Steve Harvey takes an L (along with most of you people)

[KTULU IS BACK]

There's ALOT to be afraid of if you wrong, you gon hafta spend eternity in hell if your assumptions turn out to be incorrect.

Stack, how you still out here promoting Pascal's wager?

The answer to that one is simple: What if there is a God but he only lets atheists into Heaven because he doesn't like superstitious idiots?

The chances of this being true are exactly the same as the chances of any other religious belief being true.

 

[thedesolateone]

Dumbest post in this thread

And now you have social pressures to be atheist, you went to college and quit believin in God cause it was the cool thing to do.

College is often a time when most people become atheist cause all they friends are doin it and bein religious is viewed as corny.

Same for atheists, you can't convince them there's a God they gotta go thru somethin that makes them believe in it, and if they saw proof they'd say it was a coincidence.

That makes no sense, you can't hallucinate "nothin" cause you not experiencin anythin. That example would apply better to yall atheists, if yall died and saw an afterlife you'd just say you were hallucinatin.

What if the unexplainable wasn't some other shit and was proof? Muhfuckas like you would just ignore it and write it off as simply unexplainable instead of realizin it was proof, shit like that is why most of yall would never believe even if proof was right in your face cause yall too stupid.

This kinda arrogance is why atheists are idiots, at least religious people admitt they don't know for sure what's what but atheists be statin they beliefs as facts.

Nah most think if they just believe in God they won't end up there, and many of yall are just too stuck up to think you may be wrong.

You don't know shit

There's ALOT to be afraid of if you wrong, you gon hafta spend eternity in hell if your assumptions turn out to be incorrect.

what if he only lets jews in or zeus worshippers .on the contrary there is alot to lose if your wrong

 

[Disciplined InSight]

Stack, how you still out here promoting Pascal's wager?

The answer to that one is simple: What if there is a God but he only lets atheists into Heaven because he doesn't like superstitious idiots?

The chances of this being true are exactly the same as the chances of any other religious belief being true.

You threw a curve ball with this one..and what's so funny technically you could be right...

But with John 14:6 it's a possibility it wouldn't happen..

 

[The_Introvert]

You threw a curve ball with this one..and what's so funny technically you could be right...

But with John 14:6 it's a possibility it wouldn't happen..

Those words where recorded by a human being who on pure faith believed another mans testimony. It's like if my cousin told me he is the truth, light, and way and I wrote it down as a deceleration that he was divine. What makes this declaration 2000 years ago any more valid than my cousins today or any old bum off the street who calls himself god? Everything you believe is based on hersay. Science says no, we need evidence.

 

[Disciplined InSight]

Those words where recorded by a human being who on pure faith believed another mans testimony. It's like if my cousin told me he is the truth, light, and way and I wrote it down as a deceleration that he was divine. What makes this declaration 2000 years ago any more valid than my cousins today or any old bum off the street who calls himself god? Everything you believe is based on hersay. Science says no, we need evidence.

It's still valid today, but due to your stony heart you can't or won't receive it. Science can't do anything about it.

You can continue to move by SIGHT i.e. evidence.

 

[Knives Amilli]

Dumbest post in this thread

And now you have social pressures to be atheist, you went to college and quit believin in God cause it was the cool thing to do.

College is often a time when most people become atheist cause all they friends are doin it and bein religious is viewed as corny.

Same for atheists, you can't convince them there's a God they gotta go thru somethin that makes them believe in it, and if they saw proof they'd say it was a coincidence.

That makes no sense, you can't hallucinate "nothin" cause you not experiencin anythin. That example would apply better to yall atheists, if yall died and saw an afterlife you'd just say you were hallucinatin.

What if the unexplainable wasn't some other shit and was proof? Muhfuckas like you would just ignore it and write it off as simply unexplainable instead of realizin it was proof, shit like that is why most of yall would never believe even if proof was right in your face cause yall too stupid.

This kinda arrogance is why atheists are idiots, at least religious people admitt they don't know for sure what's what but atheists be statin they beliefs as facts.

Nah most think if they just believe in God they won't end up there, and many of yall are just too stuck up to think you may be wrong.

You don't know shit

There's ALOT to be afraid of if you wrong, you gon hafta spend eternity in hell if your assumptions turn out to be incorrect.

