Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, ICANT, PaulK, ringo, vimesey (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,780 Year: 16,816/19,786 Month: 941/2,598 Week: 187/251 Day: 16/59 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
ringo
Member
Posts: 17289
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1321 of 1677 (846695)
01-10-2019 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1315 by Thugpreacha
01-10-2019 3:38 AM


Phat writes:

Which is why logicians often are atheists.


Bus drivers are often atheists too. I don't know what point you think you have there.

Phat writes:

God as a concept is unquantifiable.


God can be quantified. He corresponds to the amount of Phlogiston in my fridge.

Phat writes:

I always thought that defining the regression as an uncaused first cause eliminated the need to ask what came before.


It does. The uncaused cause is physics - it eliminates the need to ask about a god that came before.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1315 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-10-2019 3:38 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1322 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-10-2019 1:50 PM ringo has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12800
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1322 of 1677 (846708)
01-10-2019 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1321 by ringo
01-10-2019 11:07 AM


The uncaused cause is physics - it eliminates the need to ask about a god that came before.
It figures that you would say and believe this. You deify human wisdom. You act as if we are better candidates for being creators than God is.

Dont you see the error in this thinking process? It gives weight to the scripture (from the snake, mind you) that says we shall be as gods. Of course you will have a clever rebuttal...but it seems evident to me that you place human wisdom on a higher plane than any God you could imagine. Furthermore, you even seek to establish the terms of such a God...as if God works for humanity. you say If God can prevent evil or stop it, it is His duty. You forget that He establishes the parameters of His involvement and responsibility. You are, of course, free to reject such a God. My point is that you won't ever humble yourself to seek to understand Him. You keep attempting to define the terms of the contract.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1321 by ringo, posted 01-10-2019 11:07 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1323 by ringo, posted 01-10-2019 2:50 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17289
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1323 of 1677 (846710)
01-10-2019 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1322 by Thugpreacha
01-10-2019 1:50 PM


Phat writes:

You deify human wisdom.


I've told you many times that that isn't true. I don't "deify" human wisdom. It's just that human wisdom is the only wisdom we have - and that includes you. If anything, I' m humanizing your so-called divine wisdom.

Phat writes:

You act as if we are better candidates for being creators than God is.


We have the advantage that we actually exist.

Phat writes:

Dont you see the error in this thinking process? It gives weight to the scripture (from the snake, mind you) that says we shall be as gods.


How is that an error? The snake was right. God said so.

Phat writes:

Of course you will have a clever rebuttal...


I don't need a clever rebuttal for a non sequitur.

Phat writes:

You forget that He establishes the parameters of His involvement and responsibility.


I don't "forget" that; it's made-up nonsense.

Phat writes:

My point is that you won't ever humble yourself to seek to understand Him.


Stop trying to psychoanalyze me.

Phat writes:

You keep attempting to define the terms of the contract.


If I have no say in the terms, it isn't a contract.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1322 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-10-2019 1:50 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1324 of 1677 (846720)
01-10-2019 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1314 by Thugpreacha
01-10-2019 3:32 AM


Re: The Point Of Evidence Going Back
Phat writes:

The problem, as I see it, is that one is following a trail of math and physics to arrive at the farthest regression that we can measure.

That's a problem? How is that a problem? The back and forth between hypotheses and theory on the one hand and observation and measurement on the other is how we improve our understanding and demonstrate that we actually know what we think we know.

Granted we know with reasonable certainty that math and physics work and they work very well for what they show us.

Translated, you mean that math and physics work very well for reality but not very well for fantasy.

Keep in mind, however, that you are attempting to provide evidence for a time long before humanity was even around.

Things that happen leave evidence behind. How much time has to pass for the evidence to become too old?

Thus the source of confirmation, our minds, and reasoning, did not even exist at the time described by the math.

Just math now? What happened to physics, and to the observations (the things you measure in your first sentence).

Apologists often say that one reason that humans don't like thinking/imagining an infinite eternal God is partially because they have no way to put such a concept in a box, or problem, or theory.

Realists often say that it's a lack of evidence.

God cannot be quantified nor understood...nay not even measured.

And yet you think you understand God well enough to know these things about Him.

Based on this simple math logic, God is not proven to exist. The maths provide us assurance as well as evidence. They allow us to feel certain of our calculations...

"Math logic"? I don't think you've presented any "math logic." And you're not getting these weird ideas from me, nor have I come across anyone else here making strange claims like this. I don't know anyone saying anything along the lines of, "Math logic has not proven God to exist."

...even though we are calculating a reality that predated our minds.

Why do you think science cannot tell us anything from before there were men? And what's this about "calculating a reality"? Math and science can be very helpful in deciphering evidence, but the history of the universe isn't calculated. Evidence and its analysis play a critical role, and we have evidence from before there were men. From long before there were men.

Of course, time is finite.

Oh, of course. And you know this how?

Anything that can be quantified takes time to quantify. Without time, there could be no proof...for no individual, computer, or thesis could even be compiled.

Too deep for me.

In conclusion, I would say that at best, evidenced points of regression are comforting, whereas eternal, abstract, unquantifiable points give humans an uneasy feeling.

Or maybe some people know how they know what they think they know, and some don't.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1314 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-10-2019 3:32 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1325 of 1677 (846735)
01-11-2019 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1317 by Tangle
01-10-2019 5:05 AM


Tangle writes:

Sure, it's process all the way down.

Tangle writes:

We'll let you know when we find out for sure, but at the moment it's probable that it popped into existence without the need for one.


Do you think that we will ever find out what caused it to pop?
Tangle writes:

One thing is certain though, if and when we do have the answer, neither you nor I will understand it.

In my case that's a given.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1317 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2019 5:05 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1327 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2019 3:49 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1326 of 1677 (846736)
01-11-2019 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1318 by Percy
01-10-2019 9:17 AM


Percy writes:

To be more declarative and painfully clear this time, our universe began with the Big Bang. The most widely accepted view is that time began with the Big Bang. We cannot talk about what came before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the Big Bang. Time related words like "before" have no meaning when there is no time. Whatever caused the Big Bang did not happen before the Big Bang because there was no before.

Absolutely but that is the case whether you are talking about an infinite regression of processes or of gods.

Percy writes:

Why does there need to be a Big Bang in your God scenario? You're already picking and choosing what you believe without evidence. Why, suddenly, are you letting your ideas about God be guided by Big Bang evidence? Does your God exist within time, or is he outside time, and what is your evidence?

There is absolutely evidence for what we are saying about the Big Bang, while there is no evidence for this God you keep speaking of. Tell you what. Let's trade objective evidence for the root cause of the universe one for one. I'll go first with evidence for the Big Bang: the cosmic background radiation at a temperature of 4.2K discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1964, for which they received the Nobel Prize. This is my first item of objective evidence that the Big Bang is real.

Your turn. What's your first piece of objective evidence that God is real.

OK Your evidence for the root cause of the universe is evidence for the Big Bang using cosmic background radiation. Well firstly the CBR was a result of the Big Bang. I accept the scientific fact of the BB. However the BB is not a root cause. It just happens at t=0 to be the first instance of physicality as we perceive it.
'
It tells us nothing about why the BB happened.

My evidence is that the world that we perceive requires a conscious observer, either directly or by measurement. Consciousness then seems to be a foundational property of the universe. With that knowledge it is then reasonable to believe that the universe resulted initially from a consciousness outside of our experience of time.

Percy writes:

Now materialist is a term of disparagement?

Not at all. I'm using it in this sense from Webster's.
quote:
: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1318 by Percy, posted 01-10-2019 9:17 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1332 by Percy, posted 01-12-2019 9:41 AM GDR has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 1327 of 1677 (846738)
01-11-2019 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1325 by GDR
01-11-2019 2:28 AM


GDR writes:

Do you think that we will ever find out what caused it to pop?

It needn't have a cause. That's the point.

“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Stephen Hawking

That's not something you or I can understand because we're steeped in a world of cause and effect. But that's what some physicists think.

In my case that's a given.

In all but a very, very few cases it's a given. I bet there's no more than a handful of people that will be able to reasonably claim the ability to understand it - if indeed an answer is ever found. Far easier to believe goddidit.

quote:
According to the Boshongo people of central Africa, in the beginning, there was only darkness, water, and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals. The leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and finally, man.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1325 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 2:28 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1328 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 1:39 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1328 of 1677 (846766)
01-11-2019 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1327 by Tangle
01-11-2019 3:49 AM


Tangle writes:

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Spontaneous creation sounds almost fundamentalist.

Tangle quoting Hawking writes:

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

I don't see it as a matter of needing to invoke God, I'm simply saying that the world as we perceive it leads IMHO, to believing that an intelligent consciousness is a more likely reason for our existence than a long stream of endless processes back to a a mindless spontaneous creation.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1327 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2019 3:49 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1329 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2019 2:07 PM GDR has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 1329 of 1677 (846770)
01-11-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1328 by GDR
01-11-2019 1:39 PM


GDR writes:

Spontaneous creation sounds almost fundamentalist.

Just sounds like more hard and impossible physics to me. You either accept the experts ideas or forget all about it. For example, it seems proven that universe is expanding. But the universe is all there is, so what is it expanding into? I'm not looking for an answer; there is an answer but it's incomprehensile.

I don't see it as a matter of needing to invoke God, I'm simply saying that the world as we perceive it leads IMHO, to believing that an intelligent consciousness is a more likely reason for our existence than a long stream of endless processes back to a a mindless spontaneous creation.

