INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Thief]

There's negatives.

Again something doesn't need to be first it's only first if time is linear since we know time is not...first is a meaningless statement.

The measurement is all fine and good in the mind of Man.
It goes no further.

Linear existence had a beginning....and Someone had to be First.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The measurement is all fine and good in the mind of Man.
It goes no further.

Linear existence had a beginning....and Someone had to be First.

Except there isn't really any linear existence as time and space are not linear. You have to pick a point for it to be so. The difference between our universe and the singularity is a matter of state.

 

[Agnostic75]

So you agree that you misspoke by claiming I had stated macro-evolution was impossible?

I never said that you said that macro evolution is impossible. All that I did was question your limited knowledge of biology.

I have already provided several examples of the hurdles I mention.

You do not personally know enough about macro evolution to question it, and you certainly would not be willing to debate it with an expert who has a Ph.D. in biology.

Are you denying that currently unexplainable problems or holes in the theory of evolution exist?

One study showed that 99.86% of American experts accept macro evolution.

Wikipedia says:

Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.

How much do you know about evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy?

The same article says:

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

There are not any good reasons for laymen to reject the opinions of a very large consensus of experts which consists of the vast majority of non-Christian experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

Last I heard even among secular evolutionists that claim that birds came from dinosaurs was still very much debated.

Please quote the evolutionists.

So to further state that the certain knowledge of what is not known is evidence for something even less known is not very persuasive. There was no evidence in what you provided. There was only declarations. What is it that you found impressive in what you quoted? Did the overuse of unnecessarily technical terminology dazzle you into believing there must be something persuasive there? I cannot debate simply claiming something is both true and proof of something else. You need to supply what it is they found that makes them think all claims to truth are true.

I accept macro evolution because of a very large consensus of experts who accept it, not because of my limited knowledge of biology. Do you question macro evolution because of your limited knowledge of biology?

I can say the presence of prophecy makes God a certainty. Would you say ok and believe or would you do as you and I have done and examine if prophecies exist, if they are true, and if God is necessary to explain them?

I reject all Bible prophecies. We are currently discussing the Tyre prophecy, and you have not provided any credible evidence that God inspired it. I will be happy to discuss any other Bible prophecies with you that you wish as long as I believe that I know enough about the individual prophecy to debate it.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is nothing more than an idle boast. You will refuse to debate at that website since you know that you would embarrass yourself. If you debated at that website, and did pretty well, you would greatly increase your credibility at this website. If you refuse to debate there, which you probably will, it is reasonable for people to conclude that you are not confident of your arguments.

It is a boast that I have access to scholars.

Your claimed knowledge of biblical textual criticism is an idle boast since you are not able to intelligently debate what you quote from Christian experts. I spent years at a biblical textual criticism forum, mostly as an observer, and I know, and all experts know, that it is a very large field.

You ever heard of these obscure things called the Internet, the library, or the classroom? You may think a claim to literacy arrogant, but you would be the only one.

Laymen can learn a lot about a lot of things at the Internet, but very few Christian laymen know enough about biblical textual criticism to beat skeptic experts in debates.

William Lane Craig has an article about the reliability of the Gospels at Establishing the Gospels’ Reliability | Reasonable Faith. That would be a good thing for you to debate at the website that I mentioned.

If the people at the site (now you not only sending me to new threads but to new sites as well) know anything about textual criticism then they are very familiar with Craig's arguments. They do not need me and I do not have time for them.

I recommended the website at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History to you since the majority of posters there are very knowledgeable about biblical textual criticism, a good deal more so than most people at this forum. If you actually want to learn more about biblical textual criticism, that would be an excellent place for you to learn more about it.

They do not need me and I do not have time for them.

You do not have time for any skeptic who you know knows a lot more about the Bible than you do.

It is quite interesting that you frequently appeal to experts, but refuse to debate experts.

The experts debate other experts.

Of course, and most laymen are not able to adequately judge the debates.

Why should they debate me?

Possibly to show people that your supposed knowledge of biblical textual criticism is just an idle boast.

It is much more an issue of why you should debate them since you need to show that you have considerable knowledge about any part of Christian apologetics, and debating an expert would be a good way for you to try to do that.

The Apostles burdened themselves with a massive empirical burden they had every reason to avoid if their claims were false. There was no expectation of a bodily rising Christ. Even they (even though they should have) did not expect Christ to actually physically resurrect. The Jews certainly didn't. They could have very easily claimed he spiritually arose from the dead and no one could have possibly proven otherwise. However they against all logic proposed he was not in his sealed and guarded grave any longer. Why? Issues with a theft claim only adds improbability onto improbability. Good luck. I can't event think of a bad explanation.

I am not knowledgeable enough about biblical textual criticism to adequately discuss that, but I think that many people at the website that I mentioned would be able to adequately refute your arguments. No skeptic laymen needs to be concerned with adequately replying to your arguments that I quoted since lots of knowledgeable skeptics would easily defeat you in debates about what you said. Biblical textual criticism is a vast field, and the course curriculum for a bachelor's degree in theology is extensive.

Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496.

 

[Thief]

Except there isn't really any linear existence as time and space are not linear. You have to pick a point for it to be so. The difference between our universe and the singularity is a matter of state.

Past, present, future.....thank you for the spring board.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Later than WHAT?.....and the He wouldn't be the First.

Someone Else would be that Someone First.

Then what if there was someone before that? What if the last was first? What if there was no first or one last? What if there wasn't even...one?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Past, present, future.....thank you for the spring board.

How quaint, so you flip to man made terms when you want too huh?

 

[Thief]

How quaint, so you flip to man made terms when you want too huh?

I didn't make the past.
I am a small influence on the present.
Perhaps my words will be greater in the future!

 

[Thief]

Then what if there was someone before that? What if the last was first? What if there was no first or one last? What if there wasn't even...one?

That hall of mirrors trick doesn't work on me.

In a scheme of linear existence....Someone had to be First.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That hall of mirrors trick doesn't work on me.

In a scheme of linear existence....Someone had to be First.

But what if it wasn't a mirror? What if it was...the previous? Reflected in our own minds? What if....its not linear?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: A week of so ago at the General Religious Discussions forum, you mentioned the Exodus. I recently started a thread about the Exodus at this forum. The link is http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/161101-did-exodus-occur.html. Please make a post in that thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: At another forum, you mentioned the Exodus, so I recently started a thread at this forum about it.
The link is http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/161101-did-exodus-occur.html.

Please reply to my posts 3425, 3426, 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496.

 

[Thief]

But what if it wasn't a mirror? What if it was...the previous? Reflected in our own minds? What if....its not linear?

Well...I don't believe in time, anyway.
And you raise a point I have considered.
To be eternal....time would have no meaning.
And perhaps, after we shed this physical container....the past and future become available.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well...I don't believe in time, anyway.
And you raise a point I have considered.
To be eternal....time would have no meaning.
And perhaps, after we shed this physical container....the past and future become available.

There is actually a legitimate scientific theory out there that does say that time doesn't exist. Though it is highly contested.

 

[Thief]

There is actually a legitimate scientific theory out there that does say that time doesn't exist. Though it is highly contested.

Excellent!
I was wondering when my fellowman would wake up!

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: At another forum, you mentioned the Exodus, so I recently started a thread at this forum about it.
The link is http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/161101-did-exodus-occur.html.

Please reply to my posts 3425, 3426, 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496.

I don't pick up a new thread unless I get three invitations to do so in a row. I only got two. Sorry.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496.

I am currently having so many problems with iron clad science that it is taking all my time up to rectify 20 year old technology even after 20 years of improvements, to do any consistent posting. Currently I am hitting and missing as I can.

 

[1robin]

I never said that you said that macro evolution is impossible. All that I did was question your limited knowledge of biology.

I don't have time to care right now.

You do not personally know enough about macro evolution to question it, and you certainly would not be willing to debate it with an expert who has a Ph.D. in biology.

Yes I do but I need not have as those that do are readily available.

One study showed that 99.86% of American experts accept macro evolution.

Wikipedia says:



How much do you know about evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy?

The same article says:



There are not any good reasons for laymen to reject the opinions of a very large consensus of experts which consists of the vast majority of non-Christian experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

When I say I don't believe it occurred then this may apply. I said the theory has major holes. It may still be enough to justify believing it to be true. I just have no committed either way and see almost no reason to or relevance to compel me to do so. My consistent point has always been it is a theory that sounds reasonable but contains a great deal of faith and hurdles yet overcome.



Please quote the evolutionists.

I accept macro evolution because of a very large consensus of experts who accept it, not because of my limited knowledge of biology. Do you question macro evolution because of your limited knowledge of biology?

Which side?

I reject all Bible prophecies. We are currently discussing the Tyre prophecy, and you have not provided any credible evidence that God inspired it. I will be happy to discuss any other Bible prophecies with you that you wish as long as I believe that I know enough about the individual prophecy to debate it.

Never claim I am biased or make decisions I am not qualified to make and at the same time tell me you reject all biblical prophecies. It just wrecks credibility.

 

[1robin]

Your claimed knowledge of biblical textual criticism is an idle boast since you are not able to intelligently debate what you quote from Christian experts. I spent years at a biblical textual criticism forum, mostly as an observer, and I know, and all experts know, that it is a very large field.

Exactly what level of knowledge did I claim I have?

Laymen can learn a lot about a lot of things at the Internet, but very few Christian laymen know enough about biblical textual criticism to beat skeptic experts in debates.

I have repeatedly asked you to stop with personal commentaries and diversions about which professionals would beat which laymen. This is a debate, not a word fight. I have only so much time and your wasting it. You have ignored my requests so I will ignore the rest of this.