There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[PureX]

If you had read my post, you would have responded to my points. You didn't. You just repeated yourself.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have good evidence.

"Good evidence" is just your subjective assessment, based on your own preferred criteria. No one else is obliged to rise to that bait.

Otherwise they'd just give the evidence.

They do, but you reject it as not being evidence by defining evidence as having to convince you according to your own biased criteria and intention not to be convinced.

I have no use for faith.

You live by your faith every single day. Trusting in your assessed probabilities is living by your faith in those assessed probabilities.

 

[joelr]

Here's more junk...exercise your brain...lol
www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

No, I asked for some work by Bart Ehrman that was junk.

But since you gave that as junk, please tell me what part of the article is wrong and how you know?

You are telling me to exercise my brain yet you are the one who quickly dips out of the conversation when you cannot answer to facts.
And it's you who believes and ancient mythology with no evidence is real, yet you cannot demonstrate it is. But you can quickly tell others to exercise their brain?

Again, what part of that article is junk, why, and can you provide evidence that it's wrong.

 

[joelr]

Scientists like these defend my position showing the ridiculous lengths some would try to go to. www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

You didn't defend your position.
You just demonstrated you have a 6th grade understanding of the Hawking no-Boundary theory and have zero idea why it made sense initially.
Flaunting it around in post after post like you have shown all of physics to be a trivial pursuit of nonsense is like waving around the discovery of relativity saying the scientists are morons, my religious myths are so much better......
Your computer you are writing on, ipad, cell phone, are devices made from discoveries in physics.

Not from praying.



http://www.quantamagazine.org/physi...-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

Did the universe have a beginning? Maybe yes say some scientists maybe no say other genius scientists.

IS not what the article is about. The title is clickbait. Did you read the title and jump for joy about how stupid physics is?

 

[joelr]

That is news to me. Then why do Christians living today believe it is literally true?

In critical historical studies. Not with the layperson. But the ideas were out there. Some of the founding fathers were secular. Christianity evangelizes, they seek members and find people ready and sometimes have psychological needs to belong and have hope. But philosophy isn't for them. So does Scientology.

I still don't know why people believe things on anecdotal evidence, but I'm learning.

 

[joelr]

QM you say. You need to read more comments from... scientists. www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

Wow, you are really milking that clickbait title.

Yes, QM. There is no "nothing".

In Hawkings No-Boundary he shows by equations, the time dimension at the big bang becomes space. This already is shown to happen in a similar situation, a black hole. It has to do with the path-integral, probability amplitude and other things on QM that are shown to be accurate descriptions of things, Hawking took it to the boundary conditions. The point is to see if it makes predictions that can be tested and observed.
Since then new theories are more popular. It' s also attempting to understand quantum gravity.

Maybe read the actual article sometime before you go on a clever rant and fail miserably. Or not.

 

[joelr]

I only pointed out what you did, which was have a discussion with yourself.

What I did was ask for something, then in the same post I cautioned against anecdotal evidence that could just as easily be confirmation bias or Voldemort.

If you do want a discussion with me, you do have to let me respond before you continue the discussion. This shouldn't be a point of controversy.

It's "controversy" because for some unkown reason you can't handle multiple requests in one post. It's not a point of controversy. Provide evidence please.

You're doing it again...

Yeah, it's called a post. Answer to what you want and if you don't want to answer something else skip it. Lot of preamble here for a simple request?

I'm not here to prove you wrong. I'm not here to overwhelm what you believe, or to convince you of things that you have concluded against.

If you have good evidence then I may change my conclusions, that is how a good methodology works. I want to know truth, so I look for evidence. So far I'm getting apologetics.

All I have to offer here are the experiences, all my own, that compel me to assert that there is a God, etc. And those are not wanted by you. So there's your answer on the question of several posts ago: I have nothing to offer. Perhaps later you'll want the "anecdotal" stuff? I don't know.

No, anecdotal evidence is usually conffirmation bias. If you want me to tell you how exactly it is confirmation bias and what lines of thinking you probably closed your mind off too, then tell them. If your mind is closed and you no longer look for truth or evidence then there is not point.

