Why would a loving God depend your salvation on bad evidence?

[RogueBorg]

Yea...I understand. The idea of a computer operating based off of a code is not what is in question here.

Computers don't interact with the environment on their own and, most importantly, don't reproduce.

I agree, I never said they did. My point was we know it takes intelligence to write computer codes (Binary 1's and 0's). I can't believe that millions or billions of years ago in some primordial ooze 4 amino acids bonded with each other by random chance in the correct order to form the building blocks of life. The code is too complex.

[RogueBorg]

1st: He didn't discover it. He invented it to put an order to the elements.

2nd: As said drosophila melanogaster. Do you know what a mutation is?

3rd: You can fight entropy by putting energy into a system. You mistake randomness and chaos. I already gave you and example about having laws within a chaotic system, but you're setting way to lose points to discuss this.

1. The order of the elements have always been there before man ever walked the earth.

2. Mutations are errors in DNA replication during cell division. A mutation doesn't explain how the information came to be in the first place. For example, when turtles mate the process is taking the DNA from the mother and combining it with the DNA of the father. It has never been observed, not will it, for a turtle to grow wings. Unless the mother or the father has the genetic information for wings in its DNA it can't pass it along to its offspring. A mutation is an error in the copying process. A mutation doesn't add information. A turtle will never grow wings naturally by mutations nor do they explain how the information came to be in the first place.

[ShawkFactory]

I agree, I never said they did. My point was we know it takes intelligence to write computer codes (Binary 1's and 0's). I can't believe that millions or billions of years ago in some primordial ooze 4 amino acids bonded with each other by random chance in the correct order to form the building blocks of life. The code is too complex.

Well that's the reason why it's a bad analogy. The combination of environmental factors and billions of years of reproduction is how the code was developed.

You're essentially saying that you don't believe in evolution.

[ShawkFactory]

It hadn't been discovered yet by man but they were always there. There's elements out there right now that have yet to be discovered that have a place on that table. The problem with your assertion is that at the time Mendeleev began to chart the elements less than half the current elements were known. Does that mean they didn't exist? Of course not, they've always been there. In fact, from time to time new elements are discovered and added to the table. It's man's discovery of these elements are where they fit within the Periodic Table. But make no mistake, there is a natural order to it and order speaks intelligence.

No, it wasn't. The order was created by man.

Yes, new elements are and will continuously be discovered. They're then placed on this table based on a few characteristics we've decided to categorize them by.

[Overdrive]

1. The order of the elements have always been there before man ever walked the earth.

2. Mutations are errors in DNA replication during cell division. A mutation doesn't explain how the information came to be in the first place. For example, when turtles mate the process is taking the DNA from the mother and combining it with the DNA of the father. It has never been observed, not will it, for a turtle to grow wings. Unless the mother or the father has the genetic information for wings in its DNA it can't pass it along to its offspring. A mutation is an error in the copying process. A mutation doesn't add information. A turtle will never grow wings naturally by mutations nor do they explain how the information came to be in the first place.

No, even your initial premisse is wrong. Some elements are older than others. Some only started to exist due to radioactive decay. Hydrogen is older than lead.

But let's say they're equally old. The order was created by men. It's like someone buys a shack of vinyls and sorts them in a shelf.
Then you visit him and say god has to exist, because the shelf is sorted by bandnames.
No, the guy sorting the vinyls isn't god, that's Mendeleev.

You know there are mutations that can manifest in the gamete's dna? Read about drosophila. For the third time. They develop favourable inheritable traits within a few generations.
Of course mutations are reproduction errors, but if they are passed down and favourable for survival chances are higher they get passed down again.
Turtles won't grow wings within 2 generations, but it could happen. Actually turtles grew flippers.

You know how much time houndreds of million years are?

[RogueBorg]

The combination of environmental factors and billions of years of reproduction is how the code was developed.



Not buying it, complex codes don't come together without intelligence.

[Overdrive]

Not buying it, complex codes don't come together without intelligence.

That's the point where it becomes dogmatic and useless to discuss further.

[ShawkFactory]

Not buying it, complex codes don't come together without intelligence.

So you DON'T believe in evolution.

[RogueBorg]

Well that's the reason why it's a bad analogy.

It's the perfect analogy. We know computer codes come from intelligence. I don't believe the DNA code, which is far more complex than a computer program came about by random chance.

[RogueBorg]

So you DON'T believe in evolution.

Not for one second. Life begets life. It has never been observed in a lab or anywhere else, life coming from nothingness.

[ShawkFactory]

It's the perfect analogy. We know computer codes come from intelligence. I don't believe the DNA code, which is far more complex than a computer program came about by random chance.

Maybe if you don't believe in evolution in any way.

For those that do, the analogy makes absolutely not sense.

[Patrick Chewing]

So you DON'T believe in evolution.

With the complexities of DNA and the human genome, the evidence leans more towards intelligent design versus an evolution over time.

[RogueBorg]

Maybe if you don't believe in evolution in any way.



No, I don't believe codes that are millions of "charachters" long are capable of coming together so perfectly that it produces life. I think a human with the right training given the appropriate amount of time and the right tools might be able to arrange millions of molecules in the right order. I don't think molecules floating around in a primordial ooze could do it "on their own."

[bison]

OP thinks God is supposed to be a magic genie that’s grants you wishes and dumbs down the majesty of the universe into simple cereal box puzzles. This is your brain on porn, Netflix and McDonald’s: being wired to expect nothing but gratification on demand. God gifts you the faculty of abstract thought and this is what you do with it :facepalm

[bison]

I’m only reading the last page of this thread but it seems appropriate to remind everyone that the Big Bang concept was discovered by a Catholic priest, and the founder of study of genetics was an Augustinian friar.

American discourse over Christianity always seems limited to southern evangelical creationists.

[ShawkFactory]

No, I don't believe codes that are millions of "charachters" long are capable of coming together so perfectly that it produces life. I think a human with the right training given the appropriate amount of time and the right tools might be able to arrange millions of molecules in the right order. I don't think molecules floating around in a primordial ooze could do it "on their own."

Life didn't begin with human beings. In it's infancy was far less complex.

To so vehemently refuse this idea you would have to also not believe that the earth is as old as it is.

[Chick Stern]

No, I don't believe codes that are millions of "charachters" long are capable of coming together so perfectly that it produces life. I think a human with the right training given the appropriate amount of time and the right tools might be able to arrange millions of molecules in the right order. I don't think molecules floating around in a primordial ooze could do it "on their own."
The theory of evolution is a fact that is supported by mountains of evidence.
And when new evidence has been uncovered, such as dna, it STILL supports evolution.

You are displaying that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic chemistry.

[ShawkFactory]

With the complexities of DNA and the human genome, the evidence leans more towards intelligent design versus an evolution over time.

:lol

[KNOW1EDGE]

What is "bad?"

Where did it come from and why does it even exist? There's different degrees to it and everyone has a different idea of what it is but there's absolutely no doubt "it" exists. The Bible calls it sin.

There's only one species on this planet that schemes to kill another member of it's own species for greed (sin).

There's only one species on this planet that covers its nakedness (ashamed (sin)).

There's no doubt good and evil (sin) exists within the human race. There's no such thing in the animal kingdom.

I already answered “what is bad” -everyone decides that for themselves. It comes from our own interpretations. I already said that.

Animals kill other animals all the time wtf you talking about?

The bible calls it sin. Cool. That proves gods existence? Hardly

[theman93]

I don’t think anybody is speaking in absolutes. We are speaking of our own morals and logic.
It’s bad to murder because it makes other people sad. -I don’t need god to feel that way.
It’s bad to steal because it hurts other people. -don’t need god.

Being nice to people is good because it makes others feel good. -don’t need god.

Murderers may think murder is good- that doesn’t prove god is real. -it doesn’t prove what good vs bad means. It’s just one persons beliefs/morals/opinion. We all have our own.

1) So the laws of logic are not universal and unchanging? For example we aren't accessing the same law of noncontradiction to communicate? You aren't looking for contradictions in my argument to disprove them?

2) You are speaking in absolutes. When you said it is bad to murder/steal you are making an absolute claim. But you've just given up that you are not speaking in absolutes. So when you say something is wrong/good you are borrowing from my world view to make sense of your own - which is proving God.

Ultimately you are reduced to a position where you can't even say that it is absolutely wrong to kidnap, molest, whore off and then murder a little girl.

[theman93]

I tried to tell this to theman93 already. It depends on the scale of the system. A large choatic system is only vaguely predictable. Weather for example. We climate is about the same any year. Winter is cold, summer is warm, but we can't predict if it will rain in 5 days.

Now you change the complexity. Smaller scale less time and you can pretty much predict the weather of tomorrow in your town.

Basiccaly small scale systems are more predicticable than smaller ones. Systems that produce the same results given the same input are not chaotic. Let's say there's a small hole in the ground infront of your house. You can't predict when and how much it will rain(chaotic system), but you can predict that the hole will fill up when it rains(non chaotic system).
Predictability of any kind is dependent upon the principle of induction and the uniformity in nature. We only can do science because of it. They are the absolute necessary preconditions to conduct the scientific method. In a universe that is time and chance acting on matter I am still waiting for you to give a justification for the uniformity in nature and induction.

[theman93]

All this talk of science and the atheists and agnostics have not even given a justification for the preconditions necessary to even conduct it.

[KNOW1EDGE]

All this talk of science and the atheists and agnostics have not even given a justification for the preconditions necessary to even conduct it.

Dude- you’ve typed 5 novels in this thread and have said absolutely nothing that substantiates gods existence.

We’ve answered all your questions and you aren’t happy and just ask more/repeat the same questions in another way. If you have a new question that hasn’t already been answered- fire away.

As I’ve said numerous times- I welcome the proof of Gods existence- you just can’t provide it. So we go in circles. (Your proof seems to be the Bible and asking questions about morals and nature)

[theman93]

Dude- you’ve typed 5 novels in this thread and have said absolutely nothing that substantiates gods existence.

We’ve answered all your questions and you aren’t happy and just ask more/repeat the same questions in another way. If you have a new question that hasn’t already been answered- fire away.

