??? -- I'm still waiting for the evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theists: Are there good reasons not to believe?
- Thread starter vulcanlogician
- Start date
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Spiritually, physically, emotionally but most important of all, mentally. Mental evolution is the most important evolution there is. Our large, dense brains with as many neurons as there are galaxies in the entire Universe is the only reason we could have developed our portion of divine attributes. Good mental health allows people to evolve spiritually and physically faster than they used to.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
If it cannot be demonstrated it cannot be a fact because facts are demonstrable.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The evidence is available for anyone who is interested in it.
no. A fact is a fact regardless of whether it's demonstrated or whether we're even aware of it. The facts of physics, chemistry, &c. existed before the Earth even coalesced.
OK, help me, then. Links?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
When men stand on earth...they don't own their machine god body. Manifested out of gods earth stone ark in a seam law....deep in earths mass. Cold metal as a mass.
They also don't own god the machine doing a God earth dust reaction.
They own a man's human self. Aren't a theist...no Science exists. They survive mutual equal like nature does animals did humans did.
He becomes a God theist as a man...self idolated. false preached. As he didn't invent life by his words thinking...the man.
So he invents false language numbers symbols sun themes back in time.
Back in time for baby humans now says our origin bio parent humans bodies are dusts blowing in the breeze.
Science by his time numbers says he agrees with what human origin parents now are. Falsely he theories no I'm not satanic I pretended any dead body was given back by my terms living flesh.
Is his big con.
So using back in time fake words stories he tries to give us back in time what the dead parent became.
As he doesn't tell us he's using satanic words... not gods.
The number data language equates dusts in science...so congratulated his wisdom advised.... how to combust biology into ashes and dusts himself.
Yet as theist he stands on Rock so says falsely only his genetic...the scientist baby man will survive. He says in his possessed mind. Knowing human parents are bodily bio now both dusts.
It's why no human should ever agree with the human scientist. He's really the satanist life destroyer incognito.
My brother knew. He was astute. A hypocrite to family. But he knew scientists are life's destroyer who lied about the dead.
Hypocrite as once he too believed in satanic sciences.
They also don't own god the machine doing a God earth dust reaction.
They own a man's human self. Aren't a theist...no Science exists. They survive mutual equal like nature does animals did humans did.
He becomes a God theist as a man...self idolated. false preached. As he didn't invent life by his words thinking...the man.
So he invents false language numbers symbols sun themes back in time.
Back in time for baby humans now says our origin bio parent humans bodies are dusts blowing in the breeze.
Science by his time numbers says he agrees with what human origin parents now are. Falsely he theories no I'm not satanic I pretended any dead body was given back by my terms living flesh.
Is his big con.
So using back in time fake words stories he tries to give us back in time what the dead parent became.
As he doesn't tell us he's using satanic words... not gods.
The number data language equates dusts in science...so congratulated his wisdom advised.... how to combust biology into ashes and dusts himself.
Yet as theist he stands on Rock so says falsely only his genetic...the scientist baby man will survive. He says in his possessed mind. Knowing human parents are bodily bio now both dusts.
It's why no human should ever agree with the human scientist. He's really the satanist life destroyer incognito.
My brother knew. He was astute. A hypocrite to family. But he knew scientists are life's destroyer who lied about the dead.
Hypocrite as once he too believed in satanic sciences.
leroy
Well-Known Member
How about a God that created the universe, such that life would evolve naturally. ? Why would that indicate a deceptive God?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
These were true before they had been proven true, but they were not considered facts until they were proven.
fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
I am going to state something that should be obvious to most people by now.
Whether God exists or not is not as important as our strife for our own divinity. If it's one thing that atheists and Baha'is can both agree on, it's that our abilities will keep growing and expanding over time, until we become God-like. The atheist would say God-like because he doesn't believe God can exist, whereas a Baha'i would say God-like because to a Baha'i the only Gods in human form are the Manifestations sent by him. I really don't care either way whether God exists. My panendeism could easily be viewed as a form of atheism. Syntheism attracts both pantheists and atheists.
What matters to me, the atheist and the Baha'i is that we are all slowly developing God-like powers. I take it one step further, reject the atheism of a standard humanist, and the idea of the Manifestations of Baha'i prophecy, and declare that in fact everybody is becoming God, not just God-like, and each and every person is a Manifestation of God. That to me is where I fall, there is no religion that not only practices clergy of their members, but also calls them prophets as well. So I am stuck, compromising my viewpoints towards the Baha'i Faith, because in my lifetime the biggest threat to human survival is our own species and the lack of unity we currently have in society. Unity is so important to me that without it we would be stuck in perpetual war against each other, and never become divine.
I happen to agree with much of what the Baha'i Faith practices regarding this, including abstaining from partisan politics. I will admit, I lean conservative and I typically vote Republican, but I typically don't agree with everybody on one side of the issue. More than conservative, I view many of my positions as Libertarian and Federalist. I typically believe there should be a small government that gives everybody universal freedoms to do what they want, rather than collectivism or communitarianism. Like the Baha'is I don't smoke, drink, I don't gamble, I don't have sex at all, and I agree with many of their liberal democracy positions on the importance of freedom and capitalism throughout the world, and equality of the sexes and like the Baha'is I support both what religion and science is doing to further our cause to become divine ourselves.
