Bewilderbeeste · 70-79, M
View 4 more replies »
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
Outside of this site , no one knows a single thing about your true self. And that is counting only this site. Imagine how many people must loathe you in reality.along with those that do know you personally.
I, prefer to stick with the idea of live and let live. Too much effort hating strangers. Of course, since god doesn’t live. That makes it all the more pointless.
Outside of this site , no one knows a single thing about your true self. And that is counting only this site. Imagine how many people must loathe you in reality.along with those that do know you personally.
I, prefer to stick with the idea of live and let live. Too much effort hating strangers. Of course, since god doesn’t live. That makes it all the more pointless.
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@DocSavage
You still haven't shown any support to that statement. The Truth of God is hated very much in this fallen world. As for these people on here, Doc, I do not hate them, including you. These people on here matter to me which is why I challenge them with the Truth that God has established before the foundations of the earth. You can make a mockery of it all you like but you need to know that your mockery comes from your distorted mind of hatred. Learn to love others as Jesus loves you. Good day to you.
Of course, since god doesn’t live.
You still haven't shown any support to that statement. The Truth of God is hated very much in this fallen world. As for these people on here, Doc, I do not hate them, including you. These people on here matter to me which is why I challenge them with the Truth that God has established before the foundations of the earth. You can make a mockery of it all you like but you need to know that your mockery comes from your distorted mind of hatred. Learn to love others as Jesus loves you. Good day to you.
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
You still haven't shown any support to that statement
And I have no intention of doing so. God wants my belief, he’s the one that needs to convince me. As far as he and his kid are nothing more than fantasy characters. You have no evidence, you can’t prove anything, why should I provide it ? He’s not my god.
Richard65 · M
A scientist and a priest are walking on a wet beach when they see hoof tracks in the sand. The scientist says, "Judging from all the evidence that is available to me, I say a horse has run along the beach and left those tracks, even though I did not witness the horse running by with my own eyes."
The priest replies, "There's also the possibility that a unicorn left those tracks."
The priest replies, "There's also the possibility that a unicorn left those tracks."
Richard65 · M
@SomeMichGuy it is true. Faith is the bedrock of religious movements, such as Christianity. Jesus said, "have faith." Faith is defined as belief WITHOUT evidence. If you say evidence exists then you have no need of faith and your entire theological house of cards collapses. I was brought up in the faith. I just saw through it eventually. If you say evidence exists then you don't understand your belief system properly. Faith doesn't need evidence. That's the entire point.
SomeMichGuy · M
@Richard65
1) You don't need to condescend, but you are creating a false dichotomy.
2) "Doubting" Thomas wanted physical evidence of the claim that Jesus was again alive, and though the statement was that those who had not seen, yet believed anyway, were blessed, Thomas wanted proof acceptable to him in order to accept this pretty astounding event as fact.
Even the miracles of various persons sent by God are signs that they truly come in His Name, and can inspire belief.
That doesn't fall into your notion that the appropriate Venn diagram with a {} at the union of "faith" and "evidence".
That should actually square with scientific evidence; the appropriately-skeptical scientist attempts to verify, on his/her own, whether or not something reported is true (and multiple, consistent measurements at all sorts of places make that possible).
The fact that multiple, different observers report seeing and even intetracting with Jesus days after He was dead and buried lends credence to it being true, which ought to please a scientist.
And the facts that many people
• experienced healing from Him,
• corroborated either the actual event or the condition of the person healed before and after the event
should lend credence to His healings.
3) Believers often have experiences--personal, corporate, etc.‐‐which encourage them in their own faith; to insist that any evidence which they encounter in their own lives somehow cannot affect their faith, or that a Being who is more interested in relationship with us than judgment is somehow denied the ability to reveal Himself to ANYone are odd constraints for you to attempt to impose upon believers, and contra to a tradition of both that Being and believers.
4) And yes, quantum mechanics makes anything possible and even explains "miracles"...so one could argue that "miracles" are part of the basic fabric of the Universe.
