Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Subduction Zone]

You do need who because otherwise no observation and guessing.

Incorrect. Why do you think that it is "guessing"? And yes, there is observation. You are using an improper definition of observation.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Wrong. We can observe and test the rocks *now*. Those rocks were formed in the past and still carry information about that past.

They do but are you saying humans came from a rock? Where did the rock come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They do but are you saying humans came from a rock? Where did the rock come from?

So poorly asked. Why should anyone take such questions seriously? I guess Adam came from dirt in your myth.

And be wary of moving the goalposts. It is an admission that all of the previous responses given to you were correct.

 

[Polymath257]

They do but are you saying humans came from a rock? Where did the rock come from?

No, I said that the rocks carry the information about that time period.

Once again, the origin of the basic materials is a different question. Do you want to discuss that or do you want to discuss the origin of life?

 

[ElishaElijah]

So poorly asked. Why should anyone take such questions seriously? I guess Adam came from dirt in your myth.

And be wary of moving the goalposts. It is an admission that all of the previous responses given to you were correct.

No, I said that the rocks carry the information about that time period.

Once again, the origin of the basic materials is a different question. Do you want to discuss that or do you want to discuss the origin of life?

It’s continuously brought up about “proof”, What proof are you looking for because you don’t have proof to justify your views on how this life we have originated. What are the choices? Creator or Chance are the 2 choices, correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s continuously brought up about “proof”, What proof are you looking for because you don’t have proof to justify your views on how this life we have originated. What are the choices? Creator or Chance are the 2 choices, correct?

"Proof" is a bad term to use. What we have is something that you do not have. We have reliable evidence, you have none. All of the sciences are evidence based. To scientists "proof" is a mathematical, or drinking, term. Evidence is king in the sciences and one tends to accept ideas that are supported by evidence and reject ideas that are not supported at all.


Do you understand that all you have is a book, many parts that we know are false. Even the least bit of reliable evidence beats no evidence at all.

 

[Polymath257]

It’s continuously brought up about “proof”, What proof are you looking for because you don’t have proof to justify your views on how this life we have originated.

But we *do* justify our views as well as note that there is much we do not know.

But you confuse two different topics: the origin of life, and the origin of the materials from which life arose. Life originated on the early Earth. The materials originated before the Earth was formed.

We can discuss either one, but choose one so we don't get off topic.

What are the choices? Creator or Chance are the 2 choices, correct?

No. Those are NOT the only two choices. The laws of nature are not random, so it isn't a matter of chance. But there is no intelligence driving them, so there was no creator in evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But we *do* justify our views as well as note that there is much we do not know.

But you confuse two different topics: the origin of life, and the origin of the materials from which life arose. Life originated on the early Earth. The materials originated before the Earth was formed.

We can discuss either one, but choose one so we don't get off topic.



No. Those are NOT the only two choices. The laws of nature are not random, so it isn't a matter of chance. But there is no intelligence driving them, so there was no creator in evidence.

But we *do* justify our views as well as note that there is much we do not know.

But you confuse two different topics: the origin of life, and the origin of the materials from which life arose. Life originated on the early Earth. The materials originated before the Earth was formed.

We can discuss either one, but choose one so we don't get off topic.



No. Those are NOT the only two choices. The laws of nature are not random, so it isn't a matter of chance. But there is no intelligence driving them, so there was no creator in evidence.

Who set up the laws of nature? That doesn’t just happen

But we *do* justify our views as well as note that there is much we do not know.

But you confuse two different topics: the origin of life, and the origin of the materials from which life arose. Life originated on the early Earth. The materials originated before the Earth was formed.

We can discuss either one, but choose one so we don't get off topic.



No. Those are NOT the only two choices. The laws of nature are not random, so it isn't a matter of chance. But there is no intelligence driving them, so there was no creator in evidence.

The laws of nature are not random and pretty amazing how everything works together. Don’t think you and I will ever come to terms though because we see things totally different. Do you believe in unseen spiritual forces?

 

[ElishaElijah]

"Proof" is a bad term to use. What we have is something that you do not have. We have reliable evidence, you have none. All of the sciences are evidence based. To scientists "proof" is a mathematical, or drinking, term. Evidence is king in the sciences and one tends to accept ideas that are supported by evidence and reject ideas that are not supported at all.


