1. 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!

Featured We're all just cowards

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Tranquil Servant, Feb 17, 2019.

  1. Tranquil Servant

    Tranquil Servant Was M.I.A for a while

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    618
    Ratings:
    +61
    Religion:
    Servant of Christ
    Even if God did write a book, how would you know God wrote it and why would you believe it? He would have to make an appearance and say "hey guys I wrote this book":handwaving:
    EDIT- I was actually directing the questions to @QuestioningMind. I didn't mean to generalize the questions because some of us do believe the Bible is/are God's words. I'm just asking you because I get the feeling a book from God wouldn't be enough for you
     
    #61 Tranquil Servant, Feb 18, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,972
    Ratings:
    +1,422
    Do you think that human writers could not be used by God?
    This is the claim the Bible makes, and I find there is evidence to back those claims.


    I'm sure that you do find what you consider to be evidence to back up your claims, just like my friend says she has evidence of God because she got a job. But that doesn't make it anything close to being verifiable evidence for me. I have yet to read a quote or supposed prophecy in the bible that would lead me to believe that the bible was influenced by any sort of a god.

    Of course. I would not just believe that there was wind, if I had no evidence for it, so why would I believe in God, if I had no evidence.

    I was kind of hoping that if you had actual verifiable evidence for God that could be measured and tested the way that the wind can be that you'd share it.
     
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +911
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Question - I feel like it's dominated by more non-religious ppl than religious ppl which is weird cause the website is called Religious Forums right!? Idk how that happened

    Answer - would always get responses from non- believers always asking for proof and basically insulting me or making me feel like a savage for believing in God and the Bible. Or fellow Christians judging me for asking questions.

    Ahem. [​IMG] Now you know. ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +911
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I don't want to - not again.
    Why? It make no difference.
    It will be the same as with the Bible.
    You aren't new to the forums, so you have seen me post the evidence,.. many times, I'm sure. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Tranquil Servant

    Tranquil Servant Was M.I.A for a while

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    618
    Ratings:
    +61
    Religion:
    Servant of Christ
    Haha!:laughing: I kinda did answer my own question there didn't I!
     
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +911
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Yup. On the surface. ;)
     
  7. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,972
    Ratings:
    +1,422

    I'm sure it would be a waste of time. I've seen what you and others consider to be evidence and none of it is any more convincing to me that the claim that praying to God and getting a job constitutes evidence that God is real. It seems to me that in order to construe anything in the bible as being genuine evidence you have to begin with the unfounded assumption that it IS the Word of God.

    That's simply putting the cart before the horse.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,615
    Ratings:
    +2,132
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Well, you and I agree that a world exists external to the self, and that our senses are capable of informing us about that world, so we agree that reality is out there and that it's possible to know about it.

    And although we know reality through our senses, an educated perception can maximize objectivity.

    If you're saying there are no absolute truths about reality, I agree. What is true, changes with our knowledge.

    But if you're saying no important truths about reality are known, then I demur.
     
  9. Faithofchristian

    Faithofchristian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,915
    Ratings:
    +469
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'm not using anything, The Dictionary defined both Faith and Confidence, As meaning the same thing.

    It seems that you even have a problem with the Dictionary defining ( Faith ) and
    ( Confidence )
    Why can't you just accept the fact that
    Faith and Confidence both stand to mean the same thing.

    Go look in any Dictionary as I have done and you will find Faith and Confidence both stand to mean one and the same thing.
     
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +911
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Yes, I am sure, it would be a waste of time, not because we don't provide strong evidence, but because we have the choice to believe what we find makes sense to us.
    You say we begin with an unfounded assumption, but this is not true. We have to start somewhere, and the point we start at, has some basis.
    Take Darwin for example. Did he start at an unfounded assumption, would you say - all the diverse life forms came about from one common ancestor? What was that founded on? Then he went about digging for evidence to verify his hypothesis.
    I don't see how verifying the reliability of the Bible, and the existence of God, from what is observed, is any less reasonable than what Darwin did.
    To this day, what is supposed by Darwin, is only accepted based on those suppositions.
    We have our evidence. You don't believe we have any to support what we believe, and We don't believe you have any to support what you believe.
    So it seems we are both unconvinced of each other's evidence.
    No problem for me.
     
