Subjective Evidence of Gods

IamJoseph, You go on to list a number of things. Many are not actually changes. So before the Hebrew Bible was written, the universe was infinite? What did it change from to become finite when the Hebrew Bible was written? How did this change make the universe finite? So, the Hebrew bible changed creationism. Changed it how. Changed it from what? How does thie effect the remainder of the universe? I was only aware of creationism being important to a minority of the total human species in the last 2000 years, not the whole universe. So the Hebrew Bible was around to change something into creationism? Of were the events currently known as creationism occuring prior to the existence of the Hebrew Bible? So, how did the Hebrew Bible change monotheism? How does this effect the entire universe? I thought that monotheism was one of the more recent ideologies in some areas of one planet in a single galaxy. How is this effecting the rest of the universe? Also, was the Hebrew Bible written before the events in the bible? That seems strange. How could the book, the Hebrew Bible change something into monotheism? I thought that the events written about in the bible occured before they were written? How did the Hebrew bible change the physical characteristics of the Earth? What shape was it before the Hebrew Bible changed it? How has this change to one planet among countless planets effected the universe? When did this change? How many years ago was the Earth flat? This is a personal theory of yours. It also does not make sense as an answer. I asked about a change. Where is the change in this answer? Read the question again and see if your answer makes grammatical sense. I will help you, it does not make sense. As far as I can tell from researching your hypothosis. It is an idea that exists only in your rantings. Also, how did the Hebrew Bible change light? What was light before the Hebrew Bible changed it? How did it change it and when did it change it? This is also a contested point. This answer also does not make grammatical sense. What was the change that you are talking about here? How does this change to one group of life forms, on one planet in the entire universe effect the universe? this is not only bullshit but also is not a change. again, bullshit and not a change. What? The stars are unaccountable for what? What action are they unaccountable for? What the fuck are you talking about? this is not a change.You started with some answer that actually made sense as answers. They are total bullshit but at least they made sense given the question that was asked. Then you went into auto IamJoseph mode and went through your reel of bullshit.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

IamJoseph,Do you even think about what you type? Who is not confronting religion directly. This forum is designed to do just that. The Evolutionist side confronts the creationist side directly and the creationist side confronts the evolutionist side directly. Deny what exactly. What in this inane rant are you accusing everyone of doing?As for this...The Hebrew Bible "billions of evidential stats not seen anywhere else"Do you know how many a billion is?Its this many : 1,000,000,000Thats a lot.you know how many words there are in the Hebrew Bible?its this many : 773, 682From your statement, there are 999,226,318 more 'evidential stats' than there are words in the Hebrew Bible.And they are statistics not found in any other source.Come on IamJoseph, even you must see how fucking stupid that suggestion is.Please tell me you can see that.A child would be able to see that.

Dawn Bertot, That is an incorrect assumption. I can be wrong. I do not belive that I cannot be wrong.I am not wrong in this particular circumstance. This proves my point. You do not know what the word communicate means.Look at this sentence closely -

quote:

---

I COMMUNICATE but no one recieves the message.

---

Now, here is the definition of communicate -Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.Here is the definition of response-response - the act of responding; reply or reactionCan you see where you are going wrong? Communication requires both parties to be aware and able to understand the interchange of informationresponding does not require the second party to be aware of or able to understand the informationIn your example, you have responded but you have not communicated. You are unable to communicate.Irregardless is not a word.In your example you made and attempt at communication. A failed attempt to communicate.You have not attempted a response because a response is a reaction.If you received a message from outer space and made a 'scientifiky' attempt at replying, you would be responding. You are making an attempt to communicate. You are willing and able to respond. If they did not detect your response, you have failed at communication. You have responded. You failed to communicate. My task was to respond. I responded. Task completed. I was willing and able to respond. I failed at communication.The task is response. Task completed. The task was NOT communication.Here is your example - The task in question is response. not communicate here are my other options again - The task is response. Not communication.They are not irrelevant. They mean two entirely different things. The task is response. Not communication.No you have not. You have shown that you do not understand the difference between communicate and respond. Communicating with aliens and responding to aliens are two different tasks. The task in your example is response. Not communication. If they do not hear you, you have completed the task of responding. You have failed to communicate. Correct. The other ship has failed to communicate. This does not mean they have not responded. This does not mean they are unwilling or unable to respond. It is not irrelevant. You provided an example. The task in that example was response. You seem unwilling or unable to tell the difference between the task of responding and the task of communicating.The only thing you have indicated and demonstrated is your inability to use the English language correctly.Get it?Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Dawn,You just dont get it.This will be my last attempt to explain this very, very simple error you are making.I can see what you are saying. I can also see the fucking huge blindingly obvious error you are making.If I had not encountered you before, I would assume that you are intentionally avoiding the fucking huge obvious error you are making just to be a pain in the arse.Lets see if you can tell the differnce between these two words.Communicate and respond.Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.Respond - the act of responding; reply or reactionI am going to give you some situations.Reply back with which ones you think are an example of a responce and which ones you think are communication. Person B is the target. They are going to either respond or communicate. If in any case you believe that they are unwilling or unable to respond, please outline why you think this is so.Situation one - person A walks up to Person B and says 'hello', person B says 'hello' back.Situation two - person A walks past person B wearing a shirt with a nazi swastika on it. Person B flips the bird to person A's back as he walks away.Situation three - Person A walks up to person B and says hello. Person B is mute and signs 'I cant speak' to person A.Situation four - Person A walks up to person B from a distance and yells 'hello', Person B has their iPod in and does not hear person A. Person B continues walking without any reaction.Situation 4 is a bit of a curveball. It does fit one of the four examples I supplied for possible reactions. Let me know if you think person B was unwilling or unable to respond and why.If you answer those questions it will very simply illustrate my point.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning (Obviously wasn't the last attempt)