But I'm happy to address your more general questions, still from my own experience.

Yes, I have a 14 digit number and one word, please pray for that knowledge and tell me what they are.

The method? I start with what others have claimed. People I know and trust.

So people of all faiths? Islam, Hindu, Sikh, Judaism, Christianity, Law of Attraction? As well as secular. Or is this just one religion? If so how can you possibly make proper assessments without a controlled study?

Imperfect people whose lives appear to me to have been guided and influenced and interceded in and improved by the God they claim knowledge of.

So they claim God guided them. Again, by what methodology to you use to determine the difference between people who have been guided by God and people who had goals and they happen to work out? When I became atheist my life didn't change. If I was headed in a direction eventually I would find my goals and being religious I would say God did it and being secular I saw that it was my effort.

I include in the process the witnesses offered by others I haven't ever known, but who witnessed similarly.

Witnesses what?

I include the witnesses of those who claim particular access to God; to these I give both additional weight and scrutiny.

You claimed access to God, please find out the 14 digit number from God.

I include logic and reasoning, probing the world I see with my own eyes, the world understood by collective humanity, by scientists, doctors, thinkers, etc., watching always for either confirmation that what is being witnessed manifests as claimed, or not.

By what methodology do you determine the difference from a manifestation from God or a manifestation you made happen?

Islam claims this happens to them as well. Hindu say they are guided by Krishna, many other religiojns also say they are all guided by a deity. Law of attraction people say they are manifesting their life with LOA. Everyone is 100% convinced.
What is the methodology to determine a deity did all this vs it just worked out.

Because 10,000 children are passing away every day, many are religious. You find a God is helping you with small things and every day these suffering children are not heard?

Losing 25,000 to Hunger Every Day | United Nations

During the past two decades, population growth, improvement in incomes and diversification of diets have steadily increased the demand for food. Prior to 2000, food prices were in decline, largely through record harvests. At the same time, however, public and private investment in agriculture...

www.un.org

Most importantly, I test the claims of God, himself, first as conveyed to me through those witnessing of him, and then as conveyed directly by him to me. And through the process I find cause to believe—and to continue to believe—or not. I find truth, or not. I find light, or not. God reveals himself to me, or not.

Too vague, what claims, what witnessing?

That's a distillation of the process, of course. But it's a good summary. It involves both confirmation and "ruling out." It involves both errors in judgment and moments of genuine inspiration. It is labor. It is not "easy," though I would offer that it is simple.

I saw no ruling out. It sounds like things happen and you ascribe them to a God. If they don't you may say "he has a beter plan" and then eventually they do and it's a hit. That is confirmation bias. Hindus do that with Krishna as well.
Hence the 14 digit number.

Again, part of the answer is that, because the process includes both confirmation and ruling out, the learning and understanding and maturity and experience and experiences of the process collect and grow until they obviate coincidence. But the other part is that of relationships. The closer you grow to a person, the easier it is to discern that person's workings and sayings, as opposed to those of others.

Hindu and Muslims also do this. Since you don't believe their religion they are growing closer to the deity in their mind only. So you just use more confirmation bias.
As a secular person I still saw many coincidences, one door closes and another opens as if the universe wants to help you. When you aim yourself and take action that is what happens, in all religions, cults, and secular.

If someone were to tell me, for example, that a string of expletives were overheard coming from a female voice in the next room, I do not need any additional information in order to definitively rule out my wife as the source. How? Without any other information of any kind, how do I know it was not her? Because I know her. I know her temperament; I know her comportment; I know her language; I know her in moments of calm and in moments of immense stress and everything in between. I know that in 27 years of knowing her she has never uttered an expletive, regardless of the situation. I know her.

Yes, empirical evidence. With a deity you are just assuming things are from him. I did it. Then I realized that is actually how things work. You make a wrong turn, meet your future wife, get a better job. We see patterns and coincidences when it's just normal things. We give credit to a deity.