  11. Windwalker

    Windwalker Integralist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,485
    Ratings:
    +3,612
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    There is a material world outside our physical bodies. Knowing about it however, is purely a subjective affair, informed through the very narrow holes of highly limited senses. What we are seeing and experiencing however is not its reality, but our reality of it.

    I often wonder what this means to maximize objectivity. How I see this is that all of it, all "objectivity" is simply a matter of modeling what we perceive and are finding languages to talk about that perception of ours. Really to us can be understood as a matter of degrees of sophistication of our models we create to understand it through. So an "educated" person is one who has access to these more sophisticated models of reality that serves to inform them of the texture of reality. But even simplistic models have to be taught to us, so everyone is "educated" to these, no matter what they are.

    There is something more useful in this, to be sure, because it it more inclusive of greater amounts of information which can create more functional systems of perception for us to use to navigate and translate our worlds with. More functional systems lead to more effective ways to live life, if the demand for that level of sophistication is required. Maps are useful, more detailed maps are more useful, if you are confronted with much more complex situations.

    But the map, no matter how sophisticated, is never the territory itself. One can't take a highly detailed map and say this is reality, while discarding the crayon drawing of Iowa from a 1st grader. Neither is actually the state of Iowa (which many compare to Nirvana itself, being a state of perfect nothingness. :) )

    What is real to us, changes with our perception, which our knowledge directly informs. The world of gods and magic forces affecting crop growth, is as real to the one who thinks in those terms, as it is to the scientist who understands weather systems. Each of these views of reality, is simply a model of the available data. To the scientist, what how magic system thinks is a non-reality. To the primitive prescientific man, what the modern scientist believes is non-reality. It is non-reality to the one who doesn't use them.

    I think more inclusive, expansive models of reality server greater or higher purposes, which when you are dealing with higher degrees of complexity become important. If complexity is not much of a factor, then at the end of the day, are we actually any closer really to reality with these more sophisticated maps? One could argue otherwise. What is important at the end of the day, is the truth of our existence and how we live in connection to the world. Happiness, is correct. Reality is ultimately, a subjective truth. That is unavoidable.

    So when we say a scientific reality is closer to the truth, I'd argue it is not. Someone 20,000 years ago certainly understood truth the same as we do, just with a different system of language they translated the world with. Our tools or reason, are not putting us any closer to truth than what they had with a fire stick lighting the night. In fact, one can argue with as much over-reasoning as we do, we may in fact be less connected with reality than they were. I wonder what the instance of anxiety disorders they had back then compared to today? What does that tell you? Maybe we're further away from it. :)
     
    #71 Windwalker, Feb 19, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2019
  12. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,615
    Ratings:
    +2,132
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    You think air, water, cold beer, are purely subjective? I think they're real and that further accurate details are available from scientists who work with chemistry.
    Well, in eg physics you use a skeptical attitude, examinable evidence, repeatable experiment, you disclose all your observations and methods (and sponsors), and you aim to arrive at a consensus of your best minds in that particular field; you throw the conclusion and its derivation open to the informed public, including other experts, who have the opportunity to criticize or comment; you have procedures for addressing substantial criticisms; and you argue honestly from examinable evidence in framing your conclusion, objection or defense. And then you test everything again, see if you can fault what we have in some form or other. In testing pharmaceuticals, psych experiments &c, you use the carefully developed protocols intended to ensure that as few extraneous factors as possible can affect your result ─ the double blind is one such technique. That kind of thing.
    And as required apply techniques of verification ─ that all-important skeptical approach.
    Just so, for science and anyone else.
    But its claims can be tested and its errors demonstrated by the methods of reasoned enquiry. There is no absolute truth but there is truth, which is to say, we can make accurate statements about reality and much of the time we can demonstrate their correctness. This, of course, is what religion largely lacks.
    That seems fair, there being not even one authenticated occurrence of magic anywhere ever. Magic is part of the realms of imagination that have no real counterpart.
    And maybe primitive prescientific man will be us in two hundred years; but that will happen because scientific method works ─ looks for and corrects its own errors, follows where the evidence leads, and all the rest.
     
  13. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,914
    Ratings:
    +4,842
    Religion:
    None
    Probably because if there were, all of those interested would have seen it by now. Do you believe that there is objective evidence of the validity of Christian scripture available only to Christians?

    Because if they did, non-Christians would see it as well. If it was convincing evidence, most of the world would be Christian.

    Only by detecting God externally does one have evidence of a god existing outside of one's mind. That's what evidence means to the empiricist.

    One ought not believe that a supernatural entity even exists much less authors books without sufficient evidence, meaning findings accessible to all that strongly or conclusively indicate divine authorship.

    What might such evidence look like? I'll paraphrase Ingersoll here. For starters, I would expect a volume in perfect harmony with observed reality, making no factual errors about it. It ought to be a book that no man or number of men could have written, nor can improve upon, that is, it ought to be free of internal contradiction, failed prophecy, unkept promises. It's moral code should be exemplary and unchanging.

    Instead, there isn't a sentence in the Christian Bible that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. What does it tell us if most people can improve on the Bible such as by declaring slavery an abomination, but it takes an Einstein and several centuries to improve on a book by Newton

    Why would a god use human writers, or writing at all?

    There's an argument I occasionally make that notes that if the universe contained a god, it might have been this way or that according to the whim of the god, but a godless universe would have to be in only one of those two conditions perforce. In a universe with a god that wanted to reach us, we might find that it used any number of means to deliver any number of messages or any possible quality, but in a godless universe, we're only going to find people writing as people do trying to speak for a nonexistent god.

    You can probably think of dozens more like it. For example, in a universe with a god, there might or might not be natural laws to steer the planets and stars and hold us to the surface of the earth. The deity may choose to simply will these motions without the use of force, much less constant and predictable force. But in a godless universe, such laws are necessary and must be found.

    In a universe with a god, we might or might not see miracles. In a godless universe, we wouldn't.

    Why is it meaningful that we can list so many of these things that could have been otherwise were there a god, but must be the way we find them if there is none? It's meaningful in the same sense that if the coin we are flipping is fair, we might see heads or tails come up, but if it is loaded, it will be tails. It comes up tails. So what? Then it comes up tails again. And again. And it comes up tails 10,000 more times. This constitutes not proof, but compelling evidence of a loaded coin. I'd wager that you wouldn't choose heads on the next flip.

    This is how tax cheats are identified and convicted. An honest tax preparer making a mistake is just as likely to make one that raises his taxes as lowers them. The unsophisticated cheat makes mistakes that only benefit him (a more sophisticated cheat makes the odd "mistake" against his interests to maintain plausible deniability). Joe Shmo was audited and found to have made 21 errors, all 21 in his behalf. That is enough to convict.

    The principle is the same with gods. When all indicators are as we would expect were there no gods, well, the world makes more sense without including them.
     
  14. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,914
    Ratings:
    +4,842
    Religion:
    None
    You shouldn't, but it's done all of the time. People generally accept the idea before they are old enough to question authority to to critically analyze a claim.

    What you are calling an unfounded assumption was a hypothesis suggested by the evidence available to Darwin, including embryological studies, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, fossils, and vestigial organs suggesting a familial relationship among all life. The work done since Darwin's day continues to support his hypothesis, including comparative biochemistry and genetics. The idea accounts for the commonality in all life forms, and has never been falsified, and so is useful and retained. It predicts that we won't find living or extinct forms of life on earth that didn't derive from the same starting point.

    Atheists are people who believe that there is insufficient evidence to believe in gods. What believers offer as their evidence is nothing that is better explained by positing gods. To be evidence of a god, the evidence need to rise too that level. Sure, a tire treadmark on a road might be evidence left from a lethal automobile accident, but unless that is the most likely explanation for its presence, there is more reason to think that no accident occurred than that a lethal one did.

    If you're still referring to the theory of evolution, we have evidence that it is correct. The theory is falsifiable but has never been falsified. It makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature if it is correct that have never been contradicted by any discovery. And it has had practical application in fields like agriculture and medicine. These are the qualities that we expect to find in a correct idea.

    Contrast that with ideas like creationism or astrology. They predict nothing, and can be used for nothing - the signature of an incorrect idea.

    These things constitute evidence, but only if one looks at them and considers them impartially and dispassionately. One idea works, one doesn't. That's evidence. That means something about those two ideas.
     
  15. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,914
    Ratings:
    +4,842
    Religion:
    None
    The way we experience reality is what to us. The main incentive to trying to imagine what unexperienced reality is like is to predict what we will experience when it impacts us. The subjective is thus more important to us because it is more immediate.

    I presume that it is generally an acknowledgement that ultimately, each judgment has a subjective element, but that the degree of subjectivity can be reduced (and hence objectivity increased) using intersubjective verification, that is by interviewing multiple subjects to see how much their viewpoints have in common. They're still subjective viewpoints, such as the color of the sky, which might appear differently to creatures with different eyes, but if we can attain consensus, we have maximized objectivity, and have maximied our confidence in predicting what the next person looking at the sky will see.

    We can trip ourselves up contemplating such things as absolute, ultimate, or objective truth. I find utility to be a better measure of an idea. Can this idea be used to predict and at times control outcomes? If so, I'll keep the idea and use it.

    Rather than worrying about truth, all we need know is that we have preferences and desires, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of the outcomes of our choices. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if doing A will achieve D, we can call B true, but I prefer useful. If A fails to achieve D, then B is useless. Either you agree that the value of an idea ought to be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you don't, then I don't think we have enough in common to have such a discussion and benefit from it. We are not looking for the same thing. If another's definition of truth requires more from so-called true ideas, then it requires something that may not be needed, available, or even useful.
     
  16. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    11,015
    Ratings:
    +3,914
    Religion:
    Antipolitician
    Not afraid to be wrong, I expect to be wrong. If you are going to make choices based on no information, or trusting information provided by someone else, a majority of the time, those choices will likely turn out to be wrong.

    Making claims about God based on no or second hand information is a crapshoot. You are more likely to be wrong about God than right.

    Still I agree that there is no reason to get hostile with folks who decide to roll the dice with God. Folks occasionally win the lottery too.
     
  17. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,972
    Ratings:
    +1,422
    Gee, you DO realize that a word can have more than ONE definition, don't you?Let me demonstrate.

    faith
    Dictionary result for faith
    /fāTH/
    noun
    1. 1.
      complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
      "this restores one's faith in politicians"
      synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More

    2. 2.
      strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
      synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
      "she gave her life for her faith
    Note how the 2ND definition does NOT mean the same as confidence. You REALLY should educate yourself before making such ignorant claims. .
     
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +911
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    The Bible is the world's most widely translated book, and is said to be available to more than 90% of the world's population.
    List of literary works by number of translations - Wikipedia

    The most read book in the world is the Bible. Writer James Chapman created a list of the most read books in the world based on the number of copies each book sold over the last 50 years. He found that the Bible far outsold any other book, with a whopping 3.9 billion copies sold over the last 50 years.

    Over 90 percent of the human family have access to at least part of the Bible in their own language.
    Each year, some 60 million copies of the entire Bible or portions of it are distributed.

    I'm not one to determine that something is valid, or correct, based on its popularity or acceptance, however.
    If people went by that standard, then what is bad, would be right 9 times out of 10. Look at the legalization of gay marriage, for example.


    By objective evidence, do you mean not subject to interpretation?
    How do you determine that evidence is objective?
    Along with that, my head hurts trying to figure out you last phrase "validity of Christian scripture available only to Christians". So explain please.



    Using your reasoning, why don't you admit that there is no evidence of evolution since many don't see it?
    If you are going to argue that they don't see it, because they don't want to... ditto.


    By external, do you mean that everything in your mind is just not real, and you have no evidence for anything in your mind? Sad.



    That's your opinion? Okay.
    I don't see that opinion as a valuable argument about something one bases on his own judgment - limited, and possibly highly flawed at that.



    Why not?
    To me, that's like asking your neighbor, "Why would you paint your ceiling with blue gloss paint?"
    Only to discover later that the person knew something you didn't.


    Um, okay.
    When all indicators are as we would expect were there gods, well, the world makes more sense when we include them.
    That is what I see.