Dawn Bertot,You are still making the same error. I believe you are doing intentionally to try to hold onto you original point. I did not disregard them. All of your questions were based on the error you made at the start of your post. Making all of your questions pointless. My reply is trying to correct that error. In case you have forgotten your example, I will provide it again. This is correct. Person B is willing and able to respond to person A. This is incorrect. The response of flipping the bird was directed to the person. "Person B flips the bird to person A's back as he walks away." Person B was responding to person A. Person A was willing and able to respond. You have actually said this in your respond. No, look back to the Star trek example you provided. Notice this is an example of willing to respond and able to respond where the target, person B, is unaware of the response. This is one of the examples i gave as an alternate to your suggestion. Willing and able to respond but the target (in your example, the Enterprise) was not aware of the response.Person B not asking for the response is irrelevant. This sentence does not make sense. This is a perfect example of the error you are making. How is it possible that with the definitions already supplied to you, you cannot apply them correctly. This is correct. The response being successful means that communication has been acheived. This is incorrect. This means you are either ignoring or not understanding the definitions of the words respond and communicate. I cant imagine how you have managed to do this because I have supplied the definitions in the post. You are either being willfully ignorant or you cannot understand the definitions.Here they are again -

quote:

---

Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.

​

response - the act of responding; reply or reaction

---

Can you see how these two words have different meanings? If you cannot see the difference between the two meaning there is a language issue (in which case I will continue to help you) or you are mentally deficient (in which case I wont be helping you as i do not have the time or experience to teach the intellectually challenged. I have experience teaching secondary and tertiary students but not special need students).look at your reply - look at the definition of response - Understanding the response in not required for the response to be made. The action of responding has been completed. Person A has responded. Person A was willing and able to respond. The task of responding has been completed. Just because person B did not understand the response does not mean tht the response was not given or received. It was not understood which means that communication has failed.You gave this as your reason why the response task was not performed - This is incorrect. The response does not require understanding. Communication requires understanding. Communication failing does not mean that the response was not given. The task of responding was the sign language "I cant speak". This was the response. The response task was successfully performed. Person A was both willing and able to perform the task of responding. Person B not understanding that response does not mean that the response did not occur. Another example to help this along. The most recent reply that you posted to my message was a response. You have responded to my comments. You have completed the task of responding. If I never read your response or was involved in an accident that destroyed my ability to understand your response does not mean that you were not willing and able to respond. You have completed the task of response. Regardless of whether I read or understand it, you have successfully completed the task of response. This sentence does not make sense. What action? Notice how you have used the word communicate in your reply. Communication is not what was in your example. Your example was response. In your example the two options given were : the alien craft was either unwilling or unable to respond. Not unwilling or unable to communicate. The task for person B was to respond. Not communicate. One of the alternate options I supplied was that the craft was unaware or that they needed to respond to anything meaning that they are not unwilling or unable to respond, they dont know that they need to respond to anything. As in the example given, person B is both willing and able to respond. Person B is merely unaware that any response in requested. This means that communication has failed. The goal for person B was not communication. Person B was unaware that anyone was hailing him. He supplied no response because he was not aware that a response was required. This does not mean he was unable to respond.If you were in exactly the same situation, would you lose the ability to respond because you dont know that someone is hailing you? Do you think that all of a sudden you lost the ability to speak, write, make some sort of hand gesture etc to respond? When I yelled out a message to you did you all of a sudden lose all of your ability to respond? No, of course you didnt. You were both willing and able to respond. You were just unaware that any response was requested. Willing and able are not the issues. I do think you may be a little confused about what they mean also from some of your answers though. The issue is your understanding of the difference between respond and communicate.A person can be both willing and able to respond but choose not to do so. This means that they have failed to communicate. A person can be willing and able to respond but they cannot respond in a way that the other person can understand. They are bot willing and able to respond, but unable to communicate. A person can respond to a dog in english. The dog brings them a ball. The person responds by speaking in a monotone voice in english. The response is given. The person was willing and able to respond. The dog does not understand english so communication fails.Understanding or knowledge of the response is not required for the task of responding to be performed successfully. The task of responding can be completed without any communication occuring.for example, you asked this question - I am willing and able to provide this response -Uwezo wa kutaka na si masuala. Nadhani unaweza kuwa ni kidogo tu juu ya nini maana pia kutoka kwa baadhi ya majibu yako ingawa. suala ni uelewa wako wa tofauti kati ya kukabiliana na kuwasiliana.I have completed the task of response. Unless you actually speak a central African language, you will not understand that response. It does not mean that a response has not occurred. I was both willing and able to respond. You can tell i was willing and able to repond because you can actually see my response on the screen in front of you. The response