Life From Dirt?

[TagliatelliMonster]

My beliefs matter to me.

They don't matter to obtaining actual explanations with actual explanatory power.
This is not about your opinions or personal beliefs.
This is about what is actually true and rationally justifiable and verifiable for everyone.

Obviously you do not share my beliefs.

Obviously not.
And the reason why is simple: there is no valid evidence to justify belief. There is no explanatory power. There is no testable predictability. There is nothing there.

My belief is that in the long and short-er run, God will decide, determine, and make the right decision.

Nobody cares.

 

[shunyadragon]

If that is the way you see Buddha's philosophy, OK. I suppose that would account for the corruption in Buddhism when Buddha was supposedly a Baha'i Messenger from God.

Reread my post English comprehension seems to be a problem with your posts. I referred to the evolution of philosophy and not religion or prophecy. Baha'i only refers to the Baha'i Revelation and not the the Buddhist Revelation. Of course Buddhist do not accept this. In the Christina belief the parallel is the prophets of the OT. The JEws do not accept the Christians claim. Is this a problem of honesty, No. It is a issue of a deference of religious belief. The Baha'i Faith believes in Universal Progressive Revelation for all the history of humanity. You do not.

To a certain degree I consider both the religions and philosophies of humanity the evolution of the spiritual potential of humanity

in the spiritual evolution of humanity
Moses was there in Egypt and at the Exodus and it is he to whom God say, "Write these things down".
John was an apostle, Matthew was an apostle, Luke was a companion of Paul who spoke with witnesses, Mark was a translator for Peter.

This is Progressive Revelation from the Christian perspective, but the JEws who believe Moses is a prophet do not remotely accept your claim. Are you being blatantly dishonest about the Revelation of Moses claiming it as part of the Christian progressive Revelation?

 

[shunyadragon]

The article is just offering some of the evidence for Israel in Egypt and the Exodus as a counterpoint to archaeologists who say there is none.
It is clear which side of the debate you take.

I go by the archaeological and historical record of Egypt as it is, and no the evidence does not justify the claim tha Exodus and Joshua is historically accurate. One of the problems is that there are absolutely no Hebrew records at the time to justify your claim. No reference to Moses or Joshua in any ot the Egyptian or Canaanite writings.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon says that academia is neutral but when quizzed further that does not mean that academia does not use the prophecies to determine when the gospels and other parts of the Bible have been written.
So his "neutral" is really active anti supernatural. It's a blind spot he and academia and it seems you also have.

I rely on all the prophecies as evidence of the truth of the Bible. Why do you say I rely on only one?

For academia to accept the prophesies, miracles, and claims of any one religion as factual it would mean academia would accept one of the many conflicting beliefs of the religions of the world, and that would be intellectually dishonest of academia since all these claims are subjective related to the claims of each religion. Academia with record the religious, prophecies, and miracles as the beliefs of that religion, and not conclude they are true or false. A neutral academia cannot make that determination.

 

[Kenny]

Off course you do. There's that confirmation bias I was talking about.
You swallow it whole because it says exactly what you want to hear.

Meanwhile, science papers that have a thousand-fold the evidence (which is objectively and independently verifiable unlike any of the nonsense you'll find in any of his books), you reject out of hand. Why? Because it contradicts your a priori beliefs.

I read the book… you didn’t.

You base your position by a quote, I based my position on having read the book.

And you say I am biased?

What does “science” have anything to do with the journey of an devout atheist as a cold-case investigator and how his investigation led him into a believing position?

Very unscientific procedures here

What is it about the fact that I exist that makes the supernatural in any way "suspect"?
And when you give a proper answer to that, where do we go from there to move from "suspect" to "guilty as charged"?

Ok… let’s go deeper. Did the creation of all that we see have a supernatural beginning or just a natural beginning

cWhat tests do we do? What verifiable predictions does the hypothesis make (assuming you can turn the hollow bare claim into a proper hypothesis, that is)?

Let’s hit square one first before we go to square two.

 

[Brian2]

So the citation I provided, from the professor of Hebrew bible at Yale, is wrong, is it? How do you reach that conclusion with confidence?

I don't think that being a professor means that your opinion is always going to be right.
There are historians and archaeologists who disagree with Joel S. Baden?
As I said, imo the evidence points to the truth of the Exodus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think there is… the fact that 6 billion people believe in God or gods didn’t come out of thin air.

Now… your viewpoint may be different but others don’t agree.

Atheist actual cold-case investigator J. Warner Wallace became a believer after he investigated it.

True, it came out of almost two thousand years of indoctrination. And well over half of that being violent indoctrination overseen by the Catholic church.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that being a professor means that your opinion is always going to be right.
There are historians and archaeologists who disagree with Joel S. Baden?
As I said, imo the evidence points to the truth of the Exodus.

Please cite independent academic historians and archaeologists who dispute Baden?

This is your opinion, but that is not an academic reference,

 

[shunyadragon]

I think there is… the fact that 6 billion people believe in God or gods didn’t come out of thin air.

Now… your viewpoint may be different but others don’t agree.

Atheist actual cold-case investigator J. Warner Wallace became a believer after he investigated it.

