• 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...

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Well that would mean you believe in the ''religion espoused by Jesus Christ'' unless by that you mean you really have great confidence and trust in some dude name Jesus.
Actually his name is Yeshua, which still isn't a perfect translation, but yes it means I trust him not things people might do in his name.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Actually his name is Yeshua, which still isn't a perfect translation, but yes it means I trust him not things people might do in his name.

That's still a religion, especially considering that since we have no credible and clear information about the preacher Yeshua beside the legends and stories surrounding him written by largely unknown authors who might never have met him and have their own motivation and bias.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
That's still a religion, especially considering that since we have no credible and clear information about the preacher Yeshua beside the legends and stories surrounding him written by largely unknown authors who might never have met him and have their own motivation and bias.
I consider personal revelation to be credible evidence.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If scientists are just human first how are you correct?

Correct is being the highest form of human yourself. Health body and human conscious mentality.

Advice for self.

An example of humans lying. A trait we own and express and are warned about.

Theorising

O earth image exact bodily.
Heavens exact.

Scientist I want by not natural a base creator on earth that owns all base information for everything.

As I want it removed in. Reaction as a resource. Owning no intention of any other advice. All theories first applied by a human.

Any one topic is only one topic. No one topic is any other one topic.

Earth is his base. God he said the god that only created its heavens.

He removes in thought human and animal presence. In theory I want a base owning everything instantly.

Meaning in reality everything existing as it does and is naturally. The study itself. Instant everything as the base of all one bodies studied. Yet says it's something else entirely.

Not any of the form's he has studied.

Talks base dirt as dirt. Billions of one self owned bodies growing out of dirt.

The tree he says. Living due to water using waters oxygen.

Water not the tree. It's oxygen not the tree. Sees a tree the subject exact.

No he says I want the base. Looks at dirt...nope...dusts. Looks at stone that is stone. No answer actually.

I must make it my theory the base.

Stone as the product is the base. O earth. Base products for alchemy human science reactions. Direct reason of theorising.

A long time ago science said I want what I was supported by.

Cold gas. Put it in machine cold reacts to back to hot state. Cosmic correctness he says.

Said in the beginning was a hot state.

Outside in nature the hot state was naturally a cold state.

So the bible a human law assessment of man of science history passed a law in society based on the human scientists assessment.

No science allowed. As the natural human was right first.

When science says I want my machine to own not evolution first he thought to eradicate all life on earth. As we owned being informed from the cooled status ourselves.

Natural science hence said the base support of life evolution was one status cooled. It never owned a human stated evolution of life's genesis.

The topic evolution was about gas spirits first hot to cold in a science theory.

The base one advice cooled anything supported all existence.

No theory past that advice.
 

DNB

Christian
Unfortunately for your little rant here, there remains a glaringly obvious point (if one takes the time to think it over) that casts your ideas in doubt. That is, the idea you have that the "material" world of evidence and measure cannot stand as the foundation of various abstracts, and so it is somehow deemed "deficient."

You ready? Because based on how lively you throw around the ideas of solipsism, you should be ashamed if you haven't thought this one out to its obvious conclusions.

Pretend there is literally a mind being kept alive in a vat. In this scenario, however, this mind, receives zero external input. None. No sound. No sight. No touch. No taste. No sensations of any kind.

As this mind develops, I would ask that you think of the kinds of thoughts this mind would be capable of having. Without access to a MATERIAL world of "things" - what sorts of thoughts could the mind come to? Could it come to the abstract idea of something like love? How could it, with zero understanding or knowledge of even a single target? No physical touch. No ability to see and read the expressions on someone's face. No sound waves affecting the matter of the world around them to hear various intonations and perceive them as positive or negative. Nothing like that. "Love" could not be come to, I am afraid, without the material realm supporting the various aspects of that abstract. The abstract is literally built on material interactions! The best this "vat mind" might be able to muster is some rudimentary form of "what is this?" There wouldn't even be an understanding of what "where" meant - for it has not seen or experienced "placement" of any kind.

