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

[AK4]

Yes. This is called reading into a verse what you want it to say.

Yes. See above.

Nope, you got that one right.

Oh brother. Besides, one is not supposed to take A verse and reading into. No it must stay scriptural for the entire scriptures. In otherwords it must have two or three witnesses to back it up plus not contradict any other precept of scripture

 

[tumbleweed41]

So, you posit that Super Relativity states that the cause for nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other is.......ether? An organic compound?

Or perhaps you meant aether, a supposed physical medium occupying every point in space. (Metaphysics)

Or the ambiguous aether in reference to physics, better known as quintessence which can be associated with free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, or vacuum energy.


Or did you just make that up to look like you knew what you were talking about?

Well?

 

[AK4]

Yes, but that's not the only issue. In terms of these specific claims, you need to show a few things:

- first, that the verses mean what you claim they do. I think all three things you mentioned were either taken completely out of context or are so vague as to not really be meaningful factual statements at all.

Ah yes the god of context. Too bad most dont know or understand what the scriptures say about that. Even so, niether did i take those out of context either.

- if you get that far, then you have to demonstrate that the Bible was correct because of correct knowledge, and not because of chance. You pulled three statements out of a very large book and claimed that they're meaningful... well, what about all the other statements in the Bible? What about the verses that imply that the Earth is flat, or that rabbits chew cud? If you throw a whole bunch of claims out there, by sheer chance, some will be coincidentally correct. As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It was far from chance. It was God inspired. Whether you believe it or not the same applies to you on what you know, it is God inspired. And what about all those other statements? All those arguments have been refuted for centuries. You can easily pull up whats been said on these. Most of you guys argument points are based on spurious translations, just like the "days" of creation and what was happening in those "days".

That deals with those specific claims. If you want to make an inference from those claims to the reliability of the Bible as a whole, you have another hurdle to clear:

- you need to show that the reliability of those verses somehow implies that the Bible as a whole is reliable. As an analogy, the book the Wizard of Oz was completely correct about all sorts of things: Kansas, tornadoes and small dogs all exist. Oil really does work to loosen rusty joints. Scarecrows are often stuffed with straw. However, this doesn't mean that we can therefore conclude that munchkins, flying monkeys and the Emerald City actually exist. It's not enough for a source to be right on a few items for us to conclude that the source as a whole is reliable.

The scriptures are reliable as a whole. Its just those who refuse to accept or believe what it says is where it is unreliable to them. And most of the time its just from being stubborn to some pretty plain statements in the scriptures like the things are made from things unseen. You dont accept it even though its a true statement.

But that's not even the real situation, is it? I mean, the Bible's not one source; it's many. Its various books were written by many different authors over a span of centuries. Does the reliability (or lack thereof) of Genesis really have anything to do with the reliability of Isaiah or Revelation? Personally, I'd say that it's not clear that the one does have anything to do with the other, which is another hurdle you'd have to clear if you want to establish that the Bible is reliable.

No the scriptures are ONE source, it came from one source and ultimately has one author or "director" of it. This is why most of yall are confused on it because you dont realise it, the scriptures, is one and not a collection of books.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Oh brother. Besides, one is not supposed to take A verse and reading into. No it must stay scriptural for the entire scriptures. In otherwords it must have two or three witnesses to back it up plus not contradict any other precept of scripture

Because, of course, ancient Hebrews REALLY meant an expanding universe.
After all, this is concurrent with other scripture.

 

[AK4]

But they're not opposite.

Free will is the belief that we have the ability to choose between different future alternatives.

No thats choice not freewill. And thats why most dont understand it. Freewill is the belief that one can will anything at any time without the influence of anything, including any divine forces. That is no different than what alot of atheists believe. Dont get me wrong though, this belief affects almost all of the population of earth in almost all religions.

There's a third option: many future alternatives exist, but the thing that determines which one will occur is something other than our own choice.

Just another way to say freewill.

Your dichotomy only works if you've determined ahead of time that the universe is deterministic, but you haven't given any reason why we would need to assume this. In fact, some evidence suggests that the universe is not deterministic (at least not at the quantum level, anyhow).

Question. Can you unring a bell? Can you go back in time to change something? Although there could be many possibilities for things, only one prevails and it was the only one that could prevail.

Edit: also, your other assumption is incorrect. The rejection of one claim does not imply the acceptance of its opposite. You always have the option to reject both claims... i.e. to remain uncommitted.

