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

[IBDaMann]

The evidence for Earth being 6000 years old is based on Biblical claims.

You have already discussed the subjective nature of evidence, both what constitutes evidence and what it means. You have also explained how non-believers can simply dismiss opposing evidence without cause, as you are doing.

 

[Into the Night]

Cosmic microwave background, the latent afterglow of the earliest universe after the big bang.

What 'Big Bang'? What does that have to do with radiation from other stars?

Our night sky would be glowing as bright as the surface of the sun, if not for the fact that photon wavelengths of the cosmic background have been stretched from visible light wavelengths to microwave light wavelengths because of 13.5 billion years of cosmic expansion.

What 'expansion'?? The Universe has no known boundary. What is expanding?

Stars emit microwave energy. Did you know that? Even our Sun emits microwave energy. This is one of the wide spectrum of frequencies of light emitted by any star. Stars emit light even down into the long wave radio spectrum and up into the X-ray spectrum.

Cosmic rays have no frequency. They are not light. They are highly energetic particles that stream from our Sun and also from other stars. Our atmosphere shields us from most of it, but a few still get through.

 

[ZenMode]

You have already shown that you haven't. You've only read snippets of it.

What inanimate object was talking

The Bible's burning bush story in Exodus 3, describes God appearing to Moses as a blazing fire in a bush that burns but isn't consumed, revealing Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and commissioning Moses to lead the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt

Why do you think God has no control over his creation?

I never said he, if he exists, wouldn't. I did say that the events of the Bible, that were specifically documented and referenced as evidence for God and God's power, do not happen today.

What theory of science do you think was violated?

Nope. Not being baited into another rabbit hole. You can do your own research on why people aren't able to walk on the surface of water.

Yet you deny all the things around you.

Strawman. Lie.

You still don't know what 'random' means.

First, let's see you grapple with this one:
What, specifically, is a random number? What makes it random? Just how random is it? What makes rolling a die a random number? Is it the same kind of random number as picking a card from a deck of cards? Is it the same kind of random number that is thought up in someone's head?

No, you can't use statistical math, for that creates a circular argument fallacy, for statistical math uses random numbers.
No, you can't use probability math, since that doesn't use random numbers at all.

Nope. Yet another rabbit hole I'll be avoiding.

 

[Cypress]

. I have answered all of your questions while you EVADE all of mine

I read very few of your posts because you are a bad faith poster who consistently gets things wrong.

How did your God come into existence?

"Coming into existence" is a property of physical matter and energy.

There is no logical necessity to assume a moment of creation for immaterial, abstract ideas, principles, and laws. There was no moment of creation for the concept of infinity or the laws of conservation.

 

[IBDaMann]

From the point of view of physics, light is just electromagnetic energy transmitted in the form of photons. Light (photons) existed long before there were stars. Light was first able to travel freely in the universe when the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to bond. That was only a few hundred thousand years after the big bang. It took many millions of years for the first stars to form.

Bottom line: there was light long before there were stars.

But you think light can somehow loiter, and somehow not travel at the speed of light. You think that there is "background" microwave radiation from the Big Bang, not from all the stars out there.

 

[ZenMode]

You have already discussed the subjective nature of evidence, both what constitutes evidence and what it means. You have also explained how non-believers can simply dismiss opposing evidence without cause, as you are doing.

Again....if you are already a believer, you find evidence (proof) of your god all around you. A beautiful sunrise is evidence of a god. A fortuitous stroke of luck is evidence (proof) of your god. Something bad happening to someone is evidence that they don't believe in your god.

If you don't ALREADY believe in god, then all of the events listed above are just events, with no deity behind them. Some events are good luck...others are bad luck, etc. But, a non-believer could be convinced by a person walking on water, the clouds parting and divine beings floating down and talking to you. A dead person coming back from the dead after being dead for three days.

THOSE events, the actual evidence for divinity and godly powers don't happen today.

 

[Into the Night]

If a word has a specific, documented meaning in today's English language...then it does. The roots are irrelevant and just another attempt to distract the conversation.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Void.

 

[ZenMode]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Void.

Incoherent babbling.

 

[Cypress]

But you think light can somehow loiter, and somehow not travel at the speed of light.

