If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

See, @ZenMode ... Cypress is supporting my position that even if it were caught on video, it still wouldn't be believed.

Even if there is a god and and if he wrote my name in the sky, that would not make me religious because I could always sweep it under the rug as a hoax, a hallucination, or a trick.

 

[Cypress]

Plato created no theory of science!

You should keep your mouth shut on topics you know nothing about.
Plato wrote the dialogue Timaeus to specifically discuss his ideas about the physical nature of the universe and the origin of the cosmos. (commence frantic Googling...now!)

Aristotle's theories of science have been falsified. They no longer theories at all.

Thomas Jefferson was wrong about a lot of things, but we still read him.

We didn't magically wake up in the 21st century with a complete knowledge of modern science. People still read Aristotle because the history of science and the history of philosophy are the palette on which the human condition is painted.

 

[Hume]

Plato wrote the dialogue Timaeus to specifically discuss his ideas about the physical nature of the universe and the origin of the cosmos.

Thomas Jefferson was wrong about a lot of things, but we still read him.

We didn't magically wake up in the 21st century with a complete knowledge of modern science. People still read Aristotle because the history of science and the history of philosophy are the pallette on which the human condition is painted.

Should we call Newton a loser because Einstein advanced beyond him? No.

 

[Hume]

Plato wrote the dialogue Timaeus to specifically discuss his ideas about the physical nature of the universe and the origin of the cosmos.

Thomas Jefferson was wrong about a lot of things, but we still read him.

We didn't magically wake up in the 21st century with a complete knowledge of modern science. People still read Aristotle because the history of science and the history of philosophy are the palette on which the human condition is painted.

Timaeus is just speculative. Nothing about science or physics.

 

[Cypress]

Timaeus is just speculative. Nothing about science or physics.

All natural philosophy, aka ancient science was speculative and based on reasoning and inference. That includes the pre-Socratic natural philosophers.

They didn't just guess. They had logical reasons for their hypotheses and deductions.

We still recognize what Aristotle, Plato, Thales, Democritus, Anaximander were doing as a natural philosophy or the ancient equivalent of science.

 

[ZenMode]

Evidence is neither 'good' nor 'bad'. It is simply evidence. You cannot make it go away.
Redefinition fallacy (faith<->void).

Bad meaning insufficient or inadequate. You already knew this, but still insist on playing dumb word games for some reason.

Why would he? Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

That was my point. Had you actually read what he said, you would have saw that he asked me to prove that miracles don't happen.

Really... Do you try to sound as uninformed and dumb as possible?

Both manned and unmanned spacecraft have visited the Moon and analyzed it. No dairy product of any kind. Just dirt.

How do you know the people that went to the moon didn't hide the fact that it's made of cheese?

 

[ZenMode]

What is a 'thumper'?

Google is your friend.

 

[ZenMode]

No one said it did

That was the obvious insinuation by referencing Jesus. I'm stopping here because, again, you insist on playing dumb and I've already tolerated your playing dumb in two other posts.

 

[ZenMode]

I've never been able to convince myself that life, the universe, and everything is a cosmic accident caused by chance and by inanimate and irrational physical material causes.

It's more likely than not that a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe is the result of some kind of rational agency, principle, or force.

That basically puts me in the same category as Einstein, who rejected atheism in favor of some kind of pantheism.

I also think some of the atheist strawman arguments against Christianity are cherry picked, tangential, and self serving.

Right, not a thumper but a believer.

 

[ZenMode]

You must locked yourself in yet another paradox. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of any paradox.

I absolutely can. I can argue my side, the atheist side, and still talk to believers on their level. Again, as I have already told you previously, I don't have to believe the Bible to know what it says.

When... Oh when... Are you going to stop playing dumb word games?

 

[ZenMode]

A 'day' is not necessarily a 24 hour period.

How do you count a day before there was a Sun?

As I said previously, there's always some spin to justify the irrational claims of the Bible. How was there light before the stars were created?

Christians have had a long time to figure out all of their excuses and spin for the nonsense in the Bible. You can try it on me, but it's not going to work. If God existed, and actually wanted people to believe in him, he wouldn't have written a book that an 8-year-old can't find flaws in.

 

[ZenMode]

See, @ZenMode ... Cypress is supporting my position that even if it were caught on video, it still wouldn't be believed.

In biblical times, God made his presence known on a regular basis. If he actually gave a shit what we believed, he would continue to make his presence known. Maybe one video wouldn't be enough, maybe two videos wouldn't be enough, but when things keep happening, and masses of people see it, at some point you can't deny it.

However, as I mentioned, it was regular occurrence to claim any number of gods doing things on earth. It's easy to claim ridiculous shit when there's no expectation of proof other than spoken word.

 

[IBDaMann]

The fact that Christians literally accepted as true is irrelevant to whether or not it literally appears in the Bible.

Yes, it is not only relevant, it is a requirement. You cannot use the word "literally" without it being written in the Bible. We need to ensure English language acumen is on the list of your lacking proficiencies.

Right. There's always some implausible and irrational explanation.

This is just your opinion. Notice that you did not use the word "incorrect", which is all that matters.

Hence the god of the gaps.

There is no "hence" yet. You have to lay out a valid argument first before you can "hence" a conclusion.

... God can magically transform the atomic structure of water to be able to support an adult male.

