• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence God Is

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So, I presented the evidence for God - evidence you are unable to refute - evidence you made a feeble attempt to brush off with baseless statements, and when asked to support, you just change the subject to parrot questions, many of which were already answered.
Refresh my memory. What is a God and what was your demonstration of a real one?
I think you are just making a distraction from addressing the evidence which you cannot refute.
You mean, for example, that the world is flat? And fixed at the center of creation? And that the sky is hard dome to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth? That pi=3? Is that what you're referring to?
Creating strawman arguments about the Bible, which apparently seem to be pulled off the internet, because they are lame arguments that I am confident you cannot even argue that the Bible teaches any such thing - except one - the Biblical flood.
So you've ignored my offer to give you links to answer questions you may have about evolution and instead made the claim that I haven't answered any of your questions (which is a singular statement from someone who's gone to such lengths to avoid answering mine)

And you didn't look at the link I gave you setting out the bible's own statements about its understandings of cosmology? It's not too late to inform yourself: >here's that link again<.

As for the Flood, if the top of Mt Everest was 15 feet under water at any time when wood technology existed sufficient to build a biblical ark, then you couldn't possibly avoid having overwhelming amounts of evidence for it including:

─ an unmistakable unified geological flood layer all over all continents, and islands, and the ice caps, and the ocean floor;

─ a >genetic bottleneck< in every species of land animal, every bottleneck dating to the same date, towit the date of the biblical flood, when the breeding stock of every species was at most seven pairs and in most cases only one;

─ and 1.113 billion cubic miles more water than is presently on the earth.

Explain to me why of those three wholly unavoidable, overwhelmingly obvious, outcomes, incapable of being hidden, you have precisely none?

As a footnote I add that on our present understanding there was never a time in the 4.5 bn years of the earth's history when the oceans covered 100% of the land.
I accept that you cannot support those statements you made earlier, so I don't think there is any more that can be said.
You've made a number of things very plain: that

you think the bible is a book of science, instead of a book reflecting the understanding of the times and places it was written,

you don't know how magic works, notwithstanding it's all you're offering as an alternative to evolution,

you don't know how the first sloth came to be, nor any other species,

you're less than frank about the identity of your 'designer' (and less than frank about your reasons for being less than frank)

and you can't even tell me what a real god is.

But since you want to quit this discussion, let's look on the bright side: you have the chance to learn. It's not important in the great scheme of things that you answer my questions to me. The important thing is that you answer them clearly and honestly to yourself, which with all due respect again you plainly haven't done.

Truth is correspondence with reality, and science is the study of reality, and scientific method maximizes objectivity ─ it doesn't set out to give you the answers you want, only the answers that are true. That's a wonderful gift, and I hope you take it.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
This is where the Jehovah's Witness' viewpoint makes absolutely no sense.

JWs accept the reality of: 1) an ancient earth, 2) that life has existed on earth for most of its history, and 3) the evolution of new species. But they also deny that evolution has ever resulted in a new taxonomic family.

However, if we combine #'s 1, 2, and 3 above, we have species producing new species for billions of years. So how exactly would a species at any given point in time know not to produce a new one, lest that new species be in a taxonomic family different from its ancient ancestor species? IOW, how is a species aware of its taxonomic status relative to its ancient relatives? And how does it prevent itself from generating a new species?

$100 says no Jehovah's Witness will ever answer.
2. Not necessarily most of its history. No time stamp exists for the age of the earth.
3. What is a new species, and by what mechanism do you get a new one?

I first need to understand how you answer #2, before I can move on.
Where is my $100.00? Did Hockeycowboy answer? Then you owe him $100.00 also.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
You mean he realized they were stupid because after spending most of his life trying to find the answers, he came up empty? I know of school dropouts that did practically the same thing.
School dropouts most likely value practical things more. Half the stuff in school you don't really need. If I cut out the repetitive lessons from my school years alone, I'd have been done by 5th grade.

Take away it's mouth then.
Ask God why normally mouthed beings are sometimes born without one.

The Israelites worshiped gods they were not supposed to worship. However, not all did.
Says the author. I want divine confirmation. Having trouble getting one.

Please explain.
If matter or energy can't be created nor destroyed, that means God can't do it either.

A mechanic can pull down a V8 engine, and take it apart down to the tiniest part. He can probably tell you all the parts that are closely related too, but I am quite sure he's not going to tell you that one engine came from another.
Cars don't reproduce. Also, if he were truly an expert, he could tell you the history of the evolution of engines.
Automotive engine - Wikipedia

24 As soon as Moses had completed writing the words of this Law in a book in their entirety, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, saying: 26 “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, and it will serve as a witness there against you.
Josiah - Wikipedia

While Hilkiah was clearing the treasure room of the Temple he discovered a scroll described as "the book of the Law" or as "the book of the law of Yahweh by the hand of Moses".[14] The phrase "the book of the Torah" (ספר התורה, sefer ha-torah) in 2 Kings 22:8 is identical to the phrase used in Joshua 1:8 and 8:34 to describe the sacred writings that Joshua had received from Moses. The book is not identified in the text as the Torah and many scholars believe this was either a copy of the Book of Deuteronomy or a text that became a part of Deuteronomy.
Finding one book isn't finding all of them.
From 2 Kings:
22
2 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.
Note that he follows the ways of DAVID, not MOSES.

13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”
Josiah sounds like this one book is ALL THERE IS in terms of scripture. Surely you don't need Deut specifically to follow God (you don't really need the scriptures at all if you believe God is alive). Yet Josiah acts like no one could do anything because no one knew what to do other than what was explained in ONE BOOK.