Maybe we both are right because it depends on what the subject is.

 

[AK4]

To "believe" in freewill, you assume that their is some force or entity that grants this freewill.

Really? So what is it that those who dont believe in a god or higher being or whatever, who believe in freewill say this freewill comes from? They dont, but they still believe they have it.

To lack belief in predestination, as in lacking belief in a deity, you are relying on evidence before belief. Therefore using reason instead of faith.

You dont have to believe in a deity to believe in predestionation. some accept the fact that the universe is on a course and nothing can change it and the circumstances that everyone experiences is all part of that course.

And lack of faith based belief is also lack of religion.

So going strictly by definition, are you saying atheism is not a religion? How about deism? etc etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, thank you for finally responding to my objections to this argument of yours. I think I brought them up at least a few times, but you seemed to have always overlooked them in the past.

Ah yes the god of context. Too bad most dont know or understand what the scriptures say about that. Even so, niether did i take those out of context either.

Fine that you believe that, but if you want others to accept it, you'll have to demonstrate that it's true. Just asking us to take your word for it isn't enough.

It was far from chance. It was God inspired. Whether you believe it or not the same applies to you on what you know, it is God inspired.

Again, fine if you believe it yourself. If you want me to agree with you, demonstrate that it's true.

And what about all those other statements? All those arguments have been refuted for centuries. You can easily pull up whats been said on these. Most of you guys argument points are based on spurious translations, just like the "days" of creation and what was happening in those "days".

If they've been refuted for centuries, then they should be easy for you to refute here. Go for it.

The scriptures are reliable as a whole. Its just those who refuse to accept or believe what it says is where it is unreliable to them.

Again: fine for you. If you want me to accept it, you'll have to demonstrate it.

And most of the time its just from being stubborn to some pretty plain statements in the scriptures like the things are made from things unseen. You dont accept it even though its a true statement.

There's a big difference between the plain meaning of these sorts of statements and the inferences you try to draw from them.

Just to go back a bit, though, when you say "things are made from things unseen", exactly what do you think this means? What scientific facts do you think the Bible is telling us here?

No the scriptures are ONE source, it came from one source and ultimately has one author or "director" of it. This is why most of yall are confused on it because you dont realise it, the scriptures, is one and not a collection of books.

You're putting the cart before the horse. We're trying to decide whether to accept the Bible as reliable. Part of that figuring out whether it was written by people or by God. If you've come to that conclusion, fine, but don't expect us to accept it until you've demonstrated to us that it's correct.

Anyhow, I think you're avoiding an important issue. You imply that "scripture" is written by God. Okay (since I don't really feel like arguing the point right now)... but what's "scripture"? Does it include the Book of Revelation (a book that has historically been rejected by some Christian leaders as not inspired)? Does it include books like 3 John or Maccabees (books that the Catholic Church counts as "scripture" but most Protestant churches do not)? Does it include the Gospel of Thomas? What about the Book of Mormon? What about the Quran? How do you tell the God-authored "scripture" from the fake stuff?

 

[tumbleweed41]

No the scriptures are ONE source, it came from one source and ultimately has one author or "director" of it. This is why most of yall are confused on it because you dont realise it, the scriptures, is one and not a collection of books.

Torah
1. Genesis - Bere****h
2. Exodus - Shemot
3. Leviticus - Vayikra
4. Numbers - Bamidbar
5. Deuteronomy - Devarim

Nevi'im
6. Joshua (יהושע / Y'hoshua)
7. Judges (שופטים / Shophtim)
8. Samuel (I & II) (שמואל / Sh'muel)
9. Kings (I & II) (מלכים / M'lakhim)
10. Isaiah (ישעיה / Y'shayahu)
11. Jeremiah (ירמיה / Yir'mi'yahu)
12. Ezekiel (יחזקאל / Y'khezqel)
13. The Twelve Prophets (תרי עש&#1512
a. Hosea (הושע / Hoshea)
b. Joel (יואל / Yo'el)
c. Amos (עמוס / Amos)
d. Obadiah (עובדיה / Ovadyah)
e. Jonah (יונה / Yonah)
f. Micah (מיכה / Mikhah)
g. Nahum (נחום / Nakhum)
h. Habakkuk (חבקוק /Havakuk)
i. Zephaniah (צפניה / Ts'phanyah)
j. Haggai (חגי / Khagai)
k. Zechariah (זכריה / Z'kharyah)
l. Malachi (מלאכי / Mal'akhi)

