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

[AK4]

It is also applied to any historical/scientific claims that can not be backed up through independent verification and multiple reliable sources.

Such as...
The Angels of Mons
Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake"
The Aryan Invasion
Ancient Aliens
Newtons "apple"
Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest
King Arthur
The burning of witches in Salem
Nero's fiddle
Cleopatra was Egyptian
Edison inventing the light bulb
Vikings with horned helmets

Oh but wait a minute, these are all accepted as true and almost without question. And with Newton, his work prove his claim right? But no this cant be applied to the bible if it proves itself like Newtons did. Killing me.

 

[AK4]

It would mean that God was a limited God, since "every living substance that I have made" would only have been over a limited area and would not have been all living things on Earth.

lol wow! So God not wanting to destroy everything limits Him? Come now

 

[tumbleweed41]

Please. You guys have yet to show anything contrary to the my argument except for opinions and doubt. You have nothing to show to argue your points because there is nothing in creation that is eternal. Nothing. I told you guys flat out to show proof of anything eternal in creation and you guys easily when this debate and yet not one single thing from you guys.

The belief of the "i dont know religion" is an UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEF

The belief that QM is free from cause and effect or that it somehow brought itself into is existence is an UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEF

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ther-foot-prove-there-not-96.html#post1863330 1
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ther-foot-prove-there-not-97.html#post1863509 2
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ther-foot-prove-there-not-98.html#post1863632 3
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ther-foot-prove-there-not-98.html#post1863674 4
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ther-foot-prove-there-not-99.html#post18645625

 

[AK4]

The passage clearly states that God will destroy every living thing he made. Indicating that the flood would be the source of this destruction. In order to do this the flood could not have been regional, but worldwide. (Unless you believe all living things were contained withing the area of the deluge)
Now I am not arguing that the writer is not mistaken in his belief in a worldwide flood. Just what the clear intent of the story relates.

Thus the Torah clearly indicates a global, rather than local, flood.
Unsubstantiated.

This is crazy. Ive never really had to argue about the whats in the bible and say look at the context. Gees the whole context shows its a regional flood. What is so hard about all things living that area to be killed and why would that have to mean it was worldwide? Besides, again, there is no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. You guys are arguing for it just to try to disprove the bible.

 

[Demonic Kitten]

On that episode he had the tip of a spear to that indented spot at the bottom of the neck. The other end of it was on the ground or something that could measure the psi. He pushed and pushed and then someone whacked on that back with something and it borke. Im skeptical and intrigued really. Maybe im to intrigued because of my love for the video game Street Fighter and their "chi" abilities. lol

I'll have to keep my eyes out for that episode.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

show proof of anything eternal in creation [/COLOR]and you guys easily when this debate and yet not one single thing from you guys.

Has that ever been our stance? Maybe I missed it when some one said there was eternal creation. From my understanding....no one here subscribes to the assertion of anything being "created" (not in the sense of Creator therefore creation)

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is also applied to any historical/scientific claims that can not be backed up through independent verification and multiple reliable sources.

Such as...
The Angels of Mons
Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake"
The Aryan Invasion
Ancient Aliens
Newtons "apple"
Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest
King Arthur
The burning of witches in Salem
Nero's fiddle
Cleopatra was Egyptian
Edison inventing the light bulb
Vikings with horned helmets

Oh but wait a minute, these are all accepted as true and almost without question. And with Newton, his work prove his claim right? But no this cant be applied to the bible if it proves itself like Newtons did. Killing me.

Yet they are all example of false or unsubstantiated histories.