I wish this was easier. I wish there was just an exaltist religion that I could fully believe. There are hints of it in many religions. Theosis in Eastern Orthodox, progressive revelation in Baha'i, exaltation in Mormonism, the inner light in Quaker meetings and entire sanctification in various Christian denominations. But all of these religions, and many atheists agree that people aren't becoming God but are becoming God-like. I simply take that vail off and realize that divinity is a spectrum of ability and humans are the most God-centric being to ever exist, which not only makes us already God-like now, but will allow us to fully become God in the relatively near future.
And that is why, despite being disabled with terrible bipolar disorder, why I still wake up every morning and continue our path of divinity.
I hope my posts answer the original poster's question.
Whether God exists or not is not as important as our strife for our own divinity. If it's one thing that atheists and Baha'is can both agree on, it's that our abilities will keep growing and expanding over time, until we become God-like. The atheist would say God-like because he doesn't believe God can exist, whereas a Baha'i would say God-like because to a Baha'i the only Gods in human form are the Manifestations sent by him. I really don't care either way whether God exists. My panendeism could easily be viewed as a form of atheism. Syntheism attracts both pantheists and atheists.
What matters to me, the atheist and the Baha'i is that we are all slowly developing God-like powers. I take it one step further, reject the atheism of a standard humanist, and the idea of the Manifestations of Baha'i prophecy, and declare that in fact everybody is becoming God, not just God-like, and each and every person is a Manifestation of God. That to me is where I fall, there is no religion that not only practices clergy of their members, but also calls them prophets as well. So I am stuck, compromising my viewpoints towards the Baha'i Faith, because in my lifetime the biggest threat to human survival is our own species and the lack of unity we currently have in society. Unity is so important to me that without it we would be stuck in perpetual war against each other, and never become divine.
I happen to agree with much of what the Baha'i Faith practices regarding this, including abstaining from partisan politics. I will admit, I lean conservative and I typically vote Republican, but I typically don't agree with everybody on one side of the issue. More than conservative, I view many of my positions as Libertarian and Federalist. I typically believe there should be a small government that gives everybody universal freedoms to do what they want, rather than collectivism or communitarianism. Like the Baha'is I don't smoke, drink, I don't gamble, I don't have sex at all, and I agree with many of their liberal democracy positions on the importance of freedom and capitalism throughout the world, and equality of the sexes and like the Baha'is I support both what religion and science is doing to further our cause to become divine ourselves.
I wish this was easier. I wish there was just an exaltist religion that I could fully believe. There are hints of it in many religions. Theosis in Eastern Orthodox, progressive revelation in Baha'i, exaltation in Mormonism, the inner light in Quaker meetings and entire sanctification in various Christian denominations. But all of these religions, and many atheists agree that people aren't becoming God but are becoming God-like. I simply take that vail off and realize that divinity is a spectrum of ability and humans are the most God-centric being to ever exist, which not only makes us already God-like now, but will allow us to fully become God in the relatively near future.
And that is why, despite being disabled with terrible bipolar disorder, why I still wake up every morning and continue our path of divinity.
I hope my posts answer the original poster's question.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Believe. Is both a question and a human on my given answer.
Should I believe in my own divinity?
Science says two parents...first weren't a human baby we are. We change from sperm ovary into baby. Yet grow into a returned adult.
That review says a human had to of been divine...a self body being who recreates itself via its own cells.
So then you ask why a dust first not transcend its highest coldest place. Nor does any other one status itself.. as each gas is its owned highest state.
It's only theists who tried to link it together to gain a reaction that had not been reacting.
Hence not divine is humans own practice of alchemic science.
So you ask. I see. I look into and at created creation. A huge variable of expressed types are formed.
You think.
If everything came from the same reasoned...why we are existing question answer. Then terms why anything is varied exist also.
So you then realise the place it came from also had to be varied.
Now science Satanism kept occult secrets. Their human studies of phenomena knowing it was real. Which proved the created body had a history of pre beings.
As the being a Human in science reacted mass conversions. Yet an effect was manifested being of various types.
Witnessed.
Which proved mass once had involved being before.
Yet as mass is mass and causes an energetic reaction it's not a being.
Hence we knew our being did not come out of mass reactions.
I'm sure if all scientists were privy to occult study you'd change your belief.
Therefore as only humans as humans said the God from which biology had emerged...as living life is a variant then they already said they are advised.
So theists who only use machines and react by machine say I own my proof. You now explain your proof.
I can't. In our minds we say...you idiot. Yet if you're polite you just think it. As it's not science it's not machines it's not reactions...it's just memory and a story we tell.
You explain.
The word eternal is one word one meaning. Had always existed.
Theists know creation has not always existed.