It is the same with ruling out God's workings and sayings, as opposed to those of others, or self. As one grows in acquaintance with and knowledge of God, his workings and sayings become easier to discern amongst all that is going on. This includes the ability to discern between his voice and one's own.

Oh good, if you speak to him ask for a word and a 14 digit number please.

Again, it is not easy. It does require effort. Trial and error. Determination. Humility. Curiosity, even (sincerely motivated, to be sure). Every faculty that one would bring to bear to discover any other worthwhile thing. But neither is it complicated. "Ask and ye shall receive" is the truth. "Ask amiss" and "receive not" is also the truth. The process, then, is learning what to ask, and how to ask—and of course what not to ask, and how not to ask. One learns as one goes along. Or one abandons effort (the reasons don't matter in the end) and does not learn.

Yeah that sounds exactly like confirmation bias and the stories my Hindu GF said about Lord Krishna and how he is always with her, guides her life and speaks through emotion. The asking just right thing is odd. Once convinced it's an exterior deity the psychological connection grows. All religions have that.


also with 10000 children passing daily I would be like " do not dare help me get this job or love of my life, give them food"

Which brings me back to the beginning—I start with what others have claimed. People I know and trust. People whose lives appear...

How about we do one thing at a time? If we can get far enough down the road with the first question, we'll have plenty of time to explore this one.

You haven't given any examples. When I became atheist nothing changed. If you try to achieve something there are bumps in the road but things happen, some seem coincidental, that is life. People get sick and sometimes they get better. Life. But you always ascribe it to God,
"he has better plans", "it was their time to pass".....there is no scrutiny, it's always a hit?

 

[joelr]

There are limits to the extent in which God can affect the material world.

Says who and by what evidence?

The real universe contains all and only that which exists. Anything real that could affect it would be inside reality, not outside.

If God is real and infinite he can do whatever he wants. In scripture he wrestled Jacob, rode a chariot, hung out in a temple, appeared as his son, Yahweh was on Earth, So I don't know what this is?

This is one of many logical arguments for God.

What logic? The only "words" from God in Christianity say he's in the universe. Actually he's in the firmament and in heaven, he travels to and fro.

That is not an argument fro any God except a God outside the universe. Which isn't a theism. There are NO logical arguments for God. Please provide one if there are.

 

[Kenny]

Doesn't answer the question. Again.

Either you are not expressing your question clearly or you simply don't like the answer.

 

[joelr]

Never said it wasn’t.
Once again, You said Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the Rapture; that’s the part over which I disagreed with you. It is wrong. When people begin stating things that are not accurate, it affects their credibility.

I don't care what you call it, it's a Persian rip-off. You are going to talk about my cred and you think a Persian archaic mythology is real?

Please…. there weren’t “many.”

1878: End of the harvest​

In 1876, Russell adopted the belief promulgated by some Adventist preachers that Jesus' parousia, or presence, had begun in 1874 and that the gathering of the little flock preliminary to the grand climax was already in progress. Using a form of parallel dispensations that incorporated "types" and "antitypes"—historical situations that prefigured corresponding situations later in time[9]—he calculated the harvest would extend only to 1878, at which time the gathered saints would be translated into spirit form

1881: A revised end of the harvest​

1914: The end of human rulership​

1918: The new terminus​

1925: Resurrection of the patriarchs​

1975: The worldwide jubilee​

Watch Tower Society literature of the 1970s and 1980s repeatedly claimed that the "end" had to be expected before the turn of the century. A 1980 Watchtower article described the notion that "the wicked system of this world" would last "until the turn of the century" as "highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy"

Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the past IBSA, never claimed infallibility, anyways. Just the opposite:

In one of our publications (found in a link you posted), the 1983 Proclaimers book, regarding whether JW’s believed that they had all the answers, the full light of truth, Brother Russell pointedly answered: “Certainly not; nor will we have until the ‘perfect day.’” (Prov. 4:18, KJ)

Yes, this is obvious.

Proverbs 4:18, KJ, says:
“But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.”

