Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Polymath257]

Yep, it's impossible to know anything for sure. This is why everyone makes up their own version of history, and this is why we have world wide mass confusion.Nobody knows anything so they can't prove anything and everyone's truth is equally valid

OK, a perfect case of philosophical denialism.

At this point, nothing you say about history has any validity at all.

 

[Polymath257]

You can't force a judge to face the evidence, when he's hell bent on ignoring it. Nobody has looked at the evidence, that should ring alarm bells for any intelligent person but it's obvious they're in short supply these days. Most people blindly believe whatever CNN or NBC tell them and they never ever question, since ignorance is bliss and we wouldn't want to wake them up now would we

These judges included Trump appointees. They didn't look at the evidence *because there was no evidence*.

 

[Polymath257]

May I further remind you that Christians were the only one's to give the world Universities, Hospitals, Schools and charity organisations. you wouldn't have schools or universities unless the Christians scientists invented them so you wouldn't have science without them, you'd be back in the stone age without them

Simply false. Schools and universities existed in many other places (China, for example, had a very extensive school system very early on).

Hospitals of various sorts existed in antiquity. Charitable organizations existed far before Christianity even existed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not saying that the entire New Testament is all just stories, as I believe some of it really happened. For example, I believe in the trial of Jesus and in the crucifixion and I believe that Jesus did certain things it says in the New Testament. However, much of the text is to be interpreted figuratively and it has embedded in it spiritual truths; for example Lazarus rising from the dead means that he got eternal life which means spiritual life, not physical life.

Do you have any reason for this interpretation other than the fact that a literal interpretation makes the Bible seem ridiculous to a modern reader?

 

[Polymath257]

May I further remind you that Christians were not the only one's to give the world Universities and science.

A Blind Spot in History

EVEN in this modern age of enlightenment few people are aware of the significant contributions made by the Islamic world to the progress of humanity. Yet for more than five centuries that civilization not only led the world in science, but was the only portion of mankind actively engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

Read more: Islamic Contributions to Civilization

And don't forget the role that Islamic learning contributed to the *restart* of intellectual investigations in the Christian world.

After the crusades, the knowledge of math and science that had been discovered by the Islamic societies was transmitted to Europe, inspiring a huge translation effort. Many Arabic texts were translated into Latin, making many ancient Greek writings available to Europe again after centuries.

This is partly what inspired the creation of universities in Europe.

Of course, the other issue is why the Islamic learning didn't lead to more advances. part of the reason is a doctrine that there is no 'cause and effect' without divine intervention. This limited the idea of a 'natural law' in a way that short circuited the scientific process.

Also, the Greek writings were always viewed as 'foreign' in Islamic society and much of philosophy (and science) was declared to be heretical and anti-Islam. After this happened, the Islamic sciences declined rapidly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your conclusions are wrong, I didn’t have any preconceived ideas,

Whenever religious answers are given to questions about the workings of the universe, they ALWAYS concern preconceived ideas. Because the data of reality does not, in any way, lead to such answers. How could they? The answers involved undetectable things by definition. No amount of data will ever lead you to the undetectable.

No data at all leads to a god. You have to already believe in a god, because you can attribute ANYTHING to god. If someone does not have the a priori belief that a god is real, attributing ANYTHING to said god is not even an option.

By definition, to attribute anything to a god, one has to already believe in one.
This is why you ask loaded questions like "who created X or Y". You ASSUME it was a who and you ASSUME there was a who present to ask about.

That a "who" is an option, is your a priori religious belief.

I ask for "what". The "what" could be a who. But I have no a priori beliefs informing that it is a who. I require data to reveal a who. But no such data is forthcoming. So I have no reason to assume a who.

You... you already believe in one.

my arguments sounded a lot like yours, because it’s easy to argue your point of view. When I got to a certain point in life where all my foolish talk and ideas got me in trouble no amount of science experiments or wishful thinking worked. But when I cried out to God, He was there to deliver me and did, so I tell everyone what He has done over the last 30 years. Some people are encouraged and seek God for themselves, others don’t. That part isn’t something I can control. Evidence includes someone’s testimony, outward sign, one who bears witness, which is in the dictionary so you’ll have to get something else on that.

Yes, these are religious beliefs. Not objective truth that can be independently verified.
Your god beliefs are indistinguishable from your imagination for us outsiders.

Just like Tom Cruise's inner Thetan is to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True so when I see something well built or great technology I don’t wonder how it got here but who engineered and built that. That’s how I see Creation...wow what an awesome Creator that everything works like this, what a design! Can’t wait to see the perfection of Heaven with my Creator.
You found something else

Just like I explained in the previous post.

