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

[IBDaMann]

nope. they move as energy changes. That isn't random.

Everything you are saying is absurd. If you wish to adhere to physics, you have to acknowledge the random movement of electrons and other particles.

Your denial of randomness in the universe renders your arguments incompatible with nature.

 

[Cypress]

Coming into existence is a property of everything that exists.

Immaterial properties and principles which exist independent of time, space, matter, and mind do not experience a moment of creation.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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?

Beats the shit out of me.

Here is my take on the Bible...which I think is closer to your take than any of the theists here:



While I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about the existence of gods...I certainly have enough upon which to make a guess about the Bible. Here it is:



My guess, for what it is worth, is that a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.



The fact that modern theists feel the way they do about it...is disappointing and disheartening.

 

[ZenMode]

That is evidence, Void.

Yep and it's insufficient evidence for a lot of people.

You can't make it go away.

Don't need to. I'm looking for evidence today before I believe in any specific God.

Odd that gods were doing so much work thousands of years ago....but stopped.

 

[ZenMode]

Everything you are saying is absurd. If you wish to adhere to physics, you have to acknowledge the random movement of electrons and other particles.

Your denial of randomness in the universe renders your arguments incompatible with nature.

Electrons change "levels" within an atom as energy increass and decreases. I'm just telling you how things work.

 

[Into the Night]

FTFY.


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

Not necessarily. It is quite possible that the Universe exists, but it never 'came into existence'. It simply has always existed, and always will. This is the Theory of the Continuum, which is not a theory of science.

Does your God exist?

He is locked on paradox on this question. He has claimed that God does not exist and exists at the same time.

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

He simply believes in the Theory of the Big Bang. Believers in this religion often cause paradoxes as they try to define a cause of the Big Bang.

Believers of the Big Bang should really leave well enough alone and not try to define a cause of it.

 

[gmark77]

You do make the claim that you "do not believe in any gods." Can you not even see that?

I'm OK with that statement. I fail to believe in any Gods. Perhaps you or some other believer would like to provide support for their claim that God exists. I will consider it.

You make no coherent claims...I will grant that.

I fail to believe in any gods. That's my position and it hasn't changed no matter how many overly labored statements you type out.

You do not understand grammar, which is bizarre since you are, in essence, claiming the same thing. Saying, "I do not believe 'x' is NOT the same as saying, "I believe 'not x'."

It is different.

Ho = "There is no God" <--the null hypothesis
Ha = "There is a God"

I have tested and so far insufficient evidence to REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. I fear I would be making a Type I error (rejecting a true null hypothesis, or "false positive") if I reject the null.

So all I am doing is FAILING TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.

I am not making the claim "There is no God", I am merely failing to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.


(Have you ever been in a jury trial? Yeah, it's the same thing. The same type of reasoning)

YOU claim that saying "I do not believe in any gods" is NOT the same as saying, "I believe there are no gods."

Those two sound far more similar. I can accept that they are the same.

And you are correct. One CAN "not believe" there are any gods and "not believe" there are no gods at the same time.

I didn't say that. I think it is incorrect. I think you are saying you simultaneous do and do not believe in God. That makes no sense.

I do...and you claim you do.

It's grammar, Boy.

There are people who "believe" there is a GOD. I am not one of them. There also are people who "believe" there are no gods. I also am not one of them. You apparently claim you are neither of those groups either. If you are now claiming you are not, then answer these two questions:

a) Do you "believe" there are any gods?

b) Do you "believe" there are no gods?



Another incoherent comment on your part.


Go back to playing with yourself, Son...and when you grow up, come back an we can have a reasonable discussion.

Can I ask you to slow your roll on these overly constructed statements "I do not not believe there is not not a God" in favor of simple statements?

My claim is and always has been that I FAIL TO ACCEPT YOUR CLAIMS THAT GOD EXISTS.

That's it. 100% Nothing more, nothing less.

Debate against THAT, and not your favorite "I do not not believe there is not not a non-God not God not not not believe not not not." type statements?

 

[Cypress]

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

You are as dumb as your boyfriend IBD.

The cosmic background afterglow has been receding from us for 13.5 billion years. It is the farthest point on our visible cosmic horizon.

The reason we can observe the photons of the cosmic background today is because space was, and is being massively stretched beyond human comprehension, making the distance the light had to travel much farther, and making the wavelengths of the photons become stretched out of the visible range into the microwave range.

A cosmic ray is not light at all.

