What's wrong with saying "Well, I just have faith"?
2) End the discussion by saying something like, "Well, I just have faith."
Neither of these are adequate responses but if you wish to actually do what your bible tells you, then please bring your A game and demonstrate (not just claim) how you know your deity Yahweh is actually real.
Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews.I don't know which version of bible you have, but mine reads kind of like this. Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. (1 Peter 3:15)
Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did),,,,I don't have to demonstrate my God because He already did
What's wrong with saying "Well, I just have faith"?
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. (Romans 1:20)
Jesus actually didn't command us to show off miracles, He commanded us to spread the gospel.
I am certain that we (Christians) did greater works than Jesus as far as spreading the gospel all over the world and still spreading. Whereas Jesus only affected small parts of Israel.
Because Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit will guide us and help us until His return.
What's wrong with saying "Well, I just have faith"?
2) End the discussion by saying something like, "Well, I just have faith."
Neither of these are adequate responses but if you wish to actually do what your bible tells you, then please bring your A game and demonstrate (not just claim) how you know your deity Yahweh is actually real.
And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
Quote from: median link=topic=24696.msg(548838#msg548838 date=1365097128Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did),,,,I don't have to demonstrate my God because He already did
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. (Romans 1:20)
Jesus actually didn't command us to show off miracles, He commanded us to spread the gospel.
I am certain that we (Christians) did greater works than Jesus as far as spreading the gospel all over the world and still spreading. Whereas Jesus only affected small parts of Israel.
Because Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit will guide us and help us until His return.
What's wrong with saying "Well, I just have faith"?
That's a convenient set up: "just look around at nature and you'll find god; it's so obvious that it's inexcusable not to." And if a person finds that to be ridiculous, just point them at "there will be scoffers seeking their own selfish ends and trying to divide you." To doubt the Bible and to speak to others of that doubt is to 'follow unnatural desires,' and be 'ungodly' and an attempt to divide the faithful. The amount of guilt that you are threatened with is suffocating.
What's wrong with saying "Well, I just have faith"?Sincere question:
And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews.
I am betting that absolutely none (zero) of you Christians will be able, or willing to adequately finish this challenge. My prediction is 2 fold (for those that actually take the challenge - because most of you believers have no confidence in your beliefs and won't take the challenge). But for those who do, you will either...
1) Obfuscate or avoid the tough questions and eventually give up or leave, or...
2) End the discussion by saying something like, "Well, I just have faith."
Neither of these are adequate responses but if you wish to actually do what your bible tells you, then please bring your A game and demonstrate (not just claim) how you know your deity Yahweh is actually real.
In respect of the performing of miracles, my understanding has always been that this was a specific gift provided to the early apostles as a means of establishing the early church. Seemed to work, too.
What was your understanding of these passages back when you were a Christian apologist?
In respect of the performing of miracles, my understanding has always been that this was a specific gift provided to the early apostles as a means of establishing the early church. Seemed to work, too.
What was your understanding of these passages back when you were a Christian apologist?
When I was a christian I would have pretended like any little thing I did was "greater miracles" than Jesus performed. Since then I have realized that I was just believing what I wanted to believe. Also, as a christian I can honestly say I wasnt nearly as well versed as I am now because in church functions they had us read the verses they wanted us to read, over and over, year after year. Never quite got to the ugly stuff many of us object to here.
The church spread thanks to Constantine, not the disciples.
I asked Median because presumably he gave these issues considerable thought (as an apologist), and didn't gloss over them as your church appears to have unfortunately done.I know you were asking median, but I figured I'd take this dance while he was getting some punch ;)
I guess it all comes down to how broad a definition of 'spread' you go with. After all, how did Constantine come to faith hundreds of years after Christ?
Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews.
I am betting that absolutely none (zero) of you Christians will be able, or willing to adequately finish this challenge. My prediction is 2 fold (for those that actually take the challenge - because most of you believers have no confidence in your beliefs and won't take the challenge). But for those who do, you will either...
1) Obfuscate or avoid the tough questions and eventually give up or leave, or...
2) End the discussion by saying something like, "Well, I just have faith."
Neither of these are adequate responses but if you wish to actually do what your bible tells you, then please bring your A game and demonstrate (not just claim) how you know your deity Yahweh is actually real.
In respect of the performing of miracles, my understanding has always been that this was a specific gift provided to the early apostles as a means of establishing the early church. Seemed to work, too.
What was your understanding of these passages back when you were a Christian apologist?
Family was tracked through the lineage of the father...
What did I believe as a Christian? I believed what the text said. But of course, the text is contradictory in many places. So, go figure.
What did I believe as a Christian? I believed what the text said. But of course, the text is contradictory in many places. So, go figure.
I'm more interested in how you defended the passages. If you believed the text referred to all Christians, how did you explain the problem of miracles not being performed today?
LOL. Are you really asking your opponent to tell you which chess move to make next?
Sure, you can obfuscate, rationalize, twist, and spin the text any way you want, in an attempt to save it from refutation
Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
| 1. | Even most Christianities that do not feature a Hell of everlasting torment would still argue that becoming the right sort of Christian (theirs, natch) is pretty bloody important. |
You're mistaking me for a pawn again Christian.
Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
Mary was Jewish.
Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
The problem isn't "literal" vs. "metaphorical/allegorical/mystical/etc." interpretation. It's that interpretation--a subjective, un-verifiable, unfalsifiable, "eye-of-the-beholder" process is necessary at all.
Historically, Christianity has been based on the following principles, about as far back as we can go:
1) There is only One True God.
2) There is only One True Understanding of this God (who "He" is, what "He" wants, etc., i.e. "sound doctrinetm")
3) It is necessary to believe in the One True God and have the One True Understanding of "Him" and "His" nature, commandments, etc.--otherwise you're a Vile Heretic
4) If you do not meet condition #3 within fairly close tolerances, you are not "Saved," and it is vitally important that you be "Saved."[1]
1. Even most Christianities that do not feature a Hell of everlasting torment would still argue that becoming the right sort of Christian (theirs, natch) is pretty bloody important.
Our earliest Christian writings, the authentic epistles of Paul, are filled with thundering denunciations of other Christianities than his own (such as the "Judaizers," and mystics who used the "gifts of the Spirit" in ways he disapproved). Likewise for the other Epistles, and Jesus as portrayed in the canonical Gospels. Nowhere do we find room for a whole lot of squishy interpretation or toleration of the diversity of views that necessarily results. Christianity isn't like Hinduism, where nobody would ever even think it mattered whether or not Hanuman really carried the mountain, because it's a story about his loyalty, dedication, strength, and pragmatism. And since it's never even asserted as The One, True Truth With a Great Big Capital-T that you have to believe, it's perfectly OK to treat it as a story and interpret it in different ways. Heck, its OK to worship Krishna or Sita or any of hundreds of other deities if Hanuman isn't your flavor of cuppa. In Roman-era Paganism, the gods and goddesses weren't fussy. Call him Mercury, Hermes, Thoth, or Djehuti--the god himself was fine with it whichever way. You could even kit-bash deities together--e.g. "Amun-Re" or "Ptah-Sokar-Osiris," or "Serapis."
So the problem isn't "Waaah, you atheists take everything so literally!" It's that you Christians expect everyone to accept the One, True Understanding of your One, True God even though you, and your "interpretations" of your One, True Holy Text are all over the map.
You don't get to say "Believe the right things, or elsee" followed by "Well, it's all a matter of interpretation." The very facts that: the texts are open to a range of interpretation, that extensive scholarship in textual criticism, dead languages, ancient culture and idiom, history, mythology, etc. are necessary to grapple with those texts in an intelligent manner falsify the claim that there is a One, True Omnimax God who is very picky about what humans believe and practice, who revealed the One, True Way through One, True Book. Or at least, it would prove that such a deity--requiring that we get exact right answers on the Celestial Quiz, then blindfolding us with a veil of subjective interpretation and forcing us to try to pin the tail on his invisible ass under threats of torture (by his human minions now, or by him after we die)--is a gigantic douchebag. And how many Christians would admit to worshiping a gigantic douchebag?
Edit: That said, I can point to a few counter-examples, Christians who don't hold to the "One, True" aspects, and for whom open-ended interpretation of "Scripture" (and for that matter, atheism, paganism, etc.) wouldn't be as much of a problem. People like Fred Clark at Slactivist (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist), or Bishop Spong. But even they would argue that their Christianities are at least in some sense "more correct" than fundamentalist or traditional-hierarchical (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) Christianities. Also, progressive, open-minded, tolerant Christianities like theirs are a bright, shiny, new modern invention that relies on ignoring pretty much the entire history of Christianities, from Paul's onward, to justify their openness.
Mary was Jewish.
Well, I guess that means no heaven for that little missy! (Church lady voice.)
You're mistaking me for a pawn again Christian.
No, I asked you a question and you didn't answer it.
Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
Do you interpret the resurrection, hell, the second coming, and creation of the universe by Yahweh literally? As I said before, you can (as many fundies do) attempt to re-interpret any passages, of any alleged holy book, any way you want in order to justify continuance of "faith" and/or belief (this is why there is no one true Christianity, only Christianities pl). So what. That's what every religionist/apologist does when they face refutation. And that is why faith is useless for determining fact from fiction.
If you think the Christian interpretation of the bible (that miracles are for today) is mistaken then welcome to the world of Christian sects who can't agree with each b/c your bible disagrees with itself. Making the assumption that the bible is "the word of God", from the start, is the main problem anyways. Stop beating around the bush and get to your point.
I think the 'unknowable-ness' that Kcrady would be alluding to would be the 'knowing what to believe is true' part. The argument, I think, is that the central themes of the bible cannot be known as true. If you've got a book that's got, say, 20 claims regarding objective reality in it, you'd be hard pressed to say that any of those claims are correct if, say, 25% of the claims are strictly demonstrably false, 10% of the claims are vague and/or confusing, and 50% of the claims are principally unknowable. Unless, of course, you look at other sources to validate or invalidate those claims.You don't get to say "Believe the right things, or elsee" followed by "Well, it's all a matter of interpretation." The very facts that: the texts are open to a range of interpretation, that extensive scholarship in textual criticism, dead languages, ancient culture and idiom, history, mythology, etc. are necessary to grapple with those texts in an intelligent manner falsify the claim that there is a One, True Omnimax God who is very picky about what humans believe and practice, who revealed the One, True Way through One, True Book. Or at least, it would prove that such a deity--requiring that we get exact right answers on the Celestial Quiz, then blindfolding us with a veil of subjective interpretation and forcing us to try to pin the tail on his invisible ass under threats of torture (by his human minions now, or by him after we die)--is a gigantic douchebag. And how many Christians would admit to worshiping a gigantic douchebag?
That's just absolute nonsense. You're telling me that, because there are some passages in the bible that are difficult to understand, or difficult to know how to accurately interpret, the central claims of Christianity are falsified and the central theme of the bible is un-knowable? You're a smart person, but even a pretty dumb person can read the bible and know with absolute certainty that it teaches:
* there is one God
* God created the world and everthing and everyone in it
* God gave humans rules to live by, and we broke them from day one and continue to do so
* God promised a saviour
* Jesus was that saviour
* Jesus died and was resurrected
*No one comes to God but through Jesus
Believing those things...diferent kettle of fish. Clearly.
My questions, on the other hand, clearly weren't rhetorical. And you didn't answer them, choosing instead to re-state your perfectly clear position.
I think the 'unknowable-ness' that Kcrady would be alluding to would be the 'knowing what to believe is true' part. The argument, I think, is that the central themes of the bible cannot be known as true. If you've got a book that's got, say, 20 claims regarding objective reality in it, you'd be hard pressed to say that any of those claims are correct if, say, 25% of the claims are strictly demonstrably false, 10% of the claims are vague and/or confusing, and 50% of the claims are principally unknowable. Unless, of course, you look at other sources to validate or invalidate those claims.You don't get to say "Believe the right things, or elsee" followed by "Well, it's all a matter of interpretation." The very facts that: the texts are open to a range of interpretation, that extensive scholarship in textual criticism, dead languages, ancient culture and idiom, history, mythology, etc. are necessary to grapple with those texts in an intelligent manner falsify the claim that there is a One, True Omnimax God who is very picky about what humans believe and practice, who revealed the One, True Way through One, True Book. Or at least, it would prove that such a deity--requiring that we get exact right answers on the Celestial Quiz, then blindfolding us with a veil of subjective interpretation and forcing us to try to pin the tail on his invisible ass under threats of torture (by his human minions now, or by him after we die)--is a gigantic douchebag. And how many Christians would admit to worshiping a gigantic douchebag?
That's just absolute nonsense. You're telling me that, because there are some passages in the bible that are difficult to understand, or difficult to know how to accurately interpret, the central claims of Christianity are falsified and the central theme of the bible is un-knowable? You're a smart person, but even a pretty dumb person can read the bible and know with absolute certainty that it teaches:
* there is one God
* God created the world and everthing and everyone in it
* God gave humans rules to live by, and we broke them from day one and continue to do so
* God promised a saviour
* Jesus was that saviour
* Jesus died and was resurrected
*No one comes to God but through Jesus
Believing those things...diferent kettle of fish. Clearly.
Where does Jesus ask ME to do that? I must have missed the memo.
Perhaps interpretation isn't quite the right word to use when it comes to understanding the intent of a biblical passage, because I do not agree that biblical passages are subject only to an "eye of the beholder" process. Passages are examined using historical, geographical and cultural context. Some passages even blind Freddy can see are figurative, some passages even blind Freddy can see are meant to be taken literally, but some passages are not so clear and require a lot of careful study.
A problem, you say? Not to me. But I believe God exists.
Perhaps interpretation isn't quite the right word to use when it comes to understanding the intent of a biblical passage, because I do not agree that biblical passages are subject only to an "eye of the beholder" process. Passages are examined using historical, geographical and cultural context. Some passages even blind Freddy can see are figurative, some passages even blind Freddy can see are meant to be taken literally, but some passages are not so clear and require a lot of careful study.
A problem, you say? Not to me. But I believe God exists.
The thing is, people have been carefully studying those texts for centuries. As far as I can tell, the amount of the Bible that even most sides can agree are figurative or literal is very small, while the parts that are "not so clear" are almost all of it. How many more centuries of careful study are required before men can benefit from the holy word of the kindly, loving, caring god who wants only the best for all mankind?
My questions, on the other hand, clearly weren't rhetorical. And you didn't answer them, choosing instead to re-state your perfectly clear position.
Oh, I answered the question just fine (and in doing so I anticipated the "Oh, you were just interpreting those passages wrong" attempt, which is the all too common default rationalization from just about every apologist I've encountered. It's the, "I assume the bible is the word of God. So any other interpretation is false" fallacy). You just didn't like the answer I gave b/c of this anticipation. The bigger question is, why are you accepting this one ancient textual account on faith?
Again, sure you can attempt to spin and rationalize ANY bible passage that makes your worldview inconvenient, untenable, and/or uncomfortable. But that is no different from what every religion on the planet does with their alleged 'holy' books when they are in danger of refutation. How unimpressive! Make a big fat assumption about what an old book says, and then go about defending it at all costs b/c you've invested yourself, and your surroundings, so heavily that it would be social suicide to get out. Smart!
"Difficult passages" isn't the first issue. Demonstrating how you think you know your alleged holy book is from a God (whatever that means) is.
Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
We're back to a question that I ask all the time but never get an answer for.
Why do Xtians fight tooth and nail to claim the bible means exactly the opposite of what it says?
We're back to a question that I ask all the time but never get an answer for.
Why do Xtians fight tooth and nail to claim the bible means exactly the opposite of what it says?
Firstly, what's with 'Xtians' instead of Christians? I see it here often.
Secondly, why do you think the bible, as a document, should be studied without adhering to the usual rules of context that are used to help aid understanding?
Where does Jesus (as opposed to YHWH) command his followers to slay non-believers? For that matter, when and how often did YHWH command that? The only place I can recall is during the conquest of Canaan. Are there other places where this is commanded, Old Testament or New?
We're back to a question that I ask all the time but never get an answer for.
Why do Xtians fight tooth and nail to claim the bible means exactly the opposite of what it says?
Firstly, what's with 'Xtians' instead of Christians? I see it here often.
Secondly, why do you think the bible, as a document, should be studied without adhering to the usual rules of context that are used to help aid understanding?
You did not answer the question though. Instead posing your own question.
In what context is it okay to bring non-believers before Jesus and slay them, as he demands you do? Perhaps once you answer that question, you will understand why many of us could care less for your "context" escape hatch.
| 1. | Unlike Jesus, though, my uncle had the excuse of serving in the military during the Vietnam War and got his brains scrambled before he became a hippie dude and started drinking wine and telling random stories. |
Yes, NGFM. Very easy to mock. But I notice that at no point have you actually discussed the methodology used by biblical scholars to determine meaning and context, or attempted to refute this methodology.I mock because the entire question is based on a silly premise.
As I pointed out very early in this discussion, the central message of the bible could hardly be clearer. That central message is the one you have a real issue with.Emphasis mine
Sure. The central message of the bible is that God created us to live in relationship with Him, but that relationship has been severed by sin, firstly at the garden of eden and then ever since. God can't dwell with sin, but He promised a way for the relationship to be restored. That way was Jesus, who died on a cross avut was resurrected. He will return as God's judge and all those who have not trusted in Him will perish.As I pointed out very early in this discussion, the central message of the bible could hardly be clearer. That central message is the one you have a real issue with.Emphasis mine
What does the bolded sentence mean? Could you restate that more specifically please?
The JWs taught that the central message of the Bible was the vindication of god's sovereignty through the establishment of his kingdom on Earth after the fall of man (via Adam and Eve's sin). Is this what you believe it to be, magicmiles? Or is it something else?
My questions, on the other hand, clearly weren't rhetorical. And you didn't answer them, choosing instead to re-state your perfectly clear position.
Oh, I answered the question just fine (and in doing so I anticipated the "Oh, you were just interpreting those passages wrong" attempt, which is the all too common default rationalization from just about every apologist I've encountered. It's the, "I assume the bible is the word of God. So any other interpretation is false" fallacy). You just didn't like the answer I gave b/c of this anticipation. The bigger question is, why are you accepting this one ancient textual account on faith?
Again, sure you can attempt to spin and rationalize ANY bible passage that makes your worldview inconvenient, untenable, and/or uncomfortable. But that is no different from what every religion on the planet does with their alleged 'holy' books when they are in danger of refutation. How unimpressive! Make a big fat assumption about what an old book says, and then go about defending it at all costs b/c you've invested yourself, and your surroundings, so heavily that it would be social suicide to get out. Smart!
"Difficult passages" isn't the first issue. Demonstrating how you think you know your alleged holy book is from a God (whatever that means) is.
I just carefully read your post at reply number 28 and also the one quoted here, and I'm quite surethat you have not, in fact, answered this:
Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
Lets see if you can manage it this time? Here's a handy hint - ridiculing the question is not the same as answering it.
As I pointed out very early in this discussion, the central message of the bible could hardly be clearer. That central message is the one you have a real issue with.
Sure. The central message of the bible is that God created us to live in relationship with Him, but that relationship has been severed by sin, firstly at the garden of eden and then ever since. God can't dwell with sin, but He promised a way for the relationship to be restored. That way was Jesus, who died on a cross avut was resurrected. He will return as God's judge and all those who have not trusted in Him will perish.As I pointed out very early in this discussion, the central message of the bible could hardly be clearer. That central message is the one you have a real issue with.Emphasis mine
What does the bolded sentence mean? Could you restate that more specifically please?
Do you believe any of that? No. That drives all discussion/disgareement you and all atheists have about the bible.
To suggest that the fact some passages require careful consideration and lead to disagreement is a reason for disbelief is not true. The dis-belief was already there.
