The plans of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
I Ratant said:
.
Prove it. Evidence requires proof, not imagined feats.
.

.
??? What does a journey or 15 million journeys prove?
.

.
There is no historic Moses. The Red Sea was not parted to kill Pharoah's army. That Pharoah is also missing from history.. as is all of Exodus.
.

.
All religions have miracles. Resurrections figure in many of them.
And none of them can be proven.
.

.
So? This does not prove Odin existed.
Click to expand...

Well somebody asked me to present evidence, nobody ever said that the evidence needed to have veracity.(Joke)

You want evidence with veracity? I am sorry friend but if you are trying to find it in religion then you are looking in the wrong place.(serious)
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Well somebody asked me to present evidence, nobody ever said that the evidence needed to have veracity.

You want evidence with veracity? I am sorry friend but if you are trying to find it in religion then you are looking in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

Most people know that evidence includes veracity. I'm calling troll here.
 
kerikiwi said:
Strong atheism: there is absolutely, undeniably, certainly, doubtlessly, completely, surely, indisputably no evidence that a god exists.
As scientific as you can get.
Click to expand...

Actually you are asserting the position of weak atheism(formerly referred to as Agnosticism) .

Strong Atheism(formerly referred to as Atheism) goes one step farther and asserts unequivocally that in fact "God Does not Exist" and in so doing enters into the completely unscientific realm of faith.
 
dafydd said:
Most people know that evidence includes veracity. I'm calling troll here.
Click to expand...


Gee Whiz, I was joking! What you can be sarcastic all day long but if I am, you call me a troll?

Come on now, try acting civil.

OK Let me spell it out for you: I don't believe in religion.

Is that clear enough for you?

They all seem to be a bunch of exclusive social clubs, so that mediocre people can feel superior somehow...

I despise all forms of discrimination and bigotry, ok???
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Gee Whiz, I was joking! What you guys can be sarcastic all day long but if I try to you call me a troll?

Come on now, try acting civil.
Click to expand...

At least we stick to one viewpoint and answer questions seriously, sometimes in a sarcastic manner mostly born out of mild frustration. Perhaps you could put some kind of a marker on your posts so we know when you are being funny.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
At least we stick to one viewpoint and answer questions seriously, sometimes in a sarcastic manner mostly born out of mild frustration. Perhaps you could put some kind of a marker on your posts so we know when you are being funny.
Click to expand...

OK, sorry...
 
josh3623 said:
and in so doing enters into the completely unscientific realm of faith.
Click to expand...

I know we've been over this countless times before but that's simply not true.

It doesn't take any faith to know with certainty that none of the Holy Books are true and therefore none of the definitions of Gods that people have come up with exist.

Yes, if you remove the need to define the term 'God' then we can't be sure it doesn't exist but that applies equally to any string of characters or symbols you care to present and only tells us that we don't know anything about undefined things.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I know we've been over this countless times before but that's simply not true.

It doesn't take any faith to know with certainty that none of the Holy Books are true and therefore none of the definitions of Gods that people have come up with exist.

Yes, if you remove the need to define the term 'God' then we can't be sure it doesn't exist but that applies equally to any string of characters or symbols you care to present and only tells us that we don't know anything about undefined things.
Click to expand...

Well the existence or non existence of an entity who created the universe, certainly if it did exist would exist exclusive of any book man wrote about it.

Actually it does take faith to "know" with certainty that none of the Holy books are true.

(Although I would not necessarily call them "holy")

That is why true Atheism(or "Strong Atheism") is a form of Gnosticism, and all Gnosticism is faith based. The Atheist would assert emphatically that these books are false, without the presentation of evidence.

We cannot truly Know whether those books are false, because we cannot go back in time.

However, from a scientific perspective, we certainly cannot believe that they are not false, for the same reason, because it is equally impossible to prove that they are true.

So like the Agnostic(or "weak atheist"), true Science simply will not go there, because it is impossible to prove or disprove.
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Actually it does take faith to "know" with certainty that none of the Holy books are true.
Click to expand...

No, it does not take faith. It takes an ability to assess the evidence.
All the evidence shows that the Bible is not true.
The same applies to other holy books.
No faith required
 
josh3623 said:
Well the existence or non existence of an entity who created the universe, certainly if it did exist would exist exclusive of any book man wrote about it.

Actually it does take faith to "know" with certainty that none of the Holy books are true.

(Although I would not necessarily call them "holy")

That is why true Atheism(or "Strong Atheism") is a form of Gnosticism, and all Gnosticism is faith based. The Atheist would assert emphatically that these books are false, without the presentation of evidence.

We cannot truly Know whether those books are false, because we cannot go back in time.

However, from a scientific perspective, we certainly cannot believe that they are not false, for the same reason, because it is equally impossible to prove that they are true.

So like the Agnostic(or "weak atheist"), true Science simply will not go there, because it is impossible to prove or disprove.
Click to expand...

No it takes basic reading comprehension coupled with a middle-school science class to know that these books are not true. Generally you don't even need to read either past the first few pages to do so.