    There are two sides to a coin.
    Right now, your coin appears to be hitting one side only. Perhaps it's loaded?
    There are many people who never accepted any idea of a god before their later years, because they were not given any. They chose to believe in god, by examining evidence, when later exposed to the possibility.



    I did not call anything an unfounded assumption. I only asked a question.
    So you say it had a basis. Okay.


    Christians believe there is a great deal of evidence for all to see. They consider this evidence is so great, that they consider athletes inexcusable, among other things, as mentioned in the Bible book of Romans 1, and Psalms 10 and 14.
    At least there is evidence for some vehicle. No need to extrapolate, unless you have more evidence.


    I can't prove that a person is not thinking about murder, or suicide, unless I have a means of doing so.
    It does not mean that those thoughts are not real, and would not come to be realized.
    Because I can't falsify something, it does not make it any less real than what I claim I can falsify.
    Furthermore, a person, or persons can claim anything they want. It doesn't mean it is true, just because particular individuals claim it.

    Why do scientist that don't believe in evolution, make practical advances in fields like agriculture and medicine?
    It is because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with such advances. Ugh. Science does.
     
  19. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,914
    Ratings:
    +4,842
    Religion:
    None
    Then why all the references to the number of people that have read Bible? You asked, "Why do you think there is no verifiable evidence that the scriptures are true?" and I answered, "if there were, all of those interested would have seen it by now." Then, you told me how much the Bible has been read. I don't see where that addresses my point that if such evidence existed, it would be more commonly seen and have convinced many more people.

    Are you offering the Bible as the evidence of its own veracity?

    No, I mean existing outside of the mind. If the god that you believe exists exists outside of the minds of believers as well, then it is objectively real.

    I and others experience it with the aided or unaided external senses and report compatible findings when we compare our experiences. See the discussion of socks and gods below for further elaboration.

    No. By external I mean existing outside of our minds.

    I'm referring to when Christians claim that they have evidence that none of the rest of have. How could you have evidence of a god not available to everybody?

    Because the evidence for biological evolution is objectively real and available for all to experience. I can provide you with a time lapse video demonstrating a strain of bacteria evolving resistance to an antibiotic. This is what was meant by objective evidence.

    Faith-based thinkers and reason and evidence based thinkers process information differently. The former don't require evidence to believe, but frequently claim that they have it nonetheless even as they are telling us that they can't see the evidence for evolution. The phenomenon is pretty well understood. Faith based thought often leads to the development of a faith-based confirmation bias defending the belief from contradictory evidence by filtering it out.

    One might ask whether believers claiming to have evidence for their god belief are seeing something that is not there, or if the unbelievers are failing to see that which is. Likewise with evolution: When we claim to see evidence that the creationists say they don't see, are we seeing something that isn't there, or is the creationist not seeing something that is. The questions are easy to answer simply by independently interviewing the seers before they have had a chance to share their experiences with one another, like cops interviewing people that say that they witnessed a crime. Are there stories alike? If not, are they even compatible, that is, can they both be true even though they don't overlap much or at all?

    Let me illustrate. A man with red-green color blindness wants to know it his friends who report seeing these colors when the man only sees gray himself. All he need do is grab a bunch of red and green socks, number them, and separately interview people unknown to one another, who claim to see color in them before they meet one another. If the overwhelming majority say that socks 2, 3 6, 8, and 10 are red and the others green, we have our answer.

    Suppose furthermore, that some people claimed that the socks also delivered a message to whomever held them that revealed the mature of the god of the universe. Once again, we interview them and compare their stories. When we find them all over the place with their descriptions, no two agreeing and many contradicting others, we also have our answer, albeit, the opposite answer.

    Ask an advocate of evolution what his evidence is and you'll get more or less the same answers - fossil evidence with specific fossils named (Lucy, archeopteryx, Tiktaalic), genetic evidence (human chromosome 2, ERVs), biogeographic evidence (the marsupial fauna of Australia, ring species such as the salamanders in California), vestigial data, comparative anatomy and physiology. etc..

    The ask a theist what God is like. The monotheists will contradict the polytheists, and the monotheists will contradict one another.