Our version, NWT (New World Translation), states:
“But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.”

We use this Scripture quite often, because it compares the morning sun, which progresses ever brighter, with the righteous understanding the Scriptures, which would also be progressive.

So they told you, it changes the words in some places to mean other things more in line with their theology
"

1. John 1:1 (NASB), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
   1. NWT: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
   2. The Watchtower mistranslates the verse as “a god.”
   3. Again, because the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny God in flesh for the Scriptures (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9), they must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah’s Witness version in the New World Translation says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
   4. Notice that “a god” is their so-called translation. But this is problematic since it would imply polytheism. I asked Jehovah’s Witnesses if they believe Jesus was a god. When they say yes, then I bring up the error of their polytheism."

Bad Translations of the Jehovah's Witness' Bible, the New World Translation (NWT)

The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses has changed the text to suit its own theological bias against the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

carm.org

And that’s been true of Jehovah’s worshippers. We’ve refined our understanding so many times…. When we became more enlightened about the origin of the Cross back in the 1920’s, we stopped using it.

Using crosses was a common from of Roman execution, although thta is probably just a myth written by Mark. But if you use wooden stick it's more like Osirus, an earlier savior deity who also rose in 3 days and provided salvation through it's resurrection.
If you look that up you need original sources not google whatever:

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier Blogs

Easter this year lands most fittingly on April Fool’s Day. Because indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is akin to the greatest prank in history. Not because anyone actually faked it (though the evidence we have left, remains fully consistent with their having done so: see Robert Price’s chapter...

www.richardcarrier.info

Same with steeples.

Ok.

Same with Christmas, Halloween, Easter…when their non-Christian backgrounds became better understood, we no longer celebrated them.

Same with salvation for the individual, savior demigods, baptism, eucharist, the logos, the end of the world where everyone resurrectes in a paradise, fre-will and much more, all Persian and Hellenistic theology the Israelites encountered during the 2 occupations.
Christianity is a Jewish version of those religions.
For that we have evidence.

We used to teach & celebrate these concepts, when the “path” was darker, ‘earlier in the morning.’

Were some things stated in error? So did the Prophet Nathan, at 1 Chronicles 17:1,2… David wanted to build a house to Jehovah… “Nathan replied to David: ‘Do whatever is in your heart, for the true God is with you.’”
But in vss.3&4, Jehovah told Nathan that was wrong:
“On that very night, the word of God came to Nathan, saying: 4 “Go and say to my servant David, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “You are not the one who will build the house for me to dwell in.” But Jehovah didn’t consider Nathan a false prophet; only eager for His worship to flourish.

Same with us. And the preaching work keeps growing, with Jehovah’s blessings.

You forgot to demonstrate that the OT is true. It isn't. It's historical fiction.

Regarding 1914 as the beginning of the Last Days….


Yeah, “every century”.

Maybe in the first decade, there was a war somewhere. Then maybe a famine in that locale.

Maybe in the second decade, somewhere a great earthquake occurred.
Following that, a pestilence.



But in this past century, and now, these things are happening almost everyday, altogether!

You are cherry picking data to support a belief in the Persian myth.

"The absolute number of war deaths has been declining since 1946. In some years in the early post-war era, around half a million people died through direct violence in wars. In recent years, the annual death toll tends to be less than 100,000."

War and Peace

How common are armed conflict and peace between and within countries? How is this changing over time? Explore research and data on war and peace.

ourworldindata.org

earthquakes are not up, it's all normal seismic ctivity.


"
A temporary increase or decrease in seismicity is part of the normal fluctuation of earthquake rates. Neither an increase nor decrease worldwide is a positive indication that a large earthquake is imminent.

The ComCat earthquake catalog contains an increasing number of earthquakes in recent years--not because there are more earthquakes, but because there are more seismic instruments and they are able to record more earthquakes.

The National Earthquake Information Center now locates about 20,000 earthquakes around the globe each year, or approximately 55 per day. As a result of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in natural disasters, the public now learns about earthquakes more quickly than ever before.