actually exists. Do you see the response ^up there^. Can you see that I was willing and able to provide that response. Even though you cannot understand that response, it does not mean that the response no longer exists. The task of responding has been completed. Just because you are unable to understand the response, does not mean that I have become unwilling or unable to provide that response. Using examples in text of different terms is actually a currently used method to educate people in the English language. It is the primary was to teach basic English. What your reply has demonstarted is that you are either having difficulty understanding the definitions of the two words (respond and communicate) or that you are mentally deficient. Woven into the fabric of existence? What the fuck are you talking about? You provided a Star Trek example and I was responding to that. Is Star Trek now "woven into the fabric of existence"? What prinicple are you talking about? Unwilling and unable are not the issue. Just because a response is not understood does not mean that you are unable or unwilling to provide it. The issue is your misunderstanding (I believe deliberate) of the words response and communicate.I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting dragged into a pointless philosophical debate about existence with you. Like i said, I find philosophical debates boring and ultimately pointless. I think that any philosophical debate with you in particular would quickly become boring and pointless.Here is another example. Lets say that once you get to the end of this post, you decide not to reply. Does this mean that you are unwilling to reply? Does it mean you are unable to reply? You may be willing to reply, but choose not to. You may be able to reply, but choose not to.Stop, before you type anything back. Think for a second. If you turn off your comp now and do not send a reply back to me, do you become unwilling? Do you become unable?here is the definition of willing (including an example from the Bible) here is a definition of able Are you, right now willing to respond? Are you favourable dispose, inclined or ready to respond?Are you, right now able to respond? Do you have sufficient power or resources to accomplish the task of responding?If yes, then you are willing and able to respone. Now, if you choose to not reply to this message, it does not change the fact that you are willing and able to respond does it? How about you respond in your native language, this also means that you are willing and able to respond. The fact that i do not understand your response does not mean that your response ceases to exist. Try going outside and yelling your response at a tree. You are (I assume) both willing and able to respond in this fashion. Even though I will not hear this response, and will be totally unaware that the task of reponse has been completed it does not mean that you become unwilling or unable to respond.That is more than a dozen examples of the use of the word response. If you cant get it from those examples, you cannot be taught. I used these examples on two of my neices. Aged 6 and 9. They are now able to differentiate between response and communicate and have understood the alternate examples I gave to your Star Trek scenario. For this reason I do not doubt my explanations. If a 6 year old can get it, you should be able to as well.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Dawn Bertot.This example just shows, once again that your grasp of the structure of the English language is poor. First mistake - Someone trying to call you is not a response. A responce is a reaction. The caller is not reaction to anything. They are not responding to anything.To fix your first mistake, lets say you called them, they missed the call, you left a voice message and they are now responding to that voice message.Second mistake - If the person did make contact, they have acheived communication. This is not a requirement for a response. Responding and communicating are different words with different meanings. I have supplied the meanings a few times now. How about you read them until you understand them. Of tell me that you dont undertsnad them and I will try to help you.Third mistake - the task is response. If they are not successfull in making contact, the task hs been completed. They have responded. They are not unable to respond. They have not lost the ability to use the phone. They can still respond. The ability to make a phone call (able) still exists. They are still willing and able to respond. They have failed to communicate because you did not answer your phone. The person has responded to your voice message. You did not hear your phone. This does not mean that the caller was not willing or able to respond. They were willing and able, thats why our phone was ringing. The call is their response. You do not know that the response is being made, but that does not mean that the response did not happen.Get it? If the writer was trying to state a premise, he did it poorly. As I have provided two alternate possibilities to the original two provided by you. It is possible that you misquoted the original source though. The premise was not irrefutable. I have refuted it. How is it conclusive? What arguement has it resolved? It was also not absolute either as I have provided two alternate options. There are two other possibilties. I have supplied them to you. Areas where that situation could be considered? What does that even mean? What other areas are you taking about? Existence sets boundaries on Star Trek references? Since when?Saying you are right, over and over again in different ways will not actually make you right. In order to be right, you have to provide and opposing arguement that is superior to mine. This is simply a comprehension issue. A good start to your arguement will be to understand the definition of respond and communicate. Once you have acheived this task though, you will realise that you are wrong and the discussion will end.Is that why you are not actually attempting to understand the words? Is it more satisfying to you to just say you are right? I suppose if you never actually honestly engage in a debate you can never lose (or learn anything). I dont think I could mind fuck myself like that. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Dawn Bertot,I wont be engaging in any further debate with you.You are either intentionally ignorant or mentally deficient.Either way, I am learning nothing by debating with you.You are learning nothing by debating with me (because you either cannot or will not learn).Other readers are learning nothing by reading our conversation.I wont be derailing any more threads having pointless conversations with you.regards,BT Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.