Does that make God less plausible?
If "miracles" happen more consistently to/though believers, does it make God less plausible?
1) You don't need to condescend, but you are creating a false dichotomy.
2) "Doubting" Thomas wanted physical evidence of the claim that Jesus was again alive, and though the statement was that those who had not seen, yet believed anyway, were blessed, Thomas wanted proof acceptable to him in order to accept this pretty astounding event as fact.
Even the miracles of various persons sent by God are signs that they truly come in His Name, and can inspire belief.
That doesn't fall into your notion that the appropriate Venn diagram with a {} at the union of "faith" and "evidence".
That should actually square with scientific evidence; the appropriately-skeptical scientist attempts to verify, on his/her own, whether or not something reported is true (and multiple, consistent measurements at all sorts of places make that possible).
The fact that multiple, different observers report seeing and even intetracting with Jesus days after He was dead and buried lends credence to it being true, which ought to please a scientist.
And the facts that many people
• experienced healing from Him,
• corroborated either the actual event or the condition of the person healed before and after the event
should lend credence to His healings.
3) Believers often have experiences--personal, corporate, etc.‐‐which encourage them in their own faith; to insist that any evidence which they encounter in their own lives somehow cannot affect their faith, or that a Being who is more interested in relationship with us than judgment is somehow denied the ability to reveal Himself to ANYone are odd constraints for you to attempt to impose upon believers, and contra to a tradition of both that Being and believers.
4) And yes, quantum mechanics makes anything possible and even explains "miracles"...so one could argue that "miracles" are part of the basic fabric of the Universe.
Does that make God less plausible?
If "miracles" happen more consistently to/though believers, does it make God less plausible?
Richard65 · M
@SomeMichGuy why are you equating a scientist investigating proof of something with theological faith in God? They are completely opposite ideas. A scientist isn't skeptical in a theological sense, he merely seeks to prove or disprove a theory, often using other evidence from other experiments or the findings of other scientists. A scientist will often find some theory doesn't work, or an experiment is flawed. Science is peer reviewed and scientists often seek to disprove a theory, something religion doesn't do. I can't believe you'd even say that. Lots of people saying something without tangible proof would never satisfy a scientist, at all, ever. You're equating belief in God with an experiment on mice that can be verified and repeated with the same results.
We're not talking about a belief in Jesus, we're discussing the belief in God (the Father). Thomas wanted proof of Jesus's wounds. He could see and interact with Jesus, there was already a tangible basis for his belief, because the man was standing in the room before him. Thomas simply didn't believe a claim about Jesus's resurrection. But he knew Jesus existed. That's if we believe the Bible. YOU WEREN'T THERE! Faith in God is of a different magnitude, it's a belief in some all-powerful deity, which created everything, the heavens and the earth, and whose existence has no tangible proof to back it up whatsoever. Because belief in him relies on faith.
If someone has an experience, then, yes, that can influence their faith, but that just adds to a belief that is ALREADY THERE before they had the experience. They then CHOOSE to utilise that to strengthen their faith, that's just an individual choice that person makes, and which does nothing to disprove my statement about faith. Indeed, the opposite can be true. I might have an experience that you regard as miraculous, but which does nothing to engender my belief in God.
When God supposedly "reveals himself", he doesn't literally reveal himself, the individual simply HAS FAITH that's he's revealed himself. Belief isn't evidence. Subjective experience isn't evidence. Unlike a scientist, he cannot repeat the experience again and again so others can see the truth of it and even repeat the experience/experiment for themselves. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Christianity relies wholly on faith and faith, as you have to agree, is defined as belief WITHOUT evidence. It just is. I repeat, that's the entire point.
Someone having an experience ISN'T evidence. People "corroborating" testimony isn't evidence. You say - 'and the "facts" that many people experienced healing from him should lend credence to his healings.' These AREN'T FACTS! They're just personal, subjective testimonies, written second or third hand, thousands of years ago, by people who weren't there, writing down words supposedly said by people who had no proof of their claims and which were often written years after the events they were supposed to have witnessed. There's no way any of that can ever be considered as evidence. I can't believe you fail to understand all that.