According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 16 major earthquakes in any given year. That includes 15 earthquakes in the magnitude 7 range and one earthquake magnitude 8.0 or greater. In the past 40-50 years, our records show that we have exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes about a dozen times."

Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has naturally occurring earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven't had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up for a big

A temporary increase or decrease in seismicity is part of the normal fluctuation of earthquake rates. Neither an increase nor decrease worldwide is a positive indication that a large earthquake is imminent. The ComCat earthquake catalog contains an increasing number of earthquakes in recent...

www.usgs.gov

As WWI (originally called The Great War) was nearing its end, the Spanish Influenza broke out. And since 1914, the prevalence of earthquakes began to increase!

earthquakes have not increased since 1914, do you believe everything they tell you without actually looking it up?

Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has naturally occurring earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven't had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up for a big

A temporary increase or decrease in seismicity is part of the normal fluctuation of earthquake rates. Neither an increase nor decrease worldwide is a positive indication that a large earthquake is imminent. The ComCat earthquake catalog contains an increasing number of earthquakes in recent...

www.usgs.gov

Watch 100 Years Of Earthquakes Rock The World In This Incredible Animation

This brilliant animation by NOAA, featuring all the recorded earthquakes in the 20th Century, showcases just how active our planet is. Watch it, and feel awed, and small, in the best possible way.

www.forbes.com

Worldwide Surge in 'Great' Earthquakes Seen in Past 10 Years

The global rate of “great” earthquakes nearly tripled in recent years, but does that portend a problem for unruptured faults along the northwest U.S.?

www.nbcnews.com

Since 1900 we exceeded the average about 12 times. Totally normal activity.

Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has naturally occurring earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven't had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up for a big

A temporary increase or decrease in seismicity is part of the normal fluctuation of earthquake rates. Neither an increase nor decrease worldwide is a positive indication that a large earthquake is imminent. The ComCat earthquake catalog contains an increasing number of earthquakes in recent...

www.usgs.gov

 

[joelr]

This is a very naïve statement…. There is more distrust, selfishness, & animosity between people & groups of people, than ever before (2 Timothy 3:1-5); especially looking at the global picture since 1914!

Right, since we got out of the dark ages, facism, dictatorships, no hospitals, medical care, welfare, things are better now than ever. Technology, science. Scientists were burned for telling the truth. People didn't know bout germs, died from teeth infections at 30, no plumbing, no democratic USA.

(What you said about Bertrand Russell, Jr., makes his statement even more apropos, because it was unwitting and lends support to 1914 being the “beginning of pangs of distress.”)

Beginning of the modern age where things are better.

In addition to what I posted re: secular authorities’ view about 1914 in post #5,703, here’s more (I’m sure you will want to ignore):

“Neither the old nor the young had any suspicion that what they were witnessing, during that incomparable season of 1914, was, in fact, the end of an era.” (Before the Lamps Went Out, by Geoffrey Marcus)

Yes because of lamps. That isn't in the prophecy. The prophecy is not for the future. Revelation is not a prediction.

“[There was] little or no evidence of a steady rise or a ‘snowballing’ of conflicts and tensions leading directly to the outbreak of war.” On the contrary, “by late 1913 and early 1914 . . . relations among the major powers appeared to be more settled than they had been for many years.” (International Crisis, by Eugenia Nomikos and Robert C. North, 1976)

So?

“The effects of World War I were literally revolutionary and struck deep in the lives of almost all peoples, economically as well as socially and politically.” (Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon)

Yes it did, and that is long gone.

“The year 1913 marked the close of an era.” (1913 - An End and a Beginning, Virginia Cowles)

Yes, the end of her high society life and th ebeginning of her war reporting years?? This is your evidence?

The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”–The World, a New York newspaper, August 30, 1914.

All of this is gone, WW2 had a BIGGER impact, the lessons have ben learned and when the Watchtower predicted time and again, they happened to predict a year related to WW1 and all you can do is harp on how big the war was.