Your beating a dead horse twice over by citing on atheist who became a believer, which really doe not address the broader issues.

 

[shunyadragon]

I really think you need to open the case again. Do a cold case investigation.

You never presented the methods of how you can investigate subjective religious beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

They don't matter to obtaining actual explanations with actual explanatory power.
This is not about your opinions or personal beliefs.
This is about what is actually true and rationally justifiable and verifiable for everyone.



Obviously not.
And the reason why is simple: there is no valid evidence to justify belief. There is no explanatory power. There is no testable predictability. There is nothing there.


Nobody cares.

There ya go! You say nobody cares but OBVIOUSLY some do. Anyway, you are not telling the truth -- so have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

You never presented the methods of how you can investigate subjective religious beliefs.

And look! Dr. Hawking changed his view from could be/maybe God did it to the universe just kind of came about (created itself) by itself from -- nothing. Now if you can investigate that belief, you go right ahead. First say if you know if gravity existed before the universe "created itself" as Dr. Hawking believes. Not your belief, but proof positive that is verifiable. How about it?
(I amend that -- Dr. Hawking doesn't BELIEVE anything now -- he dead.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There ya go! You say nobody cares but OBVIOUSLY some do.

It seems you didn't read the post with attention.
Nobody cares when the goal is to come to verifiable hypothesis with actual explanatory power.

Indeed, I ommitted that part in my last sentence. But I would assume it was rather clear from context.
I guess I assumed wrong. I guess I forgot who I was talking to.

Anyway, you are not telling the truth -- so have a good day.

I am very much telling the truth.

When it comes to obtaining verifiable hypothesis / theories with actual explanatory power, nobody cares about personal beliefs.
What matters then is verifiable / testable evidence. Personal beliefs are irrelevant in that context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And look! Dr. Hawking changed his view from could be/maybe God did it to the universe just kind of came about (created itself) by itself from -- nothing. Now if you can investigate that belief, you go right ahead. First say if you know if gravity existed before the universe "created itself" as Dr. Hawking believes. Not your belief, but proof positive that is verifiable. How about it?

Why don't you first provide citations and demonstrate that that is indeed what Hawking believed without quote mining and instead sharing his entire hypothesis.
Your track record of misrepresenting science / scientists here is working very much against you.

(I amend that -- Dr. Hawking doesn't BELIEVE anything now -- he dead.)

Point of this "amendment"?
Feels like an atttempt to speak ill of the dead.

 

[YoursTrue]

For academia to accept the prophesies, miracles, and claims of any one religion as factual it would mean academia would accept one of the many conflicting beliefs of the religions of the world, and that would be intellectually dishonest of academia since all these claims are subjective related to the claims of each religion. Academia with record the religious, prophecies, and miracles as the beliefs of that religion, and not conclude they are true or false. A neutral academia cannot make that determination.

"academia" can investigate different religions if it wants to. So can you. So what about Hinduism or Buddism, or Catholicism? True insofar as you are concerned? If yes, prove your case. If not, prove your case. Take care and have a nice day. Bye for now.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

True, it came out of almost two thousand years of indoctrination. And well over half of that being violent indoctrination overseen by the Catholic church.

I'd like to point out the fact that I became an unbeliever after extensively investigating the Bible and Christian theology. So it goes both ways. I became a Christian when I was seventeen, and I renounced my Christian faith and belief in God when I was forty-seven. I had sincerely believed in the biblical God for ten years before I became a Christian. To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if one or more Christians accused me of not being a true Christian in the first place in response to my renouncing my Christian faith. That seems to be the go-to excuse in response to someone who is now a former Christian.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why don't you first provide citations and demonstrate that that is indeed what Hawking believed without quote mining and instead sharing his entire hypothesis.
Your track record of misrepresenting science / scientists here is working very much against you.


Point of this "amendment"?
Feels like an atttempt to speak ill of the dead.

Dr. Hawking can't look anymore. He can't make any proclamation right or wrong or say what he thinks. Do you know why?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why don't you first provide citations and demonstrate that that is indeed what Hawking believed without quote mining and instead sharing his entire hypothesis.
Your track record of misrepresenting science / scientists here is working very much against you.


Point of this "amendment"?
Feels like an atttempt to speak ill of the dead.

Keep looking -- I quoted the material Dr. Hawking provided ... first yes, then no, then something from ("created," he said) from nothing. Do some research, you'll find it. So take care. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why don't you first provide citations and demonstrate that that is indeed what Hawking believed without quote mining and instead sharing his entire hypothesis.
Your track record of misrepresenting science / scientists here is working very much against you.


Point of this "amendment"?
Feels like an atttempt to speak ill of the dead.

How is that speaking ill of the dead? Do you think Dr. Hawking can change his mind again now??? C'mon, please give us your opinion, ok? In case you didn't understand, I changed the spelling from Dr. Hawkin which was incorrect to Dr. Hawking with a g at the end.
So do you have a belief about whether the DEAD, including Dr. Hawking, can hear, see or think? Any opinion on this from you?

 

[Kenny]

True, it came out of almost two thousand years of indoctrination. And well over half of that being violent indoctrination overseen by the Catholic church.

That sounds more like a rant which you have every right to proclaim.