As I’ve said numerous times- I welcome the proof of Gods existence- you just can’t provide it. So we go in circles. (Your proof seems to be the Bible and asking questions about morals and nature)

No, they have not been answered at all. You have not provided a justification for morality. Everyone living according to whatever they think is good is not a justification. Morality by definition is the extent to which an action is right or wrong. So anytime you make the claim that something is wrong you are borrowing from my world view to make sense of your own - which is indeed proving God's existence.

You also have not provided a justification for science, logic, or truth. All realities we live by that can only be justified by God's existence. I've asked you to give a justification for them and you cannot.

[Patrick Chewing]

:lol

You come at this from an already biased point of view.

[SATAN]

Some of the dumbest people I've ever seen post on this forum. Unbelievable.

[Red Pill Sports]

With the complexities of DNA and the human genome, the evidence leans more towards intelligent design versus an evolution over time.

Well if this is the best that an all-wise God can come up with, then he absolutely sucks at his job. I mean for ****'s sake, we eat from the same orifice from which we inhale. We urinate with the same organ that we reproduce with. Both of these are health/safety risks and that's the best a perfect being can come up with? What a joke.

[ShawkFactory]

You come at this from an already biased point of view.

You were bullshitting and I laughed.

We’re together on this.

[Patrick Chewing]

Well if this is the best that an all-wise God can come up with, then he absolutely sucks at his job. I mean for ****'s sake, we eat from the same orifice from which we inhale. We urinate with the same organ that we reproduce with. Both of these are health/safety risks and that's the best a perfect being can come up with? What a joke.

Are you upset that you're not a unicorn?

[KNOW1EDGE]

No, they have not been answered at all. You have not provided a justification for morality. Everyone living according to whatever they think is good is not a justification. Morality by definition is the extent to which an action is right or wrong. So anytime you make the claim that something is wrong you are borrowing from my world view to make sense of your own - which is indeed proving God's existence.

You also have not provided a justification for science, logic, or truth. All realities we live by that can only be justified by God's existence. I've asked you to give a justification for them and you cannot.

You have already posed all these questions and they’ve already been answered countless times. Again, all of those realities you speak of are man made ideas. .

Then you say, “you can’t answer these questions therefore god is real” or you say my worldview comes from a god I don’t believe in. Just like religion- it all makes absolutely zero sense and again, for like the hundredth time, it unequivocally does not prove gods existence.

Proof would be picture or video evidence of gods existence. Or DNA from god himself or Jesus even. They’ve been searching for Noah’s ark since 275 CE. -wanna know why they haven’t found it? Because it’s not real. It’s a fable from your fictitious stories. Charlamagne gave Pope leo III the a foreskin that was supposedly from Jesus but later revealed fictitious. Zero artifacts proving gods existence. Just words from a book that has changed countless times.

You are hard headed to reality.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Some of the dumbest people I've ever seen post on this forum. Unbelievable.

I am flabbergasted.

[Red Pill Sports]

Are you upset that you're not a unicorn?

No, ass wipe. I just don't see the evidence for "intelligent design." Nothing about our construction suggests intelligence.

[KNOW1EDGE]

No, ass wipe. I just don't see the evidence for "intelligent design." Nothing about our construction suggests intelligence.

You don’t think you are intelligent?

[Red Pill Sports]

You don’t think you are intelligent?

No, I do. But it's in spite of my construction. Our alleged "design" has too many flaws to be considered the work of an intelligent being

[Patrick Chewing]

No, ass wipe. I just don't see the evidence for "intelligent design." Nothing about our construction suggests intelligence.

By what measure do you rate intelligence then??

[Patrick Chewing]

No, I do. But it's in spite of my construction. Our alleged "design" has too many flaws to be considered the work of an intelligent being

What flaws? The only flaw I see is our lack of immortality.

[theman93]

You have already posed all these questions and they’ve already been answered countless times. Again, all of those realities you speak of are man made ideas. .

Then you say, “you can’t answer these questions therefore god is real” or you say my worldview comes from a god I don’t believe in. Just like religion- it all makes absolutely zero sense and again, for like the hundredth time, it unequivocally does not prove gods existence.

Proof would be picture or video evidence of gods existence. Or DNA from god himself or Jesus even. They’ve been searching for Noah’s ark since 275 CE. -wanna know why they haven’t found it? Because it’s not real. It’s a fable from your fictitious stories. Charlamagne gave Pope leo III the a foreskin that was supposedly from Jesus but later revealed fictitious. Zero artifacts proving gods existence. Just words from a book that has changed countless times.

You are hard headed to reality.
And every answer has been rebutted. You said nothing is absolute. Well that begs the question....is that absolute?

And truth and logic are man made? So if humans didn't exist it wouldn't be true humans don't exist? Do you even see your own circular self defeating logic of your own world view?

[SATAN]

This is some epic trolling by theman93. Had me fooled for a while. Well done, man.

[KNOW1EDGE]

And every answer has been rebutted. You said that there are no absolutes. So is that absolutely true?

And truth and logic are man made? So if humans didn't exist it wouldn't be true humans don't exist? Do you even see your own circular self defeating logic?

I’m absolutely a male, wanna see my p e n i s? If humans didn’t exist, yes humans would not exist. Truth and logic are literally words made up by man. They are in the dictionary. No, I do not see the self defeating logic from me. I see a lack of logic and critical thinking skills from you.

It’s extremely tiring having this conversation with an open mind and getting nothing in return. I can’t do it anymore but wish you well and thank you for trying to prove your point.

[KNOW1EDGE]

This is some epic trolling by theman93. Had me fooled for a while. Well done, man.

I’m really starting to wonder. -I think he’s fuhcking with me.

[theman93]

I’m absolutely a male, wanna see my p e n i s? If humans didn’t exist, yes humans would not exist. Truth and logic are literally words made up by man. They are in the dictionary. No, I do not see the self defeating logic from me. I see a lack of logic and critical thinking skills from you.

It’s extremely tiring having this conversation with an open mind and getting nothing in return. I can’t do it anymore but wish you well and thank you for trying to prove your point.

That's not how truth and logic work. Truth and logic are universal abstract realities that exist independent of human minds. Whether or not human minds exist to make sense of it and put it in a dictionary is irrelevant. Which is why, as you admitted, if humans didn't exist it would be true (truth) that humans don't exist. I'm asking you to give an account for these realities without God.

[SATAN]

Notice how he steers the conversation in a different direction when he can't come up with answers.

Def trolling.

[theman93]

Notice how he steers the conversation in a different direction when he can't come up with answers.

Def trolling.

No, we started with morality. Which we found out he (and you) can't say anything is wrong. Now we've moved on to logic and truth.

[Axe]

What flaws? The only flaw I see is our lack of immortality.
Meanwhile, your biggest flaw is that you can't even be the very sinless being you ought to be.

[SATAN]

No, we started with morality. Which we found out he (and you) can't say anything is wrong. Now we've moved on to logic and truth.

No, you didn't start with mortality. You never gave a reasonable answer to his question many pages back and you're expecting him to just move past that and except whatever else you're saying after the fact.

This conversation is mind numbingly ridiculous.

But again, kudos if this is a troll job.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Notice how he steers the conversation in a different direction when he can't come up with answers.

Def trolling.

I just…. I went in circles with religious folk for 20 years. It’s nothing I haven’t heard. That’s how cults work- people will do mental gymnastics to avoid reality and try to speak philosophically in order to prove their wishy washy theories. I’m not even gonna respond to him anymore. It’s exhausting. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

[theman93]

No, you didn't start with mortality. You never gave a reasonable answer to his question many pages back and you're expecting him to just move past that and except whatever else you're saying after the fact.

This conversation is mind numbingly ridiculous.

But again, kudos if this is a troll job.

He asked for proof. I'm asking him to give an account for logic and truth which is foundational for proof. Not that hard.

[theman93]

I just…. I went in circles with religious folk for 20 years. It’s nothing I haven’t heard. That’s how cults work- people will do mental gymnastics to avoid reality and try to speak philosophically in order to prove their wishy washy theories. I’m not even gonna respond to him anymore. It’s exhausting. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

Call it circles if you want, but you haven't answered how you can account for logic and truth which is foundational to proof. That's fine if you think I'm avoiding reality, but I would point out that you can't prove to me what even is real. How do you know your not in the matrix, or that this is just a figment of your imagination, or that this is all a dream you haven't woken up from?

[SATAN]

He asked for proof. I'm asking him to give an account for logic and truth which is foundational for proof. Not that hard.

Come on...This is just you avoiding answering, whether you're conscious of it or not. You're looking to jump on something else he says to keep this never ending bullshit going. We can all see what's going on here lol.

[theman93]

Come on...This is just you avoiding answering, whether you're conscious of it or not. You're looking to jump on something else he says to keep this never ending bullshit going. We can all see what's going on here lol.

No, he asked for proof. If you can't even account for the necessary foundations for proof then you have no basis to even ask for it.

[Patrick Chewing]

Meanwhile, your biggest flaw is that you can't even be the very sinless being you ought to be.

No man is without sin. You don't know jack shit about life apparently.

[Axe]

No man is without sin. You don't know jack shit about life apparently.
Not necessarily poopsie. I meant to say that because you try to make yourself look holy here even if you're far from being one.

[Patrick Chewing]

Not necessarily poopsie. I meant to say that because you try to make yourself look holy here even if you're far from being one.

Never have tried to make myself look holy. I have many flaws.

[Overdrive]

And every answer has been rebutted. You said nothing is absolute. Well that begs the question....is that absolute?

And truth and logic are man made? So if humans didn't exist it wouldn't be true humans don't exist? Do you even see your own circular self defeating logic of your own world view?

You didn't rebut anything, you just don't accept any answer other than god.

[theman93]

You didn't rebut anything, you just don't accept any answer other than god.

I absolutely did. Nobody could give an account for why it is absolutely wrong for anyone to do something. Ethics/golden rule/empathy/opinion/laws (all the answers given) are not absolute standards to appeal to because they change from person to person, culture to culture, or country to country. If you want to claim something is wrong then you are appealing to an absolute standard which you nor anyone else has given. I also rebutted your system/level of system argument as well which you never responded to:


Predictability of any kind is dependent upon the principle of induction and the uniformity in nature. We only can do science because of it. They are the absolute necessary preconditions to conduct the scientific method. In a universe that is time and chance acting on matter I am still waiting for you to give a justification for the uniformity in nature and induction.