You talk about miracles inspiring belief. Miracles aren't facts. Nobody can prove miracles occurred, no matter how much you insist they can. In fact, belief in someone's report of miracles relies on faith - belief without evidence. Most all of the points you used in your post still rely on faith. You're literally making my argument for me!
We're not talking about a belief in Jesus, we're discussing the belief in God (the Father). Thomas wanted proof of Jesus's wounds. He could see and interact with Jesus, there was already a tangible basis for his belief, because the man was standing in the room before him. Thomas simply didn't believe a claim about Jesus's resurrection. But he knew Jesus existed. That's if we believe the Bible. YOU WEREN'T THERE! Faith in God is of a different magnitude, it's a belief in some all-powerful deity, which created everything, the heavens and the earth, and whose existence has no tangible proof to back it up whatsoever. Because belief in him relies on faith.
If someone has an experience, then, yes, that can influence their faith, but that just adds to a belief that is ALREADY THERE before they had the experience. They then CHOOSE to utilise that to strengthen their faith, that's just an individual choice that person makes, and which does nothing to disprove my statement about faith. Indeed, the opposite can be true. I might have an experience that you regard as miraculous, but which does nothing to engender my belief in God.
When God supposedly "reveals himself", he doesn't literally reveal himself, the individual simply HAS FAITH that's he's revealed himself. Belief isn't evidence. Subjective experience isn't evidence. Unlike a scientist, he cannot repeat the experience again and again so others can see the truth of it and even repeat the experience/experiment for themselves. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Christianity relies wholly on faith and faith, as you have to agree, is defined as belief WITHOUT evidence. It just is. I repeat, that's the entire point.
Someone having an experience ISN'T evidence. People "corroborating" testimony isn't evidence. You say - 'and the "facts" that many people experienced healing from him should lend credence to his healings.' These AREN'T FACTS! They're just personal, subjective testimonies, written second or third hand, thousands of years ago, by people who weren't there, writing down words supposedly said by people who had no proof of their claims and which were often written years after the events they were supposed to have witnessed. There's no way any of that can ever be considered as evidence. I can't believe you fail to understand all that.
You talk about miracles inspiring belief. Miracles aren't facts. Nobody can prove miracles occurred, no matter how much you insist they can. In fact, belief in someone's report of miracles relies on faith - belief without evidence. Most all of the points you used in your post still rely on faith. You're literally making my argument for me!
greensnacks · F
Do you believe in the functions of mathematics?
2+2 means 4, no? I can calculate it. You can calculate it. A person from Papua New Guinea can calculate it. But, they need to know how to do basic mathematics to do that.
It's the same with the rest of the science. 90% of it.
Go master geology, rock formation, chemistry, physics, biology and most needed sciences and you'd maybe be convinced. Because you don't believe experts (independent or not) and the evidence they show.
2+2 means 4, no? I can calculate it. You can calculate it. A person from Papua New Guinea can calculate it. But, they need to know how to do basic mathematics to do that.
It's the same with the rest of the science. 90% of it.
Go master geology, rock formation, chemistry, physics, biology and most needed sciences and you'd maybe be convinced. Because you don't believe experts (independent or not) and the evidence they show.
Evolution is Biblically unsound, theologically contradictory.
- Institute for Creation Research
"Evolution as a scientific theory makes no claims about whether or not there's a God who invented and guides the evolutionary process: it purely posits a mechanism by which one species might change into another." - UCCF Science Network
If all the animals and man had been evolved in the assumed ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall of Man.