I don't expect for one second that, even if I could have you all concede that some passages do not mean what you claim they do, you would suddenly come to faith in God.
However, I will all the same defend the bible and the methodology used to help us best understand many of the passages.
Magicmiles has a central message that he can project onto the Bible. Other people do too. It's a way of avoiding responsibility.
Magicmiles has a central message that he can project onto the Bible. Other people do too. It's a way of avoiding responsibility.
Have you read the bible start to finish? Did you see any central message shining through?
I wasn't asking you. I've found asking you questions to be a frustrating exercise.
I didn't ask you if you had an agenda. I asked if you saw any central message.
So, you didn't?
Sure. The central message of the bible is that God created us to live in relationship with Him, but that relationship has been severed by sin, firstly at the garden of eden and then ever since. God can't dwell with sin, but He promised a way for the relationship to be restored. That way was Jesus, who died on a cross avut was resurrected. He will return as God's judge and all those who have not trusted in Him will perish.As I pointed out very early in this discussion, the central message of the bible could hardly be clearer. That central message is the one you have a real issue with.Emphasis mine
What does the bolded sentence mean? Could you restate that more specifically please?
Do you believe any of that? No. That drives all discussion/disgareement you and all atheists have about the bible.
To suggest that the fact some passages require careful consideration and lead to disagreement is a reason for disbelief is not true. The dis-belief was already there.
I don't expect for one second that, even if I could have you all concede that some passages do not mean what you claim they do, you would suddenly come to faith in God.
However, I will all the same defend the bible and the methodology used to help us best understand many of the passages.
I wasn't asking you. I've found asking you questions to be a frustrating exercise.
Only b/c you assumed that if I didn't answer a question in the way you wanted me to, then the answer wasn't valid.
Thanks Screwtape,Where does Jesus ask ME to do that? I must have missed the memo.
Hi, holybuckets. Nice to see you back. To what is your post responding? The OP? Please clarify. It will help us answer your question.
The problem here is that the "central message" of Christianity, or any religion for that matter, depends on the interpretation people give to their holy texts. I've read virtually all of the Old Testament, and I can honestly say that if there was a "central message" to it, it was that the only reasons humans existed was to obey YHWH slavishly and in every particular, and if they didn't, bad things would happen to them and their country. Oddly enough, at the hands of invaders/conquerors (the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Romans), which weren't believers in the Jewish religion. Time and time again, Israel was conquered and the inhabitants enslaved, and by those who didn't believe in their god. In other words, YHWH was either not willing to lift a hand to spare his disobedient people from the horrors of being conquered, even when it meant that they were exiled from their promised land, or he actively connived to cause the invasions.
I suppose you can call that a relationship. You can also call a person living with an abusive spouse a relationship. Doesn't mean I'd want a part of either one.
I wasn't asking you. I've found asking you questions to be a frustrating exercise.
Only b/c you assumed that if I didn't answer a question in the way you wanted me to, then the answer wasn't valid.
Humour me. Link to the section of your post(s) that you think has answered my questions. Lets throw it open for other to decide.
I haven't looked very carefully at what JW's believe. My understanding (which may be flawed) of their beliefs is that they combine some elements of biblical teaching with some additions of their own which are apprently imparted by angels. I do know that they believe some things which go directly against what the bible teaches.
Thanks Screwtape,Where does Jesus ask ME to do that? I must have missed the memo.
Hi, holybuckets. Nice to see you back. To what is your post responding? The OP? Please clarify. It will help us answer your question.
The post is the original post: "Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews."
First of all, as a Christian, Jesus never commanded me to do miracles. I have a couple of card tricks, but that's about it. Secondly, 1 Peter says to give answers "for the reason of hope'.. unfortunately for you guys....... well, let's just say, I don't have to give you an answer... and finally, in giving atheists answers, Matthew 10:14 says: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." So, in answer to the original poster... there's your answer!
Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews.
I am betting that absolutely none (zero) of you Christians will be able, or willing to adequately finish this challenge. My prediction is 2 fold (for those that actually take the challenge - because most of you believers have no confidence in your beliefs and won't take the challenge). But for those who do, you will either...
1) Obfuscate or avoid the tough questions and eventually give up or leave, or...
2) End the discussion by saying something like, "Well, I just have faith."
Neither of these are adequate responses but if you wish to actually do what your bible tells you, then please bring your A game and demonstrate (not just claim) how you know your deity Yahweh is actually real.
In respect of the performing of miracles, my understanding has always been that this was a specific gift provided to the early apostles as a means of establishing the early church. Seemed to work, too.
What was your understanding of these passages back when you were a Christian apologist?
Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
And here's the part I want to talk about. My disbelief in God is not in any way based on the accuracy or lack thereof, of the bible. It's not based on empirical evidence. It's not because everything I know about science indicates that a god is not necessary for the existence of the universe, or of humanity. None of these things are why, although they all serve to reinforce and support my disbelief.
I don't believe in god. Or God. Or Allah, Thor, Ba'al, Isis, Zeus or Aphrodite - I'm a gender neutral atheist, I disbelieve in god and goddesses equally. This is beyond my control. If i woke up tomorrow determined to believe in god, I could fake it, and probably fake it well if circumstance required it - I used to believe so I know the routine. Here's the problem - if I somehow turned out to be completely wrong and god does, in fact, exist, and bears any resemblance to god of the bible, he would know I'd been faking and I'd fry anyway. :o
Do you really believe us when we say we don't believe in god, God, or gods? Sometimes I think you don't quite believe how much we're not kidding (you or ourselves) about our lack of belief. It's not a light switch that can be turned on and off at will - either you believe or you don't.
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
Faith is obviously a personal experience, and I find its next to impossible to try and explain my own personal faith.
I see the same evidence regarding the existence of the world as you (although I am not good with science, I understand the basic premise behind the big bang, evolution and natural selection). I look at the world around me. Not just the physical world, but the behaviour of human. When I think about it deeply, as I have many times, I always arrive at the same conclusions - the biblical account of how this world came to be makes sense. The alternate theories on how this world came to be simply don't.
Does the bible make complete sesne to me? Of course not. But on the whole, I find it compelling.
For me to deny God's existence would be dishonest. I know what I believe.
I will be completely honest here, and then sit back and count the down-votes:
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
Take care.
Lying about other peoples' thoughts doesn't seem to bug you.
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.You really shouldn't project your own personal beliefs onto other people. It's presumptuous, to say the least. How would you react if someone said to you, "I believe that, deep down, no Christian, including you, really believes in their god"? I think you would find it to be patently ridiculous, at the very least, because they're presuming to say that they know you better than you know yourself. Yet that is exactly what you're saying about the atheists here - that you know them better than they know themselves, at least as far as "god-belief" goes.
No, I won't. It's what I honestly believe.
Could I be wrong? Sure.
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.You really shouldn't project your own personal beliefs onto other people. It's presumptuous, to say the least.
How would you react if someone said to you, "I believe that, deep down, no Christian, including you, really believes in their god"?
What makes you think your god has actually made himself known to the atheists on this forum, or ever will?
You admit you could be wrong, but proclaim that you will never accept correction on the point. Strange.
I will be completely honest here, and then sit back and count the down-votes:
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
| 1. | Or however you want to define "God" so that it's beyond the reach of observation. |
Thanks Median, Jesus was talking to his disciples in John 14:12-13. He was not talking to me, I was not there. Of course atheists do not accept this, but His disciples actually did great things. Look at the Christian world today, how big it is, and it started with 12 men. So, I would say that Jesus was right on - on that one.Thanks Screwtape,Where does Jesus ask ME to do that? I must have missed the memo.
Hi, holybuckets. Nice to see you back. To what is your post responding? The OP? Please clarify. It will help us answer your question.
The post is the original post: "Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews."
First of all, as a Christian, Jesus never commanded me to do miracles. I have a couple of card tricks, but that's about it. Secondly, 1 Peter says to give answers "for the reason of hope'.. unfortunately for you guys....... well, let's just say, I don't have to give you an answer... and finally, in giving atheists answers, Matthew 10:14 says: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." So, in answer to the original poster... there's your answer!
Have you read the passages? Jesus IS (allegedly) commanding you to do the works he did (and greater). He states:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father."- Gospel of John 14:12-13 NIV
Now, why have you assumed the bible is the "word of God"? And why are you trying to defend it against all criticism and/or refutation?
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
Take care.
I wasn't sure you were going to reply at all. Now that you have, I'm not quite sure where to go from here...
Median, these are the questions I have been waiting for you to answer:Just so we're clear: are you saying that your understanding of the passage is the only correct one? Do you interpret everything literally?
But don't bother any further with it. I know longer wish to discuss anything with you. I find you quite unpleasant.
I see the same evidence regarding the existence of the world as you (although I am not good with science, I understand the basic premise behind the big bang, evolution and natural selection). I look at the world around me. Not just the physical world, but the behaviour of human. When I think about it deeply, as I have many times, I always arrive at the same conclusions - the biblical account of how this world came to be makes sense. The alternate theories on how this world came to be simply don't.
Does the bible make complete sesne to me? Of course not. But on the whole, I find it compelling.
I will be completely honest here, and then sit back and count the down-votes:
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
Take care.
I will be completely honest here, and then sit back and count the down-votes: I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
Now I have a question for you. Please take your time with this, and don't rush to answer it. How would it affect you if it turned out that you were wrong about what we believe?
Do you mean, if it was somehow demonstrated beyond all doubt that you really do have zero belief in God?
Mainly, Romans 1: 19-20
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
Given that it's his proposition, he needs to be able to demonstrate a way to verify its truth value. If he can't, then it's not a useful belief.
Now I have a question for you. Please take your time with this, and don't rush to answer it. How would it affect you if it turned out that you were wrong about what we believe?
Do you mean, if it was somehow demonstrated beyond all doubt that you really do have zero belief in God?
Now I have a question for you. Please take your time with this, and don't rush to answer it. How would it affect you if it turned out that you were wrong about what we believe?
Do you mean, if it was somehow demonstrated beyond all doubt that you really do have zero belief in God?
I can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that I have zero belief in God. Follow me around for a year or two and you'll observe absolutely zero speech or actions from me that would lead you to think I might believe in God.
Obviously I can't verify it. I don't anticipate that, even if an atheist member here wanted to step forward and declare that in some part of their being they suspected God was a reality, they would feel comfortable to do so. There was an OP from a regular atheist poster about a year ago which made that clear to me. (the way the OP was responded to made it clear to me)As I'm sure you know, just because you believe something doesn't make it true. That goes for anything you believe; unless you can support and verify it with something that exists in reality and isn't subject to interpretation, there's no reason to consider it having any more validity than any other unsupported opinion.
I wonder how magicmiles would feel if scores of people believed, deep down, that he was sexually attracted to little boys, and would not accept any of his actions/behaviour/protests to the contrary as evidence that they might be wrong. A belief held by faith alone. How would that be, for him?
It occurs to me that mm's belief that we're all theists is exactly like his god. It's all in his delusional head.
I'd be hurt. I'd know it wasn't true. I'd try and get to the bottom of why they believed that.
I'd be hurt. I'd know it wasn't true. I'd try and get to the bottom of why they believed that.
I already told you why they believed that. Faith.
Well, if they told you that for one reason or another, they would never change their minds on the topic, that temptation might get a little stronger wouldn't it?
That line could be used to justify all manner of trolling...just sayin'.
Sure, but excuse me for thinking that being accused of believing (on some level) that God exists is not as offensive as being accused of a sexual attraction to little boys.Of course you don't think it is - you think it's a good thing to believe in your god. But believe me, it's pretty offensive to say that someone believes something when they state that they don't.
I think there's more to belief than the mind. But more on that later.
.....The offense factor is definitely different, but the frustration factor in dealing with people who have permanently made up their minds about you without knowing a thing about you is the same.
I guess so. And what a boring old forum it would be if such problems didn't arise. Gives us all something to do.
Thanks Median, Jesus was talking to his disciples in John 14:12-13. He was not talking to me, I was not there. Of course atheists do not accept this, but His disciples actually did great things. Look at the Christian world today, how big it is, and it started with 12 men. So, I would say that Jesus was right on - on that one.
.....The offense factor is definitely different, but the frustration factor in dealing with people who have permanently made up their minds about you without knowing a thing about you is the same.I guess so. And what a boring old forum it would be if such problems didn't arise. Gives us all something to do.
Actually, if one side (or both) is flatly refusing to change their mind; refusing to accept there is even any possibility of changing their mind.....then so far as I am concerned there is no longer any point in conversing with that person.
There's little or no point in me trying to understand their position. Certainly there is no point trying to understand why they hold that position. All I need to know is how their position may or may not affect me.
Its like arguing with a locked door - it may be mildly interesting to know who built the lock, why the door is locked, or what is behind that door, but at the end of the day if that door is impassable then my focus has to be on how I circumvent that door. Does it mean I have to sit in front of it forever, or do I go somewhere else? A better analogy might be arguing with a bomb-on-wheels.....it's irrelevant WHY this bomb may want to blow me up, all I need to know is how fast it goes, and what damage it will do.
When a mind is entirely impervious to change, its motives are moot. All that matters is how its opinions will affect the world. And in great part, that may be a conversation best held without the input or knowledge of the unchangeable mind.
Hi there holybuckets, welcome to Logic 101.
Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
We'll move on to Rule #2 when you understand this one.
God can't dwell with sin
Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Has atheism been proved?
Has it been proved that is NO GOD?
Proof of no god (I warn you that this is quite long and you may not be able to concentrate for the whole time required.)
Any claim for the existence of any god (a remarkable concept) has to be supported by remarkable evidence. To date I have seen no evidence for gods and neither has anyone else.
Earlier (and perhaps elsewhere on this forum) there was the question of the existence of Santa Claus. Just to recap, the legend is that Santa Claus delivers one present to every person on the planet (6 Billion) in the period of the morning of 25th December. Think how many presents per second that is (if it helps there are only ~32 Million seconds in a year.) No one here is going to say that this is proof of Santa Claus; all will say that it that the unlikelihood is so great that it amounts to proof of Santa Claus' non-existence.
However, if I made the same statement about a god, theists would say that a god could deliver that many presents in the same amount of time and argue that this is proof of god, or is, at least, one of his attributes.
Theists claim that a god is exempt from the constraints of space and time but do not seem to think that Santa Claus might be. There is the same (lack of) evidence for each statement. So why do the theists not accept Santa Claus?
It is man who has exempted gods from the bounds of time and space. It is an attribute given without evidence. Mankind now has a creature that not only can be everywhere, do everything and know everything, but we have one whose existence cannot be shown or even inferred, because its existence enters and leaves the only dimensions we may perceive. Why should the existence of gods be inferred or even credited?
On the other hand, if existence outside the bounds of time and space is accepted then this attribute should be comprehensible, demonstrable and repeatable. Once we comprehend, it is no longer supernatural. However, our having such knowledge would not mean that we become as gods, it would mean that gods become as us. This is “The god of the gaps.”
It may strike you at this stage that people believe in gods because they cannot understand them - this seems very strange.
If we may never comprehend gods, then nothing they say or do can be comprehensible and this alone should be a reason not to worship them. We know the effects of weather but the weather system is chaotic (although governed by space and time) yet all its effects are explicable, if not precisely predictable, yet we do not worship weather. Thus we will not worship something we can broadly comprehend but do worship something we do not.
We now have reached a point at which we can say that there is no evidence at all for gods. We can say that gods’ attributes are man made; we can say that the attributes are invented and incomprehensible, yet people still think that there might be gods. However, based on similar evidence, people are absolutely sure there is no Santa Claus.
These 2 ideas cannot exist side by side, yet some hold that they do. Those who accept gods are thus voluntarily or involuntarily deluded.
NEXT PARTS
My estimates:I know you pulled these figures out of the air but basically, you say there is an evens chance of their being a deity. You think there is an even chance of there being such a thing as a ‘god’! I know priests who aren’t as sure as that!
Interactive god: 0.0000000000000000001%
Caring god: 0.00000000001%
Any old god: 50% because I have no reason to lean either way--it just does not matter.
See my third quote below and remind yourself of my earlier example about my saying there is a unicorn in the forest, and your not believing it – i.e. you are indicating there is no unicorn in the forest. Yet you think – on the same evidence – that there is an evens chance of there being a deity. Where is your statistical reasoning? Where is your critical thought?
On with the show : )
Disproving god:
Part I
Gods exist only as ignorance but there is a perfectly good word for ignorance – it is ‘ignorance’.
Three quotes to start us off:
(i) “Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it would stop. Just because science doesn’t know everything, it doesn’t mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.” Dara O'Briain
(ii) “If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”? Penn Jillette,
(iii) A: "I don't know why X happens but I suggest it is caused by the metal contracting as the temperature drops, which allows air to enter. I will do a few experiments at varying temperatures."
B: "I don't know why X happens but I suggest it is a goblin entering the laboratory at night and releasing the seal. Someone told me that goblins do that sort of thing, so I don't need to check anything."
A: "???"
B: Well if neither of us know, either of us could be correct."
- Graybeard.[/i]
It is a strange conceit, but when a Westerner talks of “god” he speaks usually of the Judeo-Christian deity and dismisses all others. Classically, the atheist just dismisses one more god.
The Christian does not think that Obassi Osaw and Obassi Nsi of the Ekoi of Nigeria are real – why might that be? The Ekoi know that in the beginning there were two gods, Obassi Osaw and Obassi Nsi. The two gods created everything together. Then Obassi Osaw decided to live in the sky and Obassi Nsi decided to live on the earth. Obassi Osaw gives light and moisture, but also brings drought and storms. Obassi Nsi nurtures, and takes the people back to him when they die. One day, long ago, Obassi Osaw made a man and a woman, and placed them upon the earth. They knew nothing so Obassi Nsi taught them about planting and hunting to get food.
The American Christian dismisses the Native American deities as not being the way to salvation. Why?
How many creation myths have you read? How many do you accept? Why do you reject the others? Are they quite unbelievable? Or is it that you were brought up in a Christian country by Christian parents? Children are strange creatures – I know, I was one – they believe adults… even superstitious ones.
So what chance Obassi Osaw and Obassi Nsi existing?[1]Look at the third quote.
Taking the Judeo-Christian god – we have to set him on a par with every other god. Even those who wrote the fiction of his biography agree that there are other gods and, in that book, He Himself admits it. He puts Himself forward only as the tribal god of the Israelites. He does not say that He is the be-all and end-all, only that you should believe that – His troops flee before a human sacrifice to Chemosh (another god). Yet how many of his followers agree there is a Baal-Haddad (more of whom later) or Marduk, or Astarte?
Think of it – you take a holiday to Europe and visit a country whose national religion is taken from a small Amazonian tribe – you hear the whole story and think it is amusing garbage. Yet you return and are in a country where the religion is taken from a small Middle-Eastern tribe and is no more than amusing garbage?
See how easy it is to not believe in gods and dismiss them as fiction? And rightly too. At this stage, on the balance of probabilities, there are no gods.
Part II
OK. Let’s say you meet a god. How would you know it’s a god? It would have to do something supernatural, right? So, the god, being benevolent tells you how it is done. You can’t do it, but then on the other hand you can’t fly like a bird or stay submerged for a lifetime like a fish. You understand… The event is no longer supernatural, it is natural; the god is no longer a god.
Time for another quote:
(iv) “Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
We therefore see that a god is the embodiment of our own ignorance. They exist only in our ignorance.
Then there is the problem of energy. If a god is to turn water into wine, it will need energy – there is no way around this. What is the source?
And then there is the universe. Where did that come from? – If you’re thinking “some god” you did not read my first quote – go back and do it.