The ultimate of all of this are foundations or you can't justify anything. There is an absolute necessary foundation for science: uniformity in nature and induction. There is an absolutely necessary foundation for proof: logic and truth. Nobody has given an account for these realities besides the believers here.

[KNOW1EDGE]

“I can’t prove god is real- but you guys can’t prove logic, truth, or morality is real- so that proves god is real”

This basically sums it up. We can all go home now.

[theman93]

“I can’t prove god is real- but you guys can’t prove logic, truth, or morality is real- so that proves god is real”

This basically sums it up. We can all go home now.
Almost. God is real because unless you start with Him then you cannot justify the realities you live by. You’re asking for us to to provide proof to show God is real, but unless you start with Him you don’t even have a basis to ask for proof.

[1987_Lakers]

The bible has been manipulated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gegawKSrQ&t

[AlternativeAcc.]

Almost. God is real because unless you start with Him then you cannot justify the realities you live by. You’re asking for us to to provide proof to show God is real, but unless you start with Him you don’t even have a basis to ask for proof.

So in other words, be really stupid, gullible, and deluded and I too can believe in a vague idea of a supernatural creature.

Thanks

[Overdrive]

I absolutely did. Nobody could give an account for why it is absolutely wrong for anyone to do something. Ethics/golden rule/empathy/opinion/laws (all the answers given) are not absolute standards to appeal to because they change from person to person, culture to culture, or country to country. If you want to claim something is wrong then you are appealing to an absolute standard which you nor anyone else has given. I also rebutted your system/level of system argument as well which you never responded to:


And so do the religious beliefs you claim to be objective. I mean even people who somewhat believe in the same scripture have totally different religious customs and morality just some 500km apart or even within countries.

[SATAN]

Almost. God is real because unless you start with Him then you cannot justify the realities you live by. You’re asking for us to to provide proof to show God is real, but unless you start with Him you don’t even have a basis to ask for proof.

Why start there? Why not start with who or what created said God if real? That's how the logic works, right? I think you guys are being a little naive buying so heavily into the Nicene Creed.

[Chick Stern]

No man is without sin. You don't know jack shit about life apparently.

Sin is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.

[theman93]

So in other words, be really stupid, gullible, and deluded and I too can believe in a vague idea of a supernatural creature.

Thanks

Lol no. Give an account for logic, truth, and morality without God. I've been waiting for 21, going on 22 pages now for the atheists and agnostics to provide a justification for the realities they agree are real.

[theman93]

And so do the religious beliefs you claim to be objective. I mean even people who somewhat believe in the same scripture have totally different religious customs and morality just some 500km apart or even within countries.

You're talking about beliefs, I'm talking about an objective standard. If there is disagreement amongst those who agree the Bible is the truth then they can point to the text to show why the other person is in error.

[theman93]

Why start there? Why not start with who or what created said God if real? That's how the logic works, right? I think you guys are being a little naive buying so heavily into the Nicene Creed.

Because God is eternal. You can't create what has always existed.

[SATAN]

The irony is hilarious.

[Axe]

Never have tried to make myself look holy. I have many flaws.
Yes you do. Lying is one part of them.

[Nanners]

Notice how he steers the conversation in a different direction when he can't come up with answers.

Def trolling.

Gotta love a poster named SATAN arguing that god doesnt exist :oldlol: :oldlol:

[Bawkish]

You're talking about beliefs, I'm talking about an objective standard. If there is disagreement amongst those who agree the Bible is the truth then they can point to the text to show why the other person is in error.

Are you saying that the Bible is the objective truth?

[AlternativeAcc.]

Lol no. Give an account for logic, truth, and morality without God. I've been waiting for 21, going on 22 pages now for the atheists and agnostics to provide a justification for the realities they agree are real.

What are you talking about ?

Man created all of those concepts. Those subjective cocepts don't exist outside of our own species.

You think the universe is 'moral'..

The universe doesn't give a **** about you. Shut up.

[HighFlyer23]

Yes the same word Elohim is used, but it can be used to mean gods or the only true God depending on the context. For example in Exodus 20:1-3, "Elohim" is used in verse 1 which translates to God, and then it is used again in verse 3 which translates to gods. We see in those verses that Elohim states that He is Yahweh. Exodus 20:1-3 - "And God (Elohim) spoke all these words, saying, 'I am the LORD (Yahweh) your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.' You shall have no other gods before me."

But how do we know the author (Moses) isn't meaning other gods exist when it's stated in verse 3, "You shall have no other gods before me."? Because Moses is also the author of Deuteronomy and it's stated in Deuteronomy 4:35 - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him." and then again in Deuteronomy 4: 39 - "Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other."



And where was Yahweh in the creation account? He was right there, and it's the same story. Take the book in it's full context instead of proof reading and pulling verses without it's surrounding context.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Elohim is Yahweh because: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." - Genesis 2:4



Yes, gods which are false. Not the only true God, Yahweh. This is a consistent message throughout scripture.

To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him. - Deuteronomy 4:35

Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. - Deuteronomy 4:39

That all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other. - 1 Kings 8:60

You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.

You don't have the mental capacity.

Yes we know that the Bible contains passages promoting its own version of "monotheism." What I'm saying is that this was not the original belief of these people.

Yahweh was not originally known as the one and only God who created the universe. This idea was developed later on. These texts have gone through heavy editing and redacation throughout centuries to reflect this theology of this yahweh, who was likely first a god of metallurgy then adopted storm god attributes as he moved north (he became either conflated with the god Qos or that may have been his title in that region, the exact relationship between Qos and yahweh is not fully understood) into Canaan. When he reached Canaan he was confronted with Baal Haddad who was already the storm god and in the Canaanite religion, he replaced El as the head god. The yahweh cult wanted their god to be the Baal Haddad of the region and had their yahweh syncretise withe El instead of Haddad. Hence the long winded polemic against Baal in the Bible. Even in the Bible itself the merger is shown to have taken place at different times. According to what is known as the "E" source of the tanakh, we see that the union took pace during Exodus 6 while the "J" source has yahweh seemingly be known as the same as El from earlier. The "E" source according to the documentary hypothesis is from the northern regions and the "J" source is from the southern regions. It makes sense that the "E" source would have this merger take place later since they were from the Canaanites and the authors of the "J" source were from the original cult of yahweh from the south. I've proven all of this using the Bible itself along with other Canaanite texts.

You don't know a single word of Hebrew nor do you understand wha the scholarly view on all of this is. You are retarded enough to believe that Moses wrote Deutronomy. Moses now wrote about his own death and burial?
Deuteronomy 34

The Death of Moses
34 Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the top of Pisgah, across from Jericho. There the Lord showed him the whole land—from Gilead to Dan, 2 all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Mediterranean Sea, 3 the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the City of Palms, as far as Zoar. 4 Then the Lord said to him, “This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it.”

5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

9 Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit[b] of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.

10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

There are countless anachronisms and other clues in the Tanakh proving that its final editing took place late, most likely during the Persian period. Ezra who lived during the Persian period was likely was one of the final redactors of the Tanakh.

And even then it goes through more editing and change as we see major differences between the Qumran texts, the LXX, and the Masoretic Text. These differences and descrepencies were intentional and were done to change the theology of the time.

All you are doing is proving that the theology evolved and what is present today is a result of that.

[HighFlyer23]

Are you saying that the Bible is the objective truth?

The first few verses of the Bible let us know how “true” it is.

I’ll give these yahweh worshiping swines another clue:

There’s a reason why yahweh or elohim (scholars are now heavily inclined towards the position that elohim from genesis 1 is not the same as yahweh of genesis 2) doesn’t create the primordial waters

[HighFlyer23]

You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.

You don't have the mental capacity.

Yes we know that the Bible contains passages promoting its own version of "monotheism." What I'm saying is that this was not the original belief of these people.

Yahweh was not originally known as the one and only God who created the universe. This idea was developed later on. These texts have gone through heavy editing and redacation throughout centuries to reflect this theology of this yahweh, who was likely first a god of metallurgy then adopted storm god attributes as he moved north (he became either conflated with the god Qos or that may have been his title in that region, the exact relationship between Qos and yahweh is not fully understood) into Canaan. When he reached Canaan he was confronted with Baal Haddad who was already the storm god and in the Canaanite religion, he replaced El as the head god. The yahweh cult wanted their god to be the Baal Haddad of the region and had their yahweh syncretise withe El instead of Haddad. Hence the long winded polemic against Baal in the Bible. Even in the Bible itself the merger is shown to have taken place at different times. According to what is known as the "E" source of the tanakh, we see that the union took pace during Exodus 6 while the "J" source has yahweh seemingly be known as the same as El from earlier. The "E" source according to the documentary hypothesis is from the northern regions and the "J" source is from the southern regions. It makes sense that the "E" source would have this merger take place later since they were from the Canaanites and the authors of the "J" source were from the original cult of yahweh from the south. I've proven all of this using the Bible itself along with other Canaanite texts.

You don't know a single word of Hebrew nor do you understand wha the scholarly view on all of this is. You are retarded enough to believe that Moses wrote Deutronomy. Moses now wrote about his own death and burial?
Deuteronomy 34

The Death of Moses
34 Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the top of Pisgah, across from Jericho. There the Lord showed him the whole land—from Gilead to Dan, 2 all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Mediterranean Sea, 3 the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the City of Palms, as far as Zoar. 4 Then the Lord said to him, “This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it.”

5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

9 Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit[b] of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.

10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

There are countless anachronisms and other clues in the Tanakh proving that its final editing took place late, most likely during the Persian period. Ezra who lived during the Persian period was likely was one of the final redactors of the Tanakh.

And even then it goes through more editing and change as we see major differences between the Qumran texts, the LXX, and the Masoretic Text. These differences and descrepencies were intentional and were done to change the theology of the time.

All you are doing is proving that the theology evolved and what is present today is a result of that.
Just want to add that these are all postulations regarding yahweh development as he moved from Sinai to Canaan. Some scholars believe he was just a version of Haddad in certain areas.

Gods merging and changing is nothing new and was something that was done in those times. Different gods ascended and descended in status and power … some fell out of worship during different times and some became more worshipped. There’s ’ likely no official story that we can decipher for yahweh development… it’s however the authors of the religion want it and the authors of the biblical texts eventually had their own version of “monotheism” that did not come into full fruition until at least the Persian period maybe even later. They learned monotheism from the Iranians .