What a huge fail!? You are desperately tying to make sense of a fial.


Just look:

First, did the prediction say WW1, and list the countries and the exact dates, ???? Nope. Should a real supernatural prediction do that ?? YES!!!

Would a fraud prediction be only vague and still wrong? YES!

Let's see -


""full end of the times of the Gentiles" "--- NOPE


""farthest limit" of human rulership.[" --- NOPE


"t would bring the beginning of Christ's millennial reign and all his followers expected the immediate "translation of the saints" to rule with the revealed Christ that year."----NOPE


"Following the earth's tribulation and unrest, the Jews would return to God's favor, "-----NOPE


"he "nominal Church" would have fallen, the final battle between Christ and Satan would have ended,"-----NOPE and NOPE


"the kingdoms of the world would be overthrown,"----NOPE


"Christ would have gathered his saints into heaven, where they would reign with him, and when the millennium would begin."---NOPE


"Russell remarked that altering the prophecy by even one year would destroy the perfect symmetry of its biblical chronology." He was very exact for this fail.


"the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914"."----FAIL


"all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved",------ZIP


"along with the destruction of "what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom"."--------NNNNOPE

"
Early that year some Bible Students, convinced the end of the world had arrived, began distributing their material belongings, abandoning their jobs and eagerly anticipating the future.In May 1914—five months from the expected end—Russell warned followers against succumbing to doubt:"


DON'T DOUBT BECAUSE IT'S ALL TRUE!!

"There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together [...] The great crisis, the great clash [...] that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near."

Actually IT WASN'T NEAR and NOTHING HE CLAIMED HAPPENED. The hugest fail ever, as with all prophecies, unless they were written after the fact.

 

[joelr]

Never said it wasn’t.
Once again, You said Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the Rapture; that’s the part over which I disagreed with you. It is wrong. When people begin stating things that are not accurate, it affects their credibility.

Persian mythology from 2nd Temple Period, originally written ~1600 BC




Clear influence from Persian in Isaiah and Daniel, as well as end times literature.

Apocalypticism Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.​

Revelation


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

 

[joelr]

This is directed to the question as to is there a God or is there not a God? Scientists examine what they want to, including that which they can't see (such as gravity). And they make statements about how it may have come about. But they aren't sure and perhaps will never find out. They also argue amongst themselves, as we see here -- www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

Yes at the frontier they introduce different theories to make sense of areas we haven't yet figured out. They are not arguing.
But this is so sketch, have you stopped to notice that while you gloat over a few cosmologists talking theories at the fringe of science ............there are -


"There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations globally and more than 200 in the U.S., according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity."
Here is a chart if that makes it easier:

You might be surprised at how many Christian denominations there are in the world

Here are the top 10 countries with the most Christians in 2023.

www.ocregister.com

Yeah, 45,000 sects of just one religion. All over a God they cannot see. Or hear or anything.

Looks like no one knows, but they all think they are correct. what is the difference? Scientists are interested in showing evidence for a theory. Then they look for predictions the theory might make and look for that evidence and so on.

Meanwhile each 45,000 sect just declares they have the correct interpretation of an ancient Greek/Jewish folk tale. Absurd.
But please, continue to wave a few cosmologists theories around as if you have something here because it's so easy to show the irony.

http://www.quantamagazine.org/physi...-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

Isaiah 40:28 - And now, haven't you known? Haven't you heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the farthest parts of the earth, doesn't faint. He isn't weary. His understanding is unsearchable.

Oh look?!?
Equations? Theory? Predictions? Papers? Why no, an Israelite myth that looks and sounds just like the Mesopotamian myths for 1000 years prior is how you claim absolute truth! Brilliant. Keep making fun of those silly scientists with their proof and logic, and testable predictions.
Who needs that when you have a deity writing laws on rocks on a mountain???

Funny, that also is how Egyptian Gods gave laws as well, must be a coincidence though.