And now you have social pressures to be atheist, you went to college and quit believin in God cause it was the cool thing to do.

So I guess you know the social circles of every atheist ever, right? Nigga..when the fuck has it ever been the "cool thing" being Black and an Atheist? I think maybe only one of my friends is also an Atheist and he's white and I just found out he was atheist this month. I havent been a believer in 4 years.

College is often a time when most people become atheist cause all they friends are doin it and bein religious is viewed as corny.

Once again, not only is that gross assumption....but atheism doesn't fly in the Black community either.

Same for atheists, you can't convince them there's a God they gotta go thru somethin that makes them believe in it, and if they saw proof they'd say it was a coincidence.

Every fucking day people claim to have experienced or seen something divine. Just last week, people recorded what they thought was the ghostly apparation of one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse at one the Egyptian riots, when in reality it either was the angle of the light reflecting off of the camera lens or digital editing. AND THE THING IS even if it was a fucking ghost, whose to say it was horsmen of the apocalypse? It could be a goddamn ghost of a viking warrior. Its a bit retarded and arrogant to attribute all supernatural (if supernatural occurances actually occured) activity to the god of your religion.


That makes no sense, you can't hallucinate "nothin" cause you not experiencin anythin. That example would apply better to yall atheists, if yall died and saw an afterlife you'd just say you were hallucinatin.


People experience hallucinations all the time while dying. There's multiple occurances of people seeing their own body, the ghosts of deceased family members and all other types of shit while dying. Your brain and sensory organs aren't exactly reliable since your y'know, dying. But on another note, my example wasn't that good anyway.

What if the unexplainable wasn't some other shit and was proof? Muhfuckas like you would just ignore it and write it off as simply unexplainable instead of realizin it was proof, shit like that is why most of yall would never believe even if proof was right in your face cause yall too stupid.

Once again, "Its pretty arrogant to assume that a supernatural/paranormal/metaphysical occurrence is the work of the god of your religion." Even if some weird shit did go down, whose to say it wasn't aliens? Or a a god of another religion?

This kinda arrogance is why atheists are idiots, at least religious people admitt they don't know for sure what's what but atheists be statin they beliefs as facts.

"Its pretty arrogant to assume that a supernatural/paranormal/metaphysical occurrence is the work of the god of your religion." and to add Its also pretty arrogant to say that the way your living is the "right way".

 

[thedesolateone]

Stacks thinks because you grew up with the religious cult you have to stick by it til' you die.

stacks is in the closet

he worships dick namely tookie and jesus

,nuff said

 

[The_Introvert]

It's still valid today, but due to your stony heart you can't or won't receive it. Science can't do anything about it.

You can continue to move by SIGHT i.e. evidence.

So what makes his deceleration that he is God any more valid than the deceleration of Godhood by religious icons of different faiths halfway across the globe? You have generations of people taught to believe that the Buddah was God incarnate. They have their own religious history, creation myths, etc. and would reject your beliefs off the authority of their Holy books when presented against the argument that the Abrahamic faith is the only way to salvation. So what gives the Bible (which is a compilation works chosen by religious and political figures with varying motives) precedent over 1000's of other written works that are "Divinely" inspired?

 

[Stack Money]

what if he only lets jews in or zeus worshippers .on the contrary there is alot to lose if your wrong

There's alot to lose if we all wrong.

LMAO, Stacks mad cuz I think Guru is overrated cornball.

You mad cause you didn't have a comeback and revealed you got wack taste in hip hop.

So I guess you know the social circles of every atheist ever, right? Nigga..when the fuck has it ever been the "cool thing" being Black and an Atheist? I think maybe only one of my friends is also an Atheist and he's white and I just found out he was atheist this month. I havent been a believer in 4 years.

You goin based on the social circles of every religious person so I just threw that generazation back at you, and there are plenty of whites in college who are atheists.

Once again, not only is that gross assumption....but atheism doesn't fly in the Black community either.

Every fucking day people claim to have experienced or seen something divine. Just last week, people recorded what they thought was the ghostly apparation of one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse at one the Egyptian riots, when in reality it either was the angle of the light reflecting off of the camera lens or digital editing. AND THE THING IS even if it was a fucking ghost, whose to say it was horsmen of the apocalypse? It could be a goddamn ghost of a viking warrior. Its a bit retarded and arrogant to attribute all supernatural (if supernatural occurances actually occured) activity to the god of your religion.