[KNOW1EDGE]

22 pages in, still no proof of gods existence.

The most clarity we’ve gotten is “I can’t prove god is real- but you can’t prove logic and good/bad are real, so that makes god real”

It’s like saying, “I can’t prove Santa Clause is real- but you can’t prove gravity and buoyancy are real, so that makes Santa real.”

[HighFlyer23]

But there lies the problem Overdrive. If there is no standard then you cannot claim evil even exists because at the end of the day it's all arbitrary. You have no argument against the murderer, rapist, child molester or thief because you have no objective standard (as you've admitted) to appeal to to call them objectively evil.

And that's a great question. First of all I would point out that objectively calling something immoral as you just did only makes sense in my world view because there is an objective standard to appeal to. So when you claim moral atrocities, you are stealing capital from my world view to make sense of your own. To answer your question though, believers often behave immorally because they are sinners. It's just as the Bible states that all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

yahweh your god fits that profile nicely.

Murder is quite easy for him throughout the bible.
Rape is something he personally does and orders

Zec 14:2

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished (šāḡal) ; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Isa 13:16

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished (šāḡal).


NET Bible commentary on Judges 5:30
Judges 5:30

30 ‘No doubt they are gathering and dividing the plunder—

a girl or two for each man to rape!

Sisera is grabbing up colorful cloth,

he is grabbing up colorful embroidered cloth,

two pieces of colorful embroidered cloth,

for the neck of the plunderer!’

tn Heb “a womb or two for each man.” The words “to rape” are interpretive. The Hebrew noun translated “girl” means literally “womb” (BDB 933 s.v. I. רַחַם), but in this context may refer by extension to the female genitalia. In this case the obscene language of Sisera’s mother alludes to the sexual brutality which typified the aftermath of battle.



Yahweh personally rapes the city of Nineveh personified as a female

Nah 3:5-7

I am against you, says Yahweh of hosts.
I will take off [gālâ] your skirts over your face.
I will let nations look at your genitals [ma'ar],
and kingdoms at your disgrace [qālôn].
I will throw filth at you,
I will sexually violate you [nibbēl piel],
I will make you a gazing stock.
Then all who see you will shrink from you
and they will say:
"Wasted is Nineveh;
who will bemoan her?"
Where shall I seek comforters for you?

Aside from the rape and baby killing mentioned above, yahweh allows child molestation and abuse

Numbers 31:15-18:

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This verse is notorious for this is the proof that Jews used for centuries to allow the abuse of girls as young as 3 years of age.

We read in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin folio 55b

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition

Babylonian Talmud Niddah folio 44b

MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED23 BY INTERCOURSE;

Mishnah is the ORAL TORAH from Moses from yahweh

Where did they get this from? Numbers 31 where Moses allowed the rape and molestation of young girls.

The discussion is as follows by the Jews in the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth folio 60b


It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest,13 for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14 and Phinehas15 surely was with them. And the Rabbis?16 — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen.17 If so,18 a proselyte whose age is three years and one day19 should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him,20 but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14 but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently21 it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit22 for cohabitation.23

footnote 14:
Num. XXXI, 18.

This is the Babylonian Talmud published by Rabbi Dr I Epstein and Rev Dr Israel W. Slotki.

https://halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_60.html

The authors, editors, and redactors of the Bible who were commissioned by yahweh stole most of their material from the Canaanites, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Persians and others from the Ancient Near East. They also stole the attributes and nature of other dieties such as Haddad, Marduk, El, and bestowed them upon yahweh.

So we can modify your words and accurately state that your god yahweh is a murderer, rapist, child molester AND thief

[HighFlyer23]

22 pages in, still no proof of gods existence.

The most clarity we’ve gotten is “I can’t prove god is real- but you can’t prove logic and good/bad are real, so that makes god real”

It’s like saying, “I can’t prove Santa Clause is real- but you can’t prove gravity and buoyancy are real, so that makes Santa real.”

santa is more real than their yahweh

[HighFlyer23]

Yahweh has you ******s fulfill your strongest desires of sucking the blood of circumcising with your mouths

Mishna Sabbat 19

MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby’s life occurs on Shabbat, he must be circumcised on that day. Therefore, one performs all the necessities of the circumcision, even on Shabbat: One circumcises the foreskin, and uncovers the skin by removing the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, and sucks the blood from the wound, and places on it both a bandage [ispelanit] and cumin as a salve.

No wonder the meaning of your yahweh might mean “He blows”

Yahweh oral Torah tells you to suck the blood of circumcision with your mouths. You swines literally suck offs baby’s per yahweh command

You are abusing neonates and deaths occur because of this vile practice ordered by yahweh

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

[SATAN]

:oldlol:

[HighFlyer23]

As mentioned earlier, I stated that yahweh accepted human sacrifice at a certain point. There is now evidence that Isaac may have originally been sacrificed according to a more ancient tradition according to rabbis and scholars. It was later changed because human sacrifice was then thought to be a grotesque ritual .


https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-abraham-murdered-isaac/amp/


Jepthah daughter was sacrificed to yahweh according to Judges 11.

Here yahweh seems to punish with forcing sacrifice of first borns


Ezekiel 20:25-26
New International Version
25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’

So yes, yahweh did accept and even punish with human sacrifice… more specifically child sacrifice

It seems that motif continued in Christianity with the father of Jesus sacrificing his son

Jews and Christians it’s not looking good for you … your texts are plagiarized from older material from the ancient near East …. Your texts contain falsehood and lies, historical untruths .. your god is a lesser metallurgy god that underwent transformations to become something else …. Your yahweh murders, rapes and orders rapes, orders pedophilia and orders child sacrifice … other gods were believed to have been real at a certain point and your yahweh was compared to them …

[outofstomach]

can anyone tell me why both atheists and agnostics tend to proselytize science (religious-esquely, might i add) and speak authoritatively about religion with no basic background or any engagement with theology/theistic arguments in general + philosophy?

like im genuinely surprised to see the amount of shoddy arguments in here that can be rectified with a google or two, or if you just took the time to read about God and different arguments that have been went over and put forth for its existence

why is it expected to have some sort of background knowledge on a topic on everything else besides God and theology? what makes it exceptional?

[KNOW1EDGE]

can anyone tell me why both atheists and agnostics tend to proselytize science (religious-esquely, might i add) and speak authoritatively about religion with no basic background or any engagement with theology/theistic arguments in general + philosophy?

like im genuinely surprised to see the amount of shoddy arguments in here that can be rectified with a google or two, or if you just took the time to read about God and different arguments that have been went over and put forth for its existence

why is it expected to have some sort of background knowledge on a topic on everything else besides God and theology? what makes it exceptional?

Agnostic here- was a Christian who heavily studied the Bible for 20+ years.

What is your proof of gods existence? We are 22 pages in and nobody has provided any proof.

[outofstomach]

Agnostic here- was a Christian who heavily studied the Bible for 20+ years.

What is your proof of gods existence? We are 22 pages in and nobody has provided any proof.
well, that kind of substantiates my point, you’ve only engaged with the Bible and have read no philosophy of religion whatsoever? No St. Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Spinoza etc.?

and if you’re willing to allow me to answer your question with a question, how are we defining evidence/what type of evidence are you exactly requesting?

[KNOW1EDGE]

well, that kind of substantiates my point, you’ve only engaged with the Bible and have read no philosophy of religion whatsoever? No St. Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Spinoza etc.?

and if you’re willing to allow me to answer your question with a question, how are we defining evidence/what type of evidence are you exactly requesting?

I studied many religions in college including hinduism, Catholicism, Confucianism amongst others. I’ve read countless philosophies.

Look up the definition of evidence or proof on google. Either will suffice.

I’m not requesting anything specific. I’m also not claiming god is real so the onus of proof isn’t on me, it’s on you to prove your claim. I can’t tell you what evidence to show me, if I knew of evidence of gods existence I wouldn’t be agnostic. The problem is, you can’t prove gods existence. No one can. That’s why I’m agnostic.

[outofstomach]

I studied many religions in college including hinduism, Catholicism, Confucianism amongst others. I’ve read countless philosophies.

Look up the definition of evidence or proof on google. Either will suffice.

I’m not requesting anything specific. I’m also not claiming god is real so the onus of proof isn’t on me, it’s on you to prove your claim. I can’t tell you what evidence to show me, if I knew of evidence of gods existence I wouldn’t be agnostic. The problem is, you can’t prove gods existence. No one can. That’s why I’m agnostic.
alright well, since you’re unwilling to define the grounds/type of evidence you’re looking for this discussion can’t proceed

i also have some reservations about the extent of your apparent knowledge of religious philosophies due to the very unsophisticated critiques you’ve posted so far

[KNOW1EDGE]

alright well, since you’re unwilling to define the grounds/type of evidence you’re looking for this discussion can’t proceed

i also have some reservations about the extent of your apparent knowledge of religious philosophies due to the very unsophisticated critiques you’ve posted so far

My apparent knowledge has nothing to do with Gods existence. I’m asking you to prove your claim, and you can not. Which is fine. I’m not going to play a semantics game with you, you have internet access and can look up the definitions of words you don’t know.

We can agree to disagree about gods existence. I’m just asking people to provide proof of their claims but no one can. -that’s why I’m agnostic.

[outofstomach]

My apparent knowledge has nothing to do with Gods existence. I’m asking you to prove your claim, and you can not. Which is fine. I’m not going to play a semantics game with you, you have internet access and can look up the definitions of words you don’t know.