23
1 He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the Lord.
Again, if they had all the other books, why are they all acting like this is news to them?

22 Neither in the days of the judges who led Israel nor in the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah had any such Passover been observed. 23 But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was celebrated to the Lord in Jerusalem.
AGAIN, Passover is mentioned in Exodus, so the fact they don't even know what it is means they don't have any book other than the one they conveniently found when a national origin story was needed and the Yahwist priests needed social and economic monopolies. Meat and money going to other temples weren't going to them, after all. They even went to the trouble of mandating certain services at ONE temple, Solomon's temple. That makes no sense if God is everywhere and He cares about every one of His people. They should be able to have as many temples as they like. It would cut into the profit margins of the Temple, though, so it was banned.

Now kangaroos can build boats?

The knew where rain came from - the precipitation process? How? AMAZING!
Anyone who can watch rainclouds will see rain come from them. Duh.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood
Not according to those who think surgical patients can get by on normal saline.

Everything on the earth will perish.
But they didn't. There's simply no evidence for it.

The use of herbs as medicine was practiced by worshipers of the creator.
Medicine was more advanced in other civs, though, plus even nonhumans self-medicate.

but much that the Bible says about diseases was written by Moses about a thousand years earlier
And who, as a man raised as an Egyptian prince, would've been familiar with Egyptian medicinal practices.

https://www.ancient.eu/Egyptian_Medicine/

Proper Sanitation
From the religion that believes one should spray blood everywhere when sacrificing animals? Yeah, that sounds sanitary.

What a sad story. :( What will their lives turn out to be?
From the sound of it, same old, same old. Sexual recycling at its best.

The videos are educational, that is, they show the function of the systems. They function properly.
Your argument is that there are bad design.
I don't believe you want me to write out the function of the urinary and reproductive systems.
I assume you are familiar with them. Correct?
But why ignore when they DON'T function properly?

So now you are going by looks. If scientists used that reasoning would they not be a laughing stock? Do you know the phylogenetic tree would get a complete "overhaul".?
We're going by genetics, too.

Otherwise there'd be a comprehensive theory of miracles, expressed in falsifiable terms, by now.
Like, "why can Jesus heal anything but John the Baptist stayed dead"?

So if you find it believable that the unexplained arrival of complex chemicals found their way in an unexplainable ocean of water, and began to do the boogie, until an accidental bounce created the right chemical mix, to form a blob of a living cell, from whence a series of next to impossible processes resulted in the variety of highly complex organisms made up of trillions of blobs of cells, eventually forming you... what can I say? You've made your bed. You get to sleep in it. Sweet dreams.
They will definitely have the sweet dreams of knowing the medical profession is interested in how things actually work instead of just chanting some songs and hoping God takes care of it.

Tell me... Please, what logical reasoning do you use to not believe in, or deny an intelligent supernatural being?
The fact there are smarter ways of doing things doesn't help.

Chemicals popped out of nowhere, started moving on their own, hijacked a rock and searched out an ideal location to land, then wait it out in the oceans for the right conditions then did a dance in the hope they would chance upon the right mix to get life started. Sounds like a story right out of a fairytale book.
Never been to a chemistry class, have you? You can mix lots of stuff together and other stuff will just kinda happen.


Pay particular attention to some money you can light on fire AND IT WON'T BURN.

What? I'm amazed that you would even consider writing this, after all the information I posted to show how the Bible is always ahead of observable science.
On the contrary. The bible plagiarizes texts from other cultures, even spells and incantations.

So mathematics is mentioned in the Bible, and from the very beginning.
And they still get the answer wrong.

It is not known who first realized that pi remains constant regardless of the size of the circle. But an accurate value of the elusive number has been sought since ancient times. The Babylonians approximated pi as 3 1/8 (3.125), and the Egyptians, slightly less accurately, as about 3.16. In the third century B.C.E., Greek mathematician Archimedes made perhaps the first scientific effort to compute it, arriving at a figure of about 3.14. By the year 200 C.E., it had been worked out to the equivalent of 3.1416, a figure that Chinese and Indian mathematicians had independently confirmed by the early sixth century C.E. Today, with the help of powerful computers, pi has been calculated to billions of decimal places. But as useful as pi has proved to be, notes Fractals for the Classroom, “it would be hard to find applications in scientific computing, where more than some 20 digits of [pi] are necessary.
So everyone confirmed better numbers than Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. Got it.

Jeremiah and Ezra, therefore, gave approximate figures, which, of course, satisfy thoughtful Bible students.
Rounding while constructing things will end badly.
Any competent carpenter: Measure twice, cut once.
Bible: Meh. This oughta be in the ballpark. It'll be fine.

Why is the scripture not true to you?
It lacks biological, physical, and historical accuracy. It is also highly immoral.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Since these are impressions of someone who confessed to not having engaged with the relevant scholarship and is adamant in not doing so I see no reason to think much of them.
This is fun ! You deserve to be followed.

This looks like an escape attempt to me.

So, I repeat: what has theology achieved in all these centuries of deep thought and formidable scholarship?

Does God exist? If yes, which one is it? Do we, at least, know today the sex of the angels? :)

How is this in any way relevant to what I said in that paragraph?

You mentioned atheology. Which I have no ida what that is. Smells like complicated machines designed to kill a fly.

I literally just said that theology has gone through periods of not just not attempting to prove the existence of God but openly rejecting such attempts with such attitudes still being around today. I also said that there are actual atheists who are theologians. It would be a very peculiar type of atheist that would enter a discipline specifically made to prove God exists.
i know. I actually personally know one that studies theology here in Lucerne.