Do you understand that all you have is a book, many parts that we know are false. Even the least bit of reliable evidence beats no evidence at all.

Oh ok cause I thought you used proof quite a bit but maybe someone else. Also, one of the definitions of evidence includes one who bears witness which is my testimony of God’s faithfulness to His promises that are written in the Bible.

 

[Polymath257]

Who set up the laws of nature? That doesn’t just happen

1. Why do you think it needs a 'who'?

2. Why do you think they were 'set up'? In particular, why do you think there was a time when they were not in effect?

3. In fact, causality is part of the natural laws, so they *cannot* be 'caused' by something else.

The laws of nature are not random and pretty amazing how everything works together.

But the question is whether they *could* be other than they are. Since we have no reason to suspect they were ever NOT operative, it is quite possible that they 'simply are'.

Don’t think you and I will ever come to terms though because we see things totally different. Do you believe in unseen spiritual forces?

No, I do not believe in the 'supernatural' or 'spiritual'. There are many 'unseen forces' we do know about, of course: radio waves, for example. But those are ALL physical, not spiritual. Even emotions, like love, hate, and awe are physical processes in the brain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have heard ignorant people making unfounded accusations but I've never hear anyone link a name to any of these phantom accusers. So I must dismiss these claims as outright lies

By "ignorant people", are you talking about the consensus of actual bible scholars?


Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c.50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's enough evidence to sink the Titanic

Yet nobody seems willing to provide it.

How come?

, but it's of no use if the judges refuse to look at it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thing is much bigger than any puppets like Biden and Trump. The big boys got rid of Trump because he's not a globalist, he's a patriot American. While Biden is happy to sell america to the Chinese, so the big boys use Biden as their puppet.
Democratic elections will never come back, the thieves have used technology to falsify the result. Just watch America descend into a third word Banana Republic while you guys rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Are you one of them QAnon conspiracy nutters?
You sure sound like one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh ok cause I thought you used proof quite a bit but maybe someone else. Also, one of the definitions of evidence includes one who bears witness which is my testimony of God’s faithfulness to His promises that are written in the Bible.

It depends upon one's definition of "proof". By the legal standard of " proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes, Genesis has been proven to be false. If one goes by the mathematical definition, then no. But by that standard gravity is not proven.

And we were talking about reliable evidence. Your definition is not one of reliable evidence. Reliable means that any rationally reasoning person would accept it as evidence. Your personal interpretation is only accepted by a small minority and has nothing to do with rational thought.

Don't you ever wonder on why I keep harping on the idea of testing one's beliefs properly? That is how one tells if they are rational or not. In your case it looks as if you are looking for excuses to believe rather than approaching your beliefs rationally.

Rational beliefs tend to be far more reliable than religious ones.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

may I remind you that all the greatest scientists who gave us everything we have today were Christians.

That is so false, it's not even funny.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s interesting that you have some sense of right and wrong, justice, a conscience etc. wonder where that comes from?

Evolution.

All social species have a moral framework. The more complex the social dynamics of the species, the more "sophisticated" the moral framework.

Oh man, shouldn’t have brought that up cause could take a month to flesh that out.

Not even close.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So without the scientist who are the creators of this experiment nothing would have or could have happened.

This is the equivalent of pointing at a freezer and use that as an "argument" that the ice at the north pole is "designed".

I suggest you read up on what "controlled conditions" are.

That’s the point, it’s impossible, even if the materials are present for them to randomly collide and produce the ordered creation that we live in. Impossible, and that is what you have to admit but won’t.

There's no reason to admit strawmen arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You still have to create the scenario and the experiment using material that cannot just appear from nowhere.

Just like in a freezer.

No, the water does not "appear from nowhere".

The freezer merely provides a controlled environment.
Water turns into ice in it.

If the same conditions exist in the real world, water will freeze there too.

Again, you should think things through a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not even close.

Well he might be right in one aspect. It takes very little time to explain his errors. To understand them may take some education. That may take months.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do need who because otherwise no observation and guessing.

A fire raged there.
No "who" to observe a fire raging required.


Events of the past leave evidence behind that can be investigated in the present.

Or would you say that it's impossible to tell what happened there, because nobody was around to see it?


Think.