Teaching said created creation are the fallen gods O bodies. Once angelic beings unknown. We're in the eternal.
Space is now eternals womb. With fallen angels O released held inside space as created creation.
Eternal by type still exists. Now only owns a hole in its body.
So how can a human answer when no human is there in those forms?
A human knows only after earths heavens as all types of cojoined spirit gas masses formed did any living beginning own presence.
Yet our will is free. We are not attached to the mass.
I've seen our parents recorded visionary memories. American Indians put out their hand pass it through atmosphere saying we came from out of this function.
Just over there is where we came from.
As we emerged as parent life...we were bodily separated from being eternal.
Instant separation.
We live we die we never belonged. We still own one being in the eternal form.
How isn't that an honest review?
No says the scientist human I want the eternal to be science.
Why?
So I can own it react it like created creation was myself...non stop resource. Not changing created creation.
As I know if I try to change created creation it will by space law blow up.
Is his excuse why he won't believe it's not science. As he wants it.
Now if you do a summation who is the human science first. The memory says he wanted to time shift heavens mass into non burning. So he could be released from being human and go back into the eternal.
Instead he burnt us all to ashes and dusts...carbon his artificial theme as a scientist man just a biological man who still themes about it today.
Not a nice man are you brother?
So if I can say thin heavens gases did not disturb the eternal body. Then the sun injecting mass into it forced a physical reaction from above to ground.
Causing heavens to bodily mass change. It pushed into the eternal body.
V down force pushed ^ up forced that pushed < > side to side force.
Symbolism in thought only +.
| Earth heavens complete.
| | Heavens side to side separated from eternal body...where spirit is. Always had existed as it's type.
| ) Pushed into | eternal.
| Eternal vibrated changed inside its body | ))))))))))))))))).
Unable to control its own body change.
Earth heavens cools thins out at ground...mass held above.
((((((((((((((((. | Eternal is released back.
(((((((((((( Spirit moves over || (((((((((((
Eternal could not stop the release.
Until it ended. () So inferred as by humans a spirit birth.
By just symbolic thought how the eternal once again released spirit.
Not the journey of a God into O creation mass.
All thought questioned answered by humans inferred symbolism.
So if science asked what types of confirmed details support that claim?
Machine parts found instant snap frozen in mass. All origin human nature life had been destroyed. Earth heavens cools.....in cloud images Satan human memory angel image.
New giant nature body as heavens origin changed heated...not origin.
Dino lives dies gets cloud images too.
.ice cools heavens.
Human origin life animal life nature smaller body returns.
How isn't it proof we came direct out of eternal body?
As Dino cannot transport itself into a warm blooded animal as a huge variant animal kingdom.
Birds walked first.
Then flew off those that could.
Now instead of symbolism. Place images of eternal bodies moving across separately then converting inside heavens mass as directly owned each separate pre owned selves.
As how it happened. Visionary.
If you ask why use symbols...a human science theist had...and lied about what visionary said first.
Should I believe in my own divinity?
Science says two parents...first weren't a human baby we are. We change from sperm ovary into baby. Yet grow into a returned adult.
That review says a human had to of been divine...a self body being who recreates itself via its own cells.
So then you ask why a dust first not transcend its highest coldest place. Nor does any other one status itself.. as each gas is its owned highest state.
It's only theists who tried to link it together to gain a reaction that had not been reacting.
Hence not divine is humans own practice of alchemic science.
So you ask. I see. I look into and at created creation. A huge variable of expressed types are formed.
You think.
If everything came from the same reasoned...why we are existing question answer. Then terms why anything is varied exist also.
So you then realise the place it came from also had to be varied.
Now science Satanism kept occult secrets. Their human studies of phenomena knowing it was real. Which proved the created body had a history of pre beings.
As the being a Human in science reacted mass conversions. Yet an effect was manifested being of various types.
Witnessed.
Which proved mass once had involved being before.
Yet as mass is mass and causes an energetic reaction it's not a being.
Hence we knew our being did not come out of mass reactions.
I'm sure if all scientists were privy to occult study you'd change your belief.
Therefore as only humans as humans said the God from which biology had emerged...as living life is a variant then they already said they are advised.
So theists who only use machines and react by machine say I own my proof. You now explain your proof.
I can't. In our minds we say...you idiot. Yet if you're polite you just think it. As it's not science it's not machines it's not reactions...it's just memory and a story we tell.
You explain.
The word eternal is one word one meaning. Had always existed.
Theists know creation has not always existed.
Teaching said created creation are the fallen gods O bodies. Once angelic beings unknown. We're in the eternal.
Space is now eternals womb. With fallen angels O released held inside space as created creation.
Eternal by type still exists. Now only owns a hole in its body.
So how can a human answer when no human is there in those forms?
A human knows only after earths heavens as all types of cojoined spirit gas masses formed did any living beginning own presence.
Yet our will is free. We are not attached to the mass.
I've seen our parents recorded visionary memories. American Indians put out their hand pass it through atmosphere saying we came from out of this function.