Once again, your statement was a gross assumption as well and I simply threw it back at you, and there's nothin retarded or arrogant to say they THINK its one of the Four Horsemen but it is retarded and arrogant to say there's no way that could be anythin other than a coincidence.

Once again, "Its pretty arrogant to assume that a supernatural/paranormal/metaphysical occurrence is the work of the god of your religion." Even if some weird shit did go down, whose to say it wasn't aliens? Or a a god of another religion?

It's not arrogant to think it could be the work of the God you believe in, it 's only arrogant to state your opinion as fact which most atheists tend to do all the time as seen throughout this thread.

"Its pretty arrogant to assume that a supernatural/paranormal/metaphysical occurrence is the work of the god of your religion." and to add Its also pretty arrogant to say that the way your living is the "right way".

I shouldn't even need to tell you how arrogant that part of your post was. Translation - " it's arrogant to have an opinion that I disagree with" If they were really arrogant they'd claim it was them makin all of these things happen not give someone else all the credit.

Stacks thinks because you grew up with the religious cult you have to stick by it til' you die.

D-Jack thinks that by not believin in God he looks like the ultimate badass rebel, there's a reason why atheism is popular wit 12 year old kids disobeyin they parents...

stacks is in the closet

he worships dick namely tookie and jesus

,nuff said

Faggot nigga post, nuff said

 

[Go figure...]

so what do scientists believe brought about this big bang? i mean, where did the first piece of matter even come from to produce this bang if there was nothing of existence in the first place?

guess yall just as crazy as christians

 

[Knives Amilli]

You goin based on the social circles of every religious person so I just threw that generazation back at you, and there are plenty of whites in college who are atheists.

When did I mention social circles of every religious person? I said "people tend to become Atheist in college" you replied "CUZ BEING ATHEIST IS COOL IN COLLEGE". I never mentioned it. And if your referring to me saying "atheism doesn't fly in the black community" are we really going to deny that now? And I mentioned my friend being white to illustrate the point the Blacks tend to not be atheists, supporting that social pressures was the last reason i became an atheist (assuming you believe that im black and have other friends that aren't white).

Once again, your statement was a gross assumption as well and I simply threw it back at you, and there's nothin retarded or arrogant to say they THINK its one of the Four Horsemen but it is retarded and arrogant to say there's no way that could be anythin other than a coincidence.

Problem is, its never "Oh gee I think thats War of the Four Horsemen. How nice". Its more like "THE APOCALYPSE HAS COME. THE MESSIAH WILL SOON RISE. REPENT SINNERS AND PREPARE FOR END TIMES". When weird shit happens (and yet often time explainable weird shit) , religious people are often time the first ones (WITH complete sincerity and conviction) to say it was the work of their god. Do you not remember all those animal dieoffs? Niggas was in here saying it was either HAARP or a sign of the times. Before that, niggas wanted to say hurricane Katrina was an act of god. You'll find atheists will disprove religious claims faster than anything else because religious people (whether they realize it or not) have a habit of using any instance to push their world view, which is opportunistic and self serving as fuck.

]And even if someone claimed they saw a ghost and had no religious beliefs whatsoever, atheists are natural skeptics and tend to apply logic, fact, and reason particularly in cases of the supernatural. Not only is there no reason to believe in such things if there's nothing to back it up (and if a logical explanation exists), but also unchecked, unverified, and unquestioned "supernatural occurrences" have a nasty habit of inspiring humans to believe and do stupid shit (aka religion).



It's not arrogant to think it could be the work of the God you believe in, it 's only arrogant to state your opinion as fact which most atheists tend to do all the time as seen throughout this thread.

Yes it is. If your saying "YOUR god" did it, your without any particularly good reason shunning the possibility of it being a billion other gods and or supernatural entities. And since religious people have faith, they absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt believe that their opinion IS fact.

Atheists may indeed come off as arrogant (which is defined as an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions) but at least we have logic, reason, and testable evidence supporting our opinion. Religious people dont have shit but old ass books and unreliable accounts. Id like to think our "presumptuous claim" is a bit less presumptuous than that of religion.