The reality described in the Holy Books are fictional ones. It takes no more faith to point out that they are works of fiction than it does to do so for Harry Potter, The Hobbit or Alice in Wonderland.
 
kerikiwi said:
No, it does not take faith. It takes an ability to assess the evidence.
All the evidence shows that the Bible is not true.
The same applies to other holy books.
No faith required
Click to expand...

OK then, that is a broad sweeping statement...

Broad sweeping statements are usually faith based in my experience...


The onus is now on you to prove that statement.

Have at it...

But I am warning you, there is an entire field of science that would dispute your broad sweeping claim, a field that encompasses most of the largest and most entrenched and reputable scientific academic centers in the world, this field is known as Biblical Archeology, and make no mistake about it, it is a scientific field of study.
 
Last edited:
Last of the Fraggles said:
No it takes basic reading comprehension coupled with a middle-school science class to know that these books are not true. Generally you don't even need to read either past the first few pages to do so.

The reality described in the Holy Books are fictional ones. It takes no more faith to point out that they are works of fiction than it does to do so for Harry Potter, The Hobbit or Alice in Wonderland.
Click to expand...



Coming to a reasonable conclusion, and proving that conclusion, are two entirely different things.
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
But I am warning you, there is an entire field of science that would dispute your broad sweeping claim, a field that encompasses most of the largest and most entrenched and reputable academic centers in the world, this field is known as Biblical Archeology, and make no mistake about it, it is a scientific field of study.
Click to expand...

:D
 
kerikiwi said:
All the evidence shows that the Bible is not true.
Click to expand...
All the evidence? Really?

I don't even know what you mean when you say "the Bible is not true." Does that mean all the statements in it are false, or only some of them? If only some of them, would you say "all the evidence shows [pick a science book] is not true" using the same yardstick?

Certainly we can say that contradictory accounts of the same event in the Bible mean that at least some things in it aren't true. Accounts of incredible events which have no independent verification are unlikely to be true as well. Does that mean it's not true that Paul wrote to the Corinthians?
 
zeggman said:
All the evidence? Really?

I don't even know what you mean when you say "the Bible is not true." Does that mean all the statements in it are false, or only some of them? If only some of them, would you say "all the evidence shows [pick a science book] is not true" using the same yardstick?

Certainly we can say that contradictory accounts of the same event in the Bible mean that at least some things in it aren't true. Accounts of incredible events which have no independent verification are unlikely to be true as well. Does that mean it's not true that Paul wrote to the Corinthians?
Click to expand...

nit pick all you like, in common parlance when somebody argues that the bible is true, they are saying it's the word of god. It's not accurate historically or scientifically, that much the biblical archaeologists have proven... so Josh3623 is effectively trolling with his sophistry four posts above... if some historical events are referred to in the bible, so what? That doesn't make its grand claim to be the word of god true. Bickering about that is like trying to say that because jesus wore sandals he might also have walked on water... a pointless waste of time and energy, no more worthy of attention than an altercation between two five year olds playing in the sandbox... a drawing down of horizons indeed.
 
zeggman said:
All the evidence? Really?

I don't even know what you mean when you say "the Bible is not true." Does that mean all the statements in it are false, or only some of them? If only some of them, would you say "all the evidence shows [pick a science book] is not true" using the same yardstick?

Certainly we can say that contradictory accounts of the same event in the Bible mean that at least some things in it aren't true. Accounts of incredible events which have no independent verification are unlikely to be true as well. Does that mean it's not true that Paul wrote to the Corinthians?
Click to expand...

The OT is full of false information about the natural world and also contains lots of fairy stories.
 
zeggman said:
All the evidence? Really?

I don't even know what you mean when you say "the Bible is not true." Does that mean all the statements in it are false, or only some of them? If only some of them, would you say "all the evidence shows [pick a science book] is not true" using the same yardstick?

Certainly we can say that contradictory accounts of the same event in the Bible mean that at least some things in it aren't true. Accounts of incredible events which have no independent verification are unlikely to be true as well. Does that mean it's not true that Paul wrote to the Corinthians?
Click to expand...

The bible is claimed to be the word of god.
Clearly the bible is in many places untrue.
Hence the bible is not the word of god.
In other words the bible, as the word of god, is not true.
 
josh3623 said:
Hi Pakeha,
Thank you for your interest, I don't know that I can explain it because it is more of an emotional response than a rational one...

Reasoning? The reasoning is: "All This Can't be an Accident"


It really is that simple for me, I am in constant awe of the natural world, particularly DNA and its resultant genetic expression which is namely, Life, in all of its miraculous splendor.

LIFE, that is it, that is all. ... and while I do not understand it, while it baffles me... I must say... I just can't believe its an accident, something must have created this, for some reason, that I cannot and probably will not ever know.
This is what my heart tells me, it is not based on a rational belief, it is not scientific, it is just what I feel, and what my common sense tells me. ...
Click to expand...