And I also have fun discussing Kalam, Leibnitz, modal logic, PSR, ontological, teleological, etc. arguments. I would not be here otherwise. And it is indeed fun. Sometimes I even keep the heavy weapon away not to win too fast. Unless I feel lazy.

We can discuss the argument from contingency, and fill out the therads with modal logic inferences, which is one of my favorites, if you want. Kalam is so lame, while Leibnitz was definetely more fun to kill.

What I argue is that you do not really to go that far to dismiss gods. Fun, but again, pointless. The centuries of inconclusiveness that characterizes what you call theology is evidence enough of its pointlessness.

Not to mention you've completely ignored the parallel I made with branches of philosophy such as meta-ethics. If we are to follow your logic we would have to give up almost all (if not all) of philosophy and who knows how many other disciplines.
I am not asking to give it up. Are you kidding. They are fun. Albeit pointless, since you will have moral realists and moral relativists or whatever for ever. While other disciplines are more conclusive. For instance nobody sane will believe today the earth is flat.

BTW: is there a meta-meta-ethic that provides the framework on which meta-ethics operate?

First, who's "you guys"? I am talking about theology in general and there are different views on miracles and prayer among theologians. Regardless, I am not going to discuss a particular issue in theology with someone who doesn't even understand what theology is. As I said before, theology doesn't need God to exist let alone prayer and miracles to be real in order to remain an academic discipline.
Different views? Well, I am sure a muslim will not recognize the miracles of the competition and vice versa without risking to be blown up by its students. So, probably some theologians think it is better to stay clear of miracles and stuff to avoid self defeat.

Hej, that is cool. How am I doing as a theologian?

Really?

First off, new atheism is a term for a very real cultural movement characterized by many of the same attitudes that you've expressed here and which many respectable atheists scholars of the past and present do not endorse. New Atheism - Wikipedia

False conclusion. You make it sound like that atheists that find religious beliefs ridicolous are a new phenomenon. I wonder why people would believe that.

True, some are more respectful while other just laugh out. But In order to make an objective assessment we would have to test what it would have meant to compare transubstantiation to turning a toast into the ghost of Elvis something like a few decaed ago. In civilized Italy, for instance, that is still a felony today.

Second, to try to say there even is one thing called atheism is philosophically (let alone culturally) controversial given the many different understandings of the position so you trying to present a particular flavor of atheism as "just the same old" is bafflingly naive and ignorant.

False conclusion. i never said that new atheism is exactly like the old. i am saying that what you call new atheists today alway existed, among the others. Only difference, they can speak freely now. But they always existed. Unless you believe that religion is more ridicolous today as it was in the past, or that people had less sense of humor in the past.

I understand theists like to hide behind their theological superiority. In the same way astrologists hide behind the arcane “science” of the stars. But the truth is that your theological arguments are like the so called emperor without clothes. We make that visible, and some theists do not like it, obviously.

Third, your attempt to paint new atheism (a fairly recent movement) as a liberation from religious tyranny, presumably referring to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition is a sign of serious ignorance on the issue of the Dark Ages and the nature of Inquisition (it is not the Church, let alone theologians, that roasted anyone) not to mention ignorance on the rich intellectual tradition behind atheism. Atheism neither became freer nor enriched by the new atheists. It only got caricatured through unsophisticated, angry and ultimately naive rhetoric from which respectable atheist scholars wisely distance themselves.

True. Not burned maybe, but as I told you, exposing ridicolous things like transubstantiation will land you in jail today in Italy.

It was not the Church who burned G. Bruno, for instance? True, they maybe delegated some hangman from the local government. I doubt that clears the criminal responsibility of the church. Even worse, it is also coward to not do the job itself.

When do you think the Catholic Church pardon Galileo for saying that the earth orbit around the sun against the “theologian” view that it is the other way round? And how ridiculous is that, that they did it only a few decades ago? And you expect respect?

Talking of scholarship. Have you read the historical treatise “the criminal history of Christianity”, by KH Deschner?

So you are in favor of abolishing philosophy? Well, good luck with keeping your precious naturalism which is itself a philosophy.

Surely not. I told you, it is fun. I would also be against abolishing religion. Masterworks of western civilization like Michelangelo works and Monty Pythons’ “Life of Brian” would not have existed with Christianity.

I made a distinction between God and "fictional characters" in that paragraph because I was referring to you comparing God and comic book characters like Superman as having the same status. To play the devil's advocate, I may not know God isn't fictional but I also do not know that God is fictional. We know fictional characters such as Superman are, in fact, fictional because we know that Superman originated from the minds of Jewish writers and was put to paper in Action Comics #1 for the purposes of entertainment and cheap, you guessed it, fiction.

It is not the case that God and Superman both enjoy the status of having no evidence for their existence, Superman (fictional characters) have undeniable evidence against their existence for we know how, when, and why they were created. We have no such things for the idea of God and the closest thing that comes to it are skeptical theories which themselves have no evidence such as the rather weak one embodied by the quote in your signature. There is a reason we have actual disciplines trying to track the different religious origins down (let us appreciate just how naive it is to even think there can be one origin of religious beliefs) and that have yet to produce conclusive results.

What do you think of jediists? Here we have a nice counterexample of a community that worship star wars characters.

Wait. Maybe they are not fictional at all. Maybe Mickey Mouse is the true creator of the Universe and revealed himself to W. Disney who mistakenly interpreted it as a figment of His imagination.

This theological arguments are really fun. How am I doing?