Hey dummy, the cosmic background has been receding from us for 13.5 billion years. It's not a stationary source of light that just sits there for us to observe. It's at our cosmic horizon.

You think that there is "background" microwave radiation from the Big Bang, not from all the stars out there.

You're hopelessly ill equipped to even discuss this with.It's not me that thinks that. It is the global astrophysics community that thinks that.
The background radiation glow existed millions of years before any stars were around.

 

[Into the Night]

Again....if you are already a believer, you find evidence (proof) of your god all around you. A beautiful sunrise is evidence of a god.

That it is. It is ALSO evidence there is no God. Evidence is not a proof. Denying evidence does not make it disappear.

A fortuitous stroke of luck is evidence (proof) of your god.

That it is. It is ALSO evidence there is no God. Evidence is not a proof. Denying evidence does not make it disappear.

Something bad happening to someone is evidence that they don't believe in your god.

No. It's a rash assumption. This is a fallacy.

If you don't ALREADY believe in god, then all of the events listed above are just events, with no deity behind them.

They are also evidence of a god or gods...not a proof.

Some events are good luck...others are bad luck,etc.

They are also evidence of a god or gods...not a proof.

Evidence is NOT a proof.

 

[ZenMode]

Cosmic microwave background, the latent afterglow of the earliest universe after the big bang.
Our night sky would be glowing as bright as the surface of the sun, if not for the fact that photon wavelengths of the cosmic background have been stretched from visible light wavelengths to microwave light wavelengths because of 13.5 billion years of cosmic expansion.

That's a whole lot of Christian apologist spin.

 

[Into the Night]

Ok....what is evidence in the Bible, because those events, and other "miracles", are repeatedly referenced as evidencr of God and/or god's power?

That is evidence, Void. You can't make it go away.

 

[Into the Night]

That's a whole lot of Christian apologist spin.

The Church of the Big Bang is not Christianity, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

Incoherent babbling.

Yup. That's what a paradox is, Void.

You have multiple paradoxes that you are locked into. You have not cleared a single one.

 

[Margot]

There is no science of consciousness, and maybe there never will be. Consciousness cannot be adequately explained at the level of physics and chemistry.

Because Those are part of the physical universe, which has no control on the Spirit world.

 

[IBDaMann]

I read very few of your posts because [I am a coward who blames others for my cowardice]

FTFY.

"Coming into existence" is a property of physical matter and energy.

Nope. Coming into existence is a property of everything that exists.

Does your God exist?

There is a logical necessity to assume a moment of creation when your position is that lacking such a moment is "incoherent".

 

[Into the Night]

Hey dummy, the cosmic background has been receding from us for 13.5 billion years.

A cosmic ray striking the Earth is not 'receding'.

It's not a stationary source of light that just sits there for us to observe. It's at our cosmic horizon.

A cosmic ray is not light at all.

You're hopelessly ill equipped to even discuss this with.It's not me that thinks that.

Try English. It works better.

It is the global astrophysics community that thinks that.

What is a 'global astrophysics community'? Science is not a community nor a person. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

The background radiation glow existed millions of years before any stars were around.

What 'glow'??? You were personally there to witness light coming from no source, right?

 

[Into the Night]

That's a whole lot of Christian apologist spin.

He is not discussing Christianity.

 

[Into the Night]

Because Those are part of the physical universe, which has no control on the Spirit world.

There is only one Universe, by definition,

 

[ZenMode]

That it is. It is ALSO evidence there is no God.

Nope. It's not evidence of no God any more than it is evidence of no islands of magical unicorns in the Atlantic Ocean.

Evidence is not a proof. Denying evidence does not make it disappear.

That it is. It is ALSO evidence there is no God.

Nope. It's not evidence of no God any more than it is evidence of no islands of magical unicorns in the Atlantic Ocean.

Evidence is not a proof. Denying evidence does not make it disappear.

No. It's a rash assumption. This is a fallacy.

Yet it is the assertion of some Christians.

They are also evidence of a god or gods...not a proof.

They are also evidence of a god or gods...not a proof.

Evidence is NOT a proof.

What you claim as evidence is only evidence because you already believe in your god.