You trotted out, “God does not want to be found” This is quite ridiculous. If God does not want to be discovered, does he want people pointing out evidence of his possible existence? Have you considered that the unicorn <insert any mythical being/god> simply does not want to be found? Where shall we stop when it comes to believing anything that any mind can think up?
(v) 2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
And yet you suggest God does not want to be found? I thought you were supposed to be intelligent… or, failing that, at least have read a bible.
At this stage, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that there are no deities.
Part III
What has God ever done?
Can you think of anything?
No. neither can I.
You know what else has never done anything? A unicorn.
Which one shall we believe in?
Do we understand enough of the universe to know that there is no need for gods? Yes. Don’t believe me, then read some of Dr Stephen Hawking’s books or look at his mathematical work. [vi] “Hawking's latest comments go beyond those laid out in his 2010 book, ‘The Grand Design’, in which he asserted that there is no need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe.”
That there is no sign of a god, despite mankind having sought evidence of a god – any god - for over 40,000 years, now places the proof firmly into the “Believe in gods and you’ll believe in anything” category. It is not for nothing that in any justice system, “God told me to do it.” is not a defence.
Part IV
At this stage, and despite my warnings that God is no different from other gods, you will have thought of a few Bible verses that you vaguely remember. OK, let’s look for evidence of the Judeo-Christian god in the Bible. You may claim that parts of the Bible are in fact historically correct. One or two might be but these are generally restricted to small unelaborated ideas not involving deities or prophets and, in any case, lack detail.
The last time the god Yahweh allegedly appeared to man was on Mount Sinai: (bear with me on this one – it is, of necessity, long but it shows what charlatans the authors of the Bible were.)
Exodus 19 Has God telling Moses to gather the people at the foot of Mount Sinai to see God appear in a cloud. So Moses goes off and tells them this and they gather there. God appears on the top of the mountain and calls Moses up to tell him to go down and bring Aaron with him
Ex:19:25: So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
Ex:20 Starts with “And God spake all these words, saying, [A lot of Laws]” Either the scene is (i) the top of the mountain with God and Moses or (ii) Moses is in the camp and speaking
Ex:20-Ex:23 [A lot of Laws.]
Ex:24 God then invites Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel up Sinai, although “And Moses alone shall come near the LORD: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him.”
Ex:24:3: And Moses goes down the mountain and tells everyone who agree Yahweh is their god
…
Ex:24:9: Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Ex:24:10: And they saw the God (Elohim) of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Ex:24:11: And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God (Elohim), and did eat and drink.
Note that at this point, (i) THEY (Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ) saw the God of Israel. (ii) THEY are up the mountain
Ex:24:12: God then invites Moses the rest of the way up to give him “tables of stone, and a law, and commandments” Moses goes off ( Ex:24:13: And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.) with Joshua (Who is Joshua? Was he invited? Why Joshua?) telling the others that unless they have business down below they should wait until he and Joshua return.
…and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights. (OK, where’s Joshua?)
Ex: 25to 31 More details of how to worship and build and run a tabernacle with Aaron in charge Ex:27:21: In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel.
Ending with Ex:31:18: And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Cut to the Israelite camp:
Ex:32:1: And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, (who inexplicably seems to have come down) and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
Now bear in mind that Aaron has just seen God and has been chosen as the head of the Yahweh priesthood… so what does he do?
Ex:32:2: And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
…
Ex:32:4: And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Ex:32:5: And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
Ex:32:6: And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
Cut back to Moses and God: God is upset. He has seen the golden calf. He tells Moses to sort it out. Moses and Joshua hurry down with the tablets. They see the naked dancing and the calf. Moses loses it and breaks the tablets and smashes the calf.
Aaron gives a lame excuse saying that the people had insisted and Moses has the pagans slaughtered. (but not Aaron)
Apart from the facts that
(i) nobody is sure whether Moses is up a mountain or at the bottom,
(ii) disregarding the fact that Moses refers to himself in his own book as “Moses”,
(iii) setting aside the variety of people who might or might not have been allowed to see God and/or approached Him, What was Aaron thinking of?
We are asked to believe that Aaron, who has been appointed God’s Priest, and various others, actually saw God and then, ignoring, “Ex:20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” went down to the camp and decided that they needed to create their own false god. Perhaps he was responding to a particular popular call?
Why would that be and why a calf? In Canaanite myths preserved at Ugarit ( ca. 14th-13th century BCE), we learn that Baal Hadad (Adad) could take on the form of a bull. He was the god of thunderstorms and rains. In one myth he mounted his sister, Anat, who taking on the form of a cow, later gave birth to a bull calf. The myths note that storm clouds were called ADAD'S CALVES. We note that God made himself manifest to the nation at Mount Sinai in the form a great storm cloud full of thunder and lighting.
Ex:24:15: And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount.
Ex:24:16: And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
Ex:24:17: And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
Ex:24:18: And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
Had a Ugaritic Canaanite (for example Aaron) been at Sinai, he would have understood the storm cloud to be ADAD'S CALF. The calf they produce is associated with storm clouds. I am of the persuasion that it is Canaanite religious beliefs dating from Late Bronze Age times (14-13th centuries BCE), that lies behind Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000 BCE) Israel's worship of the Golden Calf, But what of
“Ex:32:4: And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods [Elohim], O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”?
Well, there never was a period of captivity – there is nothing in Egyptian records to show that there was. So trying to link a 400 year captivity in Egypt and worship of Egyptian bulls is wrong. But the writer added it anyway as he has already given the story.
And then there is, Num 23:22 GodH410 brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.H7214 Here (i) the word El is used for God and the word for unicorn is rem derived from H7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness): -
So all is explained. Aaron honestly thought that the Deity on Mount Sinai was Baal Haddad; he had no idea that it was Yahweh. Hence his lame excuse, which was, in fact, true because the Children of Israel were Ugaritic Canaanites.
One thing remains: "And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out the land of Egypt !" (Exodus 32:4, RSV) (One calf, many gods?)
So we see
"So the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, "You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. And he set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan." (1 Kings 12: 28-29)
The Canaanites were a henotheistic people. The calf was the symbol of the Elohim, the gods; El, Ashure, Baal Haddad, Baal Hammon, Baal Molech, Baal Dagon and many others. (Compare this to the Pantheon in Athens – the temple of all the gods.)
Aaron’s mistake was not knowing that it was Yahweh at the top of the mountain and Yahweh was a jealous god. How could he be so mistaken?
"Storm clouds were called Adad's `bull calves'." (p.111, "Ishkur/Adad," Jeremy Black & Anthony Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia- An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin, Texas. University of Texas Press. 1992 ISBN 0-292-70794-0 pbk.)
"Adad. His name is probably etymologically connected with Arabic hadda 'to break' and haddat, 'thunder.' (p.1, "Adad," Gwendolyn Leick)
Obviously, this visitation from God (at least Yahweh) is lies and inventions by those whose morals, intellect and research capabilities were zero and whose self-interest and deluded mindset was paramount[2] – Bronze Age peasants… and yet, here we are thousands of years on and people are saying – “I believe in God.”
What is there to believe in? Can you not see? There are no gods. Never have been, never will be. People invent gods that is how gods enter mythology.
Two more quotes:
(vi) “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” Douglas Adams
(vii) "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Douglas Adams'
CONCLUSION:
So periboob,
QED There are no gods. Man invents gods when he does not know the answer (see the second quote right at the top) and does not even think of searching for it. Otherwise, what did/does a god do?
And now a moment of prayer based upon Ex:15:3 to thank the Almighty for this revelation:
“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it--for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.” – Mark Twain
PS
If you have read this far, thank you. JeffPT also has a contribution here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23300.msg528703.html#msg528703[/size]
1. I was again concerned about your critical thinking skills when you started giving odds on unicorns versus Bigfoot. A man who can distinguish between the chances of mythical beings existing is … remarkable, but not in a good way.
You say no one has seen a unicorn therefore the chances of there being unicorns is slim… do you believe (i) that people have seen Bigfoot? (ii) that throughout history, no one has claimed to see unicorns? If so, you would be wrong on both counts.2. To keep this to manageable length, I have not referred to the authors (who were not Moses) or the redactor of the Pentateuch who constantly push their own agenda to such an extent that none can be believed
Has evolution been proved?
Has it been PROVED that man evolved?
Seems to me there should be a challenge to atheists as well.
Hi there holybuckets, welcome to Logic 101.
Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
We'll move on to Rule #2 when you understand this one.
Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.
Hi there holybuckets, welcome to Logic 101.
Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
We'll move on to Rule #2 when you understand this one.
Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.
Thanks Jag,Hypocrisy is defined as pretending to be something that you aren't, or pretending to believe something that you don't. Trying to argue that atheists are hypocrites because it is logically impossible to prove a negative is...strange, to say the least.
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.There are so many pieces of evidence available for evolutionary theory that it would be impractical for me to even list a tiny fraction of them all. But one of my favorites is that the further away an organism is from us (based on classification), the less DNA we have in common. This is exactly as evolutionary theory predicts, the DNA of organisms that have diverged from a shared ancestor will be different, and more different the further they get from that shared ancestor.
Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.
This apparent sensitivity about god's existence is rather telling. One would think that if god's existence was fact, that it would be simple enough to prove it. We can demonstrate the existence of gravity, we can demonstrate the existence of microwaves, we can demonstrate the existence of radiation. Why should it be so hard to demonstrate the existence of god? People 2,000+ years ago were apparently able to do it, so it shouldn't be any harder now.
Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God.
Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
First of all, I challenge anyone to dispute me on that!
Are you with me so far?
It is hypocritical to say they a person is wrong because they believe in God but cannot prove it, and say that there is no God because they cannot prove it.
Same with evolution. There is NO PROOF humans came from fish or some ape looking thing. NO PROOF. Do you hear me?
There is no proof that man evolved from ANYTHING. NO PROOF.
There is MORE proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead than there is for evolution.
Atheists think they have it figured out, but offer NO PROOF!
Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God.
Holybuckets, do you accept that there is a magical leprechaun under my bed who opens the curtains in my room for me each morning?
If not, why not?
Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God.
Holybuckets, do you accept that there is a magical leprechaun under my bed who opens the curtains in my room for me each morning?
If not, why not?
I have never seen your leprechaun and neither have you. Right? We BOTH have NOT seen your little friend. I say he/she exists, you claim he/she does not.
Am I going to fast for you? I'll slow down.
You use your argument of "reason" to claim there is no leprechaun because there is no proof one has been seen.
I use my argument of "reason" to claim that there are residual effects the are proof the leprechaun exists.
Now, before you jump to conclusions- this is hypothetical. I have not been to your room nor have I looked under your bed.
The fact that you have NOT seen a leprechaun DOES NOT mean one DOES NOT exist. Once again, it's hypothetical. I know how you atheists are.
The fact that I have, what I believe to be residual evidence does not "prove" the leprechaun exists, but it does not prove the leprechaun does not exist either.
My bottom line is that you have no proof that God does not exist. He could, you just have not seen Him.
I said "On this earth." I do not believe that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu are still walking around. Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie. You can't, no one has in 2000 years. This makes you hypocrites.
Atheists are hypocrites.Incorrect. Atheists are skeptics.
You can use all of the "rules of reason" or whatever you guys use in your chat rooms or whatever.This is not rocket science, holybuckets. People have known that you can't prove a negative for thousands of years. It is physically impossible to do so. This isn't something atheists made up to jerk Christians around.
Here is the bottom line:Certainly true.
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
First of all, I challenge anyone to dispute me on that!
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.True, thus the burden of proof, to show that there is a god, lies on Christians, who believe there is one.
Are you with me so far? I can type slower if you do not understand.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God. Oh, I know some will say it's not that they don't believe or not believe, but a God has not been proven.Incorrect. Hypocrisy is claiming to believe something that one does not in fact believe, or something equivalent. Requiring believers to provide evidence for the existence of gods before acknowledging the existence of gods is not hypocrisy. It is skepticism.
It is hypocritical to say they a person is wrong because they believe in God but cannot prove it, and say that there is no God because they cannot prove it.
Once again, I know you are going to apply your law of "reason"... but you are only stroking yourself. You may buy the argument- and more power to you.Your unwillingness to accept an argument means nothing except that you are unwilling to accept that argument. You don't get to redefine words to mean something else at your convenience.
Same with evolution. There is NO PROOF humans came from fish or some ape looking thing. NO PROOF. Do you hear me? There is no proof that man evolved from ANYTHING. NO PROOF.Yes, there is. There is lots and lots and lots of proof. Getting mad about it won't change that.
There is MORE proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead than there is for evolution.Sorry, but that's simply not true. The only 'proof' that the resurrection occurred is in the Bible. There are no contemporary accounts regarding it, and indeed, some of the claims that the Bible makes regarding the resurrection are improbable, to say the least.
Atheists think they have it figured out, but offer NO PROOF!It is impossible to provide evidence to show that something doesn't exist. That is why atheists offer "no proof" of the nonexistence of gods, because if something doesn't exist, there will be no evidence to show that it doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. That means that atheists can't actually prove that gods don't exist. What they can do is show that nobody's ever provided evidence for the existence of gods, and thus there is no reason to believe in them unless and until someone does provide evidence for them.
Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie. You can't, no one has in 2000 years. This makes you hypocrites.
I said "On this earth." I do not believe that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu are still walking around.
Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie. You can't, no one has in 2000 years. This makes you hypocrites.
Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie.
"This is not rocket science, holybuckets. People have known that you can't prove a negative for thousands of years. It is physically impossible to do so. This isn't something atheists made up to jerk Christians around."
Thank You,
Someone actually TRUTHFULLY answered my question. Atheists CANNOT PROVE their case. YET, they are constantly putting Christians under scrutiny to do so.
That's called hypocrisy my friends.
Atheists CANNOT PROVE their case. YET, they are constantly putting Christians under scrutiny to do so.
"This is not rocket science, holybuckets. People have known that you can't prove a negative for thousands of years. It is physically impossible to do so. This isn't something atheists made up to jerk Christians around."
Thank You,
Someone actually TRUTHFULLY answered my question. Atheists CANNOT PROVE their case. YET, they are constantly putting Christians under scrutiny to do so.
That's called hypocrisy my friends.
It may be at least 2 weeks before I can commit the time to respond meaningfully.
Atheists CANNOT PROVE their case. YET, they are constantly putting Christians under scrutiny to do so.
You're still not getting this. Atheism is the null hypothesis with regard to one particular question: the existence of deities. It bears no burden of proof because it is making no claim to prove.
There is no evidence of a god, therefore it is silly to assert one.Atheists CANNOT PROVE their case. YET, they are constantly putting Christians under scrutiny to do so.
You're still not getting this. Atheism is the null hypothesis with regard to one particular question: the existence of deities. It bears no burden of proof because it is making no claim to prove.
You're still not getting me. You are making a claim that something does not exist. You can hide behind your null hypothesis, negatives, and teapots all you want, but at the end of the day you cant prove anything.
Answer this question. Is there a God, or is there not? It is a very simple question.
You're still not getting this. Atheism is the null hypothesis with regard to one particular question: the existence of deities. It bears no burden of proof because it is making no claim to prove.
You're still not getting me. You are making a claim that something does not exist.
You can hide behind your null hypothesis, negatives, and teapots all you want, but at the end of the day you cant prove anything.
Answer this question. Is there a God, or is there not?
Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews.
I am betting that absolutely none (zero) of you Christians will be able, or willing to adequately finish this challenge. My prediction is 2 fold (for those that actually take the challenge - because most of you believers have no confidence in your beliefs and won't take the challenge). But for those who do, you will either...
I went with a pastor, friend of mine , visiting my farm. it is located about 50km away from where i live. This pastor was never there. When we arrived, a employee of mine welcomed both of us.
When this pastor shaked my employees hand, he said straight away to him : God shows me, that you had a car accident, in 2002. You almost died. You lost a lot of blood. Your intestine was open, and could be seen. But God has a plan in your life, that is why he saved you there. Ed, ( my employees name ) was shocked. He could not say one word. But his sister arrived, and heard everything the pastor said. After he finished, she screamed, and said : Ed, everything this pastor said, is true. Two weeks later, i went again to my farm, and met my employee again. He confirmed me the whole story, and said, that indeed, God called him many times, but he always avoided to convert. After this event, he converted, and is now a born again christian. His sister converted as well. I could tell other similar stories as this. I have presenced this, its all true, not a invented story. My pastor was never at my farm, never met my employee. How do you explain this ?
I went with a pastor, friend of mine , visiting my farm. it is located about 50km away from where i live. This pastor was never there. When we arrived, a employee of mine welcomed both of us.
Demonstrate your deity. Your bible (Mark 16, John 14) commands you to do miracles (greater works than 'he' supposedly did), and it also commands you to defend your faith with reasoned argument (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 1), just as Paul "reasoned" with the Jews.
I am betting that absolutely none (zero) of you Christians will be able, or willing to adequately finish this challenge. My prediction is 2 fold (for those that actually take the challenge - because most of you believers have no confidence in your beliefs and won't take the challenge). But for those who do, you will either...
I went with a pastor, friend of mine , visiting my farm. it is located about 50km away from where i live. This pastor was never there. When we arrived, a employee of mine welcomed both of us.
When this pastor shaked my employees hand, he said straight away to him : God shows me, that you had a car accident, in 2002. You almost died. You lost a lot of blood. Your intestine was open, and could be seen. But God has a plan in your life, that is why he saved you there. Ed, ( my employees name ) was shocked. He could not say one word. But his sister arrived, and heard everything the pastor said. After he finished, she screamed, and said : Ed, everything this pastor said, is true. Two weeks later, i went again to my farm, and met my employee again. He confirmed me the whole story, and said, that indeed, God called him many times, but he always avoided to convert. After this event, he converted, and is now a born again christian. His sister converted as well. I could tell other similar stories as this. I have presenced this, its all true, not a invented story. My pastor was never at my farm, never met my employee. How do you explain this ?
I asked you a very simple question.
I will repeat it again, since you dodged it the last time:
Answer this question. Is there a God, or is there not? It is a very simple question.
I asked you a very simple question.
Yes, you did.QuoteI will repeat it again, since you dodged it the last time:
I did not dodge it. I actually answered it. My response was meant to make you think. I should have known better.QuoteAnswer this question. Is there a God, or is there not? It is a very simple question.
It appears you lack the mental firepower to understand the point I was trying to make, so let me try to dumb it down to a junior high school level for you:
"I don't know, but since I have never seen any evidence for one, I presuppose that there isn't." There. Is that simple enough for you?
Someone actually TRUTHFULLY answered my question. Atheists CANNOT PROVE their case. YET, they are constantly putting Christians under scrutiny to do so.Yes, because Christians are making the claim that there is a god despite not having any evidence whatsoever to prove there is one. If you believe there is a god, you have to prove it. Until you can prove it, nobody else has any obligation to believe you.
That's called hypocrisy my friends.Are you being this dense on purpose? Hypocrisy is claiming something that you don't actually believe. It is not holding someone accountable for a claim they're making despite not having any evidence to support it.
You're still not getting me. You are making a claim that something does not exist. You can hide behind your null hypothesis, negatives, and teapots all you want, but at the end of the day you cant prove anything.And the thing you're just not getting is that they aren't trying to prove there are no gods. You cannot disprove the existence of something that has not been proven to exist in the first place. Atheists know that. Atheism is not about disproving the existence of gods, it is about getting people away from believing in and acting on behalf of things that don't exist.
Answer this question. Is there a God, or is there not? It is a very simple question.No, it's a blatant attempt at a 'gotcha!' question. The only reason you are even asking is to attempt to 'prove' that atheists are hypocrites. Given that you knew atheists wouldn't answer that there is a god, you expected they would answer that there isn't one, and would then call them on making a claim without evidence. Unfortunately for you, it didn't quite work out that way.