So now what? Can you honestly posit that it doesn't take a slew of sensory inputs for us to learn nearly any and all abstract concepts? And doesn't a sensory input serve only as an interpreter to the MATERIAL world? Oof. There goes your ideas in a puff of smoke, I believe.
Well, I would've given you a like or informative, had you not been so pompous about the alleged obvious nature of your conclusions.
Yes, I agree with you, and I thought that you gave a very insightful demonstration of the untenability of mikkel_the_dane's hypothesis.
But, you didn't have to rub it in his face, or gloat over your own perceived ability to recognize the folly in his argument.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Then we have the human status the rich man inventor.

Took all God earth products earth owned jewels gold silver then he converted God body into energy.

So he says as a human ....god created energy.

He is proven human science possessed in mind.

Said I am now rich of God.

Killed all life on earth. Confessed as a human brother having caused it. Satanism.

Then he says but God the rich survived. As natural God earth had owned naturally the riches.

Tells a fake story about human man the poor.

Only the poor man survives.

Reasoning by a theme natural man not ever really poor did the rich man's science.

Only a natural man Living naturally fake inference poor man will survive. Not doing science the teaching.

Rich man today misquoting God bible themes said consciously the rich man can get you all destroyed and live on.

Only God had existed after humans destruction.

As natural man was supplemented totally. No such condition as a poor human man in nature.

How humans do self possessed stories get us destroyed by egotism themes.

Such as I am Satan the angel. If I destroy God the human dies. I survive.

Really...never thought a human was a cloud!

No Christ is a man he preaches.

No scientist Christ supported human life as the son spirit of God it's stone gases CH evaluations. Not ever a human man.

What false preaching is. Telling the thesis as an assessment incorrectly.

Humans today...a friend who studies conspiracies said that the rich elite call us cattle and we own no use anymore.

They forget all humans are born naked a baby and equal.

So they are included in that belief their owned selves.

Why we natural humans said money won't save you.

So the rich man cannot gain what he wanted of God...
No such truth about a natural human.

Civilization supports a rich man god first is not a God teaching. Science symbolisms.

Only the poor man as a natural man not doing anything against God would survive. As he was not doing anything wrong.

Is pretty basic human advice
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
So today a hu man who says I am not a rich evil human I am poor my life will be saved. Owns his own evidence.

Rich man or poor man can die life sacrificed.

Being poor did not keep you safe.

That information was mistaught.

Natural man memory I am a natural man. I am.confused. natural man's memories never quoted first living conditions were poor.

No the teachings were against the rich man inventor as a natural man who took everything from God.

Why the teachings confused you.

Natural man not rich or poor never did anything wrong against O earth God.

How teachings can confuse natural human advice.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science says I patent by human owned human theories science. Human choices for humans as humans.

As I am born only by human sex. To be qualified a human.

A baby owns as a human highest origin creator the origin human body. The baby grows into the adult.

The baby no legal status in lawful argument adult laws is in life the humans natural adult creator. Hence the human baby is above that of adult stated human law as it is already legally innocent.

Baby human rights protection. Human rights protection. Law first as natural ownership versus scientific human chosen manipulations.

The patent.

Human baby wins the human law versus science patent of any foreign introduced substance.

Foreign by human design. Baby innocent is forced changed. Why old God laws legally placed the innocent human in a lawful above adult law inferred status.

Natural law hence owned hierarchy in law above that of an adult imposed legal system.

An object not formed by nature.....injection. Created by human adult.

Manipulated substances by its human inventor.

Creator status is a lawful legal human used worded explanation about not a human adult.

An inventor is a lawful applied description the destroyer of naturally formed substances by human choice. A patent. Legal as a monetary self gain only.

A patent is for a product of invention.

Reason why men in the past quoted the innocent human baby our creator was above and exempt from adult laws.

.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
The evidence is whether you can affect the world.
Where I can get a law passed for example stating some behavior is right and other behavior is wrong.
Right and wrong can be localized depending on how far reaching the authority you are invested in has.

By appealing to the greater authority your right and wrong can have a greater impact on the world.


Good luck trying to change the world bruv. I found that a heartbreaking struggle which I gave up years ago.

I can change myself, and I can change the way I relate to the world. That’s about it imo. “Be the change you want to see in the world”, I think Ghandi said.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Well that would mean you believe in the ''religion espoused by Jesus Christ'' unless by that you mean you really have great confidence and trust in some dude name Jesus.

Which religion was espoused by Jesus of Nazareth? The peripatetic teacher from Roman occupied Judea, that dude?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I consider personal revelation to be credible evidence.
It isn't.
If I claimed to have a personal revelation that Allah made the Earth would you give it any credence?

You should not even accept your own if you cannot test it properly. What observation would show your revelation to be false? If you cannot answer that then your revelation is just as likely to be delusion or just wishful thinking.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Father taught me.
Mother taught me.

My mother to daughter vision advised me as a spirit healer wisdom that I was practicing.... her life was in danger so needed her daughter's challenge.

I agreed.

My mother could never voice tell me my brother was evil by choice his status with God innocent. The attack on life was by a God reaction.

Guilty human brother the scientist.

Teaching god was guilty of life's harm. Is a human experience.

Innocent human mis taught.

So who should I blame?

Reasoning said Satan did it. Your brother.

My human brother my innocent conscious says is not Satan. He is a human only. Spirit advice you lie.

Human advice says a human satanist caused it. Only lived realised as an adult humans personal lived experience.

If men changed gods spirit I heritage it was immaculate....sacrificed.....cooled and holy.

The answer the CH gases. As he converted stone not a Ch gas to get the Ch gas. Then he burnt out the CH gas in conversions. Satanist human science caused chain event.

Satan he quotes owned the chains.

Why we had to preach teach by the human experience. Why it is so easy for the science community to ridicule our advice.

Old science terms were not upheld as the science community wanted to repracticed science. Science in gods terms had been outlawed.

Past reasoning an organised community leadership Multi nation was the human task force that made sure the science temple was not rebuilt and re used.

Seemingly ignored today.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It isn't.
If I claimed to have a personal revelation that Allah made the Earth would you give it any credence?

You should not even accept your own if you cannot test it properly. What observation would show your revelation to be false? If you cannot answer that then your revelation is just as likely to be delusion or just wishful thinking.

Well, use observation of what can be checked through observation. Don't use it for the subjective as subjective.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That is what I would suggest

So here is a everyday example of relevant. 2 humans are debating where to go next and one of them say: I don't find your suggestion relevant. I demand evidence, as everything I do is based on evidence and what you what to do is irrelevant.

The problem I have with that is that I can't replicate it. I can't find evidence for everything that humans do for a reason and I do believe this to be correct:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So here is a everyday example of relevant. 2 humans are debating where to go next and one of them say: I don't find your suggestion relevant. I demand evidence, as everything I do is based on evidence and what you what to do is irrelevant.

The problem I have with that is that I can't replicate it. I can't find evidence for everything that humans do for a reason and I do believe this to be correct:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
The problem with personal revelation is that it can be shown to be wrong a huge percentage of the time. Let's take a group of 100 people that had some sort of "personal revelation". You could easily find a hundred different " God"s among them. Now one may be right. But we can know that at least ninety nine are wrong.

In other words if one cannot test one's personal revelation it is almost certainly not trustworthy. The reason that believers do not like testing is because it does refute their ideas most of the time.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The problem with personal revelation is that it can be shown to be wrong a huge percentage of the time. Let's take a group of 100 people that had some sort of "personal revelation". You could easily find a hundred different " God"s among them. Now one may be right. But we can know that at least ninety nine are wrong.

In other words if one cannot test one's personal revelation it is almost certainly not trust. The reason that believers do not like testing is because it does refute their ideas most of the time.

But that is not limited to God. That apparently apply to all forms of positive metaphysics and ontology.
So for all cases of X is Y and not something else or X is Z and not something else for the world as such or a claimed objective aspect that applies. The problem is not limited to God.
I am skeptic, because I check all the standard claims of what the world is and not just the religious ones.
 
Top