How Can Jehova's Witnesses Pronounce the Word Thursday?

[nPeace]

If we assume for the moment that the supernatural refers to something not imaginary then I have no concept of what it could be. But when you provide me with a definition of this not-imaginary supernatural, it will only be a satisfactory definition if it allows us to derive from it an objective test for whether any particular thing or phenomenon is supernatural or not.

As I indicated, in fact I have no useful concept of a non-imaginary supernatural, so I don't even know where to start.

Perhaps you could try googling supernatural, if you really don't have a clue, and then you can answer my question. Otherwise, I don't know what you are really looking for.

It was all set out in those quotes I gave you.

16. The earth is flat, like a table.
Isaiah 11:
12 And he will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.​

yet that view coexists with a slightly different view:

18. The earth is flat, like a plate.
Isaiah 40
22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;​

Either way, the world is flat; and as you know from your readings of history, that's what they thought in those parts in those days.

Really? That's how you arrive at the Bible saying the earth is flat? I'll lol after I log off.
I think the person(s) you got that from need to get off the Bible, an try their hands at "Goldilocks and the Three Bears", and don't even consider touching Shakespeare.
That's really one of the most ridiculous interpretations I have ever heard.

No it is not how the Bible reads. No it is not what the writers thought.
It's what the skeptics think up in their skeptic minds.
Nowhere does the Bible say what you claim.
Or perhaps I can't read too well.
Maybe I need spectacles.

 

[blü 2]

Perhaps you could try googling supernatural, if you really don't have a clue, and then you can answer my question. Otherwise, I don't know what you are really looking for.

My ignorance is very easy to define. I don't know any objective test that will distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

However, you already said you didn't know how to do that either. In that case both of us understand the supernatural as something imaginary, and neither of us understand the supernatural as something not-imaginary.

Nor did you answer my other questions. You apparently don't know what the quality of 'godness' is that a real god has and a non-god doesn't have.

You apparently are unaware of any testable hypothesis as to how magic works.

So is it not fair to conclude on this evidence that your world of gods, magic and the supernatural exists nowhere but in your imagination? And that's why you have no coherent concepts appropriate to real gods, an authentic supernatural, actual methods of altering reality independently of the rules of physics?

Because if you did, you'd simply have answered my questions, no?

Really? That's how you arrive at the Bible saying the earth is flat? I'll lol after I log off.

So where's that high mountain in the near East from which you could see all the kingdoms of the world 2000 years ago (Matthew 4:8)?

And what 's the best way of catching 'unclean spirits' for further study after you've exorcised them eg Mark 1:23-26?

 

[nPeace]

My ignorance is very easy to define. I don't know any objective test that will distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

However, you already said you didn't know how to do that either. In that case both of us understand the supernatural as something imaginary, and neither of us understand the supernatural as something not-imaginary.

Nor did you answer my other questions. You apparently don't know what the quality of 'godness' is that a real god has and a non-god doesn't have.

You apparently are unaware of any testable hypothesis as to how magic works.

So is it not fair to conclude on this evidence that your world of gods, magic and the supernatural exists nowhere but in your imagination? And that's why you have no coherent concepts appropriate to real gods, an authentic supernatural, actual methods of altering reality independently of the rules of physics?

Because if you did, you'd simply have answered my questions, no?

If I were a gambling man, and I were to bet you 1 million dollars you could not find one link on these forums where I said what you are claiming, you would lose big time.
Making false claims about another person, won't win you favors, or points, unless your buddies are all liars, and agree with you.

I know what you deny, and want to remain blind to.
That's not my fault.

So where's that high mountain in the near East from which you could see all the kingdoms of the world 2000 years ago (Matthew 4:8)?

And what 's the best way of catching 'unclean spirits' for further study after you've exorcised them eg Mark 1:23-26?

More ridiculous cherry picking?
Haven't I already explained to you why you will remain spiritually blind?
If you want a repeat. Here you go. That's your last prescription.

 

[blü 2]

If I were a gambling man, and I were to bet you 1 million dollars you could not find one link on these forums where I said what you are claiming, you would lose big time.

An extremely strange answer.