The whole parity argument that you kept pushing there simply doesn't work because it contains a false premise. All one has to do is look at the literary genres in which the ideas originated (let's ignore that there isn't even one piece of literature in which the idea of the divine originated in the first place).

My jediist case proves you wrong. If people start worship official figments of the imagination, imagine what they can do with unofficial ones.

Well sure they do, you exaggerated by calling Jesus a myth in your previous post. Here, however, you're on the same page as many liberal Christian and virtually all non-Christian theologians. Glad we cleared that up.

Oh, sorry for my ignorance. i was not aware that liberal Christians also compare resurrections and taking off to heaven as equivalent to the magical powers Excalibur.

First, I wonder how you still don't see that the religious particularism expressed by the phrase "they cannot all be true" is a theological view. You yet again, find yourself guilty of doing theology despite insisting you're beyond it.

Yes, and it is fun. I am sure that my hypothesys of Mickey Mouse being the true god who revealed himself to Dysney and got misunderstood by a fallible human, must have shaken the fundaments of religious belief.

So, if a god says that all humans are equal, while another says that they should be divided in castes at birth, then they cannot be possibly both true. Do you need physolosophy for that?

Second, it doesn't follow that because they can't all be true, they come from human imagination.

I see. Fallible human misenterprations. Like W. Disney.

I am not offended at all by your words. I've already explained why your argument (rather it's not yours, it's a stereotypical fallacy popularized by new atheists) is unsound. One really needs to be out of touch with the scholarship to think that this is the kind of argument that would seal the deal when a sea of ink has been spilled on arguments far more sophisticated than that.

Sophisticated? Yes, let’s make them so sophisticated that only a few elected can follow them. Like the arguments for astrology, maybe? They are also a sort of barrier to hide, you know, some emperor nudity. :)

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Refresh my memory. What is a God and what was your demonstration of a real one?
God is spirit. I am sure I gave a demonstration on this thread. You would not understand it though, but likely, I'm almost certain, you understand Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, and perhaps Multiverse / Parallel Universe, and Inflation, and something from nothing. No magic there of course.

You mean, for example, that the world is flat? And fixed at the center of creation? And that the sky is hard dome to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth? That pi=3? Is that what you're referring to?

So you've ignored my offer to give you links to answer questions you may have about evolution and instead made the claim that I haven't answered any of your questions (which is a singular statement from someone who's gone to such lengths to avoid answering mine)

And you didn't look at the link I gave you setting out the bible's own statements about its understandings of cosmology? It's not too late to inform yourself: >here's that link again<.
What you say here is nothing that I know of. Are they your interpretations? Apparently they are all wrong. Sorry. I addressed Pi on this thread also.
I am already aware that no matter how many times you fail, you will still try again - even repeating. You seem to like that. :)

As for the Flood, if the top of Mt Everest was 15 feet under water at any time when wood technology existed sufficient to build a biblical ark, then you couldn't possibly avoid having overwhelming amounts of evidence for it including:

─ an unmistakable unified geological flood layer all over all continents, and islands, and the ice caps, and the ocean floor;

─ a >genetic bottleneck< in every species of land animal, every bottleneck dating to the same date, towit the date of the biblical flood, when the breeding stock of every species was at most seven pairs and in most cases only one;

─ and 1.113 billion cubic miles more water than is presently on the earth.

Explain to me why of those three wholly unavoidable, overwhelmingly obvious, outcomes, incapable of being hidden, you have precisely none?

As a footnote I add that on our present understanding there was never a time in the 4.5 bn years of the earth's history when the oceans covered 100% of the land.
It appears to me you are speculating, but I don't think there is anything more you can do. Do you think there is?

You've made a number of things very plain: that

you think the bible is a book of science, instead of a book reflecting the understanding of the times and places it was written,

you don't know how magic works, notwithstanding it's all you're offering as an alternative to evolution,

you don't know how the first sloth came to be, nor any other species,

you're less than frank about the identity of your 'designer' (and less than frank about your reasons for being less than frank)

and you can't even tell me what a real god is.
If I made these clear, why did you get them all wrong?
Where did I say the Bible is a book of science? Where did I say I don't know how magic works? Where did I say I don't know how the first sloth came to be?
Oh, I see. These are all lies you made up. So you are just expressing your fabricated ideas.
!t hurts that I have to deal with people like this, on these forums. In fact, it's taking a great deal of self-control for me right now, to temper my words, but I tend to give persons chances to behave. :sunglasses:

But since you want to quit this discussion, let's look on the bright side: you have the chance to learn. It's not important in the great scheme of things that you answer my questions to me. The important thing is that you answer them clearly and honestly to yourself, which with all due respect again you plainly haven't done.

Truth is correspondence with reality, and science is the study of reality, and scientific method maximizes objectivity ─ it doesn't set out to give you the answers you want, only the answers that are true. That's a wonderful gift, and I hope you take it.
You want to teach? Teaching is not a bad thing, provided one is teaching what is fine.
I like to teach too, In fact, I am a teacher - a teacher of God's word - truth found in the Bible.
It's actually saving lives right now, and saving people's sanity from delusional teachings by Bible haters, and God haters.
It's making unhappy people happy. :)
Not only that, it is making lying people honest, not because they fear death, but because the have found love, in their loving creator, and father - their grand designer.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Says the author. I want divine confirmation. Having trouble getting one.
Don't panic. You'll get it. I already have confirmation. Don't forget, not all of us have eyes to see.

If matter or energy can't be created nor destroyed, that means God can't do it either.
Why can't the source of energy create and destroy?