... and you are on tap to either show that He cannot, or you must agree with Christians that He can.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

A short little Youtube from a former evangelical pastor. Did the fire and brimstone shit for decades until he finally came to his senses. For those of you who are in denial or wish to remain willfully ignorant, he basically says this:

“Christians go in with their god as an assumption rather than a conclusion. When in fact, after close examination, the virgin birth falls apart, the resurrection falls apart, the basis of morality falls apart, the promise of afterlife fizzles into fear based marketing.”

“The gods of Islam, of Judaism, of Christianity only exist in scripture. If they actually existed, we wouldn’t need the books to claim they did. Once the book fails, the god goes with it.”

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/gI_OCjTkQG4?si=cyukCFBlj2u2kI4k

Wouldn't your need for a book in this scenario depend on what God tells you you need?

 

[IBDaMann]

As I said previously, there's always some spin to justify the irrational claims of the Bible.

So, if there is always an explanation, you are always satisfied, correct? It's not like you are pointing to something and saying "See, Christianity doesn't explain this!"

How was there light before the stars were created?

God first created a little light for the refrigerator, so he could see what snacks were available. His idea was brilliant and it stuck. We still use it today.

Christians have had a long time to figure out all of their excuses and spin for the nonsense in the Bible.

You're just envious because you don't have any answers for your religious Global Warming crap.

If God existed, and actually wanted people to believe in him, he wouldn't have written a book that an 8-year-old can't find flaws in.

You need to put the cart before the horse and mention some of these flaws you keep mentioning but can't produce.

 

[Margot]

The Bible, according to many, many, many Christians, is the word of God and is taken literally as such.

The creation of everything in 7 days is taking literally. The existence of Adam and Eve is taking literally. The fall is taking literally. A belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old is also taken very literally by many Christians.

Even if you take away the age of the Earth, there are still a dozen events in the Bible that fly in the face of science. I've listed them multiple times.

By the way, this is a separate topic from the god of the gaps discussion. It's clear that you and many others here are 100% on the god of the gaps bandwagon.

How do we tell time? Motion of the sun,moon and earth!
Sun and the moon weren't created till day 4 ,so how long were days 1-2-33?

 

[IBDaMann]

The literary style of the Baghavad Gita is mythology.

It's the same style as the Bible. Style is not content.

Islam reveres the Abrahamic God, and is based on historical persons: Jesus and Muhammed.

You were going to show this. The literary style of the Bible and of the Q'ran are "Urban Legend".

Shamanism, paganism, and animism do not claim to be religious traditions based on historical events and historical people.

Global Warming and Climate Change are religions that are also not based on historical events and historical people.

You're not even will to say you are convinced and thoroughly believe the cause of the universe and it's rational-lawful organization is because of a purely inanimate physical, non-rational reason.

What is the normal reason for a random dust cloud?

So you are agnostic, not atheist.

If he lacks theism, he is an atheist. Agnosticism does not enter this discussion. I don't think anyone really expects you to understand the meaning of words that have more than two syllables.

There is no conceivable chance science will ever explain what came before this universe, why it happened, why it's lawfully organized and mathematically rational.

Of course not. The universe is not coherently organized. It's a random dust cloud.

Those are philosophical questions

Only to the extent you are discussing nature. Any supernatural component involves theism and religion.

Science is an empirical method

Science is not a method. I would remind you that you don't know what science is. You are flying blind. It's why what you say is usually stupid.

that makes accurate predictions of the momentum, transformation, and conservation of matter and energy.

You really don't know what science is because you omitted many, many things.

Logic and rationality are our tools to investigate philosophical and metaphysical questions.

When will you start using yours? Why do you refuse to use your "tools"? You still believe in Climate Change, right? Case in point. You still refer to "militant atheists", yes? Another case in point. All those stupid things you post have the same root cause, i.e. your refusal to use your "tools." It's invalid for you to imply the use of your "tools" as the support for your arguments when you never actually use them. You don't even know what science is.

You yourself said you can't explain why the universe appears rational and designed,

Obviously he can't explain why a random dust cloud is somehow rational and designed.

and you're not even willing to say you are convinced it is because of purely inanimate and irrational physical reasons.

Why do you believe that an inanimate "reason" (whatever that is) can also be irrational? Did you ever learn English?

 

[IBDaMann]

The intellectual and theological basis of Christianity is based on a historical event and a historical person.

Which is your claim ... a claim that has been debunked.

I'm the only one here who correctly uses and understands scientific theory

You are scientifically illiterate. You think science is a method. You are an eternal target for mockery.

I've yet to hear from one atheist how these rational mathmatical principles could just appear by chance from an inanimate and irrational cause.

You have yet to explain how your God could just appear by chance from an inanimate and irrational cause.

 

[IBDaMann]

How do we tell time? Motion of the sun,moon and earth!

Nope. You should have checked with NIST before asking your question.


One second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the cesium frequency ΔνCs — the unperturbed ground‑state hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium‑133 atom — to be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in hertz (Hz), which is equal to s⁻¹.”

That is the correct answer.

Sun and the moon weren't created till day 4 ,so how long were days 1-2-33?

Obviously, on Day 1 YHWH created cesium so we could tell time. I don't know whether cesium came before or after the refrigerator light.

 

[IBDaMann]

Right. I think that John 21:25 states it rather well: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

It would appear that you just nailed that coffin shut and we can move onto something else.