We can agree to disagree about gods existence. I’m just asking people to provide proof of their claims but no one can. -that’s why I’m agnostic.
you’re correct, however my previous post(s) was lamenting about the lack of knowledge + philosophies that average agnostics + atheists exhibit which is correlated with the quality of arguments they use for their reasoning of disbelief in God

i still have no clue what you mean by “proof” nor “evidence” — i could propose sheer deduction from classical theistic arguments if you want to, like kalam’s cosmological argument, or the argument from contingency and we can proceed from there

that’s fine, (i guess) but you still didn’t really define what you exactly mean by proof here, and i have a sneaking suspicion you’re asking for some sort of empirical evidence or scientific data

[HighFlyer23]

you’re correct, however my previous post(s) was lamenting about the lack of knowledge + philosophies that average agnostics + atheists exhibit which is correlated with the quality of arguments they use for their reasoning of disbelief in God

i still have no clue what you mean by “proof” nor “evidence” — i could propose sheer deduction from classical theistic arguments if you want to, like kalam’s cosmological argument, or the argument from contingency and we can proceed from there

that’s fine, (i guess) but you still didn’t really define what you exactly mean by proof here, and i have a sneaking suspicion you’re asking for some sort of empirical evidence or scientific data
Which god do you believe in buddy

[KNOW1EDGE]

that’s fine, (i guess) but you still didn’t really define what you exactly mean by proof here, and i have a sneaking suspicion you’re asking for some sort of empirical evidence or scientific data

Yes, those things would constitute proof of Gods existence. But you are welcome to use whatever proof you have.

I’ve said it in here many times- I would love to believe in God because then I would be able to reunite with family and friends in heaven, many of which I never got the chance to say goodbye to. I don’t claim to have any proof that God is not real. Agnostics admit they don’t know whether god is real or not.

[outofstomach]

Yes, those things would constitute proof of Gods existence. But you are welcome to use whatever proof you have.

I’ve said it in here many times- I would love to believe in God because then I would be able to reunite with family and friends in heaven, many of which I never got the chance to say goodbye to. I don’t claim to have any proof that God is not real. Agnostics admit they don’t know whether god is real or not.
as i figured—then im afraid i cannot demonstrate or provide that sort of evidence to you simply because the tool that you’re attempting to use to “find” God is the wrong one

this doesn’t necessarily mean that God doesn’t exist per se, it’s just something that is not amenable to that sort of proof (or method of inquiry rather) just as much as the color blue or yellow is

a fitting excerpt from Saint Aquinas’ Summa Theologica

“Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That God Exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen.
Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Obj. 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says “Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Obj. 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.”

[Bawkish]

Yes, those things would constitute proof of Gods existence. But you are welcome to use whatever proof you have.

I’ve said it in here many times- I would love to believe in God because then I would be able to reunite with family and friends in heaven, many of which I never got the chance to say goodbye to. I don’t claim to have any proof that God is not real. Agnostics admit they don’t know whether god is real or not.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

[HighFlyer23]

Yes, those things would constitute proof of Gods existence. But you are welcome to use whatever proof you have.

I’ve said it in here many times- I would love to believe in God because then I would be able to reunite with family and friends in heaven, many of which I never got the chance to say goodbye to. I don’t claim to have any proof that God is not real. Agnostics admit they don’t know whether god is real or not.
There was no concept until well after the Persian period of an afterlife for the yahweh cult of judaism. They learned this idea of an afterlife from the Persians and it carried over into Christianity.

The ancient Mesopotamians had a crude version of an afterlife for humans and they may have been the first civilizations to entertain an afterlife . The idea of a heaven for humans developed over time.

[HighFlyer23]

as i figured—then im afraid i cannot demonstrate or provide that sort of evidence to you simply because the tool that you’re attempting to use to “find” God is the wrong one

this doesn’t necessarily mean that God doesn’t exist per se, it’s just something that is not amenable to that sort of proof (or method of inquiry rather) just as much as the color blue or yellow is

a fitting excerpt from Saint Aquinas’ Summa Theologica

“Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That God Exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen.
Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Obj. 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says “Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Obj. 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.”
Nobody can prove or disprove if a being who is responsible for the existence of the universe exists or not

It’s a futile discussion where you just place “God” into areas that you cannot explain

But the existence of yahweh or any god in the bible or of the bible has been conclusively disproven

yahweh of the bible and of judaism and christianity is less real than the lockness monster… hell even Chemosh and Marduk are more real than him

[outofstomach]

Nobody can prove or disprove if a being who is responsible for the existence of the universe exists or not

It’s a futile discussion where you just place “God” into areas that you cannot explain

But the existence of yahweh or any god in the bible or of the bible has been conclusively disproven

yahweh of the bible and of judaism and christianity is less real than the lockness monster… hell even Chemosh and Marduk are more real than him
im confused, you say that transcendent beings can’t be disproven or proven, and then you go ahead and say the god of the Bible (a transcendent being or whatever) is disproven

what is the conclusive evidence that pushed you to say this?

and rather placing God in areas one can’t explain, it is more so that it is a uphill battle when one attempts to find God through methods absolutely alien and fundamentally at odds with the concept of religion itself

[Overdrive]

this doesn’t necessarily mean that God doesn’t exist per se, it’s just something that is not amenable to that sort of proof (or method of inquiry rather) just as much as the color blue or yellow is

Of course yellow or blue is. You can easily bring forth empiristic and mathemathical evidence for colours and they're reproduceable anywhere.

What I don't get is that theists have the strong need to defend themselves when somebody asks for proof.
I'm obviously no theist, but I will never ask for proof as I rhink it's anyones kndividual choice to believe or not, but that's where it's at. It's believe, it's faith. Why can't most theists follow that? Why do the always have to convince others of their faith?

[outofstomach]

Of course yellow or blue is. You can easily bring forth empiristic and mathemathical evidence for colours and they're reproduceable anywhere.

What I don't get is that theists have the strong need to defend themselves when somebody asks for proof.
I'm obviously no theist, but I will never ask for proof as I rhink it's anyones kndividual choice to believe or not, but that's where it's at. It's believe, it's faith. Why can't most theists follow that? Why do the always have to convince others of their faith?
…you can prove to me the existence of the color blue or yellow, which is purely something that is intuited? there’s a mathematical formula that you can do for me, that will communicate to me in no uncertain terms of the color blue or yellow? this is absolute news to me, so im definitely interested in what you mean/what you got

[Loco 50]

can anyone tell me why both atheists and agnostics tend to proselytize science (religious-esquely, might i add) and speak authoritatively about religion with no basic background or any engagement with theology/theistic arguments in general + philosophy?


You're approaching this from a biased perspective. The atheists and agnostics that you have heard from may have behaved in that manner, but what about all the folks that kept quiet to the point you never knew existed?

I'm agnostic. I don't care what anybody believes in as long as they don't weaponize their "faith" in an attempt to strip away someone else's freedom. I do get pissed at those that spread pseudo-scientific bs, however, because for whatever reason (usually attention-seeking behavior) their actions will lead to harm.

Fundie Evangelicals and fundie muslims have both set a pretty bad historical precedent of using their religion to separate and control "the others" too often. They are the same.


…you can prove to me the existence of the color blue or yellow, which is purely something that is intuited? there’s a mathematical formula that you can do for me, that will communicate to me in no uncertain terms of the color blue or yellow? this is absolute news to me, so im definitely interested in what you mean/what you got

Shoot a light beam at a crystal and the light waves disperse. The waves will be bent (angle of deviation) dependent upon their wavelength/frequency. Relatively smaller waves, like violet will be bent further than relatively larger waves like red. All colors on the visible spectrum can be experimentally measured.

https://d3jlfsfsyc6yvi.cloudfront.net/image/mw:1024/q:85/https%3A%2F%2Fhaygot.s3.amazonaws.com%3A443%2Fchea tsheet%2F26405.gif

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-acbc35444b73913b21c975212e5e39b5-pjlq

https://www.toppr.com/ask/content/cbse/class-12-medical/physics/ray-optics-and-optical-instruments/dispersion/

It's an elegant experiment taught pretty early on in physics. Formulas can be found in the labwork.

[Overdrive]

…you can prove to me the existence of the color blue or yellow, which is purely something that is intuited? there’s a mathematical formula that you can do for me, that will communicate to me in no uncertain terms of the color blue or yellow? this is absolute news to me, so im definitely interested in what you mean/what you got

Our eyes are basically photoreceptors. Every form of colour is a lightwave with a certain wavelength. Loco 50 already showed the prism experiment. You can split light in monochromatic waves or produce monochromatic light itself. Light that appears in the same colour will always have the same wavelength. That's the reproducable part.

Now you project the monochromatic light onto a wall through a double slitted plate and measure the distance.

https://study.com/skill/learn/how-to-find-the-wavelength-of-light-in-a-double-slit-experiment-using-the-spacing-in-the-interference-pattern-explanation.html

The results always turn out the same for the same kind of laser projectors.

[Nanners]

matter is just light solidified... everything is light

[GimmeThat]

it's a matter of literacy, some people group the terms 'caring, sharing, giving, etc.' all under the umbrella of loving, which somehow still is debatable as to whether or not that is 'bad' evidence.

[outofstomach]

You're approaching this from a biased perspective. The atheists and agnostics that you have heard from may have behaved in that manner, but what about all the folks that kept quiet to the point you never knew existed?

I'm agnostic. I don't care what anybody believes in as long as they don't weaponize their "faith" in an attempt to strip away someone else's freedom. I do get pissed at those that spread pseudo-scientific bs, however, because for whatever reason (usually attention-seeking behavior) their actions will lead to harm.

Fundie Evangelicals and fundie muslims have both set a pretty bad historical precedent of using their religion to separate and control "the others" too often. They are the same.



Shoot a light beam at a crystal and the light waves disperse. The waves will be bent (angle of deviation) dependent upon their wavelength/frequency. Relatively smaller waves, like violet will be bent further than relatively larger waves like red. All colors on the visible spectrum can be experimentally measured.

https://d3jlfsfsyc6yvi.cloudfront.net/image/mw:1024/q:85/https%3A%2F%2Fhaygot.s3.amazonaws.com%3A443%2Fchea tsheet%2F26405.gif

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-acbc35444b73913b21c975212e5e39b5-pjlq

https://www.toppr.com/ask/content/cbse/class-12-medical/physics/ray-optics-and-optical-instruments/dispersion/

It's an elegant experiment taught pretty early on in physics. Formulas can be found in the labwork.


Our eyes are basically photoreceptors. Every form of colour is a lightwave with a certain wavelength. Loco 50 already showed the prism experiment. You can split light in monochromatic waves or produce monochromatic light itself. Light that appears in the same colour will always have the same wavelength. That's the reproducable part.