Higher education teaches the lie that evolution is accomplishing progress and that a new day is about to dawn. A new day will dawn, indeed, when Creator God will send His Son the Lord Jesus Christ back to earth to make all things new." - Billy Graham
- Institute for Creation Research
"Evolution as a scientific theory makes no claims about whether or not there's a God who invented and guides the evolutionary process: it purely posits a mechanism by which one species might change into another." - UCCF Science Network
If all the animals and man had been evolved in the assumed ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall of Man.
Higher education teaches the lie that evolution is accomplishing progress and that a new day is about to dawn. A new day will dawn, indeed, when Creator God will send His Son the Lord Jesus Christ back to earth to make all things new." - Billy Graham
BlueSkyKing · M
Science's earliest roots can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia around 3000 to 1200 BC.
What about the Chinese civilizations? They were way ahead in of technology without "the word of God."According to the Word of God, science has been around 3000 years earlier since the world began.
Cite the chapter and verse. Also anything in the bible that refers to methodology.
DocSavage · M
@BlueSkyKing
Forget it. If it’s not on a Ken Ham video, he doesn’t know it. You don’t him to read the thing do you?
Forget it. If it’s not on a Ken Ham video, he doesn’t know it. You don’t him to read the thing do you?
SomeMichGuy · M
lol
No, you got that wrong.
You need to read the wikipedia entry about "consilience"...
Evolution has that: multiple lines of research all pointing to the same conclusion.
No, you got that wrong.
You need to read the wikipedia entry about "consilience"...
Evolution has that: multiple lines of research all pointing to the same conclusion.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
OriginalDumbMan · 36-40
@SomeMichGuy if there was evolution on very large timescale, we would be seeing some species between monkey and human. As we see green leaves, dry leaves, and leaves in between green leaves and dry leaves.
SomeMichGuy · M
@OriginalDumbMan That's apples and oranges. Dry & wet leaves are not different species of leaves, meaning your example is specious...
And people unaccepting of evolution always think one arg will somehow undo it...which is why understanding consilience is so important...
But the claim was never like what you present.
And there have been other proto-humans, but sapiens--what a misnomer!--won out by being a superior adaptation...
And people unaccepting of evolution always think one arg will somehow undo it...which is why understanding consilience is so important...
But the claim was never like what you present.
And there have been other proto-humans, but sapiens--what a misnomer!--won out by being a superior adaptation...
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
kodiac · 22-25, M
Quote-All they have is a lot of nice drawings and art work, and artifacts that is either tampered with or, more times than not, misinterpreted.You described the bible and religion in general .
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@kodiac
Read the post again, you are sadly mistaken.
You described the bible and religion in general .
Read the post again, you are sadly mistaken.
DocSavage · M
true science shows a much younger earth according to the Word of God.
According to whom ? What’s your consensus ?
WonderGirl · 41-45
And what about gravity? Don't get me started. 🤣
Because freedom of thought is the product of conscious thinker's evolution
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@DocSavage
It doesn't matter, evolution never happened. I see that you're not a historian.
How long was it that the title “evolution “ was first used ?
It doesn't matter, evolution never happened. I see that you're not a historian.
SomeMichGuy · M
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
Nonsense . As I pointed out before, god can’t even prove himself alive. Legally or by any of the laws of physics.
You lose again ,
Nonsense . As I pointed out before, god can’t even prove himself alive. Legally or by any of the laws of physics.
You lose again ,
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
God is an impractical aspect of creation. Whatever gave god his powers, could skip the step and gone straight to the endgame. What agenda could there be that wasn’t self achieving to begin with ? Something would have to give god his incentive, and concept of matter, energy.life ,and morality.
Each step of creation would have to come from a preexisting notion and progress in stages. Sounds like evolution to me.
God is an impractical aspect of creation. Whatever gave god his powers, could skip the step and gone straight to the endgame. What agenda could there be that wasn’t self achieving to begin with ? Something would have to give god his incentive, and concept of matter, energy.life ,and morality.
Each step of creation would have to come from a preexisting notion and progress in stages. Sounds like evolution to me.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Why does technology use that terminology then, hypocritical and conflicting to use both
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment