christianity is a cult, it’s just big and popular enough that it’s not usually referred to as such).
You have your wishful thinking and your comforting beliefs and that’s fine, but they aren’t evidence. Kindly don’t blame me for the shortcomings of your beliefs. That’s not fair. I have an open mind to any data you would like to present to back up your claims, it’s just not open so much as to let my brain slip out.
438461
What makes you say that?
438460
So far you’ve said faith and hope are: qualities that define humanity, they produce strength/courage/foresight, they are like food and are part of our DNA, and they will eventually come to those who are open to them.
This is confused and contradictory. If faith/hope is part of our DNA then feeding on them would be deadly. If they define humanity but only come to some humans, then that means people that don’t have them are definitionally not human.
Don’t tell me what they are like, or what they produce, tell me what you actually mean. If faith is the label you use to refer to your belief in god, and hope is the comfort that your belief gives you, then that’s totally fine, just say so!
I mean no offence when I say this: I don’t understand what you mean when you talk about faith and hope. A definition needs to explain what something is and what it isn’t. If your definition of a term is so elastic that it can include everything from humanity to DNA to food to thoughts... then it’s a completely useless definition. It’s not communicating a single clear idea.
Sorry, I can’t even begin to process this until I understand what you mean by faith and hope.