You assume it was created.
Because you have an a priori belief in a creator.

You have no established that it was created.
One does not establish that a thing was created merely by "looking at it" and then just deciding it is so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no answer for this, in evolution apart from God you have to go back to the beginning because material cannot just appear on its own from nothing.

Those are different questions.

Life exists and we can study it. Where life itself comes from, is a seperate question.

When studying the process of freezing, we don't need to know where the hydrogen and oxygen molecules come from. That they exist, is a given in context of the study of freezing.

Life is no different.

Life exists. We can study the processes it is subject to.
Life is subject to these processes regardless if the "matter" that makes up life was created in the core of stars or by your god or by a unicorn farting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where did the water come from?

Doesn't matter in context of investigating the process of freezing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please don't waste your time or anyone else's time by referring to wikipedia for any reliable information. Any fool can make any claim, so it's open slather and that makes it a great big pile of junk

Let's have a bet.

Edit any wikipedia entry of your choosing and insert false information into it.

I bet 100 bucks that it will take less then 24 hours for it to be corrected again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody has looked at the evidence

Because nobody has presented any evidence to be looked at.
Just like you here. I've asked countless times already. You have still not shared this evidence, which you even claimed to be "irrefutable proof".

, that should ring alarm bells for any intelligent person

It would, if it were true. But it's not true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One can only keep one's head buried in the sand for so long before someone comes along and shafts them

You didn't answer my question.

Are you a QAnon conspiracy theorist?

It's a yes / no question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s a question you have to

You have no answer for this, in evolution apart from God you have to go back to the beginning because material cannot just appear on its own from nothing.

I have to respond to this post as well. The first part was a response to the fact that one does not have to respond to a strawman argument, trying to claim that one still had to respond to it. The fact is that one does not have to respond to improperly asked questions. Please note this is not a serious question:

Elisha, have you quit beating your wife yet? Please answer yes or no.

The above is an improper question because it assumes facts not in evidence. To even ask such a question the burden of proof is first upon the questioner to show that there actually was spousal abuse.

To the second part, even if we do not have an answer for some part of evolution, or even the beginning of the universe, that is not evidence for a god. It is only an unanswered questions. The proper answer for an unknown is never "That meant God did it". The proper answer is always "We don't know yet". What you are proposing is just an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

May I further remind you that Christians were the only one's to give the world Universities, Hospitals, Schools and charity organisations.

False also.

This was true in medieval Europe. And the reason for that is that christianity was interwoven in all aspects of life as we basicly lived under a theocracy back then. Christianity was the only game in town and it held all the power. They were the only ones with the reach and funds to raise such things. It's not really surprising that they were the ones to do it It's not true today.

It also wasn't true before the epicenter of science ended up in judeo-christian europe, back when it was in Bagdad during Islam's golden age. Then it was all about Islamic universities and scientists.

Algebra, Algorithm, ... these are arabic words.
The stars also carry arabic names as they were big in astronomy back then also.

Having said all that, it is absolutely a false statement what you said in that previous post.

Just for giggles: Hawking and Einstein. Not christians. Big scientists. Tremendous contributions.

you wouldn't have schools or universities unless the Christians scientists invented them so you wouldn't have science without them, you'd be back in the stone age without them

Christians didn't invent schools.

My entire education, save a few years in a catholic high school, was in secular schools with no religious affiliation whatsoever btw.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While the above articles are interesting, their authors are not recognised authorities on the subject. They are just ordinary PHD's, none of them mentioned what their sources were in comprising their articles.

The easiest thing to do in the world is write about history, especially when there are no historical documents to support their views. so with all due respect, I must dismiss those papers as waste paper, fit for the shredder

Dude.......................


So, did the "christian" scientists amuse themselves by using arabic names for "their" progress in math like "algebra"?





Did the "christian" astronomers amuse themselves by given all the stars an arabic name?

Read some history, for crying out loud.................

 

[Subduction Zone]

False also.

This was true in medieval Europe. And the reason for that is that christianity was interwoven in all aspects of life as we basicly lived under a theocracy back then. Christianity was the only game in town and it held all the power. They were the only ones with the reach and funds to raise such things. It's not really surprising that they were the ones to do it It's not true today.

It also wasn't true before the epicenter of science ended up in judeo-christian europe, back when it was in Bagdad during Islam's golden age. Then it was all about Islamic universities and scientists.