Cars don't reproduce. Also, if he were truly an expert, he could tell you the history of the evolution of engines.
Automotive engine - Wikipedia
Good point. So the designer is responsible for the change in the design. The design isn't.

:confused:

Finding one book isn't finding all of them.
From 2 Kings:
22

Note that he follows the ways of DAVID, not MOSES.


Josiah sounds like this one book is ALL THERE IS in terms of scripture. Surely you don't need Deut specifically to follow God (you don't really need the scriptures at all if you believe God is alive). Yet Josiah acts like no one could do anything because no one knew what to do other than what was explained in ONE BOOK.

23

Again, if they had all the other books, why are they all acting like this is news to them?


AGAIN, Passover is mentioned in Exodus, so the fact they don't even know what it is means they don't have any book other than the one they conveniently found when a national origin story was needed and the Yahwist priests needed social and economic monopolies. Meat and money going to other temples weren't going to them, after all. They even went to the trouble of mandating certain services at ONE temple, Solomon's temple. That makes no sense if God is everywhere and He cares about every one of His people. They should be able to have as many temples as they like. It would cut into the profit margins of the Temple, though, so it was banned.
I get the impression you think the "book of the law" is the Torah. It's not.

Now kangaroos can build boats?
:dizzy:

Anyone who can watch rainclouds will see rain come from them. Duh.
There are a whole lot of things we can tell by watching things. I agree. Thanks.

Not according to those who think surgical patients can get by on normal saline.
No one thinks that. Of course you know that don't you? You just basically said it.

Medicine was more advanced in other civs, though, plus even nonhumans self-medicate.
There's simply no evidence for that. You think so.

And who, as a man raised as an Egyptian prince, would've been familiar with Egyptian medicinal practices.

Egyptian Medicine
:)

Never been to a chemistry class, have you? You can mix lots of stuff together and other stuff will just kinda happen.


Pay particular attention to some money you can light on fire AND IT WON'T BURN.
Great demonstration of cause and effect. Take away the cause - the chemists - let's see it happen.

On the contrary. The bible plagiarizes texts from other cultures, even spells and incantations.

And they still get the answer wrong.


So everyone confirmed better numbers than Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. Got it.


Rounding while constructing things will end badly.
Any competent carpenter: Measure twice, cut once.
Bible: Meh. This oughta be in the ballpark. It'll be fine.


It lacks biological, physical, and historical accuracy. It is also highly immoral.
That's what you believe.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God is spirit.
If God is real then [he] exists in reality. Things of 'spirit' exist only in the imagination of individuals, which is why they're never found in nature. If you disagree, please tell me the objective test that will distinguish 'spirit' from 'imaginary'.
What you say here is nothing that I know of. Are they your interpretations?
No, they're plain words. Didn't you check out the link to see what the bible actually says? It describes a flat earth, fixed immovably at the center of creation, with a hard dome over it to which the sun stars &c are fixed. I've told you all this before, I've given you the link to the biblical quotes, and your only response is to pretend I haven't. Really, that does little for your credit.
If I made these clear, why did you get them all wrong?
You've made it clear that you can't give any explanation of your alternative to evolution. You can't even tell us how the first sloth came to be. You can't tell us who or what the designer is. All that is true. Why do you want to pretend it isn't?
Where did I say the Bible is a book of science?
You admired the science of the bible again and again. Don't pretend otherwise.
Where did I say I don't know how magic works? Where did I say I don't know how the first sloth came to be?
You said it loud and proud with your pattern of evasion, evasion, evasion. Clear as day you don't know.

Still, the things we have in common are, in their way, as interesting as our differences ─ neither of us knows how magic works, for instance, and neither of us has a useful definition of a real God such that we could tell one if we came across one. And we agreed earlier that science is a tool.
Oh, I see. These are all lies you made up.
That silly talk only makes you look desperate.

But as I said, the truth is out there (rather than in your neolithic science book) and again I invite you to embrace reality and quit the fairylands where animals pop into being because the magician says the magic words (or whatever the technique is ─ you couldn't explain it).
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
If God is real then [he] exists in reality. Things of 'spirit' exist only in the imagination of individuals, which is why they're never found in nature. If you disagree, please tell me the objective test that will distinguish 'spirit' from 'imaginary'.
Then you are saying, you don't have thoughts, dreams, faith, hope, love, lust, meaning, and even imagination... I can live with that.

Interestingly that you have become so materialism - no caught up in naturalism, you don't even know what spirit - so far removed from your spiritual side. How sad. :(
I could just imagine the emptiness.

No, they're plain words. Didn't you check out the link to see what the bible actually says? It describes a flat earth, fixed immovably at the center of creation, with a hard dome over it to which the sun stars &c are fixed. I've told you all this before, I've given you the link to the biblical quotes, and your only response is to pretend I haven't. Really, that does little for your credit.
I looked at the link. Do you think if I look at it again, it will magically reflect the truth rather than a whole lot of wrong interpretations? You believe in magic?

You've made it clear that you can't give any explanation of your alternative to evolution. You can't even tell us how the first sloth came to be. You can't tell us who or what the designer is. All that is true. Why do you want to pretend it isn't?
I'm not pretending. Those are all lies, and this is the second time. Don't make it a third.

You admired the science of the bible again and again. Don't pretend otherwise.
You said it loud and proud with your pattern of evasion, evasion, evasion. Clear as day you don't know.
You cannot show me one quote where I say anything about the Bible being a science book, nor a book of science.

Still, the things we have in common is, in its way, as interesting as our differences ─ neither of us knows how magic works, for instance, and neither of us has a useful definition of a real God such that we could tell one if we came across one. And we agreed earlier that science is a tool.
That silly talk only makes you look desperate.
Your appeal for attention is telling.