And here's the funny thing, if im wrong, if evidence, logic and reason start running contrary to my opinion? Im wrong then. No big deal. Believers however will ignore logic when its right fucking there. Its why you hear wack job theories about fossils being some satanic conspiracy to support evolution.

Religious people will bury their head in the sand when faced with that facts, and not amount of logic and reason will sway them. Its why I earlier equated becoming an atheist to waking up from the Matrix, its something you have to do yourself.

I shouldn't even need to tell you how arrogant that part of your post was. Translation - " it's arrogant to have an opinion that I disagree with" If they were really arrogant they'd claim it was them makin all of these things happen not give someone else all the credit.

Once again look at the definition of arrogance.

And tell me, if you don't believe and do the same thing as someone else, and because of this, they think your lifestyle is "wrong" aka incorrect aka inferior and they ostracize you at best and kill you at worst, and have cool names for you like infidel and heathen, what the fuck does that make them?

.

 

[Knives Amilli]

so what do scientists believe brought about this big bang? i mean, where did the first piece of matter even come from to produce this bang if there was nothing of existence in the first place?

guess yall just as crazy as christians

You nearly answered your own question.

Scientists have a hard time answring the question of what caused the big bang because in the beginning of our universe, the physical laws that physicists have built their entire base of study around didn't really exist or behave like they do now (gravity for instance). Kind of hard to solve an equation if the math doesn't even work.

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html

^^^^^^ clears it up better than i

Besides stilll have more evidence than religion.

And how the fuck does saying "AN OMNIPOTENT SPIRIT THAT NO ONE HAS EVER FACTUALLY SEEN NOR HEARD OR DETECTED IN ANY WAY KNOWN TO MAN DID IT" make any more sense?

 

[Go figure...]

You nearly answered your own question.

Scientists have a hard time answring the question of what caused the big bang because in the beginning of our universe, the physical laws that physicists have built their entire base of study around didn't really exist or behave like they do now (gravity for instance). Kind of hard to solve an equation if the math doesn't even work.

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html

^^^^^^ clears it up better than i

Besides stilll have more evidence than religion.

And how the fuck does saying "AN OMNIPOTENT SPIRIT THAT NO ONE HAS EVER FACTUALLY SEEN NOR HEARD OR DETECTED IN ANY WAY KNOWN TO MAN DID IT" make any more sense?

doesnt clear shit up....just says it cannot be explained n doesnt need to be............??

and i didnt say "an omnipotent spirit......." makes more sense....thats why i wrote "yall just as crazy as christians."

in ur argue against God, u guys argue for proof and evidence like we're supposed to have all the answers yet u guys dont have all the answers so how is it right to claim religion is not valid because not all of it can be proven? much like science, when u figure sumthin out....u later on might come to realize it was actually another way and disprove ur own facts. how can u rely solely on science?

my point is not that science is WRONG. what i believe is that God is what makes it work.

check this one too:
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

 

[Go figure...]

http://carm.org/i-dont-see-any-convincing-evidence-existence-god

^^^^

click the url so u can read the following in the easier indented format....

I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.

by Matt Slick

Following are some of the approaches I use when dealing with atheists in conversations that deal with alleged lack of evidence for God's existence. Now, no argument is fool-proof, and no single argument answers all the objections. Nevertheless, it is important to have thought out some of the implications of the statements and bring them up during conversations. Of course, conversations rarely follow a logical format. They usually take tangents and detours. That is normal and good, but we need to be prepared as much as possible.

1. I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.

1. That does not mean there is no God.

1. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.

1. Therefore, it is possible that God exists.

1. If it is possible, then faith has its place.

2. If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)

2. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.

1. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.

1. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.

3. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?

1. If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no evidence for God.

2. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?

1. Does Christianity fit within that criteria?

1. If not, why not?

4. Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

1. Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example:

1. Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory?

1. Even if that did happen, would you believe He existed; or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort, or a trick played on you?

2. How would you know?

2. Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?

1. Do you want Him to make square circles or some other self-contradictory phenomena, or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?

2. If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because He would violate His own nature -- which He cannot do.

5. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?

1. Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?

2. But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?

1. If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.

1. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.

1. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you, and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.