    Why wouldn't a god use human writers, or writing at all? Because the world is full of languages most people cannot understand making communication with them using words problematic. Look at the number of problems associated with translating languages like Aramaic. Furthermore, languages evolve and the meanings of words change over time.

    Nature communicates various messages to us such as "that thing is hot and can hurt you" or "You should get something to eat" or "you want children" or "Get away from the edge of that steep cliff" without words. Human beings are capable of understanding these psychological imperatives without language. If the messages were delivered in language, it would be much less effective and much less universal.

    If I were a god, I wouldn't dictate commands to human beings to write down for me, such as "love one another." I'd just make people feel the desire to love and be loved - to want to be kind and helpful.

    I presume that you meant its atheists that Christians find inexcusable. Yes, we know. I've read the Bible several times, and can provide you with the Bible's teaching about unbelievers, which it depicts as lying, corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, people who are the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, all of whom are fit to be shunned and eventually to be cast into a lake of fire as enemies of a good god.

    Does that surprise you? Here are the supporting scriptures. Hopefully, you ignore them:

    [1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

    [2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8

    [3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

    [4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

    [5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +911
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I think the fact that he Bible is the most practical, and valuable book, preserved, and available to over 90% of the world's population, is a fraction of evidence of its authenticity,


    IMV this is another fraction of evidence of the Bible's authenticity, It's harmony, and accurate prophecy, although written by different individuals, over a period of many centuries, is glaring evidence of its divine authorship.


    So what I am asking, is, how do you determine that evidence is objective?
    Because there are many things that exist only in my mind, and I know they are real.
    Aside from that if interpretations and inference is considered objective evidence, then I fail to understand what you are saying.


    Sock and gods. Those experiments make me laugh, honestly.
    I laugh at the imagined intelligence of those who think they are so smart, they can figure out anything, using their "oh so brilliant ideas"
    Do you understand why it's so ludicrous?
    How often does man do something he thinks is so great, only to turn back later and realize the folly of their actions? How often does he realize he is wrong? How often does he change his mind to another thing, and then change it back again? Has man stopped learning, and now knows everything? Has he reached ultimate knowledge and technology?
    Sorry. Hold on a minute. I've got to let this out. HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA.

    Unlike failing man, that repeats his mistakes, and never learns, the Bible has never failed those who apply its teachings.
    I think if mankind took a page from it, they would realize the trustfulness of these words...
    Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish (Romans 1:22)

    The objective evidence you claim to have for the theory of evolution is all in your mind, because you never saw it happen, nor has it been shown to be something that has happened or can happen.
    If you believe different, please show me that evidence.
    Please don't show me things reproducing and adapting. Show me the claim made that one organism evolved to another.

    The evidence is available to everyone. Why do you think it isn't?


    There are scientists that do not agree with none of the above being objective evidence for evolution.
    So your objective evidence is what is inferred or interpreted. All in the head, isn't it?
    Why are you asking for objective evidence of God then, when you repeatedly were given it?
    Or am I mistaken about what you call objective evidence?
    If so, please be more clear about if objective evidence can be inferred or not.


    The folly of man is not due to God.
    God did not fly those planes into the WTC, nor did he drive the truck that mowed down people on the streets.
    My point is this... People do things right, and people do thing wrong.
    God does things right, so when we see people doing things right, perhaps it might be worth asking, "Could it be the case that some of these people doing right, are being guided by a supreme supernatural being?"
    You can't do that if you scoff though, so...

    The Bible was meticulously copied, and recopied, and translated, so that today, it is available in
    3,312 languages (at least one book)
    2,191 languages (at least the Greek Scriptures)
    670 languages (Hebrew and Greek, including the Protocanonical books)

    A Bible study aid - What Does the Bible Really Teach, is available in 272 languages.
    Source

    Millions of people are gaining an accurate knowledge of God, as described in the Bible.
    If you were one of those millions, who studied the Bible, I believe you would not be asking why there is confusion among God believers. You would know why.
    I believe you would also know why there is confusion in the world even among non-believers.

    Well if you understand it that way, I'm not going to argue with you.
    I'm sure we don't understand it in the same way.
     
    #80 nPeace, Feb 22, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...