Ketuvim
14. Psalms [תהלים / Tehillim]
15. Proverbs [משלי / Mishlei]
16. Job [איוב / Iyov]
The "Five Megilot" or "Five Scrolls":
17. Song of Songs [שיר השירים / Shir Hashirim]
18. Ruth [רות / Rut]
19. Lamentations [איכה / Eikhah]
20. Ecclesiastes [קהלת / Kohelet]
21. Esther [אסתר / Esther]
The rest of the "Writings":
22. Daniel [דניאל / Dani'el]
23. Ezra-Nehemiah [עזרא ונחמיה / Ezra v'Nechemia]
24. Chronicles (I & II) [דברי הימים / Divrei Hayamim]

• Synoptic Gospels
  • Gospel According to Matthew, Mt
  • Gospel According to Mark, Mk
  • Gospel According to Luke, Lk
• Gospel According to John, Jn
• Acts of the Apostles, Ac

Pauline Epistles

• Epistle to the Romans, Ro
• First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1Co

• Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2Co
• Epistle to the Galatians, Ga
• Epistle to the Ephesians, Ep
• Epistle to the Philippians, Pp
• Epistle to the Colossians, Cl
• First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 1Th
• Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 2Th

• Pastoral Epistles
  • First Epistle to Timothy, 1Ti
  • Second Epistle to Timothy, 2Ti
  • Epistle to Titus, Tt

• Epistle to Philemon, Pm
• Epistle to the Hebrews, He

General Epistles, also called Jewish Epistles

• Epistle of James, Jm
• First Epistle of Peter, 1Pe
• Second Epistle of Peter, 2Pe
• First Epistle of John, 1Jn
• Second Epistle of John, 2Jn
• Third Epistle of John, 3Jn
• Epistle of Jude, Jd
• Revelation, or the Apocalypse Re

I think you are the one confused here. Have you studied any of the history of the canonization of the Protestant scripture? Catholic? Eastern, Greek, or Russian Orthodox? Ethiopian?

 

[AK4]

Tell me, what does it say about our universe? In your learned opinion.

I cant answer this because i dont see it the way you do. My answer if any would be that its bogus.

Unless a verifiable or reasonable cause is found, then yes, that makes it uncaused.

So its uncaused is the final verdict and scientist can go home now. Now does that make sense to you? Because "the answer hasnt been found yet" case is closed, the universe has no cause therefore by default its eternal right?

So, you posit that Super Relativity states that the cause for nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other is.......ether? An organic compound?

Or perhaps you meant aether, a supposed physical medium occupying every point in space. (Metaphysics)

Or the ambiguous aether in reference to physics, better known as quintessence which can be associated with free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, or vacuum energy.


Or did you just make that up to look like you knew what you were talking about?

All of the above. *shaking my head*

 

[AK4]

Yes, it certainly makes us wonder. But of course we can only get answers to questions that come within the bounds of experience.

Couldnt you argue then that imagination would also count as some form of experience? If so, then how "big" is this experience and where is the bounds? Imagination is not necessarily based on experience and it has driven mankind to go beyond what they have experienced.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Really? So what is it that those who dont believe in a god or higher being or whatever, who believe in freewill say this freewill comes from? They dont, but they still believe they have it.

Are you really that thick? I said to lack belief in predestination, as in lacking belief in a deity, you are relying on evidence before belief. Therefore using reason instead of faith. While, theologically speaking, to "believe" (faith without evidence) in freewill, you assume that there is some force or entity that grants this freewill.

You dont have to believe in a deity to believe in predestionation. some accept the fact that the universe is on a course and nothing can change it and the circumstances that everyone experiences is all part of that course.

See above.

So going strictly by definition, are you saying atheism is not a religion? How about deism? etc etc.

Atheism is not a religion.
Deism is a religion in the loosest sense of the word.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now if there is a lack of necessity for a cause in our universe, what does that say of the universe? Is this not saying the same thing I said you were saying, just in a more clever way of disguising it?

Tell me, what does it say about our universe? In your learned opinion.

I cant answer this because i dont see it the way you do. My answer if any would be that its bogus.

Cop out.

So its uncaused is the final verdict and scientist can go home now. Now does that make sense to you? Because "the answer hasnt been found yet" case is closed, the universe has no cause therefore by default its eternal right?