1. No evidence of supernatural Angels helping the British in Mons.
2. Marie never mentioned "cake" . It was a story perpetuated by the French Revolutionaries.
3. No archeological or other evidence of the Aryan Invasion.
4. No evidence at all of ancient astronauts.
5. Newtons "apple on the head" story is not historical at all. Voltaire attributed the orchard story to Newton many years later.
6. The historical Robin Hood did not reside in Sherwood. The real folk hero resided in Yorkshire.
7. The legend of King Arthur can at best be attributed to a Briton chieftain or warrior, no knights, no round table, no Excalibur, no Camelot.
8. Those accused of witchcraft in Salem were hung by their necks to die, one was stoned to death.
9. Fiddles (or Violins) were invented 1000 yrs after Nero's Rome burned.
10. Cleopatra was a direct descendant of Ptolemy the Great, a Greek. A pure Greek bloodline can be traced from Ptolemy to Cleopatra.
11. Edison perfected the filament of the light bulb. The light bulb itself was invented by Humphry Davy.
12. As for the Vikings, archaeologists have never found examples of such helmets. Roman writers report that earlier Celtic and Germanic warriors did wear helmets with horns but the practice had died out hundreds of years before the Viking raids began.

And as has been shown, the historical accuracy of the Bible is equally filled with unsubstantiated and false myths and legends.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is crazy. Ive never really had to argue about the whats in the bible and say look at the context. Gees the whole context shows its a regional flood. What is so hard about all things living that area to be killed and why would that have to mean it was worldwide? Besides, again, there is no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. You guys are arguing for it just to try to disprove the bible.

Again, the text clearly states God would destroy every living thing he had created. Not just those in that area.
I am not arguing for a world wide flood. In fact I think the writer was clearly mistaken. But the story, taken in its entirety, clearly indicates that the author believed that the entire world was flooded.

 

[AK4]

And what about my rebuttals? But hey i will dissect these some more

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ther-foot-prove-there-not-96.html#post1863330 1

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account

Now in science, can anything "just happen" and be considered scientific? Is that acceptable in the science community for an answer to anything? Be honest now. So since we know this is not an acceptable answer. Do you agree that there has to be a reason why something just "appears".

Then to further this you say" can occur within the scope of scientific law". So you agree that it will fall under some scientific law. Guess what, THE LAW is the cause. The law causes, as you put it, "The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something".

Case closed really. The law causes the effect of the abrupt uncaused appearance of something. Now i am just arguing this with the points you stated. Therefore, trying to nullify cause and effect with the QM argument fails by your own statements.

If care to dispute this i give you something to think on. I said the law causes the effect. This is no different than any other law that has been established. This transcends QM and ToR or any of them. The law of gravity causes things to happen. The law of QM will cause things to happen and so on and so on.


I will have comment on the rest later but this already kills your argument.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Guess what, THE LAW is the cause. The law causes, as you put it, "The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something".

Case closed really. The law causes the effect of the abrupt uncaused appearance of something. Now i am just arguing this with the points you stated. Therefore, trying to nullify cause and effect with the QM argument fails by your own statements.

If care to dispute this i give you something to think on. I said the law causes the effect. This is no different than any other law that has been established. This transcends QM and ToR or any of them. The law of gravity causes things to happen. The law of QM will cause things to happen and so on and so on.


I will have comment on the rest later but this already kills your argument.

Laws do not cause. Laws are statements of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

lol wow! So God not wanting to destroy everything limits Him? Come now

No, you limit him.

The text says that God would destroy "every living substance that I have made". You've told us that God's destructive act didn't flood the whole Earth and didn't destroy every living substance.

If we accept both the text and your interpretation as correct, then the only way to reconcile these two things is to conclude that the living things that God didn't destroy were not "living substances that God had made".

Look at the way the sentence is set up. For illustrative purposes, I'll change the subject. Instead of "every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth", let's use something that has the same grammatical form:

"Every dog that I own, I will bring into the house from the yard."

Assuming I did what I said, say you see a dog wandering around the street. What could you conclude about that dog?

For starters, because you know that all my dogs have been brought into the house, you could deduce that that dog does not belong to me.

See how it works?

 

[AxisMundi]

Ahh little do most know and recognize the bible uses alot of the mythology of what the people considered then to be true to teach a spiritual lesson.