Now you project the monochromatic light onto a wall through a double slitted plate and measure the distance.

https://study.com/skill/learn/how-to-find-the-wavelength-of-light-in-a-double-slit-experiment-using-the-spacing-in-the-interference-pattern-explanation.html

The results always turn out the same for the same kind of laser projectors.


okay cool, i never rejected the idea that color has objective aspects to it such as wavelength + degree of light etc. however, i am strictly coming at this from a epistemological perspective, from the slant of empiricism, there is no way for either of you to prove to me, of the actual experience of seeing color whatsoever.

you can run a bunch of tests, shoot lights through a pyramid, conduct a bunch of experiments etc, but this has no bearing on the actual experience of what seeing color is actually like, have you ever heard of Mary’s Room?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

let’s steel Mary further, and say that she also learns what you placed up there, about certain colors bending a certain way, which you can deduce a particular color, does this raw physical information counter any sort of knowledge she could gain from just simply seeing the color for herself? does she gain anything new from experiencing the color herself, or are these experiments and information that you both have given me enough?

[SATAN]

:facepalm

This is ****ing unbelievable.

You don't believe in anything apart from something you can't even see of prove exists. We get it.

Everyone else is stupid. You are smart.

:facepalm

[Overdrive]

okay cool, i never rejected the idea that color has objective aspects to it such as wavelength + degree of light etc. however, i am strictly coming at this from a epistemological perspective, from the slant of empiricism, there is no way for either of you to prove to me, of the actual experience of seeing color whatsoever.

you can run a bunch of tests, shoot lights through a pyramid, conduct a bunch of experiments etc, but this has no bearing on the actual experience of what seeing color is actually like, have you ever heard of Mary’s Room?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

let’s steel Mary further, and say that she also learns what you placed up there, about certain colors bending a certain way, which you can deduce a particular color, does this raw physical information counter any sort of knowledge she could gain from just simply seeing the color for herself? does she gain anything new from experiencing the color herself, or are these experiments and information that you both have given me enough?

You're kind of making science's point. Mary can't see colour yet she can call some person on the other side of the globe, instruct that person to produce some blue light emitter(diode, laser, whatever) and bluelight will come out.

Would her experience with the colour blue change if she could suddenly see blue? Yes it would. But it would not change the quantifyable data of the colour.

Also that thought experiment is way older. See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

[GimmeThat]

okay cool, i never rejected the idea that color has objective aspects to it such as wavelength + degree of light etc. however, i am strictly coming at this from a epistemological perspective, from the slant of empiricism, there is no way for either of you to prove to me, of the actual experience of seeing color whatsoever.

you can run a bunch of tests, shoot lights through a pyramid, conduct a bunch of experiments etc, but this has no bearing on the actual experience of what seeing color is actually like, have you ever heard of MaryÂ’s Room?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

letÂ’s steel Mary further, and say that she also learns what you placed up there, about certain colors bending a certain way, which you can deduce a particular color, does this raw physical information counter any sort of knowledge she could gain from just simply seeing the color for herself? does she gain anything new from experiencing the color herself, or are these experiments and information that you both have given me enough?

in Mary's example, it literally states that a room and monitor is excluded from the world, and the mental illness tried to normalize it by saying it's black and white. I can also use the physical argument that had anyone been living in a black and white environment only, their vision would have been damaged in the long run and thus loses any ability to detect color properly.

it's similar to saying "I'm going to teach and tell you that when you collect up to 100 points, you'll be able to trade those points for a reward such as a house, now you know how to collect, but you have no idea/concept/grasp of what points look like, If I put you into the world with points after training you those skills, will you be able to collect them and trade them in for a house"

the answer is more like someone will just be drowning and grab a hold of anything they can find.

[outofstomach]

:facepalm

This is ****ing unbelievable.

You don't believe in anything apart from something you can't even see of prove exists. We get it.

Everyone else is stupid. You are smart.

:facepalm

why so hostile? i didn’t even say anything like this in my previous post, nor is it an accurate representation of what im even saying lol

[outofstomach]

You're kind of making science's point. Mary can't see colour yet she can call some person on the other side of the globe, instruct that person to produce some blue light emitter(diode, laser, whatever) and bluelight will come out.

Would her experience with the colour blue change if she could suddenly see blue? Yes it would. But it would not change the quantifyable data of the colour.

Also that thought experiment is way older. See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave


in Mary's example, it literally states that a room and monitor is excluded from the world, and the mental illness tried to normalize it by saying it's black and white. I can also use the physical argument that had anyone been living in a black and white environment only, their vision would have been damaged in the long run and thus loses any ability to detect color properly.

it's similar to saying "I'm going to teach and tell you that when you collect up to 100 points, you'll be able to trade those points for a reward such as a house, now you know how to collect, but you have no idea/concept/grasp of what points look like, If I put you into the world with points after training you those skills, will you be able to collect them and trade them in for a house"

the answer is more like someone will just be drowning and grab a hold of anything they can find.


i think you’re missing my general overall point of what im trying to say, im not questioning whether or not her experience with color would change if she could finally see, im asking is the objective data about color itself enough to know what seeing color is like?—this is mostly tangential to my point regardless, let’s say instead of Mary being locked in a black and white room, that she’s completely color blind period. said scientist, person, whatever etc. comes in and produces a blue flashlight emitter, and she still is unable to see it, how are you going to prove to her of the existence of yellow blue etc. if she’s completely unable to sense it?

furthermore, let’s say you do bring in that person to bring out that blue light emitted and she does in fact see color, im asking you, do you think she gains anything new from this experience, or should she know what the color blue is from everything she’s read about it? i didn’t reject the actual existence of color itself, what i am contending is science’s ability to prove subjective experience to one another. there is no way for me and you to know for sure, that Mary is seeing a certain color, the way that me and you see a certain color through a scientific/empirical experiment

what im ultimately trying to get at, is that the claim within itself “if you want to prove something exists, you have to show data for it” — if one is to remain consistent within this logical positivist framework, you would have to deny the subjective experience of red itself, because again there is simply no way to verify to one another, the sheer experience of seeing red itself, there is an objective and subjective dichotomy

science + reason is 100% useful for estimating quantifiable, measurable things, but when it comes to our actual conscious experience of things (such as say, tasting food, hearing a song etc) it is simply not the right tool to use. the qualitative aspect of our lives is something that is not amenable to “proof” it quite literally just is

science also does not practice itself in a vacuum, it rests on assumptions just like any other academic discipline, position line of thought etc. however it is a very effective one

here’s a fitting excerpt from J.P Moreland’s Scientism and Secularism

“One might think that the day will come in which scientists have so precisely correlated mental and brain states that a scientist could, indeed, know better than I what is going on in my mental life by simply reading my brain states. But this is not true. Why? In order for scientists to develop a detailed chart correlating specific mental and physical states, he must ask his experimental subjects what is going on inside them as he reads the brain monitor. For example, if he observes rapid eye movement in a sleeping subject and monitors what is happening in the brain, he must still awaken the subject and ask what is happening in his or her consciousness (the person is dreaming).

Thus, any correlation chart will be epistemically dependent on and weaker than a subject’s own introspective knowledge of his conscious states, because the chart is dependent upon the accuracy of experimental subjects’ reports of their own consciousness.

Relatedly, consciousness exhibits private access. Take any physical entity whatsoever—a rock, an organic chemical, or a state of the brain: Any way you have of knowing things about that physical entity (e.g., its size, shape, mass) is also available to “Any way you have of knowing things about that physical entity (e.g., its size, shape, mass) is also available to me. If you need to measure it to know its length, then I can do that too.

But I have a way “of knowing about my own conscious states that is not available to you: direct introspection. As Thomas Nagel and others have pointed out, we could know everything there was to know about the physical aspects of a bat, but we would still have no clue as to the facts about what-it-is-like to be a bat. These facts are privately accessible only to the bat. If all of this is so, then I have greater epistemic authority for knowledge of my own conscious states than I can ever have of the laws of nature and science.”

Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos is a great read for this sort of topic as well

[theman93]

22 pages in, still no proof of gods existence.

The most clarity we’ve gotten is “I can’t prove god is real- but you can’t prove logic and good/bad are real, so that makes god real”

It’s like saying, “I can’t prove Santa Clause is real- but you can’t prove gravity and buoyancy are real, so that makes Santa real.”

No you aren't tracking my friend (that's also a bad example you gave and shows you aren't understanding). You can prove all of those things are real in the Christian, agnostic, or atheistic world view. You just have no grounds to justify them without God. You operate as though God is real, but you say you don't know if He is.

[theman93]

You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.

You don't have the mental capacity.

Yes we know that the Bible contains passages promoting its own version of "monotheism." What I'm saying is that this was not the original belief of these people....

The Israelites were an idolatrous people, as the Bible states itself. You're not proving anything here.

Prove which doctrinal differences exist in the Qumran texts, the LXX, and the Masoretic Text.

[GimmeThat]

how are you going to prove to her of the existence of yellow blue etc. if sheÂ’s completely unable to sense it?

furthermore, letÂ’s say you do bring in that person to bring out that blue light emitted and she does in fact see color, im asking you, do you think she gains anything new from this experience, or should she know what the color blue is from everything sheÂ’s read about it? i didnÂ’t reject the actual existence of color itself, what i am contending is scienceÂ’s ability to prove subjective experience to one another. there is no way for me and you to know for sure, that Mary is seeing a certain color, the way that me and you see a certain color through a scientific/empirical experiment

what im ultimately trying to get at, is that the claim within itself “if you want to prove something exists, you have to show data for it” — if one is to remain consistent within this logical positivist framework, you would have to deny the subjective experience of red itself, because again there is simply no way to verify to one another, the sheer experience of seeing red itself, there is an objective and subjective dichotomy


you're really stupid. you wish you were smart, you wish you can prove that you're smart, and you hope you come off as smart.

1. would you ask a person with no leg to walk. apparently you would, a scientific person at its most curious heart ponders whether or not the person can grow legs. but you're literally ranting on and on about why a person with no leg should try and walk, and that's what science is about. yes, having no sense over something is in fact a disability. And again, if one were to ask you about Freuds take on ***** envy, you'd literally argue the whole idea of science is so that a woman can feel as if they have a *****. Even if it's been noted that ***** envy is an undesireable trait.

2. the idea of science is to prove something is quite juvenile, the world is the way it is, as it should be, the idea of science is to explain it and create a predictable reptitive pattern in order to better understand what is it that we do not know. It is to proof as to how nature works, not manipulating it as a nurturing method in order to supress nature.

