Does any supernatural god exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, the present is defined as The present is the period of time that is occurring now. The present is contrasted with the past, the period of time that has already occurred, and the future, the period of time that has yet to occur.

I would have simply said "now" but the above provide a little more for you to parse.

So, how is that subjective?

Because there would be no past, present or furture without humans. There would be time, but that is not the same.
Understand that the italic text is a case of subjective understanding and you test for that by asking: Could a world exist, where there is no past, present and furture, but still be the same in physical terms and the answer is yes.

 

[Ajax]

You are doing philosophy and not science.
Science tells us nothing about the supernatural or non physical one way or another. That is philosophy.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Functional and clinical neuroanatomy of morality
How does morality work in the brain? A functional and structural perspective of moral behavior
As I said I think we are off topic. So please either tell us what your end point is, or open a new thread in philosophy. Thank you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Functional and clinical neuroanatomy of morality
How does morality work in the brain? A functional and structural perspective of moral behavior
As I said I think we are off topic. So please either tell us what your end point is, or open a new thread in philosophy. Thank you.

Yeah, science can explain how morality works in a brain. But you can't answer a moral question using sicence to give the answer.

It ties into what natural is and if science can show evidence for that the world is natural and thus show that there is no supernatural. That is how I remember it started in this thread.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We don't know that. You believe that, but you have no evidence for it.

There plenty of supporting evidence since that is the fact as it stands today.

However, I do approach it in agnostic manner as it is true there is no conclusion settling the matter, but keeping the question open, same as science is open to new information if and when any information comes if ever.

For now, it's safe to say god is dead in the real world aside from being alive in people's minds and imaginations. That is a fact.

 

[Ajax]

Yeah, science can explain how morality works in a brain. But you can't answer a moral question using sicence to give the answer.

It ties into what natural is and if science can show evidence for that the world is natural and thus show that there is no supernatural. That is how I remember it started in this thread.

Your brain can take the decisions for you up to 10 seconds before you are even conscious of you decision, and that's a fact.
Supernatural can not be disproved, in the same way that you can not disprove that Russell's teapot is in orbit. However James Randi had offered one million dollars for many years to anyone who would show that supernatural exists, but of course nobody succeeded.
Thank you and good bye.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your brain can take the decisions for you up to 10 seconds before you are even conscious of you decision.
Supernatural can not be disproved, in the same way that you can not disprove that Russell's teapot is not in orbit. However James Randi had offered one million dollars for many years to anyone who would show that supernatural exists, but of course nobody succeeded.
Thank you and good buy.

Now show that the world is natural.

 

[Nakosis]

Because there would be no past, present or furture without humans. There would be time, but that is not the same.
Understand that the italic text is a case of subjective understanding and you test for that by asking: Could a world exist, where there is no past, present and furture, but still be the same in physical terms and the answer is yes.

Of course, we humans define these terms. What are you objecting to, the existence of language?

 

[Charles Philips]

The Bible is a book of mythology. Anything else then some old musty tome?

What qualification do you have to make such a senseless statement. Let me guess, you're a self appointed bible scholar, yep got ya

 

[Tinkerpeach]

We now known a lot of things that the primitive writers of the Bible never thought we would know.The Bible was written in about 600 BCE, the Exodus never happened, nor any sticks ever turned to snakes. And talking of the Exodus, it was God who didn't allow Pharaoh to"free the Israelites", by hardening Pharaoh's heart...Exodus 9:12 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses."
This God of OT must have been a lunatic. Unfortunately Christianity had to accept the OT, because it's a by-product or heresy of Judaism.

One wonders why you waste your time on a religious site when you clearly have no intention of ever believing.

Do you have some resentment in your life that makes you feel the need to try to convince believers that God isn’t real?

I don’t have any interest in many things but I don’t hang out on their websites telling them how stupid they are.

Maybe you should get a hobby.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No, because what happens in the Bible isn't the scenario you describe. What you are talking about is unrelated to the topic at hand

What we have here is one version of a story where a guy takes his money and buys a piece of land for himself. The money is his property, and the land he buys it with also becomes his property that he later explodes on. In the other story he feels awful about what he did and throws the money away before hanging himself. He relinquishes ownership of it. It is no longer his money as it now belongs to the priests. They choose to buy property and turn it into a graveyard for foreigners with that money - the money they now own. What they choose to do with the money after he relinquishes it is up to them because it's now their money

What you describe above is a scenario where there is a mutual agreement. There's no such agreement in the stories we are talking about

Wrong.

He gave up the money and they bought it for him then turned it into a graveyard after his death.

Judas felt guilty about what he did so he threw the money back that he was paid for his betrayel but the priests wouldn’t take it back because they were completely happy with the agreement.

They also couldn’t add it to the treasury because it was essentially blood money so they purchased a field in Judas’s name with it.

Judas was the owner of the land because it was still his money. The priests weren’t just going to leave 30 silver pieces laying on the floor.

As acts says, this was all prophesied by David.

Their is no conflict here at all.

 

[McBell]

 

[Soandso]

Wrong.

So you say. The problem is that you just keep making up reasons why it's not a contradiction. First you gave the excuse that the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas. You then tried to suggest that Judas used the priests as a third party buyer to purchase that land. You then presented a scenario where a father gives his son money to purchase a car for him as an analogy which doesn't represent the situation in this story at all. Judas never makes any agreement with them like this in the bible

Now we are back to the priests buying the land on judas' behalf. At this point I'm pretty convinced you are just making things up

He gave up the money and they bought it for him then turned it into a graveyard after his death.

They didn't buy it for him. The Bible does not say this. You are adding things they did that are extra-biblical. You are making this up

Judas felt guilty about what he did so he threw the money back that he was paid for his betrayel but the priests wouldn’t take it back because they were completely happy with the agreement.

That's not what the Bible says at all.You are adding a reason that the Bible doesn't talk about - it's also extra-biblical. You are making this up as well

They also couldn’t add it to the treasury because it was essentially blood money so they purchased a field in Judas’s name with it.

There is no "also." What you describe here is the only reason the Bible mentions about the moment where they take the money and what they do with it.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.

Judas was the owner of the land because it was still his money. The priests weren’t just going to leave 30 silver pieces laying on the floor.

It wasn't his money. The Bible doesn't say it was still his money. He relinquished it, and the priests used it as they saw fit

As acts says, this was all prophesied by David.

Not sure where the relevance is for this

Their is no conflict here at all.

Not when you make things up, at least. Not very intellectually honest, though

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. unless you can empty yourself of all common sense and embrace the sad pseudo science theory that "everything came from nothing", that defies logic.

At one time even that earth orbits the sun was considered to defy logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course, we humans define these terms. What are you objecting to, the existence of language?

No, it is about the referents of words. Some of those refer to something that only exist as a human construct. Not all words have objective referents as per this version of objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unbelievers worship nature instead of the One who created nature. Created things prove that a creator created them, unless you can empty yourself of all common sense and embrace the sad pseudo science theory that "everything came from nothing", that defies logic

So if God created everything, God is not everything, but God must be nothing as God is not everything.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

So you say. The problem is that you just keep making up reasons why it's not a contradiction. First you gave the excuse that the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas. You then tried to suggest that Judas used the priests as a third party buyer to purchase that land. You then presented a scenario where a father gives his son money to purchase a car for him as an analogy which doesn't represent the situation in this story at all. Judas never makes any agreement with them like this in the bible

Now we are back to the priests buying the land on judas' behalf. At this point I'm pretty convinced you are just making things up



They didn't buy it for him. The Bible does not say this. You are adding things they did that are extra-biblical. You are making this up



That's not what the Bible says at all.You are adding a reason that the Bible doesn't talk about - it's also extra-biblical. You are making this up as well



There is no "also." What you describe here is the only reason the Bible mentions about the moment where they take the money and what they do with it.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.



It wasn't his money. The Bible doesn't say it was still his money. He relinquished it, and the priests used it as they saw fit



Not sure where the relevance is for this



Not when you make things up, at least. Not very intellectually honest, though

It was still his money because the priests never accepted it back so they bought the field with it.

Because it was still his money the land was his. They could have put a sign up that said sold to Judas but they didn’t do that back then.

The Bible said it was Judas’s money it never says it was the priests money.

Everything I have said has been consistent no matter how it’s phrased.

Bottom line is there is no error here. If you want a controversy on this subject you should ask the question of how he died, that is what people argue, nobody has an issue with the land part.

 

[Ajax]

One wonders why you waste your time on a religious site when you clearly have no intention of ever believing.

Do you have some resentment in your life that makes you feel the need to try to convince believers that God isn’t real?

I don’t have any interest in many things but I don’t hang out on their websites telling them how stupid they are.

Maybe you should get a hobby.

Is this a site only for those who want to believe? From what I gather from the poll (on the top of the page) 72% of the people writting, are either atheists or agnostics.
To make someone believe you and other theists must provide sufficient and valid arguments. Unfortunately you fail dramatically when you enter a discussion claiming that there no errors whatsoever in the Bible and/or you present apologetic trash.
I have a lot of interests and hobbies but in any case, I will try to get your permission first, next time I want to write a message...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is this a site only for those who want to believe? From what I gather from the poll (on the top of the page) 72% of the people writting, are either atheists or agnostics.
To make someone believe you and other theists must provide sufficient and valid arguments. Unfortunately you fail dramatically when you enter a discussion claiming that there no errors whatsoever in the Bible and/or you present apologetic trash.
I have a lot of interests and hobbies but in any case, I will try to get your permission first, next time I want to write a message...

That is not just science. The overal class of sufficient and valid arguments belong to philosphy in the end.

 

[Ajax]

That is not just science. The overal class of sufficient and valid arguments belong to philosphy in the end.

 

[Ajax]

Wrong.

He gave up the money and they bought it for him then turned it into a graveyard after his death.

Judas felt guilty about what he did so he threw the money back that he was paid for his betrayel but the priests wouldn’t take it back because they were completely happy with the agreement.

They also couldn’t add it to the treasury because it was essentially blood money so they purchased a field in Judas’s name with it.

Judas was the owner of the land because it was still his money. The priests weren’t just going to leave 30 silver pieces laying on the floor.

As acts says, this was all prophesied by David.

Their is no conflict here at all.

So, if I give back the money I got from a bank, they will buy a house for me... Brilliant thinking! How come nobody thought about it before?