Please link to any post where I indicated that this is "the final verdict and scientist can go home now." or where I or any other poster besides yourself has said that the universe is "eternal".
You have a bad habit of putting words into other peoples mouths in order to bolster your argument.

As for the second, I believe they say its ether.

So, you posit that Super Relativity states that the cause for nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other is.......ether? An organic compound?

Or perhaps you meant aether, a supposed physical medium occupying every point in space. (Metaphysics)

Or the ambiguous aether in reference to physics, better known as quintessence which can be associated with free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, or vacuum energy.


Or did you just make that up to look like you knew what you were talking about?

All of the above. *shaking my head*

So, while promoting Super Relativity as explaining causation in quantum events, you really have no idea what it says.
Very revealing.

 

[AK4]

[

And it is the laws of the universe that determine our will. There is no proof whatsoever that we answer to a personal, external agency.

So that begs the question where did the laws come from?





I’m sorry but that cannot be correct. If it were reason before faith it would be metaphysical belief and not a religious commitment. And Judaism varies greatly from the ultra-orthodox to the liberal, but ‘God’ exists’ is held as an article of faith. To quote from the Judaism 101 site: ‘Proof is not needed and is rarely offered.’


I wouldn’t say reason before faith and I am a little reluctant to say faith is over reason. They should go hand in hand in my opinion. I could make a case for both though.



If that were the case then ‘wrong’ would likely be the universal conclusion. Exegesis and arguments from theodicy are frequently used to explain all sorts of apparent biblical contradictions and inconsistencies. And there is no authoritative decree as to what is indisputably the correct explanation for these grey areas.


To be frank and not conceited, a lot of these have no clue about what the scriptures teach. There are many reasons why, but I wont go into that.




What concrete evidence? It seems to me that the only people who accept it as such are believers of the particular religion. If evidence were ‘concrete’ you would not have to convince me: it would in the public domain as an irrefutable fact.

Well, try telling that to those who still say we never landed on the moon or that the world is not flat and so on and so on. Even with concrete evidence out there on many things, many will still make up their own minds

 

[AK4]

Because, of course, ancient Hebrews REALLY meant an expanding universe.
After all, this is concurrent with other scripture.

I dont know... "stetching out the heavens like a curtain" doesnt sound at all like an expanding universe or expanding heavens.

:thud:

Oh and yes it is. Do you have something where it isnt concurrent?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So that begs the question where did the laws come from?

The laws are natural to the material of the universe.

Well, try telling that to those who still say we never landed on the moon or that the world is not flat and so on and so on. Even with concrete evidence out there on many things, many will still make up their own minds

Indeed they will.
Creationists, flat earthers, moon landing deniers.....

 

[tumbleweed41]

I dont know... "stetching out the heavens like a curtain" doesnt sound at all like an expanding universe or expanding heavens.

:thud:

Oh and yes it is. Do you have something where it isnt concurrent?

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.


Doesn't sound like the naturally expanding universe as we understand it today....

 

[AK4]

Well?

No, its one of the four forces. If i remember right its the weak force.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont know... "stetching out the heavens like a curtain" doesnt sound at all like an expanding universe or expanding heavens.

Not to me. The universe is a big, 3-dimensional thing. Curtains are flat.

That phrase is a much better fit with the old idea that the sky was a solid surface punctured with holes where starlight shines through than it is with the modern idea of an expanding universe.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not to me. The universe is a big, 3-dimensional thing. Curtains are flat.

That phrase is a much better fit with the old idea that the sky was a solid surface punctured with holes where starlight shines through than it is with the modern idea of an expanding universe.

Yes.....Over a "Flat" Earth. This is what they believed.

http://worthyourweight.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/flat-earth.jpg

 

[alyxandres]

Sure, after I prove that the world is flat, the stars are holes god made in the sky, earth is at the center of the universe made in 7 days, evolution is false, oh and women can have babies without having sex.

WAIT! I'm sorry we've already know those to be untrue.

Your question is relative, you can't prove or disprove it and never will be able to, there will always be an event horizon we can't look past (ie Creation of the Big Bang). Problem is I assume you are meaning 1 god in reference to an earthly religion, that we are proving more and more every day to be false, just like topics above more and more of our understanding of the universe and our place in it is conflicting with the teachings and narrow view of existence that Earths religions seem to provide.