Just over there is where we came from.
As we emerged as parent life...we were bodily separated from being eternal.
Instant separation.
We live we die we never belonged. We still own one being in the eternal form.
How isn't that an honest review?
No says the scientist human I want the eternal to be science.
Why?
So I can own it react it like created creation was myself...non stop resource. Not changing created creation.
As I know if I try to change created creation it will by space law blow up.
Is his excuse why he won't believe it's not science. As he wants it.
Now if you do a summation who is the human science first. The memory says he wanted to time shift heavens mass into non burning. So he could be released from being human and go back into the eternal.
Instead he burnt us all to ashes and dusts...carbon his artificial theme as a scientist man just a biological man who still themes about it today.
Not a nice man are you brother?
So if I can say thin heavens gases did not disturb the eternal body. Then the sun injecting mass into it forced a physical reaction from above to ground.
Causing heavens to bodily mass change. It pushed into the eternal body.
V down force pushed ^ up forced that pushed < > side to side force.
Symbolism in thought only +.
| Earth heavens complete.
| | Heavens side to side separated from eternal body...where spirit is. Always had existed as it's type.
| ) Pushed into | eternal.
| Eternal vibrated changed inside its body | ))))))))))))))))).
Unable to control its own body change.
Earth heavens cools thins out at ground...mass held above.
((((((((((((((((. | Eternal is released back.
(((((((((((( Spirit moves over || (((((((((((
Eternal could not stop the release.
Until it ended. () So inferred as by humans a spirit birth.
By just symbolic thought how the eternal once again released spirit.
Not the journey of a God into O creation mass.
All thought questioned answered by humans inferred symbolism.
So if science asked what types of confirmed details support that claim?
Machine parts found instant snap frozen in mass. All origin human nature life had been destroyed. Earth heavens cools.....in cloud images Satan human memory angel image.
New giant nature body as heavens origin changed heated...not origin.
Dino lives dies gets cloud images too.
.ice cools heavens.
Human origin life animal life nature smaller body returns.
How isn't it proof we came direct out of eternal body?
As Dino cannot transport itself into a warm blooded animal as a huge variant animal kingdom.
Birds walked first.
Then flew off those that could.
Now instead of symbolism. Place images of eternal bodies moving across separately then converting inside heavens mass as directly owned each separate pre owned selves.
As how it happened. Visionary.
If you ask why use symbols...a human science theist had...and lied about what visionary said first.
Last edited:
It's evidence that requires heavy doses of assumptions. So not objective evidence that is what critical thinkers need.
Experience is empirical evidence.
"Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
All experience is subjective, by the way. So subjective experience is empirical evidence.
Also, subjective experience is not "observation". It is experience. I don't know how you can consider one's own experience in a 3rd person sense. It's a 1st person experience. Although, yes, I can look at my own 1st person experience from a 3rd person perspective of my own experiences, if that is what you are trying to say?
So all told what I said at the outset still holds true. It is not a feeling or a belief or a concept. It is direct, 1st person experience which is definitely considered as actual empirical evidence.
Now as far as corroboration goes, while you may not have your own experience, you can however look at the experiences of other reporting the same thing. That then is more than just one person's subjective report. It's multiple reports of the same experiences by different experimenters. This makes it in fact objective evidence. It's not just subjective. It's something beyond just one person. So mystical experiences commonly shared, is in fact both empirical evidence, and in objective data.
Furthermore, you can even have peer review at that level as well. You do in Zen Buddhism for instance. Not just any claims past muster as valid. So it's not just anything goes.
That's really is following a scientific approach. You have to have qualified experimenters, having an experience, collecting the data, matching with other data, create a map, do peer review, and so forth. What you find is something that is objectively real happening, not just some dude's imagination of "Leprechauns", or some such nonsense.
Last edited:
And what advantage do you have believing there is a divinity over those who don't?
What powers? Do you have these powers as an ordinary mortal? Explain.
I suggest those of us who don't believe in a supernatural have a special power. Notice theists seldom are able to explain why they beleive in gods at all. They don't seem aware why they ended up with these beliefs, only that they do. Atheists don't struggle to reconcile the beliefs of their religion to what science reports. Or to the harsh realities of nature, like children being born with defects and cancer. I'm sure some feel good to believe they are divine, but how does that fit in with a 3 year old girl fighting cancer?
How do you benefit from this belief?
There is unity among tribes. Humans evolved this way. We did not evolve to be monks. Not everyone has the mental health to unify. Not everyone is intellectually capable of understaiding the benefits of unity. It's as if there was no God directing our evolution, but just the whims of nature. The global population is growing, and climate change is coming with a harsher environment, and that will likley mean fewer resources. So, at some point there will be a breaking point and it is going to be ugly.
Why do you think you need to believe ina religion? Are you less without it?
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That would not indicate a deceptive God and is one version of God that I would consider. The problem is that almost all of our religions appear to be man made. Rational belief is not a choice. Without positive evidence of some sort I cannot have a rational belief in a God. The good news is that your version of God as you just proposed is not self refuting. Human invented Gods, such as the Abrahamic ones, do tend to be self refuting.