3. let me repeat myself again, the idea isn't proving red exist, it is to prove that red exist and it helps me in a way that grows and there are data showing my growth. If red didn't exist and I made up some data then showed you that I grew, the mind becomes retarded. And so yes, living on a model of people told me so in comparison to one that is built by ones own experience is in fact, retarded, when put next to each other for comparison. The question one who possess the basic sense of logic and a mind for the science when being told red exist and it helps people grow, is 'what is MY red in order to help me grow' while others are spending time to develope themselves, what is it that I can do so that my personal time is spent wisely according to myself.

no way in hell, should everyone go through the world the same way, but everyone should experience it the same. and just how do I know the experiences are the same? the silence in abyss when time spent together instead of the jibber jabber of "I'm a gigantic ***** who can't experience the world as the way I desire so I'll use words to comfort myself."

but it's okay, because you knew you were being a b*tch when you posted your thoughts and wanted to be proven wrong, but the bigger b*tch in you told you, you should be more afraid of losing credibility.

you can now tell those who admire you that you're a gigantic failure, but they are no longer your responsibility, since that's what you came here looking for anyways.

[outofstomach]

you're really stupid. you wish you were smart, you wish you can prove that you're smart, and you hope you come off as smart.

1. would you ask a person with no leg to walk. apparently you would, a scientific person at its most curious heart ponders whether or not the person can grow legs. but you're literally ranting on and on about why a person with no leg should try and walk, and that's what science is about. yes, having no sense over something is in fact a disability. And again, if one were to ask you about Freuds take on ***** envy, you'd literally argue the whole idea of science is so that a woman can feel as if they have a *****. Even if it's been noted that ***** envy is an undesireable trait.

2. the idea of science is to prove something is quite juvenile, the world is the way it is, as it should be, the idea of science is to explain it and create a predictable reptitive pattern in order to better understand what is it that we do not know. It is to proof as to how nature works, not manipulating it as a nurturing method in order to supress nature.

3. let me repeat myself again, the idea isn't proving red exist, it is to prove that red exist and it helps me in a way that grows and there are data showing my growth. If red didn't exist and I made up some data then showed you that I grew, the mind becomes retarded. And so yes, living on a model of people told me so in comparison to one that is built by ones own experience is in fact, retarded, when put next to each other for comparison. The question one who possess the basic sense of logic and a mind for the science when being told red exist and it helps people grow, is 'what is MY red in order to help me grow' while others are spending time to develope themselves, what is it that I can do so that my personal time is spent wisely according to myself.

no way in hell, should everyone go through the world the same way, but everyone should experience it the same. and just how do I know the experiences are the same? the silence in abyss when time spent together instead of the jibber jabber of "I'm a gigantic ***** who can't experience the world as the way I desire so I'll use words to comfort myself."

but it's okay, because you knew you were being a b*tch when you posted your thoughts and wanted to be proven wrong, but the bigger b*tch in you told you, you should be more afraid of losing credibility.

you can now tell those who admire you that you're a gigantic failure, but they are no longer your responsibility, since that's what you came here looking for anyways.
yeah, it’s clear to me that you didn’t really grasp anything that i said, and you’re pretty angry that i pretty much debunked your entire dogmatic belief in science’s epistemic powers, the overarching point of what i typed out is, evidence of absence is not the evidence of absence, (just because a colorblind person cannot see color, does not necessarily mean color doesn’t exist) and that again you cannot prove subjective experiences to one another, i find it richly ironic you’re calling me an idiot, when you attempted to take a hypothetical thought experiment seriously and say that Mary wouldn’t be able to see because she’d have brain damage by the time she finally would get to see color, you’re pretty much a ****ing retard :lol

i agree with you that science being used to “prove” things is a juvenile idea, hence why i don’t really grasp why it’s constantly leveraged by atheists and agnostics alike to disparage theists and request them to “prove” God, when most of the major religions do not say God is a quantifiable, measurable pattern somewhere out in the world, it’s an immaterial non-temporal whatever (being, energy, entity, force etc. and even these words do a disservice to the perennial concept of God in general) requesting a person with no leg to walk would be absurd, and it’s a faulty analogy to what i said, i am asking, how would you prove the existence of color to a colorblind person when it is an intuitional endeavor? let’s concede that point and say im engaging in sophistry and swivel back onwards to a non-colorblind Mary, what empirical method could one use to prove as to whether or not she is seeing red or not? how long is this red? what size is it? moving forward, no one would request a physically disabled person to walk, if they cannot walk. that’s pretty common sense—in the same vein asking a physically disabled person to walk is absurd, it is just as equally absurd to request someone that believes in God to prove their belief on scientific/empirical grounds, when God isn’t something that is amenable to empirical methods or inquiries, (aka, not the correct tool for the job) you haphazardly made my point for me, congratulations!

it is quite literally that simple. everything else you typed out is either hard to follow or had nothing to do with what i said, so ill bow out here and hopefully await for a better response from another one of the posters here

thank you, do not come again

[SATAN]

They are just trying to move the goal posts so they don't have to prove anything, or atleast, they are trying to find new ground to move the goal posts on again. Rinse and repeat for thousands of years.

Ridiculous.

[outofstomach]

They are just trying to move the goal posts so they don't have to prove anything, or atleast, they are trying to find new ground to move the goal posts on again. Rinse and repeat for thousands of years.

Ridiculous.what goalposts are being moved? i agreed that there is no empirical evidence for God (albeit there’s been arguments made for intelligent design in this thread already, admittedly im not too keen on that argument, but i could very well not be familiar enough with it) and conceded that argument with the other guy, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t necessarily exist

this is basic epistemology, not everything can be demonstrated or proved empirically, and to state otherwise isn’t even science (science is open to other methods of inquiry to gain knowledge above all else besides itself)—are you open to any sort of religions/spirituality at all, or are you a firm disbeliever?

[SATAN]

It's not that important. Religion (in general) is only interesting in the historical context of a time period and words written. To me anyway. I can't just take it for what it is and run with it. It seems corrupted for many reasons.

I'm fine with their being a creator but I feel uneasy about people joining these communities and just leaving everything to faith and God's will, or our sinful nature for that matter. Religious people I've known and met have often seemed ignorant, judgemental or clueless. You might say, "well everyone seems like that sometimes" but I honestly expect better from people trying to lecture everyone else to do "the right thing".

The arguments are never ending and never prove anything though. The "because everything exists and old texts" line of reasoning might be very short sighted.

[GimmeThat]

no way in hell could I comprehend how some people went through life and concluded, man, woman, gays, lesbians, transexuals, all talked the same, as if it was only merely a matter of what chemical composition that composed them at that time.

it's as if making a statement that ran in circles means you gave plenty of thought into it, but then, I don't know what it's like to willingly and pridefully to have the testicles removed, as shown clearly, it never mattered.

[GimmeThat]

yeah, it’s clear to me that you didn’t really grasp anything that i said, and you’re pretty angry that i pretty much debunked your entire dogmatic belief in science’s epistemic powers, the overarching point of what i typed out is, evidence of absence is not the evidence of absence, (just because a colorblind person cannot see color, does not necessarily mean color doesn’t exist) and that again you cannot prove subjective experiences to one another, i find it richly ironic you’re calling me an idiot, when you attempted to take a hypothetical thought experiment seriously and say that Mary wouldn’t be able to see because she’d have brain damage by the time she finally would get to see color, you’re pretty much a ****ing retard :lol

thank you, do not come again

guys says a person who is blind to color can't see color doesn't mean color doesn't exist. you try to ask him, do you understand how literature and language works and came about, he says "just debunked your entire dogmatic belief in science’s epistemic powers"

language is an art folks, language is not science, we're all painting some sort of canvas with absolutely zero logic behind, but only outofstomach here is the sole carrier of the practice of science, and he wants to tell us because said he wasn't sure of his answer, it absolves him of all responsibilities, because in a "subjective" point of view, our viewpoints are definitely not science because it doesn't agree with him.

can't believe people ever had to listen to this guy.

[Loco 50]

okay cool, i never rejected the idea that color has objective aspects to it such as wavelength + degree of light etc. however, i am strictly coming at this from a epistemological perspective, from the slant of empiricism, there is no way for either of you to prove to me, of the actual experience of seeing color whatsoever.

you can run a bunch of tests, shoot lights through a pyramid, conduct a bunch of experiments etc, but this has no bearing on the actual experience of what seeing color is actually like, have you ever heard of Mary’s Room?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

She's a neurophysiologist. She's got the tools/knowledge available to her to experience the presence of blue light if she wants them in her unique (subjective) way.

Maybe her subjective experience with blue light is visualizing how strong her plants are growing. Blue light stimulates chlorophyll production which would be an objective measure.

Maybe her subjective experience with blue light is how well she's sleeping. Blue light stimulates melatonin production from the pineal gland via the optic tract after receiving transduced light signals from the retina. Melatonin production, again, an objective measure.

Maybe she gets her kicks monitoring the uptick of brain activity in her visual cortex, she is a neurophysiologist, afterall. She's weird like that. Objective measurement.

If you limit her solely to the perception of color, sure, she'll lack that subjective experience. If she then is capable of experiencing said color then she'll have gained that knowledge which may or may not be meaningful to her.

Subjective data by itself is only as meaningful as you subjectively ascribe it. It's all subjective.................:oldlol:



let’s steel Mary further, and say that she also learns what you placed up there, about certain colors bending a certain way, which you can deduce a particular color, does this raw physical information counter any sort of knowledge she could gain from just simply seeing the color for herself? does she gain anything new from experiencing the color herself, or are these experiments and information that you both have given me enough?

No, visual perception doesn't counter any prior knowledge. It's adding a snippet of information for her to use as she sees fit. She's a neurophysiologist so she can now associate a visual perception with her objective knowledge (wavelength/frequency, brain stimuli, retinal stimuli, plant growth) already gathered.

Folks were studying and working with viruses long before they were properly visualized under an electron microscope. That improvement in resolution simply enhanced our understanding, not countered.

Just because we remain blinded in one area doesn't mean we can't and don't find alternate methods of understanding.

Finding a way to gain a better/more resolute, understanding/picture of the world is the entire goal. That comes with time and effort.