There are a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon, but as Brian Dunning has notably pointed out in the past, the first step in explaining a phenomenon is determining whether or not there is a phenomenon to explain. Do you have any documentation to support your story? If not, then I'll also add that Christopher Hitchens has notably pointed out that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"I don't know, but since I have never seen any evidence for one, I presuppose that there isn't." There. Is that simple enough for you?
Yes, because Christians are making the claim that there is a god despite not having any evidence whatsoever to prove there is one. If you believe there is a god, you have to prove it. Until you can prove it, nobody else has any obligation to believe you.
So, there is a possibility the IS a God! Yes or no? Again, this is a very simple question.
| 1. | Again, if my anecdotal experience is any indication |
"I don't know, but since I have never seen any evidence for one, I presuppose that there isn't." There. Is that simple enough for you?
So what evidence do you have for positive atheism ?
there are testimonial evidence, as Eds sister, that presenced it all, and my wife. Come visit me, and you can interview them. I have plenty of similar stories. On a trial, testimonies serve as evidence. Why should they not in regard of the quest of Gods existence ? The thread opener has asked for miracles. I have provided them.
| 1. | I don't think that is what he is going to say, but I could be wrong |
I have some rocks that keep away tigers. Just $5 each (plus shipping and handling) - interested?"I don't know, but since I have never seen any evidence for one, I presuppose that there isn't." There. Is that simple enough for you?
So what evidence do you have for positive atheism ?
Yes, because Christians are making the claim that there is a god despite not having any evidence whatsoever to prove there is one. If you believe there is a god, you have to prove it. Until you can prove it, nobody else has any obligation to believe you.
present solid evidence, that the natural world is all there is. As long as you do not have any, nobody else has either obligation to believe you. So far, not ONE strong atheis has been able to present convincing positive atheist arguments, which make a compelling case for strong atheism.
present solid evidence, that the natural world is all there is. As long as you do not have any, nobody else has either obligation to believe you. So far, not ONE strong atheis has been able to present convincing positive atheist arguments, which make a compelling case for strong atheism.First off, I'm not an atheist, let alone a strong atheist. Second, I don't really care what you (or holybuckets) believes. If you want to believe in an invisible, undetectable, omnimax deity, go for it. Just don't expect me to blithely accept your statements that this deity exists unless and until you can present evidence to show it. I can and will call you on it, until such time as you present actual evidence that I can evaluate.
there are testimonial evidence, as Eds sister, that presenced it all, and my wife. Come visit me, and you can interview them. I have plenty of similar stories. On a trial, testimonies serve as evidence. Why should they not in regard of the quest of Gods existence ?
The thread opener has asked for miracles. I have provided them.
present solid evidence, that the natural world is all there is. As long as you do not have any, nobody else has either obligation to believe you. So far, not ONE strong atheis has been able to present convincing positive atheist arguments, which make a compelling case for strong atheism.
I have none and have never claimed to. So why are you asking?
Then you have a lost case. Case closed.
present solid evidence, that the natural world is all there is.
May I ask you a question. If I testified that I am the reincarnation of Cleopatra, and that I was abducted by aliens last night, would you accept my testimony at face value?
Yes, because Christians are making the claim that there is a god despite not having any evidence whatsoever to prove there is one. If you believe there is a god, you have to prove it. Until you can prove it, nobody else has any obligation to believe you.
present solid evidence, that the natural world is all there is. As long as you do not have any, nobody else has either obligation to believe you. So far, not ONE strong atheis has been able to present convincing positive atheist arguments, which make a compelling case for strong atheism.
He is not trying to convince you, or any other believer for that matter, of anything.
It's the other way around - believers are the ones insisting without evidence that their premise is true, non-believers are not accepting that premise without proof. That doesn't mean that we have an agenda to get you to agree with us, we're still trying to get you to present evidence that we should accept your premise. We can't move on to convincing you of anything, since we can't agree on a place to start the actual discussion.
But a lot of us sure do enjoy explaining why we don't agree - by pointing out the flaws in the believers position. ;D
I know this remains difficult for you to understand, but you are comparing apple and oranges, while discussing bananas and fish. Why is this so hard to understand? We've been explaining it for, what... two or three pages now?
May i ask you a question as well. What do you think, motivated me, and millions over the world, to testify the miracles they presenced ?
present solid evidence, that the natural world is all there is. As long as you do not have any, nobody else has either obligation to believe you. So far, not ONE strong atheis has been able to present convincing positive atheist arguments, which make a compelling case for strong atheism.First off, I'm not an atheist, let alone a strong atheist. Second, I don't really care what you (or holybuckets) believes. If you want to believe in an invisible, undetectable, omnimax deity, go for it. Just don't expect me to blithely accept your statements that this deity exists unless and until you can present evidence to show it. I can and will call you on it, until such time as you present actual evidence that I can evaluate.
Oh, by the way, your testimonials are anecdotal evidence and thus not convincing to prove the existence of your god.
For all we know, they could be faked; your pastor could have done research on your employee before going there and thus had the information he needed to be able to put together a convincing "God sent me a vision" speech.
Or you could be misremembering how things happened.
This is why anecdotal evidence isn't convincing, because it's so easy to spin.
Do you understand the danger, and why atheists must speak up?
Yeah, Please speak up. Start , presenting a consistent world view based on positive atheism.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
A claim of magic is not evidence.
The thread opener has asked for miracles. I have provided them.
You told a story. A story is not a miracle.
As others have said in this thread, it's not up to us to prove that something does not exist.
It's up to you to prove that your claims are true.
Thus far, I don't believe in a god due to simple lack of evidence.
From what you've posted, I doubt I'm going to get much anything other than "eyewitness account are vaild!"
However, what evidence would our religious posters accept for the non-existence of god(s)?
You are aware, aren't you, that someone has to first make a case in order to lose it...This website and the majority of participants sream out " there is no god ". This becomes clear after the first assertion, that their case is only disbelief in deities. Its for most of them more that just this. Most do actively deny Gods existence. So they want to make a case. Unfortunately, it has not a solid foundation. Just to build it up on disbelief is not enough. Atheists must be able to stand for a entire world view without God, to make a convincing case. By closer examination however, if falls down like a card house. John Lennox debate with Richard Dawkins was a total humiliation for Dawkins. Its no wonder, most debates are a desaster for the atheist debaters. Under closer examination, it becomes very clear, how strong atheism is a bankrupt hypotheses, without any rational foundation.
I have none and have never claimed to. So why are you asking?
Then you have a lost case. Case closed.
I deal in pragmatism and probability.
I have never seen any gods except in the mirror, and I remain agnostic as to My own divinity.
On the other hand, I have participated in the natural world for over 55 years, with the exception of the times I have been asleep or intoxicated. The natural world seems quite consistent in its makeup.
Personally, I think you mistook an uncommon natural phenomenon for something supernatural.
Yeah, Please speak up. Start , presenting a consistent world view based on positive atheism.That'll do for a start. Over to you...
- Does not burn people at the stake as "witches."
- Tends to alter worldview in accordance with new scientific evidence.
- Does not teach people that they were born evil, and that they must accept a proxy human sacrifice in order to avoid eternal torture.
So you call the fact, that my pastor new what happened to my employee in 2002, without never met him before, a " uncommon natural phenomenon " ?
Why do you think it was natural, and not supernatural ?
I have none and have never claimed to. So why are you asking?
Then you have a lost case. Case closed.
If you were to set up a chess board and ask me for a game, and I for whatever reason declined to play, would it be your contention that I had lost the game? That's what you're doing here.
Just scientific evidence is not enough to build a entire world view. More is required.
First of all, perhaps the pastor had information from an outside source
Secondly, he might have simply been good at "cold reading" or seen some physical signs such as a scar or a neurological anomaly suggesting a prior injury.
Finally (although I consider this far less likely than the other two options), perhaps he possesses a previously unidentified talent for mind reading that the science of the future may be able to analyze.
Just scientific evidence is not enough to build a entire world view. More is required.
Nonsense! I, for one, simply don't need anything more.
By the way, are you "Gibhor" from the Randi forum? Because he asked that same question about beards... Over and over and over again.
The biggest miracle is a universe without a cause. If you claim that, your case is a lost case.
The narrative was about i miracle i presenced. Challenge met.
Neither have i asked for that. You should read more carefully what i have asked for. Are you sure you understood it correctly ?
I do not have to prove anything. Evidence is enough. I have plenty of it. Do you have any to back up your world view ?
So where is your evidence for philosophical naturalism and positive atheism ? You cannot make a case on base of a negative.
This thread is strictly a challenge of miracles. I have presenced one, and narrated it. Challenge met. That does not say anything else about what evidence i have on hand for theism.
By the way, are you "Gibhor" from the Randi forum? Because he asked that same question about beards... Over and over and over again.
yes, i am. I have always a lot of fun to read the nonsense answers to this question.
Mods have been duly notified.
very smart. Protect yourself. Otherwise you risk to have the nonsense of your world view exposed.
Expose it, then... By having your god visit Me in person, in My office.
He is always there.
God is present everywhere, all the time.
He is All knowing.
If you are not able to perceive it with your senses, that does not mean, he is not present.
He is always there. God is present everywhere, all the time. He is All knowing. If you are not able to perceive it with your senses, that does not mean, he is not present.
Has atheism been proved? Has it been proved that is NO GOD?
Has evolution been proved? Has it been PROVED that man evolved?
Seems to me there should be a challenge to atheists as well.
Same me. Do not expect me to believe, positive atheism is true, unless you provide solid evidence to back up this view.What part of "I am not an atheist, let alone a strong atheist", are you having trouble understanding? I'm not making an argument for "positive atheism" in the first place, because you can't prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof for proving that gods exist, and thus disproving atheism, rests on you and believers like you, not on atheists or skeptics. And, quite frankly, testimonials aren't going to cut it.
I met the challenge. I have provided the only possible evidence for a miracle. A testimony. Challenge met. If you do not believe it, i can provide you the contact information of the person in question, and its sister. They will confirm everything i said. Why do you believe they have interest to lie ?Testimonials aren't evidence of anything except what someone believes to be true. Look up "confirmation bias", for example. People can and often do get fooled by what they expect to be true, even though it isn't actually true. Furthermore, there's no way that you can rule out a non-miraculous explanation with a testimonial. If you want to show that something is a miracle, explainable only by divine providence, then you have to be able to rule out every other possible cause for it. And testimonies can't do that, because they're based on a person's subjective perspective.
Argument from incredulity.No, I'm suggesting alternatives to "your pastor had a vision from God". I'm not saying your explanation can't be true because it's incredible[1], I'm saying that you have a very high standard of evidence to meet, and demonstrating why testimonial/anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.
why should i ?Because the human memory is not a video camera or a tape recorder. Every time a person remembers something, they change the memory. That's why they have to separate eyewitnesses so they can't compare notes, for example.
sure sure..... its however not so easy to spin a world view of pure naturalistic means. Try......I'm honestly not sure why you included this. Spin, as I used it, means to provide an interpretation of an event in order to sway opinion.
The biggest miracle is a universe without a cause. If you claim that, your case is a lost case.So, question for you. You believe that the universe was caused by your god; that is to say, your god caused it to come into existence. So, what caused your god to come into existence?
The narrative was about i miracle i presenced. Challenge met.No offense, but this is one of the least miraculous 'miracles' I've ever heard of. I don't even define it as a commonplace "one in a million" miracle (which happens on average once a month to everyone), let alone a divine miracle. For one thing, based on your story, none of you actually questioned where he got his information from. You simply took him at his word that God gave him that vision right at that moment. Maybe it did happen that way, but I'd bet against it. For another, you're relying on eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously inaccurate (especially when the eyewitnesses talk to each other after the fact). There are other problems with it, but those will suffice for now.
Neither have i asked for that. You should read more carefully what i have asked for. Are you sure you understood it correctly ?You're asking us to explain it. I can tell you right now that I can come up with several other explanations, none of which require the intervention of a supernatural deity. And you can't actually disprove those explanations satisfactorily, because you're relying on eyewitness testimony.
I do not have to prove anything. Evidence is enough. I have plenty of it. Do you have any to back up your world view ?Well, let's see your evidence. Note that anecdotes don't cut it on their own.
So where is your evidence for philosophical naturalism and positive atheism ? You cannot make a case on base of a negative.Nor is he. The case for philosophical naturalism is that you can explain every event that happens without invoking something from 'outside' nature. That is to say, supernatural or divine. And your statement about positive atheism is based on your misunderstanding of it. Positive atheism does not say that it is impossible for gods to exist; it says that if gods existed, we would see evidence of them, and since we do not, they almost certainly do not exist. But that is not the same as saying they definitely do not exist.
This thread is strictly a challenge of miracles. I have presenced one, and narrated it. Challenge met. That does not say anything else about what evidence i have on hand for theism.Again, no offense, but the event you reported was hardly miraculous, even by the definition of "a one in a million chance of it happening". There are numerous ways to explain it that don't require the intervention of a god. For example, your pastor faked it - he researched your employee beforehand and presented it as if God were whispering it in his ear. Or, your pastor was playing a confidence game - he asked leading questions and used his observations of your employee's reactions to determine if he was correct or not. Or, he read about it some time before, forgot that he read it, and when you introduced the two of them to each other, he recalled it and mistakenly thought that God was giving him the information. Or, you and your pastor had discussed it at some point previously, and either forgot that you had or intentionally planned it out to get him to convert to Christianity.
| 1. | though it is incredible, incredible things have been proven true before, emphasis on proven |
I went with a pastor, friend of mine , visiting my farm. it is located about 50km away from where i live. This pastor was never there. When we arrived, a employee of mine welcomed both of us.
When this pastor shaked my employees hand, he said straight away to him : God shows me, that you had a car accident, in 2002. You almost died. You lost a lot of blood. Your intestine was open, and could be seen. But God has a plan in your life, that is why he saved you there. Ed, ( my employees name ) was shocked. He could not say one word. But his sister arrived, and heard everything the pastor said. After he finished, she screamed, and said : Ed, everything this pastor said, is true. Two weeks later, i went again to my farm, and met my employee again. He confirmed me the whole story, and said, that indeed, God called him many times, but he always avoided to convert. After this event, he converted, and is now a born again christian. His sister converted as well. I could tell other similar stories as this. I have presenced this, its all true, not a invented story. My pastor was never at my farm, never met my employee. How do you explain this ?
Just scientific evidence is not enough to build a entire world view. More is required. And you need to be able to provide evidence of how the entire universe could arise by entirely natural means, be finely tuned. Be able to explain abiogenesis, present a natural mechanism for complex, specified , and codified information as stored in the cell. Explain homochirality, the irreducible complexity in the cell, explain consciousness, and how it arose through evolution. And so sex, the hability of speech. Why men have beards, woman have not. I have a few other issues on hand, but thats enough for now. Just pick one issue, and provide evidence that methodological naturalism provides the best explanation. Over to you.......You are good at parroting things from others but you make it obvious by your misspellings and poor use of commas.
you cannot base a world view on a negative.Agreed conditionally, and I don't base my world view on a negative. I'm not sure that I couldn't, but that's a different topic, and not of much interest to me. You should start a new topic if you want to discuss that.
Thats why you need to provide positive evidence for your case, if you want to be taken seriously. Have any ?
I have none and have never claimed to. So why are you asking?
Then you have a lost case. Case closed.
you cannot base a world view on a negative. Thats why you need to provide positive evidence for your case, if you want to be taken seriously. Have any ?
Same me. Do not expect me to believe, positive atheism is true, unless you provide solid evidence to back up this view.
I met the challenge. I have provided the only possible evidence for a miracle. A testimony. Challenge met. If you do not believe it, i can provide you the contact information of the person in question, and its sister. They will confirm everything i said. Why do you believe they have interest to lie ?
QuoteThis is why anecdotal evidence isn't convincing, because it's so easy to spin.
sure sure..... its however not so easy to spin a world view of pure naturalistic means. Try......
Just scientific evidence is not enough to build a entire world view. More is required. And you need to be able to provide evidence of how the entire universe could arise by entirely natural means, be finely tuned. Be able to explain abiogenesis, present a natural mechanism for complex, specified , and codified information as stored in the cell. Explain homochirality, the irreducible complexity in the cell, explain consciousness, and how it arose through evolution. And so sex, the hability of speech. Why men have beards, woman have not. I have a few other issues on hand, but thats enough for now. Just pick one issue, and provide evidence that methodological naturalism provides the best explanation. Over to you.......
He is always there. God is present everywhere, all the time. He is All knowing. If you are not able to perceive it with your senses, that does not mean, he is not present.
Answer this question. Is there a God, or is there not? It is a very simple question.
So you call the fact, that my pastor new what happened to my employee in 2002, without never met him before, a " uncommon natural phenomenon " ?
Why do you think it was natural, and not supernatural ?
You are here to play. If you don't , you loose the game.
He is always there. God is present everywhere, all the time. He is All knowing. If you are not able to perceive it with your senses, that does not mean, he is not present.
An alleged entity that is invisible, inaudible, intangible, totally unresponsive to My inquiries and totally undetectable by any means known to current science -- and whose "presence" doesn't even annoy My cats -- is a de facto imaginary being that has no fucking relevance to the life that I am currently living.
In other words, even if it *is* real I don't bloody well care, because it has no perceivable effect on My reality.
your inquiries have a apropriate answer - which you willfully ignore. Read the bible.
There are millions of testimonies of people that pray, and have their prayers answered.
I met the challenge. I have provided the only possible evidence for a miracle. A testimony. Challenge met. If you do not believe it, i can provide you the contact information of the person in question, and its sister. They will confirm everything i said. Why do you believe they have interest to lie ?
This website and the majority of participants stream out " there is no god ". This becomes clear after the first assertion, that their case is only disbelief in deities. Its for most of them more that just this. Most do actively deny Gods existence.Of course, there are a lot of gods you don't believe in, aren't there? Do you believe they exist? If not, why not?
May I ask you a question. If I testified that I am the reincarnation of Cleopatra, and that I was abducted by aliens last night, would you accept my testimony at face value?
May i ask you a question as well. What do you think, motivated me, and millions over the world, to testify the miracles they presenced ?
| 1. | My editorial comments, not included in the article. |
your inquiries have a apropriate answer - which you willfully ignore. Read the bible.I think you are mistaken! The enquiries do have an answer, but it is in the [wiki]Bhagavad Gita[/wiki]
There are millions of testimonies of people that pray, and have their prayers answered.
The probability that the universe came out of absolutely nothing is exact...... ZERO. All quantum fluctuation speculations are all irrational nonsense, since a quantum field does not arise from absolutely nothing. A eternal universe is a failed hypotheses, since otherwise we would be in a state of heath death.
Can you prove "positive a-Santa-Clausism" is true?? Santa must exist!! NOT...
There is no proof that man evolved from ANYTHING. NO PROOF. There is MORE proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead than there is for evolution.
So, there is a possibility the IS a God! Yes or no? Again, this is a very simple question.
Astreja, I just want to take this opportunity to say that you are the most believable goddess I know of ;)
| 1. | What would be the use of that? I mean - either immortal OR unaffected by time would do the job |
QuoteCan you prove "positive a-Santa-Clausism" is true?? Santa must exist!! NOT...
Interestingly, you can prove "positive a-Santa-Clausism"
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/physics.asp (http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/physics.asp)
Argument with the conclusion "If Santa ever did deliver presents, he's dead now"
So, there is a possibility the IS a God! Yes or no? Again, this is a very simple question.
"Oh no, that article is wrong! Santa and his workers and reindeer are not natural! Silly non-believer, Santa can do whatever he wants because he's supernatural! Didn't you know this? That's why he can fit down every chimney and how he knows who is naughty and who is nice. You a-Santa-Clausists are so blind! Santa is real! I know it. I experienced him and you can't prove me wrong! I know he's real and his magic is true because I have faith."