To put some focus on this, you're going by a particular lens about what the Genesis story is about, being something that people should understand as a scientific account of creation. That is a very modern, and incorrect understanding of the texts to begin with.
So to simply say Genesis is wrong in light of modern scientific evidence is itself an error. It assumes the error of imagining it is supposed to be a scientific account, is factually true about the book. What is actually wrong is the idea that it was written to be a scientific account of creation, not the story itself. The story is true of course, from the perspectives of its authors as a polemic against other deities. It has nothing to do with the way modern science or modernity itself thinks about the natural world.
The error is to think it was about giving a scientific account of creation. That wasn't its purpose. And yes, you are right about it being 24 hour days. The day of rest was a societal mandate woven into the creation myth to justify why people should be given a day of rest, otherwise they were being worked every day. That was deemed unhealthy for society, and the priestly class used that story of the day of rest as a religious observation in order to enforce basically labor laws.
Can you elaborate more on this? You mention kick-starting life in the cosmos. Are you speaking of life everywhere in the universe? Curious to understand your thinking on this. I for one believe that we see here on this planet is but one example of this everywhere in this vast universe. I don't think we are a fluke at all. Rather that life is inevitable throughout the cosmos.
Yes, it is essentially saying those other gods, such as the god of the sun, the god of the moon, the god of animals, all those gods, well God created all of them. That's really what it's about. It's really not about explaining to moderns who think in scientific terms, how planets and stars were actually formed!
That's just a horse**** wishful thinking of modern Christians who felt a need to argue with modern science because science challenges their interpretations of their own faith too much for them to bear. And now modern science is debating them, assuming that's what the Bible actually teaches. It would be great if they were to just say instead, "you guys should learn how to understand your own bible better," and just not engage with them.
I would agree with you that God would be deceptive to just make it look like evolution was true, if it wasn't. I heard someone once say about the existence of dinosaur bones that, "God put them their to test our faith". Wow. Really? What a trickster God is then, huh? Maybe his name is Loki?
Anyway, regarding "intelligent design", I rue to want to use that term because it was created to put a respectable mask on just plain of blatant Creationism, which is of course pure pseudoscience. But, when I look at evolution, I actually see intelligent design. Evolution is intelligently figuring out how to make things work in order to benefit the survival of the species. It's creativity. It's goal driven. It's astoundingly successful, and everything that exists, exists because it is just all those things.
It is of course not a straight linear line, but the fact of the nature of the process itself as what creates everything, pretty much means something, frankly miraculous, rather than just "nothing", as some might try to gut the "magic" away out of it. To me, I see evolution as that Intelligent Designer, but that's not the "watchmaker" argument of some external agent ticking with wood and tools to make toys to play with, as is the typical anthropomorphic notion of the Divine as the creator god.
Or that the biblical deity described in scripture has nothing to do with explaining the science behind creation, and the story in Genesis should not be approached or read that way. That's the other and correct choice.
I would say everything you say is correct if the Bible was written to describe a scientific account of creation. But it's incorrect to assume it was.
So you are right to show how thinking of the Genesis myth as a scientific account doesn't hold up to a scientific reality, and the implications theologically would be problematic if it were so. But if it wasn't written for the purpose and has nothing to do with science at all, then the conclusions about God not possibly being possible, are based upon a false premise. At best you've only proven that their idea of God is off somewhere. With that I wholly agree.
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
To claim I'm an intellectual as a human is to know your one place.
A human.
An adult baby grown human...not a thesis.
Sperm ovary human our natural biological history.
Our parents baby humans also.
No origin human exists as first ever human. To be an intellectual.
We all came from microbial biological human only history.
Then there is the theist.
You challenge the theist ...why do you want me to believe your stories. As theories.
Reason they claim I know everything.
To intellectual humans that advice is termed a human egotist. Human existing.
A scientist says I use machines to prove my human science advice for machine application is correct.
Correct by using what they want to look at by machine changing it bodily first.
I'm a whole bodied human. I'm not under your machines microscope.
You chose to build the machine to look at cells. You say why my machines correct in the exact position being correct.
However you discuss what you look at.
Before you looked at it...it came from a whole body.
It's why you machine scientist are not correct about any biological study.
Reactive machine scientist a scientist mind too says his machine status correct as he uses it for the applied outcome...to change mass.
Knowing heavens too is a mass first.
Is why a human says I'm not your human thesis as you're my biological equal.
If I say visionary advice. I'm not talking biological advice. As it's only a recording.
If I say a pre living biological human is seen in vision it's because the seen advice says so. What I'm looking at.
I'm not looking at the biological being. Biological being by presence is a type of mass form owning it's own cellular chemical functions as it's owned types...presence only.
Which isn't in the vision as vision says not living now. Hence its not where life came from.
As humans begin as one cell yet living Multi celled biological parents own us.
As they were babies we own our own human evidence that cannot be given a theory. As we are all mutual equal.