At no point did I attribute words to you. On the exact contrary I was commenting on your total silence on each of the key questions I asked you.

Making false claims about another person, won't win you favors, or points, unless your buddies are all liars, and agree with you.

There you go again ─ weird! Did you read what I actually wrote?

I know what you deny, and want to remain blind to.

The only thing I denied was that you answered my questions.

Are you attempting a smoke screen of some kind? A loud distraction from the straightforward issues at the center of our conversation?

I'd prefer to think more of you than that.


Anyway, to put all that behind us and get back to what we were in fact talking about, here again are the questions I mentioned:

* What objective test will tell us whether some real candidate is a god or not?

* What is 'godness', the quality that distinguishes a real god from a non-god?

* What does 'supernatural' mean when applied to the non-imaginary world? What objective test will tell us whether some real thing or phenomenon is supernatural or not?

* Miracles are a subset of magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, and customarily just by wishing. What testable hypothesis is there to explain how magic might work?

Since I understand you to state that God, and the supernatural, and miracles, are all aspects of reality, I continue to look forward to your answers. If that's not what you state, I look forward to your clarification.



PS
And there's these bonus questions I asked about the historicity of the bible:

─ Where's that high mountain in the near East from which you could see all the kingdoms of the world 2000 years ago (Matthew 4:8)?

─ And what 's the best way of catching 'unclean spirits' for further study after you've exorcised them eg Mark 1:23-26?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmn.

I'm not sure the lists don't work however you define 'hump,' but I'm a religiously conservative American.To me, 'hump' means either the bump on the back of a camel, or the thing in the road you have to slow down to get over without losing your undercarriage or getting high-centered.

Hump day (Wednesday) is the day when you're closer to the end of the workweek than you are to the beginning. Metaphorically, the uphill slog of Monday and Tuesday is done and now you can roll downhill into the weekend through Thursday and Friday, so Wednesday is the day when you get "over the hump."

 

[nPeace]

An extremely strange answer.

At no point did I attribute words to you. On the exact contrary I was commenting on your total silence on each of the key questions I asked you.

There you go again ─ weird! Did you read what I actually wrote?
The only thing I denied was that you answered my questions.

Are you attempting a smoke screen of some kind? A loud distraction from the straightforward issues at the center of our conversation?

I'd prefer to think more of you than that.


Anyway, to put all that behind us and get back to what we were in fact talking about, here again are the questions I mentioned:

* What objective test will tell us whether some real candidate is a god or not?

* What is 'godness', the quality that distinguishes a real god from a non-god?

* What does 'supernatural' mean when applied to the non-imaginary world? What objective test will tell us whether some real thing or phenomenon is supernatural or not?

* Miracles are a subset of magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, and customarily just by wishing. What testable hypothesis is there to explain how magic might work?

Since I understand you to state that God, and the supernatural, and miracles, are all aspects of reality, I continue to look forward to your answers. If that's not what you state, I look forward to your clarification.



PS
And there's these bonus questions I asked about the historicity of the bible:

─ Where's that high mountain in the near East from which you could see all the kingdoms of the world 2000 years ago (Matthew 4:8)?

─ And what 's the best way of catching 'unclean spirits' for further study after you've exorcised them eg Mark 1:23-26?

Not only do I need spectacles to read the Bible, I also need them to read your posts. Are these not your words?
Quote
"However, you already said you didn't know how to do that either. In that case both of us understand the supernatural as something imaginary, and neither of us understand the supernatural as something not-imaginary."
Unquote

Yup. Making false claims. You lost, big time.
Indeed, there are more questions than answers. For some, there are much, much more.
How will a man that takes Isaiah 11:12, and Isaiah 40:22, and comes up with the conclusion that the Bible says the earth is flat like a table, and a plate, ever understand anything at all from the Bible, even if it were explained to him by a Bible student? I'm still laughing every time I read that.

Don't you think it's about time you leave the Bible alone b?
If you want to continue with your skeptic opinions about it, that's perfectly fine, but the questions are pointless.
We had this round-about conversation on the "Evidence God Is" thread, and you are trying to repeat it here.
It's like a bobtail cat trying to catch his tail.
You and I both know that the only thing will come out of that, is a good laugh, until boredom sets in.