 

[joelr]

If you don't mind, I would like to comment here. When I first began studying the Bible as God's word I did not particularly question the theory of evolution as it goes. It took time. But eventually, after some years, I began looking into it and see there are questions that are not answered and cannot be answered positively by science. So thank you for your comment.
Oh yes...as an addendum...does that mean I think the theory of evolution might be true in its vast aspect? No. Not as the theory is explained in school and science by most. However, because of the raging debate here I leave it there perhaps for further discussion another time.

Are you aware of the hominid fossils? Starting from a monkey-ish hominid tugenensis up to our direct ancestors heidelbergensis.

- Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya) B - Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya) C - Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 mya) D - Australopithecus afarensis (3.6 to 2.9 mya) E - Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 to 3.3 mya)

F - Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 mya) G - Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.7 to 2.3 mya) H - Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya) I - Australopithecus boisei (2.3 to 1.4 mya) J - Homo habilis (2.3 to 1.6 mya)

K - Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 mya) L - Australopithecus robustus (1.8 to 1.5 mya) M - Homo heidelbergensis (600 to 100 tya) N - Homo neanderthalensis (250 to 30 tya) O - Homo sapiens (100 tya to present)

Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

 

[joelr]

If you don't mind, I would like to comment here. When I first began studying the Bible as God's word I did not particularly question the theory of evolution as it goes. It took time. But eventually, after some years, I began looking into it and see there are questions that are not answered and cannot be answered positively by science. So thank you for your comment.
Oh yes...as an addendum...does that mean I think the theory of evolution might be true in its vast aspect? No. Not as the theory is explained in school and science by most. However, because of the raging debate here I leave it there perhaps for further discussion another time.

Are you aware of the hominid fossils? Starting from a monkey-ish hominid tugenensis up to our direct ancestors heidelbergensis.

- Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya) B - Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya) C - Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 mya) D - Australopithecus afarensis (3.6 to 2.9 mya) E - Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 to 3.3 mya)

F - Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 mya) G - Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.7 to 2.3 mya) H - Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya) I - Australopithecus boisei (2.3 to 1.4 mya) J - Homo habilis (2.3 to 1.6 mya)

K - Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 mya) L - Australopithecus robustus (1.8 to 1.5 mya) M - Homo heidelbergensis (600 to 100 tya) N - Homo neanderthalensis (250 to 30 tya) O - Homo sapiens (100 tya to present)

Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

 

[Brian2]

Notice how I pointed out your assertion, which was, "there is a principal of complexity of design needing a designer" and then went on to expound upon that?

All you're doing is calling something "designed' so that you can claim there is a designer, which is, as I said, just an attempt to smuggle in the very thing you need to be demonstrating. And this conversation began when you claimed that complex things require designers.

I do remember that you claimed that simplicity is the sign of a good design, but I did not say what you are claiming I said afaik. Maybe you could point it out to me.

I read it. It was not compelling. Why do we care what some random dude thinks about DNA? Especially when his argument appears (as you've presented it) to just be a fallacious argument from incredulity?

I think I have explained why I mentioned Flew, but you are ignoring what I said.
Reasons that people have faith can be different for different people and can be subjective in nature. They don't have to conform to the rules of logic that you espouse to. Beliefs are like that. Your belief/ worldview for examnple, that there are no gods, sounds like just a fallacious argument from incredulity imo.

The molecules are not "communicating" in the way that humans communicate via language. Several posters have explained this, at this point.

Molecules don't have mouths and ears etc and so you are right about that. However vast amounts of information about a living organism get transmitted/communicated through chemistry from the genes and into the genes.

I'm addressing your words directly.

You are still avoiding addressing what I said and instead you are trying to change the topic it seems.

I didn't say anything about science here. In this context, I'm talking about using reason and rationality.

Yes that is exactly what I am talking about, using reason and rationality.
What you said "We don't resolve the question of how DNA arose by just declaring that God did it and thinking we've come up with an explanation" is not what I did. I said that the genetic code suggests a designer.
What does the genetic code suggest to your reason and rationality?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your assumption that the doctors were ignorant deserves nothing more. They were there at the time, you were not.