You {holybuckets} are seriously proposing an invisible being living in outer space, completely undetectable, no source of energy, who is immortal and unaffected by time, of the trillions of stars all with planets, is genuinely concerned about wearing mixed fibre or women with short hair?
So, there is a possibility the IS a God! Yes or no? Again, this is a very simple question.
| 1. | referring to Schrodinger's Cat |
atheism is NOT a worldview.
One piece of evidence that the natural world is all there is: people who behave as if there are gods have exactly the same lives as people who behave as if the natural world is all there is (athiests). Belief in gods has zero effect on anything measurable. If believing in god made a difference, that difference should show up somewhere. It doesn't.Yes, because Christians are making the claim that there is a god despite not having any evidence whatsoever to prove there is one. If you believe there is a god, you have to prove it. Until you can prove it, nobody else has any obligation to believe you.present solid evidence, that the natural world is all there is. As long as you do not have any, nobody else has either obligation to believe you. So far, not ONE strong atheis has been able to present convincing positive atheist arguments, which make a compelling case for strong atheism.
| 1. | like science-based sex ed and contraception for teens, instead of abstinence programs |
atheism is NOT a worldview.
Of course it is.
http://carm.org/atheism-worldview
atheism is NOT a worldview.
Of course it is.
http://carm.org/atheism-worldview
atheism is NOT a worldview.
Of course it is.
http://carm.org/atheism-worldview
It annoys the crap out of me when theists take it upon themselves to "explain" what it means to be an atheist. The most common phenomenon in this regard is theists insisting that atheism is a claim (which it isn't), but this worldview thing also makes the list.
atheism is NOT a worldview.
Of course it is.
http://carm.org/atheism-worldview
You are seriously proposing an invisible being living in outer space, completely undetectable, no source of energy, who is immortal and unaffected by time[1], of the trillions of stars all with planets, is genuinely concerned about wearing mixed fibre or women with short hair?
1. What would be the use of that? I mean - either immortal OR unaffected by time would do the job
One piece of evidence that the natural world is all there is: people who behave as if there are gods have exactly the same lives as people who behave as if the natural world is all there is (athiests). Belief in gods has zero effect on anything measurable. If believing in god made a difference, that difference should show up somewhere. It doesn't.
Planes don't drop out of the sky based on the religion of the passengers or pilot. Floods, earthquakes and tornadoes happen based on natural world conditions, not on how strongly people practice their faith.
The "miracles" that supposedly happen to god-believers also happen to atheists. Atheists and believers alike recover from cancer, escape dangerous criminals, survive car accidents, come back safely from war, win the lotto, give birth under difficult circumstances, find love, get job promotions, live to be 100.
Religious people like to tell atheists that life without god leads to rampant crime, violence, family breakup, misbehavior of every kind, jails full of evil doers. If this was the case, Japan should be the crime and violence capital of the world, since it is almost completely free of god-belief.
In fact, when people actually do research on the effects of religious belief on societies, they find the opposite of what religious people have always told us.
The more heavily a society relies on religious belief, the higher all the bad indicators are--more crime, more poverty, more violence, higher prison populations, more unemployment, more divorce, more inequality, worse pollution.
The places with the least violent crime, safest streets, fewest prisoners, best health care, highest education levels, lowest divorce and teen pregnancy rates, better status for women, etc. are the countries and states with the lowest rates of religious belief and participation. Like Japan, and Scandinavian countries.
Religious people sometimes respond by saying that just because people claim to believe in god does not mean they really practice their faith. People say on the survey that they are Christians or whatever, then they go on looking at child porn, beating up gay people and using meth. Maybe.
So, if there is a supernatural force out there somewhere, it has no effect whatsoever on anything--as far as we can tell. The entire universe functions as if there is no god--as far as we can tell. Therefore, it may as well not exist.
atheism is NOT a worldview.
Of course it is.
http://carm.org/atheism-worldview
It annoys the crap out of me when theists take it upon themselves to "explain" what it means to be an atheist. The most common phenomenon in this regard is theists insisting that atheism is a claim (which it isn't), but this worldview thing also makes the list.
maibe there should be made a distinction between weak, and strong atheists. ...
atheism is NOT a worldview.
Of course it is.
http://carm.org/atheism-worldview
It annoys the crap out of me when theists take it upon themselves to "explain" what it means to be an atheist. The most common phenomenon in this regard is theists insisting that atheism is a claim (which it isn't), but this worldview thing also makes the list.
maibe there should be made a distinction between weak, and strong atheists. Strong atheists indeed claim, that most probably there is no God. So they need provide evidence for their claim.
have fun :
http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/
Yeah, Please speak up. Start , presenting a consistent world view based on positive atheism.
I do not believe there is a single member of this forum who does not believe, somewhere in a part of their heart and soul, that God exists. Including you.
Now I have a question for you. Please take your time with this, and don't rush to answer it. How would it affect you if it turned out that you were wrong about what we believe?
skepticofatheism
Sorry I'm late to the game. I'd like to be sure I have this right.
Historically people have said that there is a god. Currently people say there is a god. In both cases, the claim is made without solid evidence.
And yet I, as an atheist, am tasked with proving that this oft-claimed, poorly described, variously talented, occasionally omnipotent, multi-interpreted and ineptly/selectively worshipped deity is false? Do i have that correct?
My position (not a worldview, it doesn't dictate any part of my existence except what I do on Sunday morning and when hanging around on this site) is that there is no reason to think there is a god.
I've thought about this, and can only conclude that my faith in God's nature would probably be weakened. It's a really hard thing for me to answer, because there has just been no obvious, honest answer I can give. I don't think it would cause me to stop believing God existed, because my belief in God is not tied to whether anyone else believes. But He says everyone does, so if that was wrong....I just don't know. Clear as mud?
what amazing faith you have.....
skepticofatheism
Sorry I'm late to the game. I'd like to be sure I have this right.
Historically people have said that there is a god. Currently people say there is a god. In both cases, the claim is made without solid evidence.
thats a baseless assertion, made by atheists like a mantra. there has never been more evidence for Gods existence in history than today.
QuoteAnd yet I, as an atheist, am tasked with proving that this oft-claimed, poorly described, variously talented, occasionally omnipotent, multi-interpreted and ineptly/selectively worshipped deity is false? Do i have that correct?
no. just present convincing arguments that philosophical naturalism is true. Make positive arguments for strong atheism.
QuoteMy position (not a worldview, it doesn't dictate any part of my existence except what I do on Sunday morning and when hanging around on this site) is that there is no reason to think there is a god.
that means, you believe, your thinking is a result of dead rocks producing life by chance, and this life becoming conscious trough evolution? what amazing faith you have.....
http://www.icr.org/article/einsteins-gulf-can-evolution-cross-it/
thats a baseless assertion, made by atheists like a mantra. there has never been more evidence for Gods existence in history than today.Funny how this so-called 'evidence' of yours is wholly in the realm of testimonials. Meaning we have to take your word for it that you got everything right and didn't mess up somewhere. You'll have to excuse me for not considering that reliable evidence.
no. just present convincing arguments that philosophical naturalism is true. Make positive arguments for strong atheism.The real question is, why do we need to posit the existence of a deity in order to explain why the universe works as it does?
that means, you believe, your thinking is a result of dead rocks producing life by chance, and this life becoming conscious trough evolution? what amazing faith you have.....Ah, argument from incredulity. No wonder you think a deity is necessary.
http://www.icr.org/article/einsteins-gulf-can-evolution-cross-it/Ah, another argument that abstractions are their own reality and thus have to be held within a mind to keep existing, aka TAG. What the creationists who make this argument fail to understand is that abstractions don't exist independently. There is no "abstract realm" which material objects have to cross over. Abstractions are simply mental shorthand that we do in order to get a grip on reality. For example, language, which the article makes a big deal about as if it's something amazingly special, is simply a way for us describe things and communicate those descriptions to others. That's all there is to it. The words we use didn't float around in some invisible ethereal world before we started using them.
yes, i do. What better alternative do you have on hand ? please present it.
Can you do me a favor and point me in the right direction. I am unaware of any. Nobody has shown up here with viable info on the subject. If you've posted some before, I assume you won't mind posting it again to save my poor soul.
40 invisible men and women in space...blahblahblah. And a couple of pets.
"In other words, even if it *is* real I don't care, because it has no perceivable effect on My reality."
I hate to disagree with you, but if "it" [God] is real, He will have a profound effect on Your reality.
Can you do me a favor and point me in the right direction. I am unaware of any. Nobody has shown up here with viable info on the subject. If you've posted some before, I assume you won't mind posting it again to save my poor soul.
i have presented one already. If you read on a sand dune ? John loves Mary, you deduce logically, that a intelligent human being wrote that on a sand dune. you dont ponder, if it might have been the wind, and so a probable explanation for the written message there. Same with the codified information stored in DNA. It has a intelligent being as origin. Chance does not create codified information.
If you read on a sand dune ? John loves Mary, you deduce logically, that a intelligent human being wrote that on a sand dune. you dont ponder, if it might have been the wind, and so a probable explanation for the written message there.
Can you do me a favor and point me in the right direction. I am unaware of any. Nobody has shown up here with viable info on the subject. If you've posted some before, I assume you won't mind posting it again to save my poor soul.
i have presented one already. If you read on a sand dune ? John loves Mary, you deduce logically, that a intelligent human being wrote that on a sand dune. you dont ponder, if it might have been the wind, and so a probable explanation for the written message there. Same with the codified information stored in DNA. It has a intelligent being as origin. Chance does not create codified information.
John writes Mary's name in the sand but she can't see it. She died of genetically transmitted breast cancer at the age of 16. Isn't god wonderful!
Lets see. DNA codes for Cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, muscular dystrophy, Sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, albinism, multitudinous cancers, amyotropic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, hemophilia, various anemia's, deafness of many kinds, hypertension, diabetes, hypothyroidism, cleft lip, dwarfism, some neuropathies, congenital heart disease, dementia, emphysema, blindness of various sorts, Huntington's disease, immunodeficiencies, infertility, microcephaly, prion disease, thyroid diseases and literally hundreds of other health problems.
Should we, like you know, send your god a thank-you letter for this?
At least 25% of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted by the body, many before anyone knows that there is a pregnancy. Are you proud of that track record? And those impregnations that make it to birth all too often suffer one or more of the many hundreds of of diseases and conditions caused by bad genes. Does this sound like the work of a perfect being? I don't think so.
Such health problems make all the sense in the world when viewed through the eyes of science. There is no reason for genetic material to be passed on whole and complete and healthy every single time. There is no reason to expect that genes will codes properly each time through the procreation process, and there is no reason to think that genetic diseases won't actually happen. Since they do, all the time.
About half the women in my fathers side of the family end up with Parkinson's disease by the time they are 60-65. The males don't, or at least haven't yet. Victims in my family include some very religious people, so I don't think it is god striking down the bad ones. I'm a male and I'm fine. What sort of god would not beat me to a frickin' pulp for being an atheist since the early 1960's?
I know that you're astounded by the fantastic world of DNA, which is indeed incredible. But you are also incredulous and you feel a need to explain how such a thing could happen. Within your very limited framework. And you have an unwillingness to consider anything besides what you really really really want to be true. So you choose astonishment over science.
That's fine. Just don't call it proof. It wouldn't hold up in court. Nor would any other claims you might make.
What would anything look like that was NOT created? What standard are you judging against?
i have presented one already. If you read on a sand dune ? John loves Mary, you deduce logically, that a intelligent human being wrote that on a sand dune. you dont ponder, if it might have been the wind, and so a probable explanation for the written message there. Same with the codified information stored in DNA. It has a intelligent being as origin. Chance does not create codified information.This is such a bad argument that I'm not even sure where to start.
| 1. | Which, while it's just two 'letters', 0 and 1, is organized in such a way that it creates meaningful information, as we'd expect from something created by intelligent beings. And even then, we have to use more complicated programming languages in order to actually do anything with binary code. |
| 2. | It's like writing a sentence without punctuation or spelling in one long string. |
Same with the codified information stored in DNA. It has a intelligent being as origin. Chance does not create codified information.
I am totally open to consider a different hypotheses than God. If you are able to show me one, just ONE example of codified information, that does not come from a mind, you topped my proof.
baseless assertion. It does not need to hold up in court. It will stand , and hold up, as long as you are unable to provide me with one example of codified information, as stored in dna, that does not come from a mind.
What would anything look like that was NOT created? What standard are you judging against?
very simple. It would NEVER be codified information, since we know only conscious minds can create it.
Actually, our words are apparently transmitted at a radio frequency you have no antenna for. Sadly, that means you can't even read this. Hence you are just pretending when you respond.
Well, I suppose that might be a fall back. It still demonstrated that something doesn't exist, namely a present deliverer that works with the laws of physics, delivering physical presents. That one we absolutely know, and proved, does not exist.
I actually don't think that there is some extra burden of atheists to prove a god doesn't exist. Everyone has the same burden to come up with a theory that works with all the data we have. If you can accommodate all the data you know of without needing a god to explain anything you are either obligated to look at more or justified in not believing in one, even if you don't have any specific arguments against the existence of a god.
It's just that the idea of "you can't prove a negative" is sortof dumb. Otherwise the theist can just say "I don't have to prove that God doesn't not exist because I can't prove a negative."
Even the more refined "You can't prove negative existence claims" is bad. You can prove that Santa, as usually conceived, doesn't exist. I can prove there is no visible pink unicorn in my room. I can prove there is no elephant sitting on my keyboard. I can prove that there is not yet a third post by me in this thread. Or at least I can prove them by the same standard we have for other things.
There may be some things the existence of which cannot be disproved, but it takes an additional argument beyond either of these slogans to show that it CAN'T be done. Incidentally, there are some decent arguments why this might be the case for a classical theistic God, but they do have to be made and defended.
....
So, something can be very unlikey, but still happen...
one cannot prove there is no Santa Claus for this very reason. We simply have no good reason for thinking there is a Santa Claus
atheism is NOT a worldview.
Of course it is.
http://carm.org/atheism-worldview (http://carm.org/atheism-worldview)
one cannot prove there is no Santa Claus for this very reason. We simply have no good reason for thinking there is a Santa Claus
Can you prove there is no tiger in your bedroom?
I would say that tigers are rather large, and given the volume of a tiger, if I inspect all spaces that could contain a tiger, and there is no tiger in those spaces, then logically, there cannot be a tiger in my room.
In the case of Santa, with enough surveillance, Santa could be ruled out. However, there could be room for invisible quantum Santas, that exist on the Planck scale, that could not ordinarily be found using conventional surveillance equipment.
very simple. It would NEVER be codified information, since we know only conscious minds can create it.
that is not evidence that the information stored in DNA has not a designer as origin.
I am totally open to consider a different hypotheses than God.
You "suppose" it's a fallback? Huh? How dishonest. I just completely refuted your claim. If you can make the argument about Santa Claus, we can make it about your God. Please acknowledge the point and let's move on.My claim was 'you can prove "positive a-Santa-Clausism"'
It is NOT the case that, "Everyone has the same burden to come up with a theory that works with all the data we have." No actually, we do NOT have to provide a "theory that works with all the data." This statement is based in the religious assumption that we MUST choose a conclusion. FALSE!I don't know why you think this is a religiously motivated claim. I agree that we could run around like universal skeptics and just not believe anything, but that's just not practically possible. Also, I do think there are some constraints on rationality. If you get a letter from your bank saying your account is overdrawn, I would say you are rationally obligated to form a belief about the state of your finances. You are not entitled to just withhold judgment.
This is called the Fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof (Argumentum Ignorantium). Two negatives (in this context) are equivalent to a positive!That's not what I did. I was making a point about propositional logic. I gave an explanation of what "You cannot prove a negative" would mean for propositional logic. And that is "For any proposition p, you cannot prove ~p." And that is utter nonsense as you point out, for you can stick a negation sign in front of any proposition. There is nothing logically "deep" about a proposition including a negation. Propositions are not "negative." It's not a thing in logic, and hence the utterance is just ill informed. That is ALL I said. I was trying to hone in on what true thing in the neighborhood we can actually say while throwing out the silly things on the way. That is standard philosophical procedure. You actually ended up with what I was going for when you explained that what you really mean is "You cannot prove a universal negative." More on that in the end.
So many fallacies, so little time. For one, I haven't made this claim. So you are committing the fallacy of a Straw Man argument.Again, I was trying to point out what not to mean when saying things about proving negatives.
Again, this argument hints at the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof.In order for there to be a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, there must be a principle which things require proof. This principle needs to be stated and perhaps defended, and it needs to be shown why it applies to the Christian God. None of these I take are particularly hard, but my post was about ways NOT to state the principle. This wasn't supposed to be some bait and switch trick post, just clarification.
it is universal negative claims that cannot be provedAgain, I will lay out what this could mean, and show which of the options don't work by giving counterexamples to the various formulations.
Same with the codified information stored in DNA. It has a intelligent being as origin. Chance does not create codified information.
None of us ever said that chance creates codified information. That's a lie propagated by believers. While chance plays a small part in nature, natural selection is not based on chance.
After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.
Given the right conditions amino acids form on their own. Life is based on amino acids. Currently we are trying to find the correct circumstances where amino acids will naturally bond and form life. Once life forms, it will develop further or stagnate. On Earth it did not stagnate. If life does not stagnate then it will develop a mechanism by which it can propagate – that may include a mechanism for codifying existing information and passing it on to the next generation.
Or you can't respond without lying since you and the pastor planned it?
Also, I answered your points (fine tuning, abiogenesis, DNA, homochirality, "irreducible complexity", beards) although I doubt to your satisfaction. With no reply I can only guess that you have no valid argument against what I said.
Then where is this alleged designer? There is no trace of it anywhere in the universe.
In short, as far as I'm concerned the terms "information" and "consciousness" are merely words that we use to describe abstractions (i.e. - guanine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanine), adenine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenine), thymine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymine), and cytosine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytosine) exhibit chemical reactions that WE call "information") but that is a metaphor.
Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.
As for consciousness, let's start here. All of the evidence we have demonstrates that the mind is wholly connected to, and is a property of, the physical brain (i.e. - that they are indistinguishable from each other). What makes you think there is some "spiritual" thing - if you do think that?
A most highly credible scientist, Dr Robert Crookall, analyzed over seven hundred reports of OBEs from all over the world. He was surprised that they were all consistent. (Crookall 1970).
we can use the same arguments to attack Santa that we do Yahweh. They are in the same category.
ATHEISM IS THE LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.
That is all. Therefore, atheism is NOT a worldview. Atheists, no doubt, have views of the world but many of us differ greatly in those views. If you had studied Bahnsen you would have realized that he later changed his position on this in order to avoid the fallacy. But still that didn't help.
Life appears to be one of the unlikely random chance-y things.
Some chemicals got mixed in the right way at the right times.
Could you imagine, that some letters also, mixed up the right way, and the right time, could get to the right place to form by chance Shakespeares Hamlet ?No, although with infinity all things are possible. However, Shakespeare's Hamlet started its life as scratchings on a cave wall, evolved into an alphabet, turned into stories, and, eventually became a play. Of course, this all took thousands of years. These things just don't get poofed into existence by some invisible pixie, you know.
By a close examination, it becomes very fast clear here, that strong atheism is the position hold by most atheism forum participants, even if they deny this.
No, although with infinity all things are possible.
that existing information had to be generated, how ?Not by chance, that's for sure. Chemicals don't combine randomly with other chemicals. Their interactions are governed by electromagnetic bonds.