Its the same as the legends of greek mythology, it came out of the imagination of someone and it came from a book a person wrote. If you want to consider leprechauns existence, you then can consider all the other stuff written from the imaginations of authors of books. Think about what came out of the imaginations of the people who do the dungeon and dragons books and games, whew.

There is a large, truck sized hole in your argument.

The bibles, neither the OT or NT, are merely "teaching tools".

They quite clearly lay out and define not only their respective and subjective moral sets and laws, they create what I will have to, in all honesty but still grudgingly, admit is a Theopolitical Manifesto of a superb caliber, one that is effective even in this modern age in western society.

The myths contained within, especially the Creation, Adam and Eve, Flood/Noah, and Job myths are intended solely to put an ultimate authority in Jehovah, and through that deity, supreme power, control, and authority of the clergy of the related religions. The scriptures also specifically target competing religions as well, relegating them to some "primitive ignorance" that must be stamped out and corrected, and those poor innocent devil worshiping heathens corrected at any cost.

 

[AxisMundi]

Spoken like someone who truly dont know what the scriptures say......

When I left the religion of my parents at the tender age of 15, I went through a few years of a crisis of faith. During that time I reread the thing back to front.

So please, no more circular arguments, ad hominems, and appeals to ignorance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When it comes to something like this I am very skeptical of it, in fact I was skeptical of the whole Ki (or Chi...Prana....Qui) thing until I experienced it for myself. I can't say whether it is real or fake because I have never been able to find an episode where it was performed and I can't talk my sensei into trying it.

I've practiced martial arts for several years now, and although we use the term "Ki", we use it as a sort of mix of ideas like "spirit", "attitude", "focus", and "posture"... all natural things, not supernatural.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ahh little do most know and recognize the bible uses alot of the mythology of what the people considered then to be true to teach a spiritual lesson.

What is amazing is that after this statement, he spends over four pages arguing for the substantiated truth contained in the Bible.
Most myths are built upon some reality.
Hercules may have been a strong guy, but I doubt he was the son of Zeus and fought monsters.
Aurthur may have been a great chieftain, but he was no great king who unified Briton after receiving a supernatural sword from the Lady of the Lake.
Equally, many of the stories in the OT may have originated from an actual event, or a misconception of reality, but were blown to mythical proportions by biblical writers and earlier oral storytellers.

 

[godnotgod]

The law causes the effect of the abrupt uncaused appearance of something.

Whaaaaa? Is that kinda like "the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth"?...or maybe...."the hand is quicker than the eye"...or even..."the devil made me do it"....or perhaps.......nah!

 

[McBell]

There was a beginning to creation.

Really?
Interesting since you cannot show that there was a creation to begin with....

What that implies is that something outside of our universe started our universe, hence a creation.

this is based upon an unsubstantiated premise.

We could use that argument on almost anything then right?

You got parrots. There was one I believe that knew over 100 words.

touche.

 

[McBell]

And? Does that say "ONLY because you dont know the true scriptures you are wrong"? Sorry theres no "only" there and that is the claim you are trying to say i said

the "ONLY" part is nothing more than your strawman.

 

[McBell]

Please. You guys have yet to show anything contrary to the my argument except for opinions and doubt.

that is because all you have presented is nothing more that unsubstantiated claims.
Perhaps you should atually substantiate one or more of them?

You have nothing to show to argue your points because there is nothing in creation that is eternal. Nothing. I told you guys flat out to show proof of anything eternal in creation and you guys easily when this debate and yet not one single thing from you guys.

Let us run with your alleged win.
Where did god come from?
Since nothing is eternal, like you say...

The belief of the "i dont know religion" is an UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEF

No idea what you are talking about here.

The belief that QM is free from cause and effect or that it somehow brought itself into is existence is an UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEF

Again, what are you talking about?

 

[McBell]

Oh but wait a minute, these are all accepted as true and almost without question. And with Newton, his work prove his claim right? But no this cant be applied to the bible if it proves itself like Newtons did. Killing me.

You got to be kidding me.

Please tell me you are not serious?