But as I said, the truth is out there (rather than in your neolithic science book) and again I invite you to embrace reality and quit the fairylands where animals pop into being because the magician says the magic words (or whatever the technique is ─ you couldn't explain it).
I have found the truth. I know you want it, but you won't get it fighting the grand designer of life. Hiding behind a bunch of theories accepted on the base of speculative ideas won't get you the real life either.
[GALLERY=media, 8721]Evidence by nPeace posted Nov 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM[/GALLERY]

When that propped up tree falls, you will go with it.... unless you let go, and take hold of the truth of the grand instructor, who designed all living things.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then you are saying, you don't have thoughts, dreams, faith, hope, love, lust, meaning, and even imagination... I can live with that.
We're talking about whether God is real or imaginary. If God were present in reality then there'd be no argument about [his] existence, but [he] isn't ─ the world behaves exactly as though [he] were imaginary, an aspect of how some people think, hence act, but as an entity with objective existence, never detected, never doing, never saying.

Not only that, but as I pointed out before, this view is completely supported by the lack of any useful concept of God as real ─ the absence of that definition of a real God that neither you nor I have.
I looked at the link. Do you think if I look at it again, it will magically reflect the truth rather than a whole lot of wrong interpretations?
The quotes on the link reflect the understanding of the people who wrote the various books. They thought the world was flat and the sun and stars went round it, because that's how it looks if you don't know. And that's what they wrote, as you've seen.

Why would you expect them to write anything else?

*

blü:
you can't give any explanation of your alternative to evolution. You can't even tell us how the first sloth came to be. You can't tell us who or what the designer is. All that is true. Why do you want to pretend it isn't?
you:
I'm not pretending. Those are all lies, and this is the second time.​

I simply don't believe you, having watched you not answer and not answer and not answer simple direct questions about your own position. Put up or shut up. How did the first sloth come to be? How does magic work? Is God the designer?
I have found the truth.
I've already mentioned that in my view a statement is true to the extent it conforms to / accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality.

I asked you before what test you use to determine whether any statement is true or not. It's another one of those questions you didn't answer, but since you've raised the subject, please make it clear what test you use to determine 'truth'.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
We're talking about whether God is real or imaginary. If God were present in reality then there'd be no argument about [his] existence, but [he] isn't ─ the world behaves exactly as though [he] were imaginary, an aspect of how some people think, hence act, but as an entity with objective existence, never detected, never doing, never saying.

Not only that, but as I pointed out before, this view is completely supported by the lack of any useful concept of God as real ─ the absence of that definition of a real God that neither you nor I have.
Well Well Well. :facepalm:
If your thoughts were real.... If your dreams were real.... If your imagination were real.... etc., etc., etc., I would see them right? I would have no reason to questions whether they were real or not, right?
So they are not real, and you cannot demonstrate that they are. You can't even demonstrate that you can imagine them.

The quotes on the link reflect the understanding of the people who wrote the various books. They thought the world was flat and the sun and stars went round it, because that's how it looks if you don't know. And that's what they wrote, as you've seen.

Why would you expect them to write anything else?
These are your interpretations. There are not right. Okay?

blü:
you can't give any explanation of your alternative to evolution. You can't even tell us how the first sloth came to be. You can't tell us who or what the designer is. All that is true. Why do you want to pretend it isn't?
you:
I'm not pretending. Those are all lies, and this is the second time.​

I simply don't believe you, having watched you not answer and not answer and not answer simple direct questions about your own position. Put up or shut up. How did the first sloth come to be? How does magic work? Is God the designer?

I've already mentioned that in my view a statement is true to the extent it conforms to / accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality.

I asked you before what test you use to determine whether any statement is true or not. It's another one of those questions you didn't answer, but since you've raised the subject, please make it clear what test you use to determine 'truth'.
I answered all your questions.
The one on magic seems to me a joke, so I think the same way you went on the internet to find scriptures to argue on, and came up with a flat earth, you can do the same for magic.
However, all your questions were answered.
If you are not paying attention, as I said before, it's not my fault.
I already repeated something for you, a third time, and it was a waste, because, you refused to answer two question I posed in response to what I consider a wild and baseless statement.
I could point out the exact post where I answered these questions, but I get the impression that you are not interested in answers to your questions - You seem more interested in something else - something else besides addressing anything to do with the OP.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Don't panic. You'll get it. I already have confirmation. Don't forget, not all of us have eyes to see.
God told me He didn't say half of what's in the bible and humans wrote the thing. God confirmed something, just not anything you like.

Why can't the source of energy create and destroy?
Because matter and energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed.

Good point. So the designer is responsible for the change in the design. The design isn't.
This is only the case because cars can't reproduce. You would see a more natural setup if cars had sex.

I get the impression you think the "book of the law" is the Torah. It's not.
No, my point is that as they seem to have NO OTHER BOOKS beside the one they "found", that means the rest of the OT doesn't exist at least until King Josiah if not later.

I posted several quotes from the bible itself that shows there is a huge problem with Moses traditionally writing the Torah, as clearly he couldn't because they didn't exist in King Josiah's time, per the king himself. You ignored all of that. At best all that can be said is that someone claiming to be Moses wrote Deuteronomy. That's it. And that's unlikely too since nothing in the exodus story actually happened per history.

There are a whole lot of things we can tell by watching things. I agree. Thanks.
Yes, but you tend to see God in rainclouds. I see condensation and precipitation.