I am not lying. I presenced the event. I usually stop answering , when someone starts to acuse me to lie.That's your problem, not his. And to be perfectly honest, we don't know the first thing about you. Not one thing except what you've told us, which we aren't really in a position to verify. And you're starting out by telling us something that's, frankly, very hard to swallow. Yes, you offered to provide additional testimony to corroborate, but that isn't useful. An extraordinary event requires extraordinary evidence.
Natural selection did not play a key role before life existed.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.htmlQuoteAfter all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing?
That's your problem, not his. And to be perfectly honest, we don't know the first thing about you. Not one thing except what you've told us, which we aren't really in a position to verify. And you're starting out by telling us something that's, frankly, very hard to swallow. Yes, you offered to provide additional testimony to corroborate, but that isn't useful. An extraordinary event requires extraordinary evidence.
No, although with infinity all things are possible.
there was no infinite time the dna code to arise by chance.
If you pressupposition is, that testimonies are not credible, than the challenge per se is senseless.They're not credible enough by themselves, not even if you stack a whole lot of them together. Not in law, not in science, not in any other field of human endeavor; there needs to be solid, verifiable evidence to go along with testimonies. Why should religion be given a pass and allowed to rely just on testimonials?
Now that I have explain how the evolution of language and the written language developed such that Hamlet was written, can you see how, for example, an eye developed through evolution?
If you pressupposition is, that testimonies are not credible, than the challenge per se is senseless.They're not credible enough by themselves, not even if you stack a whole lot of them together. Not in law, not in science, not in any other field of human endeavor; there needs to be solid, verifiable evidence to go along with testimonies. Why should religion be given a pass and allowed to rely just on testimonials?
No, although with infinity all things are possible.
there was no infinite time the dna code to arise by chance.
there was no infinite time the dna code to arise by chance.
No they are not. There is no evidence Santa exists. But there are plenty of reasons to deduce a powerful, eternal creator as the best explanation for our existence.
I'd be very interested to see what constitute evidence for the non-existence of something.That's really easy: Evidence inconsistent with the existence of the thing.
people remained thinking that the Earth was flat, held up above an abyss, that there is water above the sun, and that rainbows did not exist, prior to Noah.
That's really easy: Evidence inconsistent with the existence of the thing.
The argument from naughty is a good argument against Santa's existence. All the rich naughty kids still get tons of presents. That is inconsistent with the naughty/nice doctrine, a central tenant of Santaclausism. If Santa exists, then he doesn't give out presents according to the naughty nice distinction.
| 1. | The objections to the TOE are in the same category as denying the theory of gravitation because airplanes fly, or denying germ theory because people who wash their hands before they eat still sometimes get sick. |
you should tell that dawkins :
Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:
"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/ (http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/)
scientific evidence.
http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/Outofbodyfull.htm (http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/Outofbodyfull.htm)QuoteA most highly credible scientist, Dr Robert Crookall, analyzed over seven hundred reports of OBEs from all over the world. He was surprised that they were all consistent. (Crookall 1970).
I'd be very interested to see what constitute evidence for the non-existence of something.That's really easy: Evidence inconsistent with the existence of the thing.
The argument from naughty is a good argument against Santa's existence. All the rich naughty kids still get tons of presents. That is inconsistent with the naughty/nice doctrine, a central tenant of Santaclausism. If Santa exists, then he doesn't give out presents according to the naughty nice distinction.
This is just like a good argument from evil can provide evidence against the existence of God.
tL:Dr
Use Bayes Theorem!!
If you pressupposition is, that testimonies are not credible, than the challenge per se is senseless.
weak atheism is. correct. Strong atheism however holds a positive position, namely that God most probably does not exist. By a close examination, it becomes very fast clear here, that strong atheism is the position hold by most atheism forum participants, even if they deny this.
Xtians do have a world view, even if they differe from each other. Same with ( strong ) atheists. Weak atheists do not debate in forums, because the issue of God is irrelevant for them.
So then you admit that the God of the bible is imaginary just like Santa Claus?
And I'm trying to see how many posts I can make it before someone seriously insults me, in good sport of course 8)
By a close examination, it becomes very fast clear here, that strong atheism is the position hold by most atheism forum participants, even if they deny this.You are making a psychological claim about anonymous people on the internet you've maybe "known" for a week. If reading a few posts is enough evidence for you to conclude what someone else REALLY thinks, even though they deny it, you may want to re-check your threshold for good evidence.
Weak atheists do not debate in forums, because the issue of God is irrelevant for them.That is quite obviously false. You could be a weak atheist and yet deeply concerned about what you consider deep injustices done in the world in the name of religion. Since you lack belief in God you must also lack the belief that any of these religions are correct, so you could be quite upset about these social forces in the world and be very passionate about stopping them. I bet you a ton of weak atheists were all over the internet calling for the Pope to be arrested as "the head of a world-wide ring of pedophiles."
Soc......you're depriving a village of it's idiot....cer
So then you admit that the God of the bible is imaginary just like Santa Claus?
So then you admit that you can prove a universal negative?
I didn't come here to defend theism, I came here because I'm procrastinating and I'm trying to have fun, and my idea of fun, among other things, is nit-picking blanket statements. And someone said "You can't prove a negative" - and that was just too juicy of a target.
p.s.: Also note that your statement doesn't follow from what I said. If you think it does, please provide the argument.
p.p.s: It's also fun to see the really terrible apologists squirm. And I'm trying to see how many posts I can make it before someone seriously insults me, in good sport of course 8)
Sorry, forgot to include this, but it's a pretty different note, so I'll do a separate post.
I think the deductive argument from naughty presents is valid and sound, so it firmly disproves the existence of Santa.
I do not think that the deductive argument from evil is sound, and that is in fact the consensus in the phil. religion philosophical literature.
I do think that some of the probabilistic arguments from evil have some force to be reckoned with. But even if I admit that a probabilistic argument succeeds, then this only lowers the probability of God's existence, it does not firmly establish his nonexistence like a deductive argument would. Given enough of those arguments and not enough arguments in favor, you could make the probability of God's existence so low that it would fall under what I would call "disproven." Hence, you can, in principle, and if the arguments against succeed and the arguments in favor fail or don't add enough probability, prove that God does not exist.
I don't think that on balance the probabilistic arguments against win out, but I don't have time or capacities to go through all them. I know that if I started, I wouldn't finish the thread, so I won't even try, at least not now.
But that answer should suffice to show why I can say that the argument from evil succeeds to some extent without being committed to the non-existence of God.
Or, again
Tl:Dr
I'm a Beyesian evidentialist
My point was this:
"You can't prove a universal negative" is false. If you claim its true, then you're wrong. I don't see any good way to accept the principle, so you shouldn't on those grounds argue that the burden of proof is on the theist alone.
I do agree that theists have the greater burden of proof, but not because "You can't prove a universal negative."
In fact, the whole point of WWGHA is to give an argument that God doesn't exist, and to give an argument just is the same thing as offering proof.
I wouldn't regard disproving that Yahweh as being anything to do with a universal negative.
...
I certainly can't prove the universal negative that there is no god.
But if the two of us are in a room, and you say "there is a table there" and I do NOT see a table.....ah, then the burden of proof IS on you to prove there is a table there. Because we have moved out of the realm of reasonable claims, and into the realm where you are making a claim that IS unreasonable - namely, that there exists in this room a solid presence that I am unable to detect.Not so fast. We haven't said whether or not there actually is a table. Suppose we walk into a room, you see a table and point out that it goes quite lovely with the carpet and I say "There is no table in this room." You see a table and are quite baffled at my denial of its existence. You wouldn't believe me, and you would require some proof for me to show that the thing you see doesn't exist. You wouldn't say "But of course, how unreasonable of me to make this table claim, here, let me proceed to give you evidence." You would just say "You're nuts, obviously there is a table in the room. I don't believe you if you try to tell me you don't see it." Actually, you would probably think it is more likely that I am lying to you, or maybe that I am hallucinating or that something is wrong with me, and you would feel no obligation to prove to me that there is a table there. Tables are the kind of things that are there when you see them, so when you see a table and I deny that it's there, you'll think something is wrong with me.
The "hologram" thing is a red herring, in this instance. Because I would not be denying that you SEE a table (which was the claim you were making in your example), I would be correcting you on the nature of what you saw.First a quibble: In the hologram case, I would be denying that you see a table. I would not dispute that you have a table-like sense experience, but that was not under discussion. Atheists don't deny that people have 'religious' experiences, they deny that people are experiencing god. They are trying to correct them on the nature of what they experience.
So if you say "I see a table", and I say "what table? I see nothing", then the onus IS on you to prove you see something that I can not.I already noted above that I don't think that's right. But let me tease out that even if the "proving a positive existence claim" has some burden, it can't be very strong. Suppose you and I walk into a room and start talking about the table we both see, and median comes in and says "What are you guys talking about, there is no table in this room?" We would certainly demand of him to show that the table isn't there. So a 2 to 1 majority on existence vs. nonexistence for everyday objects shifts the burden already.
I still don't know what role the word "universal" is playing here. Maybe you mean that you can't prove a vague negative. In other words, you say that you can prove that a god with more specifically defined attributes doesn't exist, but you can't prove that a very vaguely defined thing doesn't exist.
I have yet to hear a good definition of a universal negative. I fully agree that there are some things you can't prove not to exist. I can't prove there are no epiphenomenalons. But this isn't because they are part of some magical category that demand the proof of a universal negative, but because of their specific features. I can give you a reason why I can't prove they don't exist. So again, what is the definition of a universal negative (not examples, definition), and what is the reason these cannot be proved? I don't buy it, so you'll have to give me an argument.
Suppose we walk into a room, you see a table and point out that it goes quite lovely with the carpet and I say "There is no table in this room." You see a table and are quite baffled at my denial of its existence. You wouldn't believe me, and you would require some proof for me to show that the thing you see doesn't exist. You wouldn't say "But of course, how unreasonable of me to make this table claim, here, let me proceed to give you evidence." You would just say "You're nuts, obviously there is a table in the room. I don't believe you if you try to tell me you don't see it." Actually, you would probably think it is more likely that I am lying to you, or maybe that I am hallucinating or that something is wrong with me, and you would feel no obligation to prove to me that there is a table there. Tables are the kind of things that are there when you see them, so when you see a table and I deny that it's there, you'll think something is wrong with me.
Thanks Azdgari,
That specifies it better. I still think it is, as a general principle, false.
For example, we can prove that there are no round square objects anywhere in the universe.
Too cheap?
We can prove there are no 20 mile spheres of pure Uranium. Physics tells us they would explode before they got that big.
How about non-located things?
Philosophers go on arguing about numbers, properties, sets, facts, events, and whether those exist, often making arguments that they do not exist (anywhere).
So it isn't true that in general it is impossible to prove that something is not anywhere at all. There have to be further restrictions.
I think this is good progress though.
Your point (assuming we're not treating seriously the argument to popularity) seems to be that if a personbelieves somethingthinks something exists, then they are under no obligation to prove to anyone else that what they think exists actually does.
Can we prove that the laws of physics as we observe them apply equally everywhere? No. It's a reasonable inference that they do, but it is not proven as a matter of formal logic. And that's what we're talking about.You just raised the standard way too high. By that standard not a single scientific claim counts as proven because science proceeds by abduction (or induction), not deduction. Just because we measure gravity every time we measure for it does not, by deductive logic, prove that it ever holds anywhere or anytime we haven't measured. If you throw out induction you should be a skeptic about pretty much everything besides your own existence and theorems in math derivable from axioms.
"Exist" is a category error when applied to such things. Events happen to things that exist; they do not exist as entities in themselves. Facts are descriptions of what exists. Properties are...well, properties of things that exist (or that don't). Numbers are a way of describing things, not entities in and of themselves; their existence (or lack thereof) is as subjective as anything else I've listed. Same with sets.You don't just get to say that, you have to make an argument. you can be a nominalist about so called abstract objects, but you better be ready to have a good argument.
Quine's slogan, "To be is to be the value of a variable," means that we only commit ourselves to an ontology by claims that say things like "There is something (bound variable) that is ..."
For example, "There is something that is a prime number greater than a million" commits us to believing that such numbers are entities. And "There is some property (or characteristic) that red houses and red cars have in common" commits us to believing that properties (or characteristics) are entities.
So it isn't true that in general it is impossible to prove that something is not anywhere at all. There have to be further restrictions.As long as the subject in question is a "something", it applies. As you've said, when we're not talking about a "something", of course it doesn't apply.
You just raised the standard way too high. By that standard not a single scientific claim counts as proven because science proceeds by abduction (or induction), not deduction. Just because we measure gravity every time we measure for it does not, by deductive logic, prove that it ever holds anywhere or anytime we haven't measured. If you throw out induction you should be a skeptic about pretty much everything besides your own existence and theorems in math derivable from axioms.
Do you have some alternate way that you can say that physics works in your backyard but not on the other end of the universe? Both are inductive claims, so just denying induction isn't going to get you what you want.
<existence stuff>
| 1. | At least, not in my experience; I've never observed this. |
| 2. | I'd gladly discuss it with you in another thread. Probably learn some things from you. Maybe the other way around, too. But it'll take us on a huge tangent if we did it here. |
At this point at least, we know the skeptic is not rationally permitted to suggest that he “cant prove a universal negative.” He must provide a negative reason, or a counter-factual to the given proposition. If he cannot do so, then he has no reason to call himself an “Atheist”.
Here's an interesting piece from an article that says you can prove a universal negative:
With those principles in line, we must ask then, does the proposition “God exists”, or “God does exist” qualify as an unfalsifiable statement? At this point at least, we know the skeptic is not rationally permitted to suggest that he “cant prove a universal negative.” He must provide a negative reason, or a counter-factual to the given proposition. If he cannot do so, then he has no reason to call himself an “Atheist”.
Source: http://philosophicaugustine.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/is-the-maxim-you-cant-prove-a-universal-negative-true/ (http://philosophicaugustine.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/is-the-maxim-you-cant-prove-a-universal-negative-true/)
Here's an interesting piece from an article that says you can prove a universal negative:Except the author of that article fails. I added the bolding below.
Source: http://philosophicaugustine.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/is-the-maxim-you-cant-prove-a-universal-negative-true/
An important thing to remember in the rules and inferences of logic is the following:QuoteA proposition is a statement, utterance, or sentence that asserts a given state of affairs. In other words, propositions can assert affirmative statements “X functions with Y” or negative statements “X does not function with Y”. Both propositions assert something.With those principles in line, we must ask then, does the proposition “God exists”, or “God does exist” qualify as an unfalsifiable statement? At this point at least, we know the skeptic is not rationally permitted to suggest that he “cant prove a universal negative.” He must provide a negative reason, or a counter-factual to the given proposition. If he cannot do so, then he has no reason to call himself an “Atheist”.
Furthermore, if a proposition is to be true, it must also be capable of being false (Wittgenstein). If a statement cannot be falsified, then we have no reason to consider the proposition. That is not to say that it is ultimately false, but we have no reason to consider it as such.
Atheists are hypocrites.
You can use all of the "rules of reason" or whatever you guys use in your chat rooms or whatever. Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
First of all, I challenge anyone to dispute me on that!
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.
Are you with me so far? I can type slower if you do not understand.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God. Oh, I know some will say it's not that they don't believe or not believe, but a God has not been proven.
It is hypocritical to say they a person is wrong because they believe in God but cannot prove it, and say that there is no God because they cannot prove it.
Once again, I know you are going to apply your law of "reason"... but you are only stroking yourself. You may buy the argument- and more power to you.
Same with evolution. There is NO PROOF humans came from fish or some ape looking thing. NO PROOF. Do you hear me? There is no proof that man evolved from ANYTHING. NO PROOF. There is MORE proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead than there is for evolution.
Atheists think they have it figured out, but offer NO PROOF!
Yes, it's quite obvious that mankind in general have always superstitiously believed that they must appease the Gods. This is true of just about every religion that exists. Even the Egyptians felt a need to appease their gods as well, as did the Greeks.
Why should a God who does not desire sacrifices cater to people's superstitious beliefs and fears?
Don't you think an all-wise supreme being would indeed be wise enough to realize that the reason people superstitiously believe that they need to appease the Gods is precisely because they believe that the Gods are angry with them?
Why would a real God continue to support such superstitious if they aren't true? And to even go out of his way to make rules about precisely how they are supposed to go about doing this?
You so-called "resolutions" of these contradictions do not constitute resolutions to me. All they amount to are extremely desperate attempts to try to keep alive an ideal that some particular ancient myths have something to do with "God".
But why bother? Can you even answer me that?
Why is it so important to you to support that the Bible is the "Word of God" at all cost?
Have you even ever wanted to understand it without contradictions? I don’t believe so.
Riley you are a great example. You are humble enough to say I don't know. I am very impressed. Good luck on your continued journey. Awesome!
There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.I take issue with this. I can come up with more than two explanations:
actually jdizzle,Frog? I thought it was a rat and his four turtle buddies. Fo shizzle.
There is more options. I tend to agree with the magical frog theory, although some claim it is a toad. The magical frog created the universe, which is really just a large piece of flypaper, and the planets, stars and such are simply dust particles on the flypaper. Of course his mortal enemy Baxter the fly wants to destroy the flypaper and thus our universe, but he dare not cross this nameless magical frog (or toad)...
as per the prerequisite. Asking about the frog is an exercise in futility and would cause one's mental fabric to rip, so we may as well forget about that.
There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.
What I find interesting is the fact that somehow, I feel betrayed. I guess I will get over it. It just kinda pisses me off.
I still go to church with my wife, however I find myself going less and less. I still find myself talking to God, or maybe it is just talking to myself. I am finding it hard to completely let go. I guess all things take time. Somehow it makes me feel more alone. I guess it is going to take some getting use to. My wife still gives that 10%.lol
Riley2112,
Why would you seek help from an atheist? First of all, it appalls me that these people would attempt to pull you away from your faith. Just because they don't have any faith doesn't mean they have to try to drag you away form God. Secondly, they cannot be trusted.
Polls show that people don't trust atheists.
"Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust
Please do not trust these people. They argue in ignorance, admittedly they have no evidence or proof to back up what they believe. And for that matter they cannot even figure out what they believe.
Being a Christian is simple. You believe in the Risen Christ. You do not have to have all the answers like the atheists want to make you believe that you do. Remember, they don't have any answers.
HB,Again hypocrisy. Wheels is asking me to show evidence that Jesus is alive today, yet makes the claim "religious faith doers not stand up." Why are you asking me to show evidence, when you fail to? Do you see the hypocrisy?
If atheists don't support your favoured god, HB, why not show the evidence that he is alive today and active in the world. That would be much more use that telling atheists you don't trust them. I suspect you are more concerned that looked at in the cold light of day, religious faith does not stand up.
Again hypocrisy. Wheels is asking me to show evidence that Jesus is alive today, yet makes the claim "religious faith doers not stand up." Why are you asking me to show evidence, when you fail to? Do you see the hypocrisy?You have this whole 'hypocrisy' schtick going on right now, holybuckets, and I'm beginning to wonder if it's just a convenient way to try yet again to get the goat of various atheists on this forum. Seems to me that you're more interested in trying to provoke a reaction from atheists than anything. And considering that you've consistently failed to provide the slightest shred of real evidence for your beliefs, you certainly have no room to talk about hypocrisy.
Besides, my original message was intended for a brother that you are ignorantly attempting to turn away from God.
you've consistently failed to provide the slightest shred of real evidence for your beliefs,This is where you and your other friends who argue in ignorance are wrong.
This is one of the things I have against atheists. The hypocrisy; I am "judging" and you can say whatever you want.
I give polls and published studies/articles to back up my claims, you can't back up anything- all you do is ask ignorant questions like; "why doesn't God heal amputees?"
This is where you and your other friends who argue in ignorance are wrong.Which you've also consistently failed to prove.