You don't own science answers about before being a human as you don't exist. Is correct advice.
If you say however human adult reowning DNA as a previous life expressed is affected and given old life awareness. It's why theists as just human falsify intellectual conscious advice as thinking a theory.
You hadn't lived before as coming from a visionary recorded advice. Lots of humans however discussed it and believed in it just by thinking.
Therefore not clouds were in not a heavens mass first out of volcanic matter cooling stretching voiding in space. A clouds natural history not a sun reaction to immaculate gases.
Clouds disappear vacuum voided naturally. Aren't a mass body that genetics came from. As only theories by a biological thinker who irrationally only wanted it for a machines reaction.
Knowing why he wanted it is direct machine based proves he already knew it was only machines sciences.
However as he cares less about burning us to death as he cares less about family as a thinker...agreed in group beliefs. He said he's allowed to include...I invented biology from my machines reaction. Believes it.
That a human man is the God that invented life's presence by his man's thoughts man's human words. Yet god is his machine.
As he says he's God in person. Biological man.
Yet he says God is my machine.
Gods reaction attack body mass converts inside my machine.
He should go and stand inside his God machine.. react it and see what happens to his body. The human.
Seeing he believes in his thesis he is God heavens mass and began as an image of God clouds mass and not biology. As he does believe.
Therefore....humans who said our God story didn't invent us are correct. As human science theists claim their god terms had.
Is the argument....life didn't come from a nuclear reaction.
As scientists studied the occult they say life was a bio microbe cloud mass body image .... as one single cells do not own biological instant manifestations.
Knowing water mass stays as mass. Knowing we own water inside our bio body as human.
The argument is all theists are wrong as you did not thesis our presence human by your words stories beliefs or calculations.
Science doesn't believe in what it cannot control. As a human. So they tried mind controlling bio bodies by machines.
Yet every reason machine building....using owning operated is him
A human.
An adult baby grown human...not a thesis.
Sperm ovary human our natural biological history.
Our parents baby humans also.
No origin human exists as first ever human. To be an intellectual.
We all came from microbial biological human only history.
Then there is the theist.
You challenge the theist ...why do you want me to believe your stories. As theories.
Reason they claim I know everything.
To intellectual humans that advice is termed a human egotist. Human existing.
A scientist says I use machines to prove my human science advice for machine application is correct.
Correct by using what they want to look at by machine changing it bodily first.
I'm a whole bodied human. I'm not under your machines microscope.
You chose to build the machine to look at cells. You say why my machines correct in the exact position being correct.
However you discuss what you look at.
Before you looked at it...it came from a whole body.
It's why you machine scientist are not correct about any biological study.
Reactive machine scientist a scientist mind too says his machine status correct as he uses it for the applied outcome...to change mass.
Knowing heavens too is a mass first.
Is why a human says I'm not your human thesis as you're my biological equal.
If I say visionary advice. I'm not talking biological advice. As it's only a recording.
If I say a pre living biological human is seen in vision it's because the seen advice says so. What I'm looking at.
I'm not looking at the biological being. Biological being by presence is a type of mass form owning it's own cellular chemical functions as it's owned types...presence only.
Which isn't in the vision as vision says not living now. Hence its not where life came from.
As humans begin as one cell yet living Multi celled biological parents own us.
As they were babies we own our own human evidence that cannot be given a theory. As we are all mutual equal.
You don't own science answers about before being a human as you don't exist. Is correct advice.
If you say however human adult reowning DNA as a previous life expressed is affected and given old life awareness. It's why theists as just human falsify intellectual conscious advice as thinking a theory.
You hadn't lived before as coming from a visionary recorded advice. Lots of humans however discussed it and believed in it just by thinking.
Therefore not clouds were in not a heavens mass first out of volcanic matter cooling stretching voiding in space. A clouds natural history not a sun reaction to immaculate gases.
Clouds disappear vacuum voided naturally. Aren't a mass body that genetics came from. As only theories by a biological thinker who irrationally only wanted it for a machines reaction.
Knowing why he wanted it is direct machine based proves he already knew it was only machines sciences.
However as he cares less about burning us to death as he cares less about family as a thinker...agreed in group beliefs. He said he's allowed to include...I invented biology from my machines reaction. Believes it.
That a human man is the God that invented life's presence by his man's thoughts man's human words. Yet god is his machine.
As he says he's God in person. Biological man.
Yet he says God is my machine.
Gods reaction attack body mass converts inside my machine.
He should go and stand inside his God machine.. react it and see what happens to his body. The human.
Seeing he believes in his thesis he is God heavens mass and began as an image of God clouds mass and not biology. As he does believe.
Therefore....humans who said our God story didn't invent us are correct. As human science theists claim their god terms had.
Is the argument....life didn't come from a nuclear reaction.
As scientists studied the occult they say life was a bio microbe cloud mass body image .... as one single cells do not own biological instant manifestations.
Knowing water mass stays as mass. Knowing we own water inside our bio body as human.