What you need imo, is a six month Bible study course.

 

[blü 2]

"However, you already said you didn't know how to do that either. In that case both of us understand the supernatural as something imaginary, and neither of us understand the supernatural as something not-imaginary."

Your words, at the end of #131, were "Perhaps I can't help you." They were not accompanied by an answer to the question, or by an attempt to answer it.

And based on your evasion of answering the questions in my list so far, I inferred that you were saying you didn't know, and that the reason you were saying that was because you didn't know.

So let's cut to the chase:

Do you know of an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary?

Do you have a satisfactory definition of a real god, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God / a god or not?

Do you know what quality (let's call it 'godness') God has that distinguishes [him] from non-gods?

Do you know of any testable hypothesis to explain how magic, hence miracles, can alter reality independently of the rules of physics?

Where's that mountain in the near East from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen?

In each case, if you don't know, please clearly state that.

If you do know, please clearly set out the answer.

As you're aware, I can't answer any of those questions when they're taken to apply in reality. So this is your chance to inform me and my chance to learn.

 

[nPeace]

Your words, at the end of #131, were "Perhaps I can't help you." They were not accompanied by an answer to the question, or by an attempt to answer it.

And based on your evasion of answering the questions in my list so far, I inferred that you were saying you didn't know, and that the reason you were saying that was because you didn't know.

You infer and assume, just like they do with the evolution theory, and then say they are right.
You are dead wrong, just like they are.

So let's cut to the chase:

Do you know of an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary?

Judges 6:36-40

Do you have a satisfactory definition of a real god, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God / a god or not?

I don't understand. You need to explain what you mean by satisfactory, real candidate, and how you would tell.

Do you know what quality (let's call it 'godness') God has that distinguishes [him] from non-gods?

You'll have to read and study the Bible, and live it. Otherwise your own deluded thinking will affect your view of what is a distinguished quality.
We have to remember that warped thinking is often mistaken as good thinking, and it affects one's outlook.

Do you know of any testable hypothesis to explain how magic, hence miracles, can alter reality independently of the rules of physics?

Magic is not the same as what we call miracles. That's why they have different definitions.
Science doesn't test miracles.
However, because we are humans on a small planet,in a vast universe, and we have no knowledge of what lies beyond, it is the height of irrationality to think that we know what is impossible, from what is possible, and whether a rule of physics is breakable or not.

Where's that mountain in the near East from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen?

If you read the Bible with such an obvious lack of understanding, then your questions will seem quite ridiculous. However, seeing that it is due to a lack of understanding...
You need to study the Bible, if you really desire to understand it.
It's not a Nancy Drew novel, or Natural Geographic magazine.

In each case, if you don't know, please clearly state that.

If you do know, please clearly set out the answer.

As you're aware, I can't answer any of those questions when they're taken to apply in reality. So this is your chance to inform me and my chance to learn.

No. If you want to learn, this is not the way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Magic is not the same as what we call miracles. That's why they have different definitions.
Science doesn't test miracles.

Science can test anything testable.

And if it isn't testable, it raises the question of why someone would believe in it.

However, because we are humans on a small planet,in a vast universe, and we have no knowledge of what lies beyond, it is the height of irrationality to think that we know what is impossible, from what is possible, and whether a rule of physics is breakable or not.

If you - or anyone else - has good reasons for their beliefs, then these reasons are squarely within the scope of current human knowledge.

This "we can't know what's beyond our knowledge" isn't exactly support for your position. If you tell us that your god lives out beyond human knowledge, then you're effectively telling us that you have no reason at all to believe in your god. You're telling us that your beliefs are just a warrantless guess that you hope is correct even though you have no way to say for sure.

It also implies that every claim of your religion that would serve as justification of your beliefs if it was true is necessarily false.

 

[nPeace]

Science can test anything testable.

That's an interesting expression.
Can you explain what you mean by testable please?

And if it isn't testable, it raises the question of why someone would believe in it.

We can experience anything that is experienceable can be experienced. Therefore, if I can't experience what you claimed to have experienced. It begs the question, why you would believe you experienced it.

If you - or anyone else - has good reasons for their beliefs, then these reasons are squarely within the scope of current human knowledge.

I totally agree with you there.

This "we can't know what's beyond our knowledge" isn't exactly support for your position.

It's illogical to think we know what we don't know.
Can you know what you don't know?

If you tell us that your god lives out beyond human knowledge, then you're effectively telling us that you have no reason at all to believe in your god. You're telling us that your beliefs are just a warrantless guess that you hope is correct even though you have no way to say for sure.

I though I was asked... Do you know of any testable hypothesis to explain how magic, hence miracles, can alter reality independently of the rules of physics?
My response to that question was...
Science doesn't test miracles.
However, because we are humans on a small planet,in a vast universe, and we have no knowledge of what lies beyond, it is the height of irrationality to think that we know what is impossible, from what is possible, and whether a rule of physics is breakable or not.

I am basically addressing the fact that humans cannot know what is impossible, from what is possible, and whether a rule of physics is breakable or not. In other words, they cannot say they know that A is impossible, and cannot do B.
That's all.

If you want to know why I believe that there is a beyond, and God is beyond... I go by the scriptures, which deniers deny.
It tells me what I need to know about the creator. ...and yes I believe it's true knowledge.
For those wanting to know what lies beyond...

Study it.
No. I don't mean pick at it, like a child who doesn't want to eat his vegetables. I mean .. study it. Need help? JWHelp24/7

What is God, or the Bible, or a spiritual path, when we can depend on theories, until we die.
1 Corinthians 15:32 . . .“let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”
...but hey... if you guys love it...

It also implies that every claim of your religion that would serve as justification of your beliefs if it was true is necessarily false.

No.
When you plant a seed, be it pear, orange, mango, you expect to see a tree some time in the future. Why?
You have experienced in your life, the truth of the fact that the seed will grow into the appropriate tree. You have faith in that, and you can be confident.

 

[blü 2]

You infer and assume, just like they do with the evolution theory, and then say they are right.
You are dead wrong, just like they are.

For me to be wrong, you'd have to know an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

But your evasion of that and the other questions make it that you don't.

Your pretense does you no credit.

And if you have a problem with the theory of evolution, that's not science's fault. Modern creationism starts in 1961 with Whitcomb and Morris and The Genesis Flood, and in the intervening 57+ years 'creation science' has made not even one not even tiny weeny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, even though it's their hated enemy.

If you want to argue against evolution, it's too late: evolution has been around as long as life has existed on this planet, that is, more than 3.5 bn years. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, then you'll need to know some real science and to frame your argument honestly from examinable evidence. Oh, and you'll need to publish your results in a reputable journal of science ─ parish magazines don't count.

Judges 6​

36 Then Gideon said to God, "If thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said, 37 behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said." 38 And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, "Let not thy anger burn against me, let me speak but this once; pray, let me make trial only this once with the fleece; pray, let it be dry only on the fleece, and on all the ground let there be dew." 40 And God did so that night; for it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew.
​

You suggest that's an objective test? I take it you can refer me to papers in reputable journals of science verifying that it works, and that anyone can do it?

Or is it just an old bit of Bronze Age superstition in which we should expect to find the storyteller's art or the priest's manipulation or both?

I don't understand. You need to explain what you mean by satisfactory, real candidate, and how you would tell.

A candidate (a being or thing or phenomenon) will be real if it has objective existence, that's to say, is not imaginary that's to say exists in the world external to the self independently of the concept of it in any brain. We determine that things are real by detecting them, either directly by the senses or with the help of instruments. The definition will be sufficient if it states the defining real qualities of a god, such that we can objectively determine whether any real candidate is a god or not.

You'll have to read and study the Bible, and live it.

Why would I want to "live it"? It openly advocates and approves invasive war and the seizure of the lands and goods of others, it advocates massacres and mass rapes, slavery (it even sets out the rules for copulating with your slaves), the inferior status of women generally, human sacrifice, homophobia, murderous religious intolerance, and so on.

Are those the kinds of things you do on the weekend, "living" the bible?

Magic is not the same as what we call miracles. That's why they have different definitions.

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually just by wishing.

Miracles are that subset of instances of magic which are done by a god.

Whether it's Harry saying 'Accio broom' or Yahweh saying 'Let there be light', reality is altered without recourse to physics according to the magician's wish.

Unfortunately, the number of authenticated instances of magic including of course miracles is nil.

Science doesn't test miracles.

For exactly the same reason it doesn't test unicorns: there aren't any.

However, because we are humans on a small planet,in a vast universe, and we have no knowledge of what lies beyond, it is the height of irrationality to think that we know what is impossible, from what is possible, and whether a rule of physics is breakable or not.

We have some knowledge of very deep space; and we don't claim to know what's impossible, though on the basis of available evidence we can rate some things as exquisitely unlikely. But so what? None of that implies the existence of unicorns.

If you read the Bible with such an obvious lack of understanding, then your questions will seem quite ridiculous. However, seeing that it is due to a lack of understanding...

Once again you fail, or refuse, to understand what a god who's real must entail. The gods of the bible are imaginary. That's why you can't show [him] or them to us. The supernatural is imaginary. That's why God can't heal amputees. Placebos are real, and curious, and the subject of study, both as to their use in mood control and apparently in triggering certain immune responses. Various studies have shown that outside the placebo aspect, prayer doesn't help, and sometimes hinders, the sick.

You need to study the Bible, if you really desire to understand it.

You need to educate yourself in science, not just evolutionary science.

And you need to read the bible with an outline knowledge of the relevant history and archaeology, and read the bible as ancient documents of people of a particular linked set of cultures at various times in various middle eastern places for various purposes. You also need to reflect on the fact that Yahweh doesn't appear in history till around 1500 BCE, and then as one of the gods in the Canaanite pantheon ─ all gods come from somewhere, and the present evidence suggests a southern desert tribe.

But as long as you continue to think of the bible as a book of spells and magic and (*chuckle*) 21st century science, you'll never beat Harry's expelliamus.

 

[nPeace]

For me to be wrong, you'd have to know an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

You are confused apparently. So confused you seem not to know what I am responding to.

"However, you already said you didn't know how to do that either. In that case both of us understand the supernatural as something imaginary, and neither of us understand the supernatural as something not-imaginary."

You are dead wrong. I said no such thing. Okay?

But your evasion of that and the other questions make it that you don't.

Your pretense does you no credit.

I don't evade skeptics. I tell you as it is. Whether you continue to deny or remain deluded.

And if you have a problem with the theory of evolution, that's not science's fault. Modern creationism starts in 1961 with Whitcomb and Morris and The Genesis Flood, and in the intervening 57+ years 'creation science' has made not even one not even tiny weeny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, even though it's their hated enemy.

What is your idea of "a problem with"?
How could the theory of evolution be science's fault?
The theory of evolution is a hated enemy?
It seems like you are parroting Creationist.
Just replace "the theory of evolution" with "God", or "the Bible".
I know your religion means a lot to you, but science has nothing to do with it.

If you want to argue against evolution, it's too late: evolution has been around as long as life has existed on this planet, that is, more than 3.5 bn years. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, then you'll need to know some real science and to frame your argument honestly from examinable evidence. Oh, and you'll need to publish your results in a reputable journal of science ─ parish magazines don't count.

The Creationist on these forums do a good job of arguing against the theory of evolution. It's such a weak philosophy, young children laugh at it.

36 Then Gideon said to God, "If thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said, 37 behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said." 38 And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, "Let not thy anger burn against me, let me speak but this once; pray, let me make trial only this once with the fleece; pray, let it be dry only on the fleece, and on all the ground let there be dew." 40 And God did so that night; for it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew.
​

You suggest that's an objective test? I take it you can refer me to papers in reputable journals of science verifying that it works, and that anyone can do it?

This is what I have been telling you for the last...
You asked... Do you know of an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary?
I gave you one, and you ask for papers in reputable journals of science.
What do you think I am... a scientist?
What do you think worship is... a scientific experiment?
You are sadly mistaken b... sadly mistaken.

Or is it just an old bit of Bronze Age superstition in which we should expect to find the storyteller's art or the priest's manipulation or both?

You are free to call it anything you like.

A candidate (a being or thing or phenomenon) will be real if it has objective existence, that's to say, is not imaginary that's to say exists in the world external to the self independently of the concept of it in any brain. We determine that things are real by detecting them, either directly by the senses or with the help of instruments. The definition will be sufficient if it states the defining real qualities of a god, such that we can objectively determine whether any real candidate is a god or not.

...but you don't accept the senses... except in your religion.

Why would I want to "live it"? It openly advocates and approves invasive war and the seizure of the lands and goods of others, it advocates massacres and mass rapes, slavery (it even sets out the rules for copulating with your slaves), the inferior status of women generally, human sacrifice, homophobia, murderous religious intolerance, and so on.

I suppose, to you it advocates everything - both good and bad. So why complain?
If you don't want to live it...

Are those the kinds of things you do on the weekend, "living" the bible?
Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually just by wishing.

Miracles are that subset of instances of magic which are done by a god.

Which dictionary says this? Not that it matters particularly.

Whether it's Harry saying 'Accio broom' or Yahweh saying 'Let there be light', reality is altered without recourse to physics according to the magician's wish.

Unfortunately, the number of authenticated instances of magic including of course miracles is nil.

For exactly the same reason it doesn't test unicorns: there aren't any.

We have some knowledge of very deep space; and we don't claim to know what's impossible, though on the basis of available evidence we can rate some things as exquisitely unlikely. But so what? None of that implies the existence of unicorns.

Once again you fail, or refuse, to understand what a god who's real must entail. The gods of the bible are imaginary. That's why you can't show [him] or them to us. The supernatural is imaginary. That's why God can't heal amputees. Placebos are real, and curious, and the subject of study, both as to their use in mood control and apparently in triggering certain immune responses. Various studies have shown that outside the placebo aspect, prayer doesn't help, and sometimes hinders, the sick.

You need to educate yourself in science, not just evolutionary science.

And you need to read the bible with an outline knowledge of the relevant history and archaeology, and read the bible as ancient documents of people of a particular linked set of cultures at various times in various middle eastern places for various purposes. You also need to reflect on the fact that Yahweh doesn't appear in history till around 1500 BCE, and then as one of the gods in the Canaanite pantheon ─ all gods come from somewhere, and the present evidence suggests a southern desert tribe.

But as long as you continue to think of the bible as a book of spells and magic and (*chuckle*) 21st century science, you'll never beat Harry's expelliamus.

Thanks for your... suggestions. You probably mean well. I am sure your worldview guides your opinions.
I don't expect you to take my suggestions seriously, but one thing I appreciate from this conversation, is... it has finally come to a conclusion. So it's settled then.

 

[blü 2]

I don't evade skeptics. I tell you as it is.

You've done nothing of the kind so far, but I'll give you another chance ─ what is it now, a fourth or fifth chance.

Without evasion, answer the following:

Do you know an objective test that will tell us whether any real entity is God / a god or not?

Yes or no, without evasion.

If yes, what is it?

The theory of evolution is a hated enemy?

Without evasion: do you accept that the theory of evolution accounts for the origin of species, genera, orders, kingdoms? Or do you parrot the creationist line and limit it to species.

Which? Without evasion, of course.

I gave you one, and you ask for papers in reputable journals of science.

You didn't give me an objective test.

You gave me a tale from the Bronze Age, particular to a set of magic circumstances.

Anyway, that was your best shot, so now we know you don't know an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

That doesn't affect the questions above, of course.

 

[nPeace]

You've done nothing of the kind so far, but I'll give you another chance ─ what is it now, a fourth or fifth chance.

Wow. Gotta hand it to you b. You beat a mule any day.

Without evasion, answer the following:

Do you know an objective test that will tell us whether any real entity is God / a god or not?

Yes or no, without evasion.

If yes, what is it?

Please explain yourself better. What do you mean by "whether any real entity is God"?
I know there is evidence for a divine being. Is that what you are asking?

Without evasion: do you accept that the theory of evolution accounts for the origin of species, genera, orders, kingdoms? Or do you parrot the creationist line and limit it to species.

Which? Without evasion, of course.

Neither.
What is a species? Is the last common ancestor a species? Yes or no? Without evasion what is the last common ancestor? How do you know? What objective test do you know of that can tell us a common ancestor existed, and what it is / was?

You didn't give me an objective test.

You gave me a tale from the Bronze Age, particular to a set of magic circumstances.

I did. Don't blame me for your skepticism. You are entitled to reject truth, and substitute it for philosophies that suit your lifestyle, but at the end of the day, you have been told.

Anyway, that was your best shot, so now we know you don't know an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

No. I suggest that you don't want to know what can be known, and you also know that you are in denial... and yes, we knew that before.

That doesn't affect the questions above, of course.

Whatever.

 

[blü 2]

Please explain yourself better. What do you mean by "whether any real entity is God"?
I know there is evidence for a divine being. Is that what you are asking?

Well, the results of your vocational guidance tests are in.

You scored very high on evasion, red herrings, pretended lack of understanding, replying to a question with a question, views of truth as a movable feast, refusal to address questions you find inconvenient, using diversion and change of subject, ignoring what you don't want to deal with, adopting a hectoring tone and suitable finger-wagging as a form of aggressive defense, and many similar talents.

So the panel is of the view you show great promise as a Christian apologist, and recommends you pursue that line.

Good luck!

 

[nPeace]

Well, the results of your vocational guidance tests are in.

You scored very high on evasion, red herrings, pretended lack of understanding, replying to a question with a question, views of truth as a movable feast, refusal to address questions you find inconvenient, using diversion and change of subject, ignoring what you don't want to deal with, adopting a hectoring tone and suitable finger-wagging as a form of aggressive defense, and many similar talents.

So the panel is of the view you show great promise as a Christian apologist, and recommends you pursue that line.

Good luck!

I don't believe in luck. thanks for revealing that you do have gods, you believe in.
LUCA always sets the skeptics pants on fire. They flee in terror.
I don't blame you.
Have a good day.

 

[blü 2]

I don't believe in luck. thanks for revealing that you do have gods, you believe in.
LUCA always sets the skeptics pants on fire. They flee in terror.
I don't blame you.

The panel were particularly impressed by your systematic, resourceful, wide-patterned and extended evasions, as your fashion of fleeing in terror.

And this is a fine example of your use of projection, accusing your colloquist of your own defining default.

You are indeed a born whatever-it-takes apologist, and embody a rich Christian tradition.

The panel mentioned one caveat (though you practice it already): be careful not to learn anything ─ that can be fatal for your confidence.

Have a lovely day and a long and satisfying career. With you, superstition is in the very best of hands.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As for me, I say we go ahead and 'baptize' all those pagan gods, rather like the Catholics did the gods of the people their politicians conquered, and make them all saints.

Or you can just keep to your religion and stop disrespecting our Gods.

Oh, and Tiw/Tyr was originally the chief of the Germanic pantheon but was overtaken by Odin in the North. He remained the head of the pantheon to the continental Germanic tribes. He was equivalent to the Greek Zeus and was the main sky deity, the Sky Father.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

yeah before Christianity we had:
1) Solis dies
2) Lunae dies
3) Martis dies
4) Mercurii dies
5) Iovis dies
6) Veneris dies
7) Saturni dies

Sol is a male deity, like the Greek Helios...while Luna (Greek Seleni) is female...
in our culture the moon is feminine

Yeah, it's switched around in Greco-Roman religoon. In Germanic religion, Sól/Sunna (the Sun) is feminine and Mani (the moon) is masculine.

 

[dianaiad]

Or you can just keep to your religion and stop disrespecting our Gods.

Oh, and Tiw/Tyr was originally the chief of the Germanic pantheon but was overtaken by Odin in the North. He remained the head of the pantheon to the continental Germanic tribes. He was equivalent to the Greek Zeus and was the main sky deity, the Sky Father.

Well, you believe in your gods. I'll believe in mine. History has shown, however, that Christianity has had a very long habit of 'baptizing' the gods of the people who got conquered. (shrug)

I think it's the way those conquered peoples got to keep their gods while not making their 'masters' and conquerors mad enough to burn them at the stake or something else equally nasty.