I've made no such assumption.

Why does this have to be this difficult? It's like pulling teeth just to get some basic information out of you.
You just want to keep claiming I'm ignorant. Well, that can be fixed by providing the information I've requested several times. What's the hold up?

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Good evidence" is just your subjective assessment, based on your own preferred criteria. No one else is obliged to rise to that bait.

They don't have to rise to anything. They demonstrate they don't have good evidence (even in their own opinion) when they make an assertion of faith.

They do, but you reject it as not being evidence by defining evidence as having to convince you according to your own biased criteria and intention not to be convinced.

They don't. Despite repeated asking. Not everyone, of course.

You live by your faith every single day. Trusting in your assessed probabilities is living by your faith in those assessed probabilities.

I don't have any faith, no matter how many times you want to try to tell me that I do.
Probabilities, which are, by definition, calculations of the likelihood of something occurring, are not faith-based claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Either you are not expressing your question clearly or you simply don't like the answer.

Or, you have a habit of never answering questions posed to you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do remember that you claimed that simplicity is the sign of a good design, but I did not say what you are claiming I said afaik. Maybe you could point it out to me.

I just did.

You claimed, "there is a principal of complexity of design needing a designer"...

I think I have explained why I mentioned Flew, but you are ignoring what I said.

Am I? You're not even sure you explained why you mentioned Flew. It seems you've mentioned him because he seems to agree with you that DNA is a literal code (it's not).

Reasons that people have faith can be different for different people and can be subjective in nature. They don't have to conform to the rules of logic that you espouse to. Beliefs are like that.

No, faith doesn't have to "conform to the rules of logic" if the believer doesn't care if his/her beliefs are actually true. But if one does care about that, then they should care about adhering to the rules of logic.

Am I to conclude that you don't actually care if your beliefs are true?

Your belief/ worldview for examnple, that there are no gods, sounds like just a fallacious argument from incredulity imo.

I've told you umpteen times that I don't have a worldview that "there are no gods." That would be fallacious and that's why I don't hold such a view - because I actually care about adhering to the rules of logic so that the beliefs I hold are logical and rational.
Please try to be intellectually honest here. Thanks.

Molecules don't have mouths and ears etc and so you are right about that. However vast amounts of information about a living organism get transmitted/communicated through chemistry from the genes and into the genes.

You are describing chemical interactions, rather than the transmission of a coded language.

You are still avoiding addressing what I said and instead you are trying to change the topic it seems.

As I just said, I'm addressing your words directly. If you don't think I am, please point out where, exactly.

Yes that is exactly what I am talking about, using reason and rationality.

Talking about it is a far cry from actually doing it.

What you said "We don't resolve the question of how DNA arose by just declaring that God did it and thinking we've come up with an explanation" is not what I did. I said that the genetic code suggests a designer.

That's exactly what you did and just did here, again. Without realizing apparently, that it offers as much explanatory value as pixies did it, or Thor did it, or ghosts did it. Last time I brought that up, you claimed I was trying to mock you, instead of what I'm actually doing, which is trying to make a point to you.

What does the genetic code suggest to your reason and rationality?

This question doesn't make sense to me. Could you re-word it?

 

[PureX]

They don't have to rise to anything. They demonstrate they don't have good evidence (even in their own opinion) when they make an assertion of faith.

Only in the atheist's kangaroo court, where the atheist defines all the terms, and determines all the criteria, and passes judgment based on the convictions they've already embraced in advance.

They don't. Despite repeated asking. Not everyone, of course.

I don't have any faith, no matter how many times you want to try to tell me that I do.

That's because you define faith as it pleases you to define it. And it pleases you to define it in such a way as to be most insulting and degrading to religious theists.

Probabilities, which are, by definition, calculations of the likelihood of something occurring, are not faith-based claims.

They become faith based when you choose to believe in their factual accuracy and reasoned probability, and to act on them. Which you do, routinely. We all do, because we can know nor predict nothing with certainty. Faith is how we make up for that inability.