Algebra, Algorithm, ... these are arabic words.
The stars also carry arabic names as they were big in astronomy back then also.

Having said all that, it is absolutely a false statement what you said in that previous post.

Just for giggles: Hawking and Einstein. Not christians. Big scientists. Tremendous contributions.



Christians didn't invent schools.

My entire education, save a few years in a catholic high school, was in secular schools with no religious affiliation whatsoever btw.

Don't forget alcohol

Hmm, odd. What is the link?

 

[Trailblazer]

With all due respect, you are utterly unqualified to make any of the above comments. Since they are all based on your own private opinion which is worth 1 in 7 billion opinions. I'd need much better than those odds before I gave your view any oxygen

How do you know how qualified I am when it comes to religion or the Bible?
Can you prove that any of the stories in the Bible ever actually took place?
You are the pot calling the kettle black, unless you have some kind of advanced degree in religious studies.

 

[Trailblazer]

While the above articles are interesting, their authors are not recognised authorities on the subject. They are just ordinary PHD's, none of them mentioned what their sources were in comprising their articles.

The easiest thing to do in the world is write about history, especially when there are no historical documents to support their views. so with all due respect, I must dismiss those papers as waste paper, fit for the shredder

Stanwood Cobb is not the only person who ever wrote a book on this. It is a known fact that Islam made major contributions to Western civilization

The Islamic world in the Middle Ages

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Muslim world was more advanced than Christian Western Europe, which learned a huge amount from its neighbour.

Part of

History

The Middle Ages (12th to 15th century)

Islamic influence on Western Europe

The Islamic empire had a huge impact on the development of medieval Western Europe. It is possible to argue that the Islamic world provided the foundations for developments in western civilisation:

Knowledge

• Western Europeans incorporated Muslim ideas on maths, science, medicine and astronomy into their own thinking and practises.
• The first hospital in Paris was founded by Louis IX after he came back from Crusade in 1260.

Culture

Many Western musical instruments were copied from instruments that originated in Islamic societies, including the lute, the guitar and the violin. It is said that Spanish flamenco dancing was influenced by the rhythms of Arab music.

Trade

European noblemen bought goods that Muslim’s traded in – silk, spices etc – as the height of fashion. Western sailors adopted devices that had been refined by Arabs, eg the astrolabe, which aided navigation, and the triangular sail, which increased manoeuvrability. Without these Columbus would never have reached America.

Architecture

The pointed arch from Muslim mosques was copied in western Gothic architecture. Western castle-designers adopted the idea of concentric castles, with layers of walls, from Muslim castles they had seen on Crusade.

War and conquest

• Large areas of Europe were conquered by Muslims. When these areas such as southern Spain were recaptured and placed under Christian rule Muslim customs and architecture remained.
• Christians were encouraged to go on Crusade to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims. Christians brought back ideas about knowledge and culture to Europe after their travels.
• One historian writes that the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 sent a stream of refugees and tremors of fear, shock and despair throughout Christendom. Some historians believe that 1453 marks the end of the Middle Ages.

Where next?

You can compare the Islamic world to Medieval England in five areas – government, conflict, migration, economy and trade, and everyday life.

Islamic influence on Western Europe - The Islamic world in the Middle Ages - KS3 History Revision - BBC Bitesize

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you have any reason for this interpretation other than the fact that a literal interpretation makes the Bible seem ridiculous to a modern reader?

Yes, I have a reason. Much of what I believe about the Bible; e.g., whether certain events actually took place or not, whether what is written was intended to be literal or figurative, is based upon what is in the Baha'i Writings.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I have to respond to this post as well. The first part was a response to the fact that one does not have to respond to a strawman argument, trying to claim that one still had to respond to it. The fact is that one does not have to respond to improperly asked questions. Please note this is not a serious question:

Elisha, have you quit beating your wife yet? Please answer yes or no.

The above is an improper question because it assumes facts not in evidence. To even ask such a question the burden of proof is first upon the questioner to show that there actually was spousal abuse.

To the second part, even if we do not have an answer for some part of evolution, or even the beginning of the universe, that is not evidence for a god. It is only an unanswered questions. The proper answer for an unknown is never "That meant God did it". The proper answer is always "We don't know yet". What you are proposing is just an argument from ignorance.

In your position you have to prove spontaneous generation, which was already proven to be impossible by science. You don’t know but I do.
There is a lot of evidence for God and He has made himself known to me and many others. My life is proof and evidence, just not the evidence and proof you need. For other people it’s plenty.