No one thinks that. Of course you know that don't you? You just basically said it.
I'm sorry. There have been members here who seem to think that normal saline is all that's necessary to get by in surgery and that blood products are never necessary. It's such a hugely irresponsible thing to think that I couldn't take it anymore and blocked such nonsense.

There's simply no evidence for that. You think so.
Archaeology is not your friend.

I LINKED you a source to show you evidence of ancient practices. Isn't it weird that every culture who owned "Israel" were the ones who had actual knowledge (as far as it was going to get in that era)? Hebrews invented little if anything. Schools were more for learning about the scriptures, not for any other subject. The bible complains often that Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were getting their butts whooped by technologically superior civs. You know how you can fix that? Stop insisting that throwing some rocks is all that God wants. But what am I to say when God's armies can be defeated by iron chariots? God forbid God should have to fight us with planes and tanks and stuff now.

Great demonstration of cause and effect. Take away the cause - the chemists - let's see it happen.
Did the students design how chemistry works? No? Then you've got nothing.

That's what you believe.
It's YOUR quotes. YOU showed that everyone other than Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were closer to the real number. YOU showed it, not me.

Then you are saying, you don't have thoughts, dreams, faith, hope, love, lust, meaning, and even imagination... I can live with that.
All of those are based on electrochemical signals in the brain. They aren't magic.

I know you want it, but you won't get it fighting the grand designer of life.
How can you prove Yahweh is the grand designer of life when the bible notes an older tradition that He's pretty much a district manager assigned by His Father El to govern Hebrews? That's not "designing everything". That's being told what to do by Daddy. Even Daddy, who was actually considered the Creator, couldn't possibly have made the earth or sky because like Cronus, He was BORN of them.

If your thoughts were real.... If your dreams were real.... If your imagination were real.... etc., etc., etc., I would see them right?
Ever heard of an MRI?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Some parts are true, some aren't, because you have a biased opinion, and view, so therefore it's not about evidence. No amount of evidence matters because you have made up your mind to reject it in favor of your opinions and views.

Um no. What are you going on about?

Some parts are true, because they are. Some parts aren't true, because they aren't. It's still about evidence.

Again, your views and opinions may be interfering with how open-minded you are, but I totally understand, that we see things differently, so if you don't see evidence, I can appreciate that. I do.

Evidence of what, exactly? That the entire Bible is true? It just isn't. Sorry.

I didn't say that, and I really hate when you do that - place words in my mouth that I never said. That really irks me.

You are not even remotely close to the argument I presented.

That aside... Okay, why don't you explain to me what design is.

You do realize that you don’t have to literally say “this is an assertion” to be making an assertion, right? Sorry, but that’s the argument you’re making, as far as I can tell. It looks designed to you, and so it must be. I’ve been reading the thread since the beginning. But I’m open always open to clarification from your end (that you haven’t provided here for some reason).

Perhaps you should be explaining what design is, given that you’re the one asserting that the universe is a product of premeditated design.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Then you are saying, you don't have thoughts, dreams, faith, hope, love, lust, meaning, and even imagination... I can live with that.

Interestingly that you have become so materialism - no caught up in naturalism, you don't even know what spirit - so far removed from your spiritual side. How sad. :(
I could just imagine the emptiness.


I looked at the link. Do you think if I look at it again, it will magically reflect the truth rather than a whole lot of wrong interpretations? You believe in magic?


I'm not pretending. Those are all lies, and this is the second time. Don't make it a third.


You cannot show me one quote where I say anything about the Bible being a science book, nor a book of science.


Your appeal for attention is telling.


I have found the truth. I know you want it, but you won't get it fighting the grand designer of life. Hiding behind a bunch of theories accepted on the base of speculative ideas won't get you the real life either.
[GALLERY=media, 8721]Evidence by nPeace posted Nov 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM[/GALLERY]

When that propped up tree falls, you will go with it.... unless you let go, and take hold of the truth of the grand instructor, who designed all living things.
Please define what "spirit" is.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
My argument is not that complexity equals design.
Then how do you determine that something is "designed"?

The question is, is it a product of design?
We do see design in the mosquito, don we?
We do? By what methodology was that conclusion reached?

BTW, what made you decide to stop ignoring my posts?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
2. Not necessarily most of its history. No time stamp exists for the age of the earth.
In the interest of clarity, about how old do you think the earth is and how long do you think life has existed on it?

3. What is a new species, and by what mechanism do you get a new one?
In general a new species is one that is unable to produce viable offspring with its parent species (reproductive isolation), and they arise via evolutionary mechanisms, which we've observed, studied, and documented multiple times.

I first need to understand how you answer #2, before I can move on.
Where is my $100.00? Did Hockeycowboy answer? Then you owe him $100.00 also.
Ya kinda need to answer the questions in a meaningful way first.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
God told me He didn't say half of what's in the bible and humans wrote the thing. God confirmed something, just not anything you like.
Then you believe a god spoke to you? Okay.

Because matter and energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed.
The source of energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

This is only the case because cars can't reproduce. You would see a more natural setup if cars had sex.
If cars could reproduce, I would see little baby cars growing to bid adult cars - not airplanes.

No, my point is that as they seem to have NO OTHER BOOKS beside the one they "found", that means the rest of the OT doesn't exist at least until King Josiah if not later.

I posted several quotes from the bible itself that shows there is a huge problem with Moses traditionally writing the Torah, as clearly he couldn't because they didn't exist in King Josiah's time, per the king himself. You ignored all of that. At best all that can be said is that someone claiming to be Moses wrote Deuteronomy. That's it. And that's unlikely too since nothing in the exodus story actually happened per history.
Could you in the future please clip one or two paragraphs from the article, so that I will know what you are referring to.
I don't understand what you are saying.
When did Moses live? When did Josiah live? What is the book of the Law?