Hi, josh.
I saw your response just now and I can respect your point of view. I've snipped it for space and because it contains references to the "c" word.

josh3623 said:
... there is an entire field of science that would dispute your broad sweeping claim, a field that encompasses most of the largest and most entrenched and reputable scientific academic centers in the world, this field is known as Biblical Archeology, and make no mistake about it, it is a scientific field of study.
Click to expand...

That's really interesting, josh.
Could you post up some links to good forums and sites about bibical archeology, please?
 
Sure thing Pakeha,

I have to scroll back to the original post and check out what the C word is, LOL...

Biblical Archeology is not really my cup of tea, but here are some links to a a few of the institutions I was discussing...



http://www.stanford.edu/dept/archae...hropology-environment-and-information-technol


http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/key-e-resources/biblical-archaeology-society-online-archive


http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300140071





https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/first-question-mark-identified-in-syriac-manuscripts/


Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
And the observed observer observing the observed is unaware of the silent tool of observation,...
Click to expand...
Wrong.

No one of the observer;observed;tool tool of observation is silence as long as they are not unified.
 
Paulhoff said:
God is a useless idea.





Paul


:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Only if freewill is wiped out and what is left is the discovery of a determinist realm.

In this determinist mechanic realm there is no room for originality, which is possible only if freewill is actually expressed as a brand new stream right form the state of complete silence, which is the simple source of any possible expression, whether it is an original one or a down-stream one.
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Coming to a reasonable conclusion, and proving that conclusion, are two entirely different things.
Click to expand...

Where do you want to start?

Noah's Ark isn't a true story. Ergo the Bible is not true.

As one of many many many examples of proof that the Bible is a fictional work.

While Biblical archaeologists may enjoy passing the time finding out what if any elements of the Bible are factual accounts that doesn't make the whole book any less a work of fiction.

The existence of NASA, astronauts, engineers and physicists does not cast doubt on whether Star Trek is a work of fiction.
 
zeggman said:
All the evidence? Really?

I don't even know what you mean when you say "the Bible is not true." Does that mean all the statements in it are false, or only some of them? If only some of them, would you say "all the evidence shows [pick a science book] is not true" using the same yardstick?

Certainly we can say that contradictory accounts of the same event in the Bible mean that at least some things in it aren't true. Accounts of incredible events which have no independent verification are unlikely to be true as well. Does that mean it's not true that Paul wrote to the Corinthians?
Click to expand...

Lets say you read a biography of Hitler which said he was the leader of the German Nazi party who led the country to war and that he could fly, was married to Marilyn Monroe and ate only plums for 35 years of his life and told the tale of how he flew around Germany with his wife eating plums.

Would you say that book was true or would you say it was a work of fiction?
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Sure thing Pakeha,

I have to scroll back to the original post and check out what the C word is, LOL...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links!
The "c" word?

Swiss, Dutch or Belgian
white, black or milk
Melted, frozen or even as a body scrub

No matter how you serve it, the "c" word rules.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

No one of the observer;observed;tool tool of observation is silence as long as they are not unified.
Click to expand...

No. The observed tool of observation observes the observed observer in the act of observation while unifying the observing observer in deafening silence as the act of observing the observed is tooled up with multiple observations during the act of unifying the observation as the observed becomes observed. Or not.
 
Last edited:
Last of the Fraggles said:
Where do you want to start?

Noah's Ark isn't a true story. Ergo the Bible is not true.

As one of many many many examples of proof that the Bible is a fictional work.

While Biblical archaeologists may enjoy passing the time finding out what if any elements of the Bible are factual accounts that doesn't make the whole book any less a work of fiction.

The existence of NASA, astronauts, engineers and physicists does not cast doubt on whether Star Trek is a work of fiction.
Click to expand...

Your assumption about Noah's Ark is Faith based.

Otherwise, Prove it.
 
josh3623 said:
Your assumption about Noah's Ark is Faith based.

Otherwise, Prove it.
Click to expand...

That's sophistry.

By the simple fact that just having a male and a female of every species would be too weak of a genetic base to achieve the complete repopulation of the world with healthy species, that story is obviously not real. Or the impossibility of having room to house them all and store enough food for them all... or catch them all... kangaroos, for a start...

Ridiculous. Your request for proof shows you are not serious.
 
dafydd said:
No. The observed tool of observation observes the observed observer in the act of observation while unifying the observing observer in deafening silence as the act of observing the observed is tooled up with multiple observations during the act of unifying the observation as the observed becomes observed. Or not.
Click to expand...
There is no act of observing or unifying at the state of Unity.

You are still trapped at the expressions' level.
 
doronshadmi said:
There is no act of observing or unifying at the state of Unity.

You are still trapped at the expressions' level.
Click to expand...

The unifying state of unity unifies the unifying unification in a unifying act of unity which unites the unities in a unifying state of unity in unification with the unity. You are still trapped at the meaningless woo level.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
No. The observed tool of observation observes the observed observer in the act of observation while unifying the observing observer in deafening silence as the act of observing the observed is tooled up with multiple observations during the act of unifying the observation as the observed becomes observed. Or not.
Click to expand...


I was just about to say that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom