Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[challupa]

No you got me all wrong. Just like you i am comfortable in not knowing and excited about someday finding out because i know it brings me and everyone closer to knowing God. But until we reach there I trust that it is God behind it all. See big difference, i credit God with the things we do know and further credit Him for the things we dont know yet---meaning as Paul put it "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!". I also take that in a scientific way of getting to the deep things of God

Well I'm glad you are comfortable with not knowing. I don't understand then why you need god in the meantime. What possible use does it serve to believe in god until something disproves god? Are you just believing in him just "in case" he does exist?

 

[AK4]

Indeed. So, when I'm making an argument, it's up to me to demonstrate that my premises are true and my reasoning is valid. Until that happens, you're free to disregard my conclusion as "not proven", just as I disregard yours now

.
And I am proving this to you just as science has.

I'm not taking the Bible away; what I'm saying is that if you want to base your conclusion on the Bible, then until you demonstrate with certainty that the Bible is correct, then your conclusion has not been proven to be true.

I can do this but I haven’t really because you guys don’t take the words from it as true. You have argued with others on its contents and assume I am arguing with their same views. I assure you I am not. I could easily throw in the myth of freewill argument and destroy you guys premise about a no God being not the starting point. Easily

The last two thousand years of human history have shown us that it is either virtually or actually impossible to prove that the Bible is true.

Yeah if you listening to what these so called theologians and scholars think they know about the scriptures and God.

If you want to try where countless theologians have failed, I'm not going to stop you, but I think it's a fool's errand. And in the meantime, your conclusion will remain unproven.

Okay I will, then not only would you have to prove the something from nothing is viable but also that the scriptures aren’t true. I was trying to do you guys a favor

Yeah, I agree we got sidetracked. I kinda gave up on the task in the OP when I couldn't get a satisfactory answer to the question "what is God?" It's a bit hard to disprove something if you don't have any idea of what that something is.

What is God or better stated, what makes up God? Not in a philosophical way but in a provable way---For the scriptures say “all is out of God” soooo….He is everything—you, me, everyone, everything, our thoughts, actions, planets, stars, atoms, quarts, laws, the universe, etc etc you name it---its all out of God. So now you know or have an idea so we can start from there again.

I don't know. AFAICT, it's not a coherent statement, so it's hard for me to evaluate it for truthfulness.

Well I have on whether eternal, everlasting, eternity for ever and ever is scriptural and if its also viable in the world. And it is not. Its a hoax and the most damnable doctrine has come from it

No, we haven't established this. I think you'll need to explain your reasoning again on this one.

I did. Here it is again “Whenever there is a change in something, you therefore have “time” before that time when the change started/happened and that’s why there is no such thing as eternal and therefore there will always be a time before a time. There was a time before there was this time [with the change or the marker for starting or stopping being when there was no earth then a earth].”

But to do this, you have to use premises that, so far, you haven't demonstrated are true. Actually, AFAICT, you haven't tried to explain them at all besides saying that that's what the Bible says.

I have. You just don’t accept it. My premise---an ultimate starting point and nothing can be before it or bring it to "being". My proof---besides whats stated in the bible, our science and what we know so far as that the universe and everything else CREATED has to have a point or starting point that brought it into existence, in otherwords something cannot come from nothing and that when that very first something comes into existence or is created it has to have something that created it. God is not created so He cannot be have something before Him to bring Him into existence. He is the ultimate scientific/scriptural starting point of everything and from Him all else came into existence. Now how this doesn’t explain it, I don’t know.

Why?

Because “all is out of God”. And until we find something before the BB it is attributed to God. Now when we find more before the BB whatever that more is, still comes “out from God” so you still have Him as the ultimate starting point.

IMO, it is. Your explanation involves just as many improbable phenomena as mine, except it invokes an infinitely improbable deity.

See I see science and the scriptures as things that support each other not as two things disproving the other. The more we find out in science the more I feel we become closer to God or the more we have “physical evidence” of God.

However, I never said anything about the universe sustaining itself forever.

If it doesn’t sustain itself, what sustains it? I say ultimately no matter how far you break it down it is God behind it all. You would have to say then that there is an infinity of breaking it down and never was/is a ultimate starting point. So if you can demonstrate that logically you have proven there is no god

If you can demonstrate that they're actually correct, then by all means, quote away. If not, then I agree it would be rather pointless.

Okay so then this brings us back to the OP, prove that when the scriptures say “all is out of God” that it is not “all out of God”. Please for your sake don’t try the freewill bid.

 

[AK4]

Once again we see that religionists have three arguments:
1. Circular.
2. Special pleading.
3. False statements.

Go back and look at your response. You're assuming your conclusion all over the place. And you know what that is, right? It's a fallacy.

Circular? "All is out of God" Something cannot come from nothing. God being the ultimate starting point cannot have something that brought Him into existence. Same premise this whole time.

Special pleading? So a statement of scientific and scriptural fact that everything created must have an ultimate starting point and that ultimate cannot have a starting point is special pleading for a God? How about if i said it was for the smallest thing in an atom---the superimposeatomnumber 50. There This an argument for that [of course i made that up]

False statements? Show me and show me the proof

 

[AK4]

Well I'm glad you are comfortable with not knowing. I don't understand then why you need god in the meantime. What possible use does it serve to believe in god until something disproves god? Are you just believing in him just "in case" he does exist?

Actually He is constantly proving His existence to me and others who believe as i do. Can i explain this to someone else? Yes and no. No because you know the obvious rebuttals one would say. Yes because almost everything that has been argued in this present age or century or whatever was argued to the apostles and prophets and they have written the answers done thousands of years ago. Just as it says in Ecclesiatics "same thing under sun, what happened yesterday will happen again". Just as the apostles had to disprove the teachings of the world and the jews back then the same thing goes now for those God has chosen. Believe me those caught in the web of doctrines of christianity and some judaism, basically the any of the worlds doctrines or sytems [God calls this Mystery, Babylon the Great] doesnt have the true answers. And no i am not saying i have them all either but i do know alot of the basic principles and precepts the scriptures teach that debunk the things taught out in the world.

If you want proof of God, test His word against the worlds teachings and see which has to be true. Only one can be ultimately true

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I am proving this to you just as science has.

Just saying "science!" is not a proof.

I can do this but I haven’t really because you guys don’t take the words from it as true. You have argued with others on its contents and assume I am arguing with their same views. I assure you I am not. I could easily throw in the myth of freewill argument and destroy you guys premise about a no God being not the starting point. Easily

Given the quality of your argument so far, I'm skeptical of your ability to do this.

Okay I will, then not only would you have to prove the something from nothing is viable but also that the scriptures aren’t true. I was trying to do you guys a favor

No... this bit in bold is wrong. Here's how it works:

Your argument is a chain. It reaches from some body of knowledge that we already accept to the conclusion you want to adopt. Every premise that your argument uses is a link in the chain, and this chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

When you bring the Bible into this, you don't strengthen the chain, you lengthen it. Even if the Bible were completely rock-solid, you still haven't reinforced the other parts of the chain; they're still as prone to failure.

What is God or better stated, what makes up God? Not in a philosophical way but in a provable way---For the scriptures say “all is out of God” soooo….He is everything—you, me, everyone, everything, our thoughts, actions, planets, stars, atoms, quarts, laws, the universe, etc etc you name it---its all out of God. So now you know or have an idea so we can start from there again.

And here we have a problem: I concede that all things that exist do exist... this is a tautology and therefore true. However, I don't believe that "everything" is a valid answer to the question "what is God"?

So, your answer leads us to another question: why would "you, me, everyone, everything, our thoughts, actions, planets, stars, atoms, quarts, laws, the universe, etc etc you name it" rightly be called "God"? What is it about this collection of things that makes it a deity?

Well I have on whether eternal, everlasting, eternity for ever and ever is scriptural and if its also viable in the world. And it is not. Its a hoax and the most damnable doctrine has come from it

Umm... this statement isn't coherent either, AFAICT. Can you try re-wording what you're trying to say?

I did. Here it is again “Whenever there is a change in something, you therefore have “time” before that time when the change started/happened and that’s why there is no such thing as eternal and therefore there will always be a time before a time. There was a time before there was this time [with the change or the marker for starting or stopping being when there was no earth then a earth].”

AFAICT, you're explaining something else. When we talk about "a time before time", we're not talking about a time before some other time, we're talking about a time in a context where time does not exist.

I have. You just don’t accept it. My premise---an ultimate starting point and nothing can be before it or bring it to "being". My proof---besides whats stated in the bible, our science and what we know so far as that the universe and everything else CREATED has to have a point or starting point that brought it into existence, in otherwords something cannot come from nothing and that when that very first something comes into existence or is created it has to have something that created it. God is not created so He cannot be have something before Him to bring Him into existence. He is the ultimate scientific/scriptural starting point of everything and from Him all else came into existence. Now how this doesn’t explain it, I don’t know.

Point by point:

besides whats stated in the bible, our science and what we know so far as that the universe and everything else CREATED has to have a point or starting point that brought it into existence,

When you divide the universe into "created" and "uncreated" things, you beg the question: you assume the thing you set out to prove.

Also, you haven't done anything to establish that the universe is necessarily a "created" thing. Until you do that, you can't establish that it needs a creator.

God is not created so He cannot be have something before Him to bring Him into existence. He is the ultimate scientific/scriptural starting point of everything and from Him all else came into existence.

You haven't demonstrated that God is not created; at this point, we know nothing about this "uncaused cause" besides the fact that it's uncaused.

Because “all is out of God”. And until we find something before the BB it is attributed to God. Now when we find more before the BB whatever that more is, still comes “out from God” so you still have Him as the ultimate starting point.

This is just an assumption on your part. And it's the conclusion you're trying to prove, so you can't use it as a premise in your argument; this is begging the question (again).

If it doesn’t sustain itself, what sustains it?

I don't know.

Note that "I don't know" is not the same thing as "God must have done it".

I say ultimately no matter how far you break it down it is God behind it all.

Fine if you think that, but your argument isn't just about your personal belief, it's about being able to actually demonstrate to others that this must be the case.

Okay so then this brings us back to the OP, prove that when the scriptures say “all is out of God” that it is not “all out of God”.

Don't need to. This is your argument to prove, not mine to disprove.

Please for your sake don’t try the freewill bid.

Since I don't know what "the freewill bid" is, I think we're both safe.

 

[Autodidact]

Circular? "All is out of God" Something cannot come from nothing. God being the ultimate starting point cannot have something that brought Him into existence. Same premise this whole time.

Special pleading? So a statement of scientific and scriptural fact that everything created must have an ultimate starting point and that ultimate cannot have a starting point is special pleading for a God? How about if i said it was for the smallest thing in an atom---the superimposeatomnumber 50. There This an argument for that [of course i made that up]

False statements? Show me and show me the proof

If you're relying on the Bible to support your argument, it's circular. Otherwise you could use House at Pooh Corner.

 

[johnhanks]

If you want proof of God, test His word against the worlds teachings and see which has to be true. Only one can be ultimately true

Absolutely.
So, do hares chew the cud (Lev:11:6)? Of course they do! Well, alright, they don't - but that's their fault! Obviously scripture cannot be wrong on this matter.

 

[challupa]

Absolutely.
So, do hares chew the cud (Lev:11:6)? Of course they do! Well, alright, they don't - but that's their fault! Obviously scripture cannot be wrong on this matter.

Biblical literalists get around this by saying that rabbits and hares eat their fecal pellets and store them in a fermentation chamber similar to cows. However rabbits do not have a 4 stomach system like cows so really the only thing they have in common is the fermentation chamber. Apparently eating their fecal pellets is an important source of nutrition for them.

 

[AK4]

Absolutely.
So, do hares chew the cud (Lev:11:6)? Of course they do! Well, alright, they don't - but that's their fault! Obviously scripture cannot be wrong on this matter.

Now let point this out to you. I said scriptures not bad bible translations. Now reads strongs definition of the hebrew word that translators used for hare and keep in mind there are no perfect word for word translations

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number: 768[/FONT]encodedOriginalWord[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT] ארנבת [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]of uncertain derivation[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]'arnebeth[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]ar-neh'-beth[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TWOT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Noun Feminine[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]123a[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. hare
   1. probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

[/FONT]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now let point this out to you. I said scriptures not bad bible translations. Now reads strongs definition of the hebrew word that translators used for hare and keep in mind there are no perfect word for word translations

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number: 768[/FONT]encodedOriginalWord[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT] ארנבת [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]of uncertain derivation[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]'arnebeth[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]ar-neh'-beth[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TWOT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Noun Feminine[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]123a[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. hare
   1. probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

[/FONT]

Hmm.

So... do you have any evidence that the "arnebeth" ever existed, other than the fact that the Bible contradicts itself if it didn't?

 

[McBell]

Now let point this out to you. I said scriptures not bad bible translations. Now reads strongs definition of the hebrew word that translators used for hare and keep in mind there are no perfect word for word translations

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number: 768[/FONT]encodedOriginalWord[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT] ארנבת [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]of uncertain derivation[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]'arnebeth[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]ar-neh'-beth[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TWOT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Noun Feminine[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]123a[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. hare
   1. probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

[/FONT]

Hmm...
Please cite your source for this Strong's definition.
I cannot find any such thing in any of my copies....

 

[Humanistheart]

Now let point this out to you. I said scriptures not bad bible translations. Now reads strongs definition of the hebrew word that translators used for hare and keep in mind there are no perfect word for word translations

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number: 768[/FONT]encodedOriginalWord[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT] ארנבת [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]of uncertain derivation[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]'arnebeth[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]ar-neh'-beth[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TWOT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Noun Feminine[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]123a[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. hare
   1. probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

[/FONT]

That's the funniest twist of logic to support creationist idea's I've heard in a while. Thanks for a good chuckle

 

[AK4]

Just saying "science!" is not a proof.

Science is not THE proof, it’s a proof. Just as the scriptures are a proof but to a lot of people its not THE proof. Me on the other hand say they must go hand in hand. Along with many other proofs

Given the quality of your argument so far, I'm skeptical of your ability to do this.

Not that I am God or something but He can turn any skeptic around. And He shows this in the scriptures. [Paul, some jews and disciples, King Neb etc etc.]

No... this bit in bold is wrong. Here's how it works:

Every premise that your argument uses is a link in the chain, and this chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

So I believe you are saying the weakest link is the if something cannot come from nothing then that same “rule” has to be applied to God, right?

When you bring the Bible into this, you don't strengthen the chain, you lengthen it. Even if the Bible were completely rock-solid, you still haven't reinforced the other parts of the chain; they're still as prone to failure.

Here is my chain—“all is out of God”, something cannot come from nothing, an ultimate starting point cannot have something start that starting point. So show me the weak link and please explain why

And here we have a problem: However, I don't believe that "everything" is a valid answer to the question "what is God"?

Why not? Scientifically this is sound. Scripturally this is sound. Philosophical this is sound. If there is another let me know. In which is it not sound? And prove it. Here I will prove my three points
Scientifically---if the atom was the very first thing ever and everything came from it, couldn’t you say this by definition is [like] a god? Yes

Scripturally---without putting tons of scripture this one is all encompassing “ALL is out of God”. If God was this atom doesn’t that match up scientifically? Yes

Philosophical---logically speaking if something has come into being, there has to be something before it that brought it into being, BUT there demands that something had to be the beginning of all things and could not possibly have something or even “at least two things” collide to create it or bring it to being and then making it source of all things. If was the case then that “new source” is not the source of all things.

So, your answer leads us to another question: why would "you, me, everyone, everything, our thoughts, actions, planets, stars, atoms, quarts, laws, the universe, etc etc you name it" rightly be called "God"?

In a sense God is reproducing or making more of Him, yet each one of these “hims” will be distinct and different in their own way. And they will always have to give credit and glory to the one who made them, why? “Because the giver is greater than the receiver” or because the thing that made the next thing is always greater than the thing it made [proof: look at the elemental table as one].

Also that’s why even Jesus says He has a God.

What is it about this collection of things that makes it a deity?

Because He made them or brought them into being. In a sense a parent is a god to their child, a scientist is a god to its robot it built, The Father is a God to Jesus, Jesus [with the Father working through Him] is a God to everything He created and the Father through Jesus created all things, so in spirit they are the one God. But you don’t want to go there right?

Can you try re-wording what you're trying to say?

The terms “eternal, everlasting, eternity for ever and ever” are not scriptural words. They do not belong in the bible because of what they mean. Their proper meanings from the greek and Hebrew basically means age, ages and age-lasting. Yes people will live for ever or in the sense of the word have everlasting life, but when stated as such, along with eternal, it signifies no change or a constant suspended state because once you do ANYTHING, whatever you was doing before that is now not eternal or everlasting or forever in that same state. With age and age-lasting/during you can have change and says you, for however long it took, no matter what it was, that thing you was doing only lasted for that age or was age-lasting. The scriptures say we are given immortality and eonion/aeonian life and that we keep growing and going and growing and growing. In otherwords not in an eternal, everlasting state of basically suspended animation but in a age after age after age after age of growing and growing.

When we talk about "a time before time", we're not talking about a time before some other time, we're talking about a time in a context where time does not exist.

This is where I am trying to tell ya that there always had to be a “time”. I believe in God and I don’t believe there was a time when He just sat idly by and for those who stick the science of it must accept the same thing because is there any molecule or atom or whatever that sits idly by and if it does are the things that make it up just sitting idly by. I don’t think so.

When you divide the universe into "created" and "uncreated" things, you beg the question: you assume the thing you set out to prove.

Not sure I follow you or maybe you misread me---the universe is created and everything else in it is created is what I am saying. There is nothing in the universe that wasn’t created.

Also, you haven't done anything to establish that the universe is necessarily a "created" thing. Until you do that, you can't establish that it needs a creator.

So an eternal universe has to be your defense or your argument. You say you are not defending this but that is exactly what you are saying here.

You haven't demonstrated that God is not created; at this point, we know nothing about this "uncaused cause" besides the fact that it's uncaused.

Again, I have. I cannot prove that He was not created, I will grant you that, but thats where science and philosophy mesh in with “religion” [I hated to use that word, how about my and others likeminded beliefs]. You have to have an ultimate starting point, an uncaused cause. There is nothing in our visible universe we have observed that can demonstrate the opposite and nothing we can possibly philosophically think of to counter this. Therefore, as it stands, it must be true.

This is just an assumption on your part. And it's the conclusion you're trying to prove, so you can't use it as a premise in your argument; this is begging the question

So my view is an assumption? Wouldn’t that make yours one too? And as for evidence, scientifically, philosophically, and definitely scripturally your assumption is lacking more evidence than mine.

I don't know

Note that "I don't know" is not the same thing as "God must have done it".

So to truly answer your question and to expose yours and those who think like you view, mankind will always have “I don’t know” lurking ever further out of their reach as “their god” and this will go on as long as mankind survives. Because as we [mankind] keeps finding out more, the more realize they don’t know. Is that not a true statement? Now to bury this you cant make the assumption, as you tell me, that one day they will know everything there is know because that’s is an assumption and not based on anything at all. Those who believe in God can because its called faith in that what is considered to be words from Him says so. Oh you can believe that man will know everything there is to know, but that’s called having faith in mankind, not God and I know you what the scriptures say of this.

 

[AK4]

continued from last post

Fine if you think that, but your argument isn't just about your personal belief, it's about being able to actually demonstrate to others that this must be the case.

Okay you said “even if the bible is rock solid” right? Heres just one of many that says God is behind everything. Try to pick this apart

“FOR IT IS GOD who works in you BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO OF HIS GOOD PLEASURE” [Php 2:13]

Your only way out of this is to say there is no God. That’s it. That’s all you have. Can you show this to be false? Only way is to say there is no God. The only to say that mankind will know everything there is to know and not give credit to God is to say there is no God. So have a crack at it. I challenge all your like minded people to try to.

Don't need to. This is your argument to prove, not mine to disprove.

Okay prove all is out of…..something. See you cant. You are stuck in the “I don’t know” religion and this, according to you guys beliefs, is forever.

Since I don't know what "the freewill bid" is, I think we're both safe.

Its probably my strongest area and Ive been holding it back or no one has really brought it directly [they have indirectly] to this thread, but by proving that false I can strengthen my premise. The thing is

 

[AK4]

Hmm...
Please cite your source for this Strong's definition.
I cannot find any such thing in any of my copies....

'arnebeth - Hebrew Lexicon

 

[AK4]

That's the funniest twist of logic to support creationist idea's I've heard in a while. Thanks for a good chuckle

Right and to trust that translators will translate a book [any] word for word correctly is a good chuckle for me too. Thanks

 

[AK4]

Hmm.

So... do you have any evidence that the "arnebeth" ever existed, other than the fact that the Bible contradicts itself if it didn't?

I didnt get read this article yet but i will stick my neck out for it. I gotta go. I will read it tomorrow and if it is contradictory to what i believe or know then i will comment or retract it.

Apologetics Press - Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake?

 

[Humanistheart]

Right and to trust that translators will translate a book [any] word for word correctly is a good chuckle for me too. Thanks

Right, because finding a special type of hare that chews cudd is a translation issue.

 

[David69]

scientists recon the chances that dna WASNT created by a super intelligence is something like a zillion zillion zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion zillion + to one.
So I beleive that this superintelligence Is God so no I cannot proov or say that God doesnt exist because of the odds.

 

[Humanistheart]

scientists recon the chances that dna WASNT created by a super intelligence is something like a zillion zillion zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion zillion + to one.
So I beleive that this superintelligence Is God so no I cannot proov or say that God doesnt exist because of the odds.

What scientists?