Yes, but you tend to see God in rainclouds. I see condensation and precipitation.
I don't see God in rainclouds. Where did you get that idea?

I'm sorry. There have been members here who seem to think that normal saline is all that's necessary to get by in surgery and that blood products are never necessary. It's such a hugely irresponsible thing to think that I couldn't take it anymore and blocked such nonsense.
I think you have a mistaken view, perhaps it is due to how you feel about people that view things different to you... I don't know.
Perhaps talking with doctors can help you get a better understanding.
Using saline solution as an alternative to blood products, is not an indication that someone does not believe the statement, "the life of the flesh is in the blood."
Why don't we all just go out and have a blood fest, and drink as much as we possibly can? The more the healthier right?

Archaeology is not your friend.

I LINKED you a source to show you evidence of ancient practices. Isn't it weird that every culture who owned "Israel" were the ones who had actual knowledge (as far as it was going to get in that era)? Hebrews invented little if anything. Schools were more for learning about the scriptures, not for any other subject. The bible complains often that Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were getting their butts whooped by technologically superior civs. You know how you can fix that? Stop insisting that throwing some rocks is all that God wants. But what am I to say when God's armies can be defeated by iron chariots? God forbid God should have to fight us with planes and tanks and stuff now.
Not seeing your point. Perhaps you can clarify. Are you saying the Israelites knew nothing... that they had to borrow things?
From what the Bible says, the Israelites became chosen by God, for one purpose, and that purpose was not advanced technology.
Archeology supports this.

Did the students design how chemistry works? No? Then you've got nothing.
Who designed it?

It's YOUR quotes. YOU showed that everyone other than Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were closer to the real number. YOU showed it, not me.
Closer to what? Here.

All of those are based on electrochemical signals in the brain. They aren't magic.

How can you prove Yahweh is the grand designer of life when the bible notes an older tradition that He's pretty much a district manager assigned by His Father El to govern Hebrews? That's not "designing everything". That's being told what to do by Daddy. Even Daddy, who was actually considered the Creator, couldn't possibly have made the earth or sky because like Cronus, He was BORN of them.

Ever heard of an MRI?
Maybe use MRI to scan the universe for the almighty, supernatural then.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Then you believe a god spoke to you? Okay.


The source of energy cannot be created nor destroyed.


If cars could reproduce, I would see little baby cars growing to bid adult cars - not airplanes.


Could you in the future please clip one or two paragraphs from the article, so that I will know what you are referring to.
I don't understand what you are saying.
When did Moses live? When did Josiah live? What is the book of the Law?


I don't see God in rainclouds. Where did you get that idea?


I think you have a mistaken view, perhaps it is due to how you feel about people that view things different to you... I don't know.
Perhaps talking with doctors can help you get a better understanding.
Using saline solution as an alternative to blood products, is not an indication that someone does not believe the statement, "the life of the flesh is in the blood."
Why don't we all just go out and have a blood fest, and drink as much as we possibly can? The more the healthier right?


Not seeing your point. Perhaps you can clarify. Are you saying the Israelites knew nothing... that they had to borrow things?
From what the Bible says, the Israelites became chosen by God, for one purpose, and that purpose was not advanced technology.
Archeology supports this.



Who designed it?


Closer to what? Here.


Maybe use MRI to scan the universe for the almighty, supernatural then.
Whoa, whoa, whoa ... archaeology supports the assertion that the Israelites were chosen by God and for a specific purpose? Pardon?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Um no. What are you going on about?

Some parts are true, because they are. Some parts aren't true, because they aren't. It's still about evidence.
Did you not say to me that the reason for you not believing in those other parts, is because you don't believe in the supernatural? So how could it be about evidence... could you explain that to me please?

Evidence of what, exactly? That the entire Bible is true? It just isn't. Sorry.
You have made up your mind that is is not true, because there is no evidence it is, or you just don't believe it?
Can you show why it is not true?

You do realize that you don’t have to literally say “this is an assertion” to be making an assertion, right? Sorry, but that’s the argument you’re making, as far as I can tell. It looks designed to you, and so it must be. I’ve been reading the thread since the beginning. But I’m open always open to clarification from your end (that you haven’t provided here for some reason).

Perhaps you should be explaining what design is, given that you’re the one asserting that the universe is a product of premeditated design.
So why are you avoiding answering me - why don't you explain to me what design is. I already did.
If you are really following so closely then it would be impossible for you to have missed it, unless you suffer from CVI.

Please define what "spirit" is.
You are volunteering to answer? Go ahead.
Explaining what spirit is, if you haven't a clue, is pointless, imo.
Do you need a dictionary?

Whoa, whoa, whoa ... archaeology supports the assertion that the Israelites were chosen by God and for a specific purpose? Pardon?
The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan, although an Egyptian matrix of peoples may also have played a role in their ethnogenesis, with an ethnic composition similar to that in Ammon, Edom and Moab, and including Hapiru and Šośu. The defining feature which marked them off from the surrounding societies was a staunch egalitarian organisation focused on Yahweh worship, rather than mere kinship.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You are volunteering to answer? Go ahead.
Explaining what spirit is, if you haven't a clue, is pointless, imo.
Do you need a dictionary?
.
I'm not the one asserting that spirit exists. You are. So you should define it so people know what it is you're talking about.

Please grasp how the burden of proof works.
 
Top