Try English. It works better!

All electromagnetic radiation is light. The human eye is evolved to only see a narrow spectrum of that bandwidth.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep and it's insufficient evidence for a lot of people.

It seems sufficient for you.

Don't need to. I'm looking for evidence today before I believe in any specific God.

I have already shown some to you...multiple times.

Odd that gods were doing so much work thousands of years ago....but stopped.

What stopped? Nothing has stopped, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

Electrons change "levels" within an atom as energy increass and decreases. I'm just telling you how things work.

Typo ignored.

Electrons are not atoms.
Why are you quoting 'levels'?

Electrons are not the Universe. The Universe is unorganized. Electrons move randomly.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.

The roots explain the meaning and alert people to attempts to hijack words.

 

[ZenMode]

It seems sufficient for you

Derp

I have already shown some to you...multiple times.

The "evidence" you've "shown" is only evidence of you already believe....he said for the twentieth time.

What stopped? Nothing has stopped, Void.

Great! What miracles are happening today that are in line with those in the Bible? Where are the people walking on water? When did the clouds last part, revealing divine beings? When is the last time a burning bush didn't sustain and damage from the fire AND talked to you?

 

[Hume]

Newton's theories have not been falsified by Einstein, Hugo.

shut up asshole

 

[gfm7175]

Yep and the only evidence today is what people who already believe attribute to God.

From now on, I'm going to refer to this particular response as ZENMODE SEQUENCE #1.

You've already tried this one before. I've already informed you about the plethora of people who initially DIDN'T believe in God but now DO believe in God (e.g. William Lane Craig). Now this is the part of the sequence in which you will totally ignore my counterpoint only to later bring up your already-refuted point YET AGAIN, as if I had never refuted it.

There are no old men parting a sea with a stick.

If this sort of thing happened on a regular basis (or "on demand"), then would it even be a miracle anymore?

No angels floating down from heaven.

How do you know that angels aren't floating down from heaven?

The only evidence today, for the Christian God, comes from people who already believe and attribute random events to their God.

ZENMODE SEQUENCE #1

 

[Hume]

Aristotle's law of motion: an object's natural state is at rest.

Status: falsified

Newton said that too. You should read Newton some time.

 

[Hume]

Einstein immortalized Newton's law of gravity by incorporating it into Relativity.

As has science always been.

 

[gfm7175]

The only evidence today is a book written by men who lived in a time when superstition and manufacturing of gods was common.

Again, people who already believe in their God, attribute random worldly events to their God, for no good reason, and use that as evidence.

ZENMODE SEQUENCE #1

 

[ZenMode]

The roots explain the meaning and alert people to attempts to hijack words.

Right...so, words have meanings today that are used in conversations, writings, etc. that's not hijacking. That's language.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm OK with that statement. I fail to believe in any Gods. Perhaps you or some other believer would like to provide support for their claim that God exists. I will consider it.

Fine. But that was not what you said earlier.

I fail to believe in any gods. That's my position and it hasn't changed no matter how many overly labored statements you type out.

You said you made no claims. I showed you did. I agreed that you do not make any coherent claims.

It is different.

Ho = "There is no God" <--the null hypothesis
Ha = "There is a God"

I have tested and so far insufficient evidence to REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. I fear I would be making a Type I error (rejecting a true null hypothesis, or "false positive") if I reject the null.

So all I am doing is FAILING TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.

I am not making the claim "There is no God", I am merely failing to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.

You fail to understand grammar...and I am not going to bother with a grammar lesson.

I have never said you are making the claim "There is no god." Why have you brought that up?

(Have you ever been in a jury trial? Yeah, it's the same thing. The same type of reasoning)

I have never been called for jury duty and I doubt that I ever will. I have more law enforcement agents in my family than any other family I have ever known. Almost automatic disqualification every time. Never been called for a civil case.

Those two sound far more similar. I can accept that they are the same.

They are not the same at all.

But if you do not get it...it has to do with that lack of grammar ability that I mentioned.

I didn't say that. I think it is incorrect. I think you are saying you simultaneous do and do not believe in God. That makes no sense.

I am saying that I do not "believe" there are any gods. SOME PEOPLE DO HAVE THAT BELIEF...AND I MOST ASSUREDLY DO NOT. IT ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY IS NOT A BELIEF OF MINE.

I also am saying that I do not "believe" no gods exist. SOME PEOPLE DO HAVE THAT "BELIEF." I ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