[GimmeThat]

Subjective data by itself is only as meaningful as you subjectively ascribe it. It's all subjective.................:oldlol:



his whole premise is this: people fail because they weren't given the opportunity, whereas the reality is people are given opportunities everyday, but some of us are just dead wrong.

and he's obsessed with a scenario in which the invisible hand - the foundation of capitalism, is removed from the environment

[Loco 50]

i think you’re missing my general overall point of what im trying to say, im not questioning whether or not her experience with color would change if she could finally see, im asking is the objective data about color itself enough to know what seeing color is like?—this is mostly tangential to my point regardless, let’s say instead of Mary being locked in a black and white room, that she’s completely color blind period. said scientist, person, whatever etc. comes in and produces a blue flashlight emitter, and she still is unable to see it, how are you going to prove to her of the existence of yellow blue etc. if she’s completely unable to sense it?
Q: "Is the objective data enough?" A: Depends on the person.

Q: "How are you going to prove..."

A: Don't need to in this case, she's a scientist. She's smart enough to understand that there are other methods of perception. Convincing a less intelligent person would be far more challenging, but such is the case for everything. *cough* people still not understanding the far reaching health complications associated with covid *cough*


furthermore, let’s say you do bring in that person to bring out that blue light emitted and she does in fact see color, im asking you, do you think she gains anything new from this experience, or should she know what the color blue is from everything she’s read about it? i didn’t reject the actual existence of color itself, what i am contending is science’s ability to prove subjective experience to one another. there is no way for me and you to know for sure, that Mary is seeing a certain color, the way that me and you see a certain color through a scientific/empirical experiment

Gains subjective visual perception data which adds to her knowledge bank.

We can prove Mary should be seeing the color, can prove that the light stimulates her retinas, can prove that her optic cortex is stimulated, can't prove that she's actually experiencing it. Experience is subjective.

Anybody making a claim that science can prove subjective experience doesn't really know what they're talking about.

In healthcare we use a soap note:

Subjective data - how the patient feels
Objective data - how the vital stats/labs play out
Assessment - using all data we piece together a differential diagnosis and come to the most likely conclusion
Plan - start treatment towards said conclusion

Objective data doesn't lie, *unless it was improperly gathered* so it tends to be more useful. Subjective data can be a mixed bag, so it generally carries less weight. That doesn't mean it carries no weight. This is the dichotomy you mention below actively used every day in healthcare.



what im ultimately trying to get at, is that the claim within itself “if you want to prove something exists, you have to show data for it” — if one is to remain consistent within this logical positivist framework, you would have to deny the subjective experience of red itself, because again there is simply no way to verify to one another, the sheer experience of seeing red itself, there is an objective and subjective dichotomy

You can prove something exists by the impact on the subject's environment. Don't need to limit ourselves to your favorite perception of choice. Think black holes, gravity, virus, bacteria, etc etc. Things really big and really small give us difficulty because we haven't developed the proper resolution to view the subject. As that develops so does our knowledge.



science + reason is 100% useful for estimating quantifiable, measurable things, but when it comes to our actual conscious experience of things (such as say, tasting food, hearing a song etc) it is simply not the right tool to use. the qualitative aspect of our lives is something that is not amenable to “proof” it quite literally just is

You're now arguing against the validity of the soft sciences because the softer you get the more dependent the field is on subjective data......and what exactly entails soft is subjective as well. To the physicist, biology is soft. To a biologist, psychology is soft.

They all have their place. Some just have better tools of resolution currently.

ISH provides plenty of evidence that quality therapy remains an underutilized tool in modern society.


science also does not practice itself in a vacuum, it rests on assumptions just like any other academic discipline, position line of thought etc. however it is a very effective one

This couldn't be more false. Science doesn't "rest on assumptions." The scientific method requires that a hypothesis is formed. We then attempt to prove it false. If we're unable to, the hypothesis remains true. Eventually we reach a point that it becomes a waste of time and effort to continue testing a hypothesis for the answer we're looking for.



here’s a fitting excerpt from J.P Moreland’s Scientism and Secularism

“One might think that the day will come in which scientists have so precisely correlated mental and brain states that a scientist could, indeed, know better than I what is going on in my mental life by simply reading my brain states. But this is not true. Why? In order for scientists to develop a detailed chart correlating specific mental and physical states, he must ask his experimental subjects what is going on inside them as he reads the brain monitor. For example, if he observes rapid eye movement in a sleeping subject and monitors what is happening in the brain, he must still awaken the subject and ask what is happening in his or her consciousness (the person is dreaming).

Thus, any correlation chart will be epistemically dependent on and weaker than a subject’s own introspective knowledge of his conscious states, because the chart is dependent upon the accuracy of experimental subjects’ reports of their own consciousness.

Relatedly, consciousness exhibits private access. Take any physical entity whatsoever—a rock, an organic chemical, or a state of the brain: Any way you have of knowing things about that physical entity (e.g., its size, shape, mass) is also available to “Any way you have of knowing things about that physical entity (e.g., its size, shape, mass) is also available to me. If you need to measure it to know its length, then I can do that too.

But I have a way “of knowing about my own conscious states that is not available to you: direct introspection. As Thomas Nagel and others have pointed out, we could know everything there was to know about the physical aspects of a bat, but we would still have no clue as to the facts about what-it-is-like to be a bat. These facts are privately accessible only to the bat. If all of this is so, then I have greater epistemic authority for knowledge of my own conscious states than I can ever have of the laws of nature and science.”

Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos is a great read for this sort of topic as well
His assertion makes intuitive sense and correctly assesses our current state. Whether or not that changes in the future is dependent on major breakthroughs in neurophysiology.

[GimmeThat]

His assertion makes intuitive sense and correctly assesses our current state. Whether or not that changes in the future is dependent on major breakthroughs in neurophysiology.

here's an example, Men functions in C Major, Women in D Major, Gays in E Major, Lesbians in F

when you listen to another sexual orientation performing, you can still hear the harmony and determine if one is out of tune or not based on the underlying mathmatics. however, in order for anyone to compose outside of their built in scale, they'd have to lose their mental health.

[HighFlyer23]

im confused, you say that transcendent beings can’t be disproven or proven, and then you go ahead and say the god of the Bible (a transcendent being or whatever) is disproven

what is the conclusive evidence that pushed you to say this?

and rather placing God in areas one can’t explain, it is more so that it is a uphill battle when one attempts to find God through methods absolutely alien and fundamentally at odds with the concept of religion itself


Check my post history

So far I don't see anyone who can even process what I've posted to make a response to it.

We had some imbecile christian making strawman responses but he's clearly in over his head

The greatest evidence against the Judeo Christian tradition is their god and their scripture

A lesser deity that went through centuries of evolution and texts that have been heavily influenced by other traditions and that have been edited and redacted an innumerable amount of times

[HighFlyer23]

Russell Gmirkin new works show compelling evidence of Hellenistic influence upon the final composition of the Tanakh, especially from Plato.

The Old Testament was a dynamic text that continued to evolve until the Greek period it seems.

[Mr Exlax]

Some days I think "God" is the universe. Other days I think "God" are my parents.

[SATAN]

Russell Gmirkin new works show compelling evidence of Hellenistic influence upon the final composition of the Tanakh, especially from Plato.

The Old Testament was a dynamic text that continued to evolve until the Greek period it seems.

I think you sent him to a place he wasn't willing to go. A particular brand of posters seem to be taking time off to reflect recently. Wonder what they have in common...

[HighFlyer23]

I think you sent him to a place he wasn't willing to go. A particular brand of posters seem to be taking time off to reflect recently. Wonder what they have in common...

The entire "Torah" may have been created during the time the Septuagint was "translated"


https://youtu.be/2dQqv9oQCww

The library of Alexandria contained the knowledge of the ancient world within it ... It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they created the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible during that time period of the 3rd century BCE

The library itself would have been an access point for the knowledge of the beliefs and traditions of the ancients that we see repeated in the Hebrew Bible ... It's entirely possible they created it there and then by using their own oral and textual traditions and those of the ancients and the Greeks

Gmirkins ideas make a lot of sense ... There's no hard proof that there was a Torah or Hebrew Bible during the Perisan period where most scholars believe it had been finalized by Ezra ... This late composition completely smashes Judeo Christian beliefs even further ....

The oldest tangible evidences are still the Qumran scrolls and the Septuagint ... Perhaps the entire thing was composed during that time? Perhaps these are the "original" texts?

[HighFlyer23]

A character literally named Gilgamesh appears in the dead sea scrolls, the Book of Giants.

4Q530 and 4Q531 tell us of a giant named Gilgamesh.

The evidence continues to pile up and there is no response to it. There can be no response. Judaism and Christianity cannot be defended.

[Nanners]

Some days I think "God" is the universe. Other days I think "God" are my parents.

Some days you are correct, other days you are correct too... IMO god is a lot of things

[Chick Stern]

Some days I think "God" is the universe. Other days I think "God" are my parents.
Some days she thinks “god” is my *****

[HighFlyer23]

The god of the Bible and the Jews and the Christian’s is less real than a pile of steaming shit

And worth less than a pile of steaming shit

Dirty baby abusing pedophiles created yahweh

[joe]

Human beings had paradise but were too tempted to gain the knowledge of Good and Evil. Now that we have this knowledge, our world here reflects our sinful nature. Satan and those he controls have destroyed the evidence of God's existence. In order to prove Jesus real you must look at Fruits. By their fruits you shall know them. We see the fruits of atheism and sin in this world. When you find those who love closest to the teachings of Christianity, the nutrition of its fruits are apparent. The truth can be gleaned by analyzing and seeing that Biblical truth is Human truth.

[Norcaliblunt]

The trickster rules this world that’s why.

[Chick Stern]

Human beings had paradise but were too tempted to gain the knowledge of Good and Evil. Now that we have this knowledge, our world here reflects our sinful nature. Satan and those he controls have destroyed the evidence of God's existence. In order to prove Jesus real you must look at Fruits. By their fruits you shall know them. We see the fruits of atheism and sin in this world. When you find those who love closest to the teachings of Christianity, the nutrition of its fruits are apparent. The truth can be gleaned by analyzing and seeing that Biblical truth is Human truth.
Biblical truth is like Madonna’s underwear