• 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!

Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

ecco

Veteran Member
(Does this sound like God knew what humans would do?)


Don’t accuse me of dodging and evading.

Attack the evidence with substantial objections, not me.
OK.

Your belief is that your God is omniscient.

Therefore He must have known "what humans would do".


Why are you using an elllipsis (dots)? You are so disingenuous. Although I figured it would be useless, I answered your accusation...

No, you told me to look it up.

I used ellipses for the same reason that most people do, to skip meaningless blather or parts that I don't care to respond to.



Here is the conversation, again...Hockeycowboy, Sep 13, 2019 Page 13 Post #253
And to @ecco :

Have you spent time doing an in-depth study of the Scriptures? Did you come to realize that Hellfire is not Biblical? Have you, on your own, found the Comma Johannum to have not been in the O.M. (Original Manuscripts)?

I’ve addressed those assumptions many times on here. They are invalid. The Book of Jonah alone debunks them.

If you’re smart, you can reason on Psalm 78:41 (NASB)...”Again and again they tempted God, And pained the Holy One of Israel.

(If God knew this would happen...what is He, a sadomasochist? )

Gen. 18:20,21....”Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious. 21 I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me. If not, I will find out.

Genesis 18 Christian Standard Bible

Surely, you can figure that out.

Nah. I'll just take your word for it.


Here are your key comments...
  • Have you spent time
  • Did you come to realize
  • Have you, on your own
  • you can reason
  • Surely, you can figure that out
Your concept of providing evidence is to not provide anything, except meaningless questions.


 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
The problem with Irreducible Complexity is that there are no evidence to support any of the premises, so it is untested,

Actually it was tested. Actually it was completely refuted. Actually each of Behe's "irreducible parts" were found to be functionally reducible.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
OK.

Your belief is that your God is omniscient.

Therefore He must have known "what humans would do".




No, you told me to look it up.

I used ellipses for the same reason that most people do, to skip meaningless blather or parts that I don't care to respond to.



Here is the conversation, again...Hockeycowboy, Sep 13, 2019 Page 13 Post #253





Here are your key comments...
  • Have you spent time
  • Did you come to realize
  • Have you, on your own
  • you can reason
  • Surely, you can figure that out
Your concept of providing evidence is to not provide anything, except meaningless questions.



You again skipped the answers I gave you.
Thanks for proving my point!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You again skipped the answers I gave you.
Thanks for proving my point!
No, I don't think that he did. You brought up the claim of "evidence" but there does not seem to be any evidence for your beliefs. In the world of science you cannot just handwave and claim to have evidence. You first need a testable model. What is your model? What reasonable test could falsify it? If you cannot answer these two questions you do not have evidence by definition.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
“On a lonely night in 1946, President Harry S. Truman went to bed at 9 p.m. About six hours later, he heard it.
Knock. Knock. Knock.
The sound against his bedroom door awakened him, he wrote to his wife in a letter that is archived in his presidential library and museum.
“I jumped up and put on my bathrobe, opened the door, and no one there,” he wrote. “Went out and looked up and down the hall, looked in your room and Margie’s. Still no one. Went back to bed after locking the doors and there were footsteps in your room whose door I’d left open. Jumped and looked and no one there! The damned place is haunted sure as shootin’. Secret Service said not even a watchman was up here at that hour.”

“You and Margie had better come back and protect me before some of these ghosts carry me off.”


I thought the quote was a little silly so I Googled the last sentence and found...

Once there, I searched the text for"You and Margie...". I suggest you do the same. In fact, you should do something similar before posting more such nonsense in the future. It'll save you some embarrassment.

I can't copy-paste from the pdf, but Truman was making fun of the Roosevelts. Look at it for yourself.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
A good read is the book, “The Airmen Who Would Not Die,” by John G. Fuller, recounting events back in the 1920’s and 30’s surrounding the crash & destruction of the R-101 dirigible. And séances held by spirit medium Eileen Garrett.

And BTW, I don’t believe in life after death ideas. Ecclesiastes 9:5; Genesis 3:19.
I have another understanding.

If you don't believe in life after death why are you referring to séances held by spirit medium Eileen Garrett and dead airmen?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I’ve addressed those assumptions many times on here. They are invalid. The Book of Jonah alone debunks them.

If you’re smart, you can reason on Psalm 78:41 (NASB)...”Again and again they tempted God, And pained the Holy One of Israel.

(If God knew this would happen...what is He, a sadomasochist? )

Gen. 18:20,21....”Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious. 21 I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me. If not, I will find out.
So your version of your God is that He is not omniscient. Why didn't you just say so?


If that's what you are trying to say, then there is no reason to believe that He is Omnipotent either. This would explain the really crappy job he did designing man, physically and morally.

If that's what you are trying to say, then there is no reason to believe that He has existed eternally - preceding even time.

Before I continue, please address these two points so that I know which beliefs I am dealing with.


Most Christians (at least most Creos) believe in an Omni-All deity.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
OK.

Your belief is that your God is omniscient.

Therefore He must have known "what humans would do".

Again, your assumptions are false.

You asked me a question about the Biblical God, I tried to explain my Biblical beliefs to you, from the Bible, but you keep on ignoring my answers.:rolleyes:
 

ecco

Veteran Member
So... I piqued your interest, huh?
Because something — some intelligent force — is behind these things! Impostering the dead.


Uh, are you saying that you do not believe in life after death but you do believe that "some intelligent force" is "Impostering the dead"?

De_uU5FWAAA8p1D.jpg
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
So your version of your God is that He is not omniscient. Why didn't you just say so?


If that's what you are trying to say, then there is no reason to believe that He is Omnipotent either. This would explain the really crappy job he did designing man, physically and morally.

If that's what you are trying to say, then there is no reason to believe that He has existed eternally - preceding even time.

Before I continue, please address these two points so that I know which beliefs I am dealing with.


Most Christians (at least most Creos) believe in an Omni-All deity.
Close...but not quite correct
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Uh, are you saying that you do not believe in life after death but you do believe that "some intelligent force" is "Impostering the dead"?

De_uU5FWAAA8p1D.jpg
Ecclesiastes 9:5, ‘the dead know nothing.’

Yet, there are many documented cases of people talking with them.

Knowing what the Scriptures say, it’s the only viable explanation.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Thanks for the explanation. I mean that. You are civil in discussing this.

However, if you read the incidents that were reported, it involved not just sights, but sounds, like knocks on doors. By sane, reputable people.

Of course, I agree with you...illusion would fit many occurrences; but not all.

And, I’ll grant this, that there are a lot of people who want to believe in “ghosts”, propping up their ‘life after death’ beliefs, so their testimony would be tainted, biased.

But there are many people who don’t believe in such things, or at least didn’t, until after they had such experiences.

A good read is the book, “The Airmen Who Would Not Die,” by John G. Fuller, recounting events back in the 1920’s and 30’s surrounding the crash & destruction of the R-101 dirigible. And séances held by spirit medium Eileen Garrett.

And BTW, I don’t believe in life after death ideas. Ecclesiastes 9:5; Genesis 3:19.
I have another understanding.
All I am saying, “all in your head”, don’t necessarily mean the person is suffering from “delusion”.

Not all illusions are the results of delusions, and yet illusions are in our heads.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Ecclesiastes 9:5, ‘the dead know nothing.’

Yet, there are many documented cases of people talking with them.

Knowing what the Scriptures say, it’s the only viable explanation.
The only viable option?

How about the option of illusion or delusion?
How about the option of simply misunderstanding or attributing what one is seeing?
How about the option of dreaming?


Only viable option?
Nope.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
The only viable option?

How about the option of illusion or delusion?
How about the option of simply misunderstanding or attributing what one is seeing?
How about the option of dreaming?


Only viable option?
Nope.
I was referring to what I stated: the documented cases, like the “ghosts” in the White House.

The members of RF on here, that have conversations w/ their spirit guides or deities, do you you think they’re all delusional? All of them?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I was referring to what I stated: the documented cases, like the “ghosts” in the White House.

The members of RF on here, that have conversations w/ their spirit guides or deities, do you you think they’re all delusional? All of them?
Testimonial evidences are one of the weakest types of evidence. The reliability of testimonials don’t rate all that high, because can be delusional, or they could have wild imagination, or the memory may not be so reliable, or they can be distorting or misinterpreting what they see, or they can be lying.

Delusional aren’t the only possible assessment.

If I told you there was a zebra running loose in the White House, I am quite you would be very skeptical with such claim, and yet you wouldn’t think twice that people shouldn’t be skeptical about seeing ghosts?

At least, with zebras, they are living animals that do exist in Africa, and can be at some zoos or safari reservation parks.

With ghosts, there are no evidences that they exist. Other than found in folktales, novels, TVs and movies, the existence of haunting spirits and ghosts have been zilch in term of evidences.

Yet, there are many documented cases of people talking with them.

Knowing what the Scriptures say, it’s the only viable explanation.

You think the Bible is reliable?

Yes, I recall King Saul speaking to ghost of Samuel. But the books of Samuel, along with most OT books weren’t written contemporary to the events these books narrated. 1 Samuel was clearly written some times between late 7th and 5th centuries BCE, therefore not eyewitness’ account.

Or do you really think Samuel wrote books after his death?
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Here are your key comments...
  • Have you spent time
  • Did you come to realize
  • Have you, on your own
  • you can reason
  • Surely, you can figure that out
Your concept of providing evidence is to not provide anything, except meaningless questions.


Yup. And he claimed a few weeks ago that he was going to put me on ignore because I answered his assertions with assertions, he was upset that my assertions were "unsourced."
I suppose I could have plagiarized like he does, but, nah...​
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I was referring to what I stated: the documented cases, like the “ghosts” in the White House.

The members of RF on here, that have conversations w/ their spirit guides or deities, do you you think they’re all delusional? All of them?
Why did you ignore the other options??
I think people can be mistaken and people often misattribute things they can't explain to things like ghosts, spirits, aliens, or whatever, because it makes them feel like they've explained what happened, even though ghosts and spirits are also lacking in explanation. Humans have a tendency to see patterns and faces where they don't actually exist, which can lead us to draw false conclusions.
I also know that people can have very vivid dreams that seem like they are absoutely real. I've had many of those.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The problem with the design theory is that we don't have a clear understanding of how things get designed.
It's not a process that is clearly distinguishable from evolution.
And of course the even bigger problem is that it is not a theory.
It is worse than that.

ID is even disqualified as being a HYPOTHESIS, because it cannot even make the grade of being “falsifiable”.

ID is merely unfalsifiable conjecture, based on superstitions and illogical analogies.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It is worse than that.

ID is even disqualified as being a HYPOTHESIS, because it cannot even make the grade of being “falsifiable”.

ID is merely unfalsifiable conjecture, based on superstitions and illogical analogies.

Which of course means that there cannot be any scientific evidence for it.

And I like to point out that it is the cowardice of creationists that keep it from being a hypothesis. They can't abide with the idea of being shown to be wrong so they refuse to even try to put it into the form of a testable hypothesis. Instead they keep it in the form of an ad hoc explanation. That is a reactive explanation where one tries to force observations into an unfalsifiable story line. That is worthless in the world of science.
 
Top