First is your continuous distortion of what is posted. The problem is not providing real evidence, the problem is you continue to play your own god and discount them.This is a lie, holybuckets. I have not "played god", nor has any other poster to my knowledge. The reason I keep discounting your evidence is because it comes solely from the Bible and is thus not reliable proof for the central claims of Christianity. Your unwillingness to accept this does not make it false.
My original post was to ask Riley2112 not to listen or trust you people. Your post helps prove my point.Actually, I would invite riley2112 to read your other threads and our responses and judge for himself whether we're worth listening to. Seems to me that if you're right, then him reading other posts I and others have made will strengthen your point. But that doesn't seem to be what you want. Instead, you seem to want him to stop reading what we write, to not listen to what we say, and so on. Indeed, you pointed to a poll that claimed that people didn't trust atheists as part of your argument, which proves nothing at all. Polls are nothing more than the subjective opinions of people, many of whom may not have sufficient information on the subject at hand to draw a reasoned conclusion.
Second, JesseWSellers post proves my point as well. I do not know if Sellers is a Christian or atheist, but he did point out Aaron's false post in defining "judging".Actually, Aaron123 has a point. The "judge not lest ye be judged" statement in the Bible is something that can be taken several ways - as can most of the Bible - and Aaron took it the simplest way, as an injunction against judging others.
I again plead for Jesse not to listen to these "false prophets" ... they have no idea what they are talking about.Seems to me that you're having more than a little trouble knowing what you're talking about. The dangerous part is that you think you do.
This is why I call atheists hypocrites. Tell me (and be honest) if I am wrong.I critiqued (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24917.msg555892.html#msg555892) this post of his a short time later and demonstrated, using his own words, that he was basing claims on claims, and when pressed for evidence, pointed to 'eyewitness'[1] reports of the resurrection in the Bible. So instead of finding more reliable evidence to prove himself right, he basically went on the offensive and demanded that we prove him wrong - and that's where his 'hypocrite' argument comes from, because we pointed out that there's no point in trying to prove a claim wrong until it had been proven right.
I post: There is a God
You will post: show me your proof
I will say because of Jesus
You will post: that proves nothing.
I will say: He claimed to be God
You will say: Where is your proof
I will say: It says so in the Bible
You will laugh and say: That means nothing
I will say: But He has eye witnesses
You will say: Prove it
Then I will post: OK prove that it is wrong
You will post: "the problem in this thread is your approach has been:
jesus resurrected because the bible! Prove I'm wrong!!"
| 1. | not written by actual eyewitnesses, if there ever were any |
HB,Again hypocrisy. Wheels is asking me to show evidence that Jesus is alive today, yet makes the claim "religious faith doers not stand up." Why are you asking me to show evidence, when you fail to? Do you see the hypocrisy?
If atheists don't support your favoured god, HB, why not show the evidence that he is alive today and active in the world. That would be much more use that telling atheists you don't trust them. I suspect you are more concerned that looked at in the cold light of day, religious faith does not stand up.
Besides, my original message was intended for a brother that you are ignorantly attempting to turn away from God.
My original post was to ask Riley2112 not to listen or trust you people.
"religious faith doesn't stand up to scientific examination"My irony meter just exploded.
This has to be the definition of ignorance.
"religious faith doesn't stand up to scientific examination"
This has to be the definition of ignorance.
"religious faith doesn't stand up to scientific examination"
This has to be the definition of ignorance.
How can "faith" stand up to "scientific" investigation? Can you explain this one to me please?"religious faith doesn't stand up to scientific examination"
This has to be the definition of ignorance.
How so? please explain.
So you quoted a statement with which you agree, and called it the definition of ignorance...?Please allow me to put the post in context for you, since you obviously failed to read before you spoke. Which, by the way, is a sign of ignorance.
That's not what you actually said. It makes sense, but it's not what you actually said.First of all, I see the little games you play. Admit it (which you won't) that conceptually you cannot dispute this. You know you cannot dispute this, so you have to throw a pipe bomb in the conversation to hopefully throw it off course.
You should pay more attention to what you actually say. Because when you don't, what you actually say may end up sounding really, really stupid. This is one such case.
I just figured you'd included enough context in the quote so that your post said what you meant.Thank you, I give you credit for that... even though you half fessed-up, it's better than most. Thanks, and in the future, I will try to provide a more clearer background.
As written, it didn't.
That's not my fault.
Why didn't you just say, 'yes, that's correct, I have no proof' then? It's not ignorant to restate a fact you both agree on.I have to be honest, I first started to type a real scathing post to this response, but I think I will deal with you, on this one, gently.
Do you truly believe that religious faith is a respectable reason to believe in any version of a God or gods?
First of all, I see the little games you play. Admit it (which you won't) that conceptually you cannot dispute this. You know you cannot dispute this, so you have to throw a pipe bomb in the conversation to hopefully throw it off course.Actually, I do dispute it. You're using the dictionary definition of faith - based on semantics and language - to try to claim that people shouldn't even try to investigate religious faith via science (at least as far as I can tell). And that's complete and total BS.
Let me post this again, so you will understand the context.The way you probably mean that saying is that there's no point in even trying to investigate religious faith scientifically. In effect, all that means is that you're not even willing to try - even though it would validate your whole religious system if you could - meaning you're more interested in maintaining your belief rather than in determining what's actually true. There's a saying regarding this: "He fears his fate too much, and his desserts are small, he who will not put it to the touch --- to win or lose it all." It's from [wiki]The General series[/wiki] by S.M. Sterling.
How can "faith" stand up to "scientific" investigation? Can you explain this one to me please?
Faith is something that cannot be proven scientifically. Hence the word faith.
"Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It is also belief that is not based on proof.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
Yet you atheists demand "scientific" proof. Can you see how ignorant your argument is?It isn't ignorant at all. In fact, the reasoning is fairly simple. If religious faith is impossible to prove or disprove using scientific methodology (the best methodology we have to determine if something is false or not), then what business does anyone have trying to teach it as The Truth? I know you believe it is, but as you just got done saying, you don't have sufficient evidence to base that conclusion on, thus why you have to take it as faith, and why every believer has had to take it on faith for thousands of years. Why should anyone take your belief seriously, as if it were more real than, well, reality? Why should anyone believe anything you have to say about your faith, if you can never prove it?
Once again Azdgari, "religious faith doesn't stand up to scientific examination". The person who posted this thought that he/she was being so smart as to come up with this brilliant claim. No duh!As opposed to you painting yourself into a corner by trying to mock it?
Why didn't you just say, 'yes, that's correct, I have no proof' then? It's not ignorant to restate a fact you both agree on.I have to be honest, I first started to type a real scathing post to this response, but I think I will deal with you, on this one, gently.
Do you truly believe that religious faith is a respectable reason to believe in any version of a God or gods?
First, so we both agree that religious faith cannot be examined scientifically even though you keep insisting.
Second, you ask if religious faith is a respectable reason to believe in God?
Jeff, faith is the reason you believe or do not believe in God. You cannot see God. God is not a tangible object that dangles on your rear view mirror. So, in terms of it being a "respectable" reason, it is the "only" reason. If you don't believe in God, then don't believe in God. It is as simple as that. But to ask someone to show scientific evidence for an intangible and philosophical object is asinine.
I can see it now, everyone is going to ask the same pseudo-intellectual questions, so go ahead. But my answer will always be the same. You cannot prove/disprove religious faith using a scientific examination.
I still don't see why I still don't see why I still don't see why I still don't see why I still don't see why I still don't see why I still don't see why I still don't see why....
"I still don't see why, when someone said that religion doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny..."
And you probably never will my friend.
I always get a kick out of those who break down your post and feel the need to comment on every paragraph. It seems so authoritative, or should I say you think you are so authoritative by intellectually disputing each and every point.And it's even more funny when someone attempts to deride me for posting that way. To put it simply for you, if your argument can't hold up to being dissected, it wasn't that good of an argument to begin with. Let me give you a clue - I don't post that way to seem authoritative, I post that way because it exposes the weaknesses in a bad argument, and allows me to elaborate on each one separately.
But your arguments are hilarious.So?
Here's one: "You're using the dictionary definition of faith - based on semantics and language ...And that's complete and total BS."Try again, holybuckets. That was awful even for you.
Ok, we take a word, look it up in the dictionary, use it in it's correct context... and the answer is....."That's complete and total BS."
Again, my original post was in hopes that a person would not accept the atheist ignorant, illogical, and unethical arguments. Please read this thread and you will find your "evidence".Well, taking a look at what you just tried to pull on me...
Faith, as a reason for belief in any sort of entity, is utterly stupid... You said that faith is the only reason for belief in God, but that doesn't mean it's respectable. I'd like an answer to that. Do you think it's respectable?
Again, my original post was in hopes that a person would not accept the atheist ignorant, illogical, and unethical arguments. Please read this thread and you will find your "evidence".All I found was an unsupported statement by you to the effect that faith is not susceptible to scientific examination. Of course, to you, that would be very convenient. Unfortunately for you, faith is susceptible to scientific examination.
First, so we both agree that religious faith cannot be examined scientifically even though you keep insisting.
Second, you ask if religious faith is a respectable reason to believe in God?
Jeff, faith is the reason you believe or do not believe in God. You cannot see God. God is not a tangible object that dangles on your rear view mirror. So, in terms of it being a "respectable" reason, it is the "only" reason. If you don't believe in God, then don't believe in God. It is as simple as that. But to ask someone to show scientific evidence for an intangible and philosophical object is asinine.
So you agree then that there is no way of proving a god - but didn't we just have a whole thread of you offering proof? I don't understand - if the ONLY reason to believe is "faith", then why have you been insisting that your religion has evidence behind it? Doesn't evidence negate faith.....the "only" reason to believe?
So you agree then that there is no way of proving a god - but didn't we just have a whole thread of you offering proof? I don't understand - if the ONLY reason to believe is "faith", then why have you been insisting that your religion has evidence behind it? Doesn't evidence negate faith.....the "only" reason to believe?Once again you disappoint me Anfauglir,
I never said there is "no way" of proving a god, as you claim. I did say, and cited the fact that religious faith could not be proven scientifically. So, your statement is incorrect.
So, as far as faith goes, it is true that you come to God by faith, any Christian would agree to that. God wants to be loved and worshiped, not something proven or disprove in a petri dish. But is scientific evidence the only proof?
Is scientific evidence the only proof that we use in our court systems? In our Debates? Let's see, what are some other areas to show that God could or could not exist? I will give you the floor....
So so answer your question, yes, there are several "proofs", although you would deny them all. But that is your belief or faith. You do not accept. I do...The reason I (and probably most others) don't accept your 'proofs' is because they don't actually prove anything. When examined, they're found lacking, in most cases severely. For example, the Bible is anything but a reliable source for information on your god, considering it was written by humans who had a vested interest in trying to create evidence to support their own beliefs in the face of nonbelievers.
Back to the discussion, Are we in agreement that God cannot be proven nor disproved by scientific methods?Disagree. Anything that exists can be observed and examined scientifically. Therefore, if your god exists, scientific methodology could at least determine that much. Thus, the claim that your god cannot be proven or disproved by scientific methodology is a strong indication that it probably doesn't exist outside of your imagination.
What are some areas God may be proven or disproved? Are there any?If you actually know of any of these areas, why not just tell us? If you don't know (and continuing with this coy act will strongly suggest that you don't), then Anfauglir's point stands - that you know of no way to actually prove your god's existence, thus you can only accept that he exists by faith.
Holybuckets
1. Please learn to quote properly - its quite hard to work through your posts.
2. As far as scientific proof of your god, can you answer one simple question first? Is you god active in the world i.e answering prayer by putting words into people's minds, actively healing people etc?
Thanks.Wheels, your are arguing in fallacy. First of all, you are not asking a "factual question", you are asking for an "opinion".
I am am asking a factual question - do you think your god acts in the world today?
Jaime,I've been following Anfauglir's posts, but I don't really agree with him on some points, thus why I'm going at it a different direction.
For me to answer your questions, I would have to start form scratch. Please follow Anfauglir's posts- I believe they will answer some of the questions you are asking.
This is what I am saying, atheists have no scientific proof that God does or does not exist. Christians have no "scientific" proof that God does or does not exist.Jaime,I've been following Anfauglir's posts, but I don't really agree with him on some points, thus why I'm going at it a different direction.
For me to answer your questions, I would have to start form scratch. Please follow Anfauglir's posts- I believe they will answer some of the questions you are asking.
I understand that you wish to avoid honest self-evaluation. Thanks for answering the question the 3rd time it was asked, though.You never answered mine. Do you understand me that I will not get into your little atheist 2nd grade my dad is bigger than your dad games?
Jaime, I agree, I am just saying that at this time, scientific proof is unavailable to both sides. DNA supports a creator in the fact that everyone and everything is unique. But I am sure you don't see it that way. The problem is you would reject any evidence.I know some people believe that, but it doesn't make it true. You have to be able to show - not just claim - why this is the case, and why your explanation works better than the existing, accepted sciences (biology/evolution). A strong point against DNA supporting creation is the fact that there are only four base pairs (letters), as opposed to dozens. Look at the language we're typing in, for example. We have no less than 26 individual 'letters' that we use for representing language; DNA has four. Our 'code' for this language, English, has far more potential variety than DNA code does simply because it has far more 'letters' to work with.
God did leave at least one thing behind that proves His existence. This is Jesus Christ. Since both sides have agreed to the fact that we have no scientific means or measures available to test, then proof has to come from other areas. Two areas that I am proposing are historically and scholarly.I definitely do not agree with your statement that "we have no scientific measures available to test". If Jesus actually existed, he had DNA, which we could test and trace. There's carbon-dating, and other scientific means that could be used to check on claims made in the Bible. Indeed, we have used such methods on ancient scrolls to confirm their authenticity.
HolybucketsThanks for the heads up. I feel we need some ground rules and that is why I am asking you what sources are acceptable. For example, you gave me a website authored by someone named Jim Walker. I will still ask permission to use mine, mainly because you will only discount it anyway.
If you want to talk about historical matter related to Jesus, you might want to read this (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm) beforehand as I shall use it as a source - at least for books and authors.
I would like to use as my sources, The Bible,Provided you can authenticate the events in the Bible which you are talking about with outside, unrelated sources, there should be no problems with it. Think of it this way, holybuckets - when someone writes a report or paper, they can use Wikipedia as a source, but they have to use other sources too, because Wikipedia is not always reliable.
scholarly authors and historians with advanced degrees in the field who have dedicated their lives to the subject,There never has been any problem with this. However, understand that when you use such sources, their credentials are checked, and even an expert can be affected by bias.
and primary witness evidence.Sure, provided you can show that these primary witnesses ever actually lived, and that they were actually witnesses to the events you discuss.
I am sure you agree that the testimony and evidence given should be weighed on credibility and reliability.That seems reasonable. Just bear in mind that someone who devoutly believes in something has to work harder to show that they are credible and reliable - because of that bias problem I mentioned.
HolybucketsThanks for the heads up. I feel we need some ground rules and that is why I am asking you what sources are acceptable. For example, you gave me a website authored by someone named Jim Walker. I will still ask permission to use mine, mainly because you will only discount it anyway.
If you want to talk about historical matter related to Jesus, you might want to read this (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm) beforehand as I shall use it as a source - at least for books and authors.
I would like to use as my sources, The Bible, scholarly authors and historians with advanced degrees in the field who have dedicated their lives to the subject, and primary witness evidence.
I am sure you agree that the testimony and evidence given should be weighed on credibility and reliability.
I was going to use DNA as well for the proof of God. DNA is unique in every aspect, as God's creation is.DNA is not "unique in every aspect". Didn't you pay attention to what I just wrote? The base pairs of DNA are anything but unique. Indeed, with only four base pairs, there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of exact copies of each base pair.
But that being said, DNA still is far from scientific proof that God does not exist.You can't have this both ways, holybuckets. You can't say, on the one hand, "DNA is proof of the existence of God", and on the other, "DNA doesn't prove that God doesn't exist". That's contradictory, to say the least.
Guys,
You opinions are very good, however, they are worthless in a debate. You can claim the Bible is wrong all you want, but all I have to do to defeat your opinion is bring in a qualified witness to dispute you.
This is how debate works. Opinions are acceptable in certain arenas, but carry the least weight of any kind of evidence. Historical, scholarly, and primary evidence trumps all. I will tell you in advance, here is where your little unsubstantiated myth theory will fall flat in its face. Mainly because it is your opinion and backed by very few scholars.
Good thanks, then I will take that as a yes on the Bible. More specifically, I will be using 1 Corinthians, you may wish to look it up. It has been verified authentic by scholars across the board.Guys,
You opinions are very good, however, they are worthless in a debate. You can claim the Bible is wrong all you want, but all I have to do to defeat your opinion is bring in a qualified witness to dispute you.
This is how debate works. Opinions are acceptable in certain arenas, but carry the least weight of any kind of evidence. Historical, scholarly, and primary evidence trumps all. I will tell you in advance, here is where your little unsubstantiated myth theory will fall flat in its face. Mainly because it is your opinion and backed by very few scholars.
Wrong, I have made no claim about the bible apart from the fact that it has to be shown the be historically accurate before it can be used to prove anything else. Where's the problem with that?
Enough with the DNA- it does not prove that God does not exist. Deal with it.First off, you still haven't acknowledged that it does not prove that your god exists. Until you do, I have every reason to keep after you about it.
You opinions are very good, however, they are worthless in a debate. You can claim the Bible is wrong all you want, but all I have to do to defeat your opinion is bring in a qualified witness to dispute you.Incorrect. First off, you have to actually have a qualified witness. In the case of the Bible, you do not - the Gospels do not qualify because you cannot verify who wrote them or whether the writers ever had anything to do with the 'witnesses'. Second, you have to show that your qualified witness is telling the truth and competent to testify. This is questionable in the case of the Gospels, because we can definitely prove that the Bible has been changed and modified tremendously since it was first put to paper - and who knows how much it was changed before that?
This is how debate works. Opinions are acceptable in certain arenas, but carry the least weight of any kind of evidence.Honestly, holybuckets, I am seriously starting to wonder whether you really even understand how a debate works.
Historical, scholarly, and primary evidence trumps all.First, you have to introduce that evidence, then you have to show that it's valid, then you have to explain any discrepancies, and even then, you can never really be sure that you have it completely right. That someone else won't find some evidence that undercuts your conclusions.
I will tell you in advance, here is where your little unsubstantiated myth theory will fall flat in its face. Mainly because it is your opinion and backed by very few scholars.How many of those scholars were Christians, and thus biased in favor of the explanation that supports their belief system? How many of them even tried to present it in a totally impartial manner? How many of them presented their findings to people who had every reason to poke holes in their explanations, the way scientists do with scientific theories?
Good thanks, then I will take that as a yes on the Bible. More specifically, I will be using 1 Corinthians, you may wish to look it up. It has been verified authentic by scholars across the board.The fact that it's authentic in no way proves that it's true, let alone a historical account in the sense that you mean.
I can give you 100 of these:Enough with the DNA- it does not prove that God does not exist. Deal with it.First off, you still haven't acknowledged that it does not prove that your god exists. Until you do, I have every reason to keep after you about it.
Thanks for you opinion. I will use historical, scholarly, and primary evidence for my debate.Good thanks, then I will take that as a yes on the Bible. More specifically, I will be using 1 Corinthians, you may wish to look it up. It has been verified authentic by scholars across the board.The fact that it's authentic in no way proves that it's true, let alone a historical account in the sense that you mean.
Thanks for you opinion. I will use historical, scholarly, and primary evidence for my debate.Good thanks, then I will take that as a yes on the Bible. More specifically, I will be using 1 Corinthians, you may wish to look it up. It has been verified authentic by scholars across the board.The fact that it's authentic in no way proves that it's true, let alone a historical account in the sense that you mean.