2. Do you define the miraculous out of existence?

1. If so, on what basis do you do this?

3. If you assume that science can explain all phenomena, then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.

1. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

niggas gettin their google game on i see

couldn't make arguments themselves, gotta go borrow them from other people

and those aren't even good arguments either, LOL

 

[Go figure...]

niggas gettin their google game on i see

couldn't make arguments themselves, gotta go borrow them from other people

and those aren't even good arguments either, LOL

where do u get ur information from? where do u learn what u learn? from urself? gtfoh

and yes.....they are great arguments wheres ur response

 

[Go figure...]

Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?

by Matt Slick

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this: God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. If he cannot make a rock like this, then he is not omnipotent. If he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, and does not exist.

Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.

What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature; it is part of His nature. God has a nature, and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature, since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is, and not with what He is not, since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature.
A rock that big is impossible

Another way to look at it is to realize that in order for God to make something so big he couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than himself. Since He is infinite in size, he would have to make something that would be bigger than himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence, because he created all things, He cannot violate his own nature by making a rock that is larger than he.

Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition, is not infinitely large. So, to say the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.

What the critics are asking is that God become self-contradictory as a proof he doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic, instead of logic, to prove God doesn't exist. It doesn't work, and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

 

[Go figure...]

What does the Bible say about abortion?

by Ryan Turner

The Bible does not specifically mention the word abortion, but it has a number of significant things to say about unborn children. These Biblical statements indicate that the unborn are persons. Therefore, abortion is wrong since it is killing a human being. A simplified form of our argument is the following:

Premise #1: It is wrong to murder a person.
Premise #2: The unborn is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to murder the unborn.
Premise #1: It is wrong to murder a person.

There are few objections to the notion that it is wrong to murder a person. Murder is the unlawful taking of someone’s life, while killing is the lawful taking of someone’s life. For just a small sample of the Biblical passages forbidding murder, see Gen. 9:6; Mt. 15:19; 19:18; Mk. 10:19; Lk. 18:20; Jn. 8:44; Acts 3:14; and Rom. 1:28-29; 13:9.
Premise #2: The unborn is a person.

It is this premise which is disputed by many in our culture today. However, the Bible clearly teaches that the unborn is a person due to the following reasons.
Possession of Personal Attributes

First, the unborn possesses personal attributes such as sin and joy. In Psalm 51:5, David says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” In Luke 1:44, “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.”
Described by Personal Pronouns

Second, the Bible also uses personal pronouns to describe unborn children. Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Matthew 1:20-21 states, “But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’”
Jesus: A Baby at Conception

Third, regarding the conception of Jesus, Matthew 1:20 says, “But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’” The fact that the angel tells Joseph that “the Child who has been conceived” is “of the Holy Spirit” indicates that Jesus certainly was a person at the moment of conception.
Called Children

Fourth, the unborn are called children. Luke 1:41 states, “When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (1:44).”
Protected by the same Punishment as for Adults

Fifth, perhaps the strongest argument against abortion from Scripture is the fact that the same punishment is applicable to someone who kills or injures an unborn child as for one who kills or injures an adult. Exodus 21:22-23 states, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life . . . .” This strongly indicates that the Mosaic Law viewed the unborn as persons worthy of the same protection and rights as adults.
Called by God before Birth

Sixth, the unborn are even called by God before birth. Almost echoing the prophetic commission of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1 says, “Listen to me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar, the LORD called me from the womb; from the body of my mother He named me.”
Known Personally by God just like any other Person

Seventh, the unborn are known personally and intimately by God in the same way He would know any other person. Describing David, Psalm 139:15-16 says, “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written; the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” Describing the prophet Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Conclusion

The Bible definitely teaches that the unborn are persons because the unborn possess personal attributes, are described by personal pronouns, Jesus is called a child at conception, the unborn are called children, are protected by the same punishment as for adults, are called by God before birth, and are known personally by God just like any other person. Since abortion is murdering a person, abortion is morally wrong (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 1:28-29).

Sources

* Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

they are great arguments wheres ur response

Dog, every single one of those arguments boils down to "YOU DONT KNOW LITERALLY EVERYTHING, SO MAGIC COULD EXIST MAYBE"

Doesn't offer any support for this ridiculous idea. Just says that since technically anything's possible, some really silly things could be true.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

Bruh, you're spamming the thread. If you're incapable of forming an argument with your own words, step your game up.

At least you're citing your sources, tho.