The argument is all theists are wrong as you did not thesis our presence human by your words stories beliefs or calculations.
Science doesn't believe in what it cannot control. As a human. So they tried mind controlling bio bodies by machines.
Yet every reason machine building....using owning operated is him
rational experiences
Veteran Member
To claim I'm an intellectual as a human is to know your one place.
A human.
An adult baby grown human...not a thesis.
Sperm ovary human our natural biological history.
Our parents baby humans also.
No origin human exists as first ever human. To be an intellectual.
We all came from microbial biological human only history.
Then there is the theist.
You challenge the theist ...why do you want me to believe your stories. As theories.
Reason they claim I know everything.
To intellectual humans that advice is termed a human egotist. Human existing.
A scientist says I use machines to prove my human science advice for machine application is correct.
Correct by using what they want to look at by machine changing it bodily first.
I'm a whole bodied human. I'm not under your machines microscope.
You chose to build the machine to look at cells. You say why my machines correct in the exact position being correct.
However you discuss what you look at.
Before you looked at it...it came from a whole body.
It's why you machine scientist are not correct about any biological study.
Reactive machine scientist a scientist mind too says his machine status correct as he uses it for the applied outcome...to change mass.
Knowing heavens too is a mass first.
Is why a human says I'm not your human thesis as you're my biological equal.
If I say visionary advice. I'm not talking biological advice. As it's only a recording.
If I say a pre living biological human is seen in vision it's because the seen advice says so. What I'm looking at.
I'm not looking at the biological being. Biological being by presence is a type of mass form owning it's own cellular chemical functions as it's owned types...presence only.
Which isn't in the vision as vision says not living now. Hence its not where life came from.
As humans begin as one cell yet living Multi celled biological parents own us.
As they were babies we own our own human evidence that cannot be given a theory. As we are all mutual equal.
You don't own science answers about before being a human as you don't exist. Is correct advice.
If you say however human adult reowning DNA as a previous life expressed is affected and given old life awareness. It's why theists as just human falsify intellectual conscious advice as thinking a theory.
You hadn't lived before as coming from a visionary recorded advice. Lots of humans however discussed it and believed in it just by thinking.
Therefore not clouds were in not a heavens mass first out of volcanic matter cooling stretching voiding in space. A clouds natural history not a sun reaction to immaculate gases.
Clouds disappear vacuum voided naturally. Aren't a mass body that genetics came from. As only theories by a biological thinker who irrationally only wanted it for a machines reaction.
Knowing why he wanted it is direct machine based proves he already knew it was only machines sciences.
However as he cares less about burning us to death as he cares less about family as a thinker...agreed in group beliefs. He said he's allowed to include...I invented biology from my machines reaction. Believes it.
That a human man is the God that invented life's presence by his man's thoughts man's human words. Yet god is his machine.
As he says he's God in person. Biological man.
Yet he says God is my machine.
Gods reaction attack body mass converts inside my machine.
He should go and stand inside his God machine.. react it and see what happens to his body. The human.
Seeing he believes in his thesis he is God heavens mass and began as an image of God clouds mass and not biology. As he does believe.
Therefore....humans who said our God story didn't invent us are correct. As human science theists claim their god terms had.
Is the argument....life didn't come from a nuclear reaction.
As scientists studied the occult they say life was a bio microbe cloud mass body image .... as one single cells do not own biological instant manifestations.
Knowing water mass stays as mass. Knowing we own water inside our bio body as human.
The argument is all theists are wrong as you did not thesis our presence human by your words stories beliefs or calculations.
Science doesn't believe in what it cannot control. So they invented by human thought machine...use control machine transmitting human controlled program by their human thinking ...consciousness only claiming they are right.
It's because you're doing it as a human the reason.
Is the belief why a scientist is right...thinking only and lying.
Reason...I use gain human images or any image machine to machine status.
Hence now I want you to be a reactive resource. The idea of it. A human is part machine.....not a human was saved from machines causes. And Was ...had been attacked.
Why just humans argue science versus science. And why humans never owned where life came from as science.
A human.
An adult baby grown human...not a thesis.
Sperm ovary human our natural biological history.
Our parents baby humans also.
No origin human exists as first ever human. To be an intellectual.
We all came from microbial biological human only history.
Then there is the theist.
You challenge the theist ...why do you want me to believe your stories. As theories.
Reason they claim I know everything.
To intellectual humans that advice is termed a human egotist. Human existing.
A scientist says I use machines to prove my human science advice for machine application is correct.
Correct by using what they want to look at by machine changing it bodily first.
I'm a whole bodied human. I'm not under your machines microscope.
You chose to build the machine to look at cells. You say why my machines correct in the exact position being correct.
However you discuss what you look at.
Before you looked at it...it came from a whole body.
It's why you machine scientist are not correct about any biological study.
Reactive machine scientist a scientist mind too says his machine status correct as he uses it for the applied outcome...to change mass.
Knowing heavens too is a mass first.
Is why a human says I'm not your human thesis as you're my biological equal.