I would be more than happy to. First I would like to establish some ground rules, because as you know, these threads turn into cluster (you know whats) in a hurry.
I really wish you would. did you know that the Bible itself is none of those things? It is nothing more than words on paper, just like any other book. What evidence do you have that ANYTHING in the Bible is accurate? Please, do share.
I was going to use DNA as well for the proof of God.
I can give you 100 of these:I'm sure you can. You could also give me a closed bag with a hundred coin-shaped objects in it and tell me that they're valuable, but upon examining them, I find pennies (nearly worthless) or wooden nickels (completely worthless). Sources like this do not show you to be interested in an honest debate on this subject, only that you want to validate your existing belief system.
"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt", I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities"; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4First off, I cannot find this man's academic credentials, except on creationist websites (such as the one I suspect you pulled it from). The fact that this limited information about him only appears on creationist websites is highly suspect.
So this must prove God exists, right?Not even slightly. A random citation from an unknown person who's only credentials appear on a creationist website? Who's written a grand total of three books and no published papers in peer-reviewed science journals? Two of which were pure theology, and the third was also primarily theological in nature?
I will be using 1 Corinthians. It has been verified authentic by scholars across the board."All bowling balls are made of marshmallow."
Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist.400,000 years of no evidence, and more specifically ~6000 years of people trying to prove God exists and failing, seem pretty conclusive to me.
You are spending a lot of time and we are both saying the same thing.No, we aren't saying the same thing. You're just trying to equivocate what I'm saying with what you're saying so you can keep from having to explain why there is no scientific evidence for your god.
Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist. The score is 0-0.That is most certainly not true. Once upon a time, everything that people didn't understand was attributed to 'god'. Then we started discovering how things actually worked, and since then, more and more of those things have been attributed to natural forces or things that actually exist in the natural world. Everything from the sun and lightning, down to diseases and drugs, and lots of stuff in between. Those were all believed to be the actions of supernatural entities (gods and demons) once upon a time, and we have subsequently shown that they were anything but supernatural.
We must look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that God exists.This is nothing but a convenient way for you to try to get out of answering my points, and I think everyone who reads our exchanges will be able to recognize that fact.
I am sorry, this is my last post to you on this subject. It is not fair to me to go round and round and round and round and end up in the same place.And who do you think is responsible for that, holybuckets? The reason we're going around and around is because you refuse to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that your religious beliefs might be wrong. If I were shown to be wrong about this, I would admit it and move on. I certainly wouldn't play this game that you seem intent on of trying to maintain beliefs at any cost.
this is your opinionI will be using 1 Corinthians. It has been verified authentic by scholars across the board."All bowling balls are made of marshmallow."
That is an authentic statement by me.
Unfortunately, authenticity of authorship does not equate to authenticity of fact.
Do you wish to try again?
Jaime,Shall we look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that Galactus exists? How about the universal aether? Leprechauns? Unicorns? The fountain of youth? How about turtles that go all the way down?
You are spending a lot of time and we are both saying the same thing.
Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist. The score is 0-0.
We must look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that God exists.
I am sorry, this is my last post to you on this subject. It is not fair to me to go round and round and round and round and end up in the same place.
Thanks
.....
Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist. The score is 0-0.
We must look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that God exists.
...... fair to me to go round and round and round and round and end up in the same place.
Thanks
Wow, a clear thinker in the group. Thanks-.....
Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist. The score is 0-0.
We must look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that God exists.
...... fair to me to go round and round and round and round and end up in the same place.
Thanks
This is the crux of the problem. You are correct Holybuckets. Now, considering the numbers of Christians vs the number of atheists, and how each side treats the other (and what is fair to each), perhaps you can see why a web site like this is important, both for the safety of people who believe differently, and for the logic in your underlined statement above, yes?
Unfortunately, authenticity of authorship does not equate to authenticity of fact.
With all due respect to yourself and schnozzola, the point is that God is not and never has been scientific.Wow, a clear thinker in the group. Thanks-.....
Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist. The score is 0-0.
We must look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that God exists.
...... fair to me to go round and round and round and round and end up in the same place.
Thanks
This is the crux of the problem. You are correct Holybuckets. Now, considering the numbers of Christians vs the number of atheists, and how each side treats the other (and what is fair to each), perhaps you can see why a web site like this is important, both for the safety of people who believe differently, and for the logic in your underlined statement above, yes?
this is your opinionI will be using 1 Corinthians. It has been verified authentic by scholars across the board."All bowling balls are made of marshmallow."
That is an authentic statement by me.
Unfortunately, authenticity of authorship does not equate to authenticity of fact.
Do you wish to try again?
Personally, I am disappointed with Schnozzola in that he seems to have attempted to make a compromise; a compromise that is both wrong and unnecessary. Holybuckets has merely remain in a position without giving evidence of any sort and in a state of complete intransigence.
Holybuckets, are you asking for prove of non-existence?Not at all,
Once again we are at the crossroads and you atheists are squirming like worms.
I would like to debate using historical evidence, scholarly evidence and primary evidence.
You bring up Osiris, Bat Boy, the Time Cube, marshmallows and bowling balls.... again, is this the best you got?
Once again we are at the crossroads and you atheists are squirming like worms.
I would like to debate using historical evidence, scholarly evidence and primary evidence.
You bring up Osiris, Bat Boy, the Time Cube, marshmallows and bowling balls.... again, is this the best you got?
Very good point, so in our debate, shall we exclude scholarly evidence from authors with no published papers in scholarly journals? Is that fair enough?Once again we are at the crossroads and you atheists are squirming like worms.
I would like to debate using historical evidence, scholarly evidence and primary evidence.
You bring up Osiris, Bat Boy, the Time Cube, marshmallows and bowling balls.... again, is this the best you got?
You forgot "I.L. Cohen". The mysterious academic with no research papers published. The "member" of the NY academy of sciences and "Officer" of the Archaeological Institute of America, who, remarkably, has gone un-recorded on their websites.
DVZ3... thanks for your opinion. Can you please read the past posts? This may bring you up to speed.
And whether or not scholars are right about a story that happened in the past does not make the supernatural any more real.
Then you have no logical reason to believe that such a being exist. I can't disprove that leprechauns exist, does that mean I should believe in them? The time for belief is when there is evidence for such belief, else you are open to any and all imaginary claims.Holybuckets, are you asking for prove of non-existence?Not at all,
I am claiming that we cannot prove not disprove God by scientific methods. Because we do not have the measures of the capability to do that, we must look at other areas for proof.
Very good point, so in our debate, shall we exclude scholarly evidence from authors with no published papers in scholarly journals? Is that fair enough?
I am not debating you. And, for the same reasons I do not engage in debate with toddlers.
| 1. | Note that although this is from a book, Vansina has in fact published articles in scholarly journals. Furthermore, per the Wikipedia article on him, he is one of the most prominent Africanist scholars and has published widely. |
I think it's reasonable to say that most Hebrews were illiterate. However, the fact that their stories were carried down through an oral tradition is a point against their accuracy; human memory is malleable and every time a memory is accessed, it is altered by the brain. The further you get from the original accounts (passed down through oral tradition), the less accurate they become. It isn't quite as bad as a telephone game, because the people doing it were trained in mnemonic retention, but nonetheless, it still happened. Perhaps it would be better to say these oral traditions evolved as they were passed on, but either way, they changed over time. One of the problems is that most of these illiterate Hebrews (including the nascent Christians) were almost certainly not trained in oral mnemonics, yet they assuredly passed on the stories as well, leading to a situation where the stories would have changed much more rapidly.Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?
As [wiki]Jan Vansina[/wiki] says in the preface of Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zKbGbwzpCHsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=scholarly+reports+oral+tradition&ots=-VVtCQmIIH&sig=f0Do-1Aok1UAGvYueymLO5nBpUA#v=onepage&q&f=false), "scholars should not merely observe their interlocutors in other cultures but also carefully listen to what they have to say, particularly about their memories of the past" and "the historical rules of evidence, which are universally valid in so far as they are an application of logic, can and must be applied to oral traditions if one wants to test the historical validity of their rendering of the past".[1]
1. Note that although this is from a book, Vansina has in fact published articles in scholarly journals. Furthermore, per the Wikipedia article on him, he is one of the most prominent Africanist scholars and has published widely.
Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?Irrelevant. Jan Vansina has studied oral traditions in Africa, which as you have stated, were also prevalent in 1st century Jerusalem. You cannot arbitrarily exclude him because his field of study is contemporary oral traditions rather than historical ones.
Is this your opinion or fact? Can you cite references please?Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?Irrelevant. Jan Vansina has studied oral traditions in Africa, which as you have stated, were also prevalent in 1st century Jerusalem. You cannot arbitrarily exclude him because his field of study is contemporary oral traditions rather than historical ones.
Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?Are you seriously trying to say that the people of contemporary Central Africa are capable of making mistakes in passing on their oral traditions, but the Jews of first century Jerusalem were not?
Is this your opinion or fact? Can you cite references please?Unless you can actually show that his expertise on contemporary oral traditions would not apply to historical oral traditions, you cannot arbitrarily exclude him.
One of the problems is that most of these illiterate Hebrews (including the nascent Christians) were almost certainly not trained in oral mnemonics, yet they assuredly passed on the stories as well, leading to a situation where the stories would have changed much more rapidly.
I beg to differ, but there is a big difference in Central Africa in the 1970's and first century Jerusalem. There is a big difference between hearing a story and repeating it, and the discipline student went through learning Judaism.Is this your opinion or fact? Can you cite references please?Unless you can actually show that his expertise on contemporary oral traditions would not apply to historical oral traditions, you cannot arbitrarily exclude him.
In other words, cease this nitpicking and get to your actual evidence.
You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.
First things first. I appreciate your patience and any rebuttal you may have.You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.
That, however, has nothing to do with evidence for gods in any meaningful sense. A carefully preserved and handed-down story about a make-believe being is still just a story about a make-believe being.
So do you have any evidence that is up to our standards, or are you just going to fill the thread with anecdotes and accounts of ancient cultural practices?
I'm not versed in linguistic or anthropological analysis, but would it be reasonable to assume that rival factions would probably pass down increasingly divergent versions of the original stories?Indeed, that's what happened with early Christianity. According to [wiki]Bart Ehrman[/wiki], author of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, there were at least four competing versions of Jesus; the Orthodox one which the Catholic church ultimately ended up using, a Jesus who was wholly human and never divine, a Jesus who was human and then became divine after dying, and a Jesus who was never human in the first place (you can see this version in the Gospel of John).
I beg to differ, but there is a big difference in Central Africa in the 1970's and first century Jerusalem. There is a big difference between hearing a story and repeating it, and the discipline student went through learning Judaism.What? You think that contemporary Africans who rely on oral traditions don't have students who they train very carefully in order to make sure they could fulfill the role? You think that they didn't make sure their students were disciplined and trained carefully? Sure seems that way to me.
You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.I don't believe this. Did you really just try to claim that 1st century Hebrew students listened and learned, while contemporary Africans just hear and repeat? No, that isn't going to fly.
Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. ThanksI beg to differ, but there is a big difference in Central Africa in the 1970's and first century Jerusalem. There is a big difference between hearing a story and repeating it, and the discipline student went through learning Judaism.What? You think that the people who passed down oral traditions didn't have students who they trained very carefully in order to make sure they could fulfill the role? You think that only the 1st century Hebrews ensured that their students were disciplined and trained carefully? Sure seems that way to me.Quote from: holybucketsYou see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.I don't believe this. Did you really just try to claim that 1st century Hebrew students listened and learned, while contemporary Africans just hear and repeat? No, that isn't going to fly.
Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. ThanksThat's the thing. Your post didn't refute mine. Your post referred to a statement (http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/rabbi2.html) by a Rabbi Stan Farr, apparently the contemporary leader of this Messianic Jewish sect, who lives in St. Paul, Minnesota (notably, where his synagogue is located as well). Note that he has no scholarly credentials listed anywhere on his website except on his Contact (http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/contact.html) page, where he states that he has spent 20 years teaching a "Hebraic First Century understanding of Scriptures".
Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. Thanks
I appreciate your opinion, however, I think you can see that I have provided some very credible information in this discussion. Again, feel free to give your rebuttal, granted, I wish it contained a logical refute with scholarly citations.Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. Thanks
Why should he? Why should any of us bother giving you anything, HB? All you're going to do is dismiss the most carefully researched and written response as "opinion," and try to dump the burden of proof on the negative side.
Personally, Holybuckets, I am of the opinion that you came here for the sole purpose of angering and baiting people who do not believe as you do. I don't think you ever had any intention of seriously examining evidence that disagrees with your current POV. You're using your precious gospel as a bludgeon, secure in your belief that *you* have a free ticket to heaven and can do whatever the fuck you want in the meantime, including spouting mass quantities of hatred masquerading as discussion questions.
(Springy G tears HB's page out of the Book of Life and runs it through Her crosscut shredder) I think Matthew 7:23 is particularly apt in this context. >:(
I appreciate your opinion, however, I think you can see that I have provided some very credible information in this discussion.
Can you please then dispute my findings with your credible sources, instead of your opinion, and give a little more scholarly response than Springy G and her cat box. I have to admit, that is up their with the Time Cube, Bat boy, and Osiris.I appreciate your opinion, however, I think you can see that I have provided some very credible information in this discussion.
No; I didn't see you post anything even remotely credible. (Springy G empties the shredder, and Holybuckets' eternal salvation, into one of Her cats' litter boxes)
As opposed to Rabbi Stan Farr, "expert" on 1st century Christian Scripture, who doesn't even seem to have a single scholarly paper to his name? Oh, didn't you say something along the lines that you would only use people who had actually published in scholarly journals?He is a Rabbi, who writes on what it takes to be a Rabbi.
Can you please then dispute my findings with your credible sources, instead of your opinion...
He is a Rabbi, who writes on what it takes to be a Rabbi.Irrelevant. You agreed to use sources that had published in scholarly journals. That means you lied, since here you are, using someone who's never published a single scholarly paper of any sort.
Why should anyone bother to try to have a discussion (never mind a debate) with you? You've been verbally abusive to virtually everyone here, you constantly try to dismiss anything that someone presents unless it's 'scholarly' or 'historical' (and even then, you'll use any excuse you think you can get away with to dismiss it anyway), you routinely act as if the evidence you present is foolproof (dismissing any rebuttal of it, often without even bothering to answer the rebuttal), you've basically told people that you won't respond to them if they press you too hard on things you don't want to talk about, and now you've been caught lying. And that's just scratching the surface
You complain about the way atheists supposedly treat you, but you act worse than that. It's not nice to accuse someone of hypocrisy, but in your case, the shoe certainly fits.
Back to the discussion, Are we in agreement that God cannot be proven nor disproved by scientific methods? What are some areas God may be proven or disproved? Are there any?
do you think your god acts in the world today?
So, I know everything holybuckets is saying is false because Thor told me and I know the true gods are the Norse ones. Fuck it, I cannot be arsed being an atheist, personally knowing Thor and Odin really doesn't help my stance as an atheist, it's like not believe the chair you're sat on doesn't exist.
The Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was completed around 200BCE...
The Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was completed around 200BCE...
...and therefore would be available to the Gospel writers so that they could plagiarize, uh, "harmonize" the Jesus story and make it line up with OT messianic prophesies.
And of course, if the LXX was a translation of the Tanakh 200 years BCE, it stands to reason that there were written versions of the Tanakh at 200 BCE that it was based upon. So much for the myth of the rabbinical students learning orally -- Those Hebrew scriptures were written for someone to read.
So you quoted a statement with which you agree, and called it the definition of ignorance...?Please allow me to put the post in context for you, since you obviously failed to read before you spoke. Which, by the way, is a sign of ignorance.
The posted criticized me for not being able to prove my religious faith with scientific evidence. I responded that this was ignorant, since one cannot prove religious faith with scientific evidence.
How can "faith" stand up to "scientific" investigation? Can you explain this one to me please?
Faith is something that cannot be proven scientifically. Hence the word faith.
Riley2112,Sorry ,, I don't sign on here very much,, However from time to time I like to check things out. You asked why I would seek help from an atheist. I didn't. The first time I came to this site I , like most Christians who come to this site, came to show the lost Atheist the error of their ways. Well you can now see how that worked out. However unlike many Christians ( or so called Christians) that visits this site. I came with an open mind. At first I found the people here rude and closed minded. Mostly because they would not believe the way I felt they should. I asked them questions that they answered. They ask me questions that I tried to answer, but most of my answers ended with "because the Bible says so". In other words, no answer at all. As for Atheist not being trusted or liked. I know many people that I like and after found out that they were Atheist. So, are you saying that I should not like someone because they are Atheist, or black , or are from a different country? Are you saying that I should not like someone because they are different than me, believe different than I do. That makes them a bad person?? You also said that they have no evidence or proof to back up what they believe. What evidence or proof do you have. Now please understand that something inside of me believes in a Creator. But blind faith in anything is foolish. After leaving this site I started trying to answer some of the questions that those bad Atheist asked me. What I found scared me, made me sad and pissed me off. The biggest problem I have is with the bible. Do you really believe the Bible word for word? I mean really?? All these people have done to me is to make me think. And someone that truly thinks is a danger to all religions. And they should be. Religion scares me. Because of religion this world is still at war. I am still searching for the Creator. But when and if I find a God I want the true God. And if I don't find him, How true can he be. Maybe it is time you start thinking. Are you believing in a god just because others are? Kinda like you don't trust or like Atheists because polls tell you not to. I guess my question to you is. Would you believe in God if the polls told you he was not real?
Why would you seek help from an atheist? First of all, it appalls me that these people would attempt to pull you away from your faith. Just because they don't have any faith doesn't mean they have to try to drag you away form God. Secondly, they cannot be trusted.
Polls show that people don't trust atheists.
"Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust
Please do not trust these people. They argue in ignorance, admittedly they have no evidence or proof to back up what they believe. And for that matter they cannot even figure out what they believe. Being a Christian is simple. You believe in the Risen Christ. You do not have to have all the answers like the atheists want to make you believe that you do. Remember, they don't have any answers.
Christians are never commanded to do miracles.
Only God can perform miracles.
they will pick up snakeswith their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands onsick people, and they will get well."Source: http://biblehub.com/mark/16-18.htm
I suggest that you review the text.
Mark 16:18 is an observation, "they will handle deadly snakes , lay hands on the sick and they will recover .
Christians are not commanded to handle the snakes or heal the sick.
used the excuse "...but they're much too busy to actually do it"?Or the excuse, "...but they're not commanded to do it".
Or the excuse, "...but they're not commanded to do it".
Mark 16:18 is an observation, "they will handle deadly snakes , lay hands on the sick and they will recover .
Christians are not commanded to handle the snakes or heal the sick.
Gonna have to side with Lux here, that the verse doesn't imply humans to be the ones enacting the miracle. It's more like, "if humans do X, God will do Y" rather than "if humans do X, then that will result in the humans also doing Y".
:The point of the observation is that the miracles were the evidence that God showed his approval of the Christians by performing miracles on their behalf. You will find no evidence that God ever commanded a man to perform a miracle because it is impossible for men to perform miracles .
:The point of the observation is that the miracles were the evidence that God showed his approval of the Christians by performing miracles on their behalf. You will find no evidence that God ever commanded a man to perform a miracle because it is impossible for men to perform miracles .Funny how no Christians get this 'approval' from God nowadays, isn't it? If they ever did in the first place, which I doubt. This 'evidence' is apocryphal, which is being generous.
Mark 16:18 is an observation, "they will handle deadly snakes , lay hands on the sick and they will recover .
Christians are not commanded to handle the snakes or heal the sick.