Uh? You just invoked god...

What are you going to do if/when it's shown that it did actually spontaneously pop up? Or in the other hypothesis, that it has always existed?

It will be another Darwin moment.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1328 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 1:39 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1330 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 2:35 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1330 of 1677 (846776)
01-11-2019 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1329 by Tangle
01-11-2019 2:07 PM


Tangle writes:

Just sounds like more hard and impossible physics to me. You either accept the experts ideas or forget all about it. For example, it seems proven that universe is expanding. But the universe is all there is, so what is it expanding into? I'm not looking for an answer; there is an answer but it's incomprehensile.

Can I hear an AMEN.

I did say that we don't need to invoke God but that the choice is between an intelligent consciousness or mindlessness. I simply said that IMHO the intelligent consciousness is the most reasonable answer. In either case it is our subjective belief.

Tangle writes:

What are you going to do if/when it's shown that it did actually spontaneously pop up? Or in the other hypothesis, that it has always existed?

It will be another Darwin moment.

It may be a Darwin moment but it still wouldn't negate theism. For that matter the BB was rejected by non-theistic scientists initially as it had theistic overtones.

I have no problem with the idea of an infinite universe in both time and space. Personally I very speculatively believe that we are an emergent property of an infinite reality.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1329 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2019 2:07 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1331 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2019 2:58 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 1331 of 1677 (846781)
01-11-2019 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1330 by GDR
01-11-2019 2:35 PM


GDR writes:

I did say that we don't need to invoke God but that the choice is between an intelligent consciousness or mindlessness.

Sounds like god or no god to me

I simply said that IMHO the intelligent consciousness is the most reasonable answer.

Given the evidence and what we already know, I think you have to have a belief to think that.

In either case it is our subjective belief.

I wish you guys would stop inflicting your own terminology on us. It's not a belief to not believe. It's more like an outstanding question. We don't know yet. Nobody is guilty - we haven't heard all the evidence yet.

It may be a Darwin moment but it still wouldn't negate theism. For that matter the BB was rejected by non-theistic scientists initially as it had theistic overtones.

I realise it wouldn't change your mind, you'd simply invent a solution. But it would influence future generation's minds.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1330 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 2:35 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1340 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-13-2019 10:12 AM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1332 of 1677 (846821)
01-12-2019 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1326 by GDR
01-11-2019 2:52 AM


GDR writes:

Percy writes:

To be more declarative and painfully clear this time, our universe began with the Big Bang. The most widely accepted view is that time began with the Big Bang. We cannot talk about what came before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the Big Bang. Time related words like "before" have no meaning when there is no time. Whatever caused the Big Bang did not happen before the Big Bang because there was no before.

Absolutely but that is the case whether you are talking about an infinite regression of processes or of gods.

It would have been far more appropriate for you to repeat your reply to Tangle in your previous message, that it's a given you don't understand this. A regression involves time and is a series of "befores" - if there is no time there can be no regression.

Percy writes:

Why does there need to be a Big Bang in your God scenario? You're already picking and choosing what you believe without evidence. Why, suddenly, are you letting your ideas about God be guided by Big Bang evidence? Does your God exist within time, or is he outside time, and what is your evidence?

There is absolutely evidence for what we are saying about the Big Bang, while there is no evidence for this God you keep speaking of. Tell you what. Let's trade objective evidence for the root cause of the universe one for one. I'll go first with evidence for the Big Bang: the cosmic background radiation at a temperature of 4.2K discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1964, for which they received the Nobel Prize. This is my first item of objective evidence that the Big Bang is real.

Your turn. What's your first piece of objective evidence that God is real.

OK Your evidence for the root cause of the universe...

You do not understand. No one's arguing that there is evidence for a root cause of the universe, but we do have evidence for each link in the chain of events we currently know about. When Ringo suggested chemicals as the beginning he wasn't really serious. The point you were supposed to take away root causes must have evidence that they are real. So if chemicals are the root cause (they're not, but if they were) then we have evidence for chemicals. We know they exist, and we know a great deal about their properties. Where is the evidence for your root cause?

...is evidence for the Big Bang using cosmic background radiation. Well firstly the CBR was a result of the Big Bang. I accept the scientific fact of the BB. However the BB is not a root cause.

Nobody said the Big Bang was a root cause. I have tried to be appropriately tentative in my descriptions, but it seems to be contributing more to your confusion than your understanding.

It just happens at t=0 to be the first instance of physicality as we perceive it.

Yes, and unlike NASA launches there is no T-1.

It tells us nothing about why the BB happened.

"Why" is not a science question unless you mean it in the sense of, "What caused this to happen?" If you do mean it in this latter sense then observational evidence has spawned several promising theories. But if you do actually mean "why" then that places you on exceptionally weak ground, since you can't answer any of the "why" questions for religion, such as why a loving and compassionate God allows innocent babies to suffer and die.

My evidence is that the world that we perceive requires a conscious observer, either directly or by measurement

False. The world and the universe would be here whether or not we or any other "conscious observer" were present. There are rocks on our planet older than life.

Consciousness then seems to be a foundational property of the universe.

Since your initial premise was false, this deduction from that premise is also false.

With that knowledge...

With what knowledge? You haven't described any knowledge. You've structured your argument as a chain of logic, but you began with a false statement that contained no evidence.

...it is then reasonable to believe that the universe resulted initially from a consciousness outside of our experience of time.

You haven't actually described any evidence. My evidence that the Big Bang is real is that antenna and satellite probes detect electromagnetic radiation of just the right temperature required by theory. You can read all about the evidence for the cosmic microwave background radiation at Wikipedia or at a huge number of other sources on the Internet. Please provide some equivalently hard evidence that your God is real. Or answer any of a number of other questions you've avoided, such as does your God exist within time or outside time, and what is your evidence?

Percy writes:

Now materialist is a term of disparagement?

Not at all.

Let us not play games. You used the word "materialist" in a pejorative manner, as if materialists and spiritualists were at odds with spiritualists having the superior viewpoint. I replied that you are as much a materialist as everyone else, in other words, that we are all, by necessity, materialists because we live in the real world.

But you're using disparagement as a distraction from the original point. You *do* have an infinite regression with your God, while science has no evidence that would lead it to conclude there's an infinite regression in the real world, or even that a regression is a meaningful concept where time does not exist.

But the more fundamental question, and another one that you've avoided thus far, is why you're trying to tie your immaterial spiritual beliefs to evidence from the material world.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1326 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 2:52 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1341 by GDR, posted 01-13-2019 11:01 AM Percy has responded
 Message 1354 by GDR, posted 01-13-2019 7:52 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1376 by GDR, posted 01-15-2019 8:50 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1333 of 1677 (846822)
01-12-2019 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1319 by Faith
01-10-2019 9:37 AM


Faith writes:

There is absolutely evidence for what we are saying about the Big Bang, while there is no evidence for this God you keep speaking of.

GDR does unfortunately keep cutting the evidence out from under himself by denying so much of the Bible, but the evidence for the God of Christianity is enormously abundant in sixty six books by at least forty writers over 1500 years all attesting to the same God by direct witness to His miracles and by reports of witness testimony. The evidence is lavishly given.

The evidence is absent, the claims of evidence made up.

But it is precisely that evidence you simply reject on the basis of your own prejudice.

I wouldn't call a demand for evidence a prejudice, and whatever you call it it is equal opportunity. I demand evidence of all religions, and all religions fail to deliver.

Thousands of witnesses aren't enough if all you have to do is say it couldn't happen because you believe it couldn't happen just because you believe it couldn't happen. Amazing.

But you don't have thousands of witnesses. You just keep claiming there are thousands of witnesses as if repetition could produce truth.

God certainly knew He could inspire the truth to be reported to such a huge extent and silly people would still reject it and make up lies about how it has to be fiction just because they can't imagine it being true. It has nothing of the quality of fiction but God knew you'd deceive yourself about that.

I wonder if a fictional God would also know that you'd be deceiving yourself about him?

He made sure it all got reported and then asked us simply to believe it as the honest reporting it is. Which is precisely what silly people like you refuse to do. Don't blame us then when our simple belief turns out to reveal the reality of God too late for you to recognize it.

Well, if you're right then I'll wave to you outside the Pearly Gates.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1319 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 9:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1334 by Faith, posted 01-13-2019 8:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32918
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1334 of 1677 (846883)
01-13-2019 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1333 by Percy
01-12-2019 10:36 AM


Abundant Evidence of God
Oh lots more than thousands of witnesses of the miracles that prove God in the Bible. The entire Israelite population was in the millions when they crossed the Red Sea on dry land and were led by the pillars of cloud and fire.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1333 by Percy, posted 01-12-2019 10:36 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1335 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2019 8:41 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15384
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1335 of 1677 (846884)
01-13-2019 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1334 by Faith
01-13-2019 8:22 AM


Re: Abundant Evidence of God
And this is where you demonstrate your poor ability to judge arguments again.

quote:

Oh lots more than thousands of witnesses of the miracles that prove God in the Bible. The entire Israelite population was in the millions when they crossed the Red Sea on dry land and were led by the pillars of cloud and fire.

In actual reality, the internal evidence indicates that the story was written down hundreds of years after the original events. The numbers are clearly implausible. Neither external histories nor archaeology provides any real support for it.

In other words it is a legend, you have no witness evidence in there and there is no reason to believe the miracle stories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1334 by Faith, posted 01-13-2019 8:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1336 by Faith, posted 01-13-2019 8:44 AM PaulK has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019