If I say visionary advice. I'm not talking biological advice. As it's only a recording.
If I say a pre living biological human is seen in vision it's because the seen advice says so. What I'm looking at.
I'm not looking at the biological being. Biological being by presence is a type of mass form owning it's own cellular chemical functions as it's owned types...presence only.
Which isn't in the vision as vision says not living now. Hence its not where life came from.
As humans begin as one cell yet living Multi celled biological parents own us.
As they were babies we own our own human evidence that cannot be given a theory. As we are all mutual equal.
You don't own science answers about before being a human as you don't exist. Is correct advice.
If you say however human adult reowning DNA as a previous life expressed is affected and given old life awareness. It's why theists as just human falsify intellectual conscious advice as thinking a theory.
You hadn't lived before as coming from a visionary recorded advice. Lots of humans however discussed it and believed in it just by thinking.
Therefore not clouds were in not a heavens mass first out of volcanic matter cooling stretching voiding in space. A clouds natural history not a sun reaction to immaculate gases.
Clouds disappear vacuum voided naturally. Aren't a mass body that genetics came from. As only theories by a biological thinker who irrationally only wanted it for a machines reaction.
Knowing why he wanted it is direct machine based proves he already knew it was only machines sciences.
However as he cares less about burning us to death as he cares less about family as a thinker...agreed in group beliefs. He said he's allowed to include...I invented biology from my machines reaction. Believes it.
That a human man is the God that invented life's presence by his man's thoughts man's human words. Yet god is his machine.
As he says he's God in person. Biological man.
Yet he says God is my machine.
Gods reaction attack body mass converts inside my machine.
He should go and stand inside his God machine.. react it and see what happens to his body. The human.
Seeing he believes in his thesis he is God heavens mass and began as an image of God clouds mass and not biology. As he does believe.
Therefore....humans who said our God story didn't invent us are correct. As human science theists claim their god terms had.
Is the argument....life didn't come from a nuclear reaction.
As scientists studied the occult they say life was a bio microbe cloud mass body image .... as one single cells do not own biological instant manifestations.
Knowing water mass stays as mass. Knowing we own water inside our bio body as human.
The argument is all theists are wrong as you did not thesis our presence human by your words stories beliefs or calculations.
Science doesn't believe in what it cannot control. So they invented by human thought machine...use control machine transmitting human controlled program by their human thinking ...consciousness only claiming they are right.
It's because you're doing it as a human the reason.
Is the belief why a scientist is right...thinking only and lying.
Reason...I use gain human images or any image machine to machine status.
Hence now I want you to be a reactive resource. The idea of it. A human is part machine.....not a human was saved from machines causes. And Was ...had been attacked.
Why just humans argue science versus science. And why humans never owned where life came from as science.
Brian2
Veteran Member
That is what you do. When we are talking about what happened way back then the only thing we can use is faith because nobody was there.
We do have a new evidence which necessitates modification in the narrative to generate a new simplest narrative. The new evidence is the great length of time to the formation of the earth that science has discovered. This suggests that "day" is not 24 hour days.
In the case of the Bible it is not a matter of making up stuff to show that the days are longer than 24 hours, it is a matter of finding this stuff in the text itself.
One thing is that the last day, the day of rest, has not finished yet and is still going according to the Bible.
Another thing is that the first verse (Gen 1:1) is a prelude to the first day and joined to the next verse with a conjunction (similar construction to other places) what happened before the first day. This shows the Bible accommodating an old earth even in verse 1. Another thing would be Gen 2:4 showing the whole creation period as a day, thus showing that day is not 24 hours. And of course there are other things which show non 24 hour days.
God knew He wanted to give a Sabbath day for Israel and so divided the time the forming of the earth took into 6 activities which He termed days and with the 7th, the day of rest, being the one we are still in.
But I guess there is no point in going on. You have dismissed even the simple first step in the understanding of Genesis so showing other possibilities in the Genesis narrative is pointless. It is interesting that much earlier theologians (before Darwin) have also seen that the "days" probably are not 24 hour days, so it is not really being made up post Darwin, it is just being confirmed post Darwin. Those religious amateur archaeologists of the 19th century had no problem with long periods of time in the days of creation. That came later when reactionaries decided to go against the science.
Nevertheless to say that the Abrahamic God is ruled out you should be able to show that is the case and not just have "maybe" reasons, which is all you have so far.
The YECs do that and end up with a sun that was created on day 4. It's a laugh really what reading Genesis completely literally can give you. It gives you a straw man.
The meaning was no problem before the advent of scientific research into the past, and that meaning was enough and suitable.
With science comes other possibilities for the meaning and even other legitimate translations that might fit better with that knowledge.
The possible alternative meaning have to be there in order to be used,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you can't just change the meaning ad hoc.
The scientific explanation is not always the gold standard imo. If science has gone too far in it's speculations then it is a good reason to dismiss it for the sake of what the scriptures say. Some things you cannot just change, that would be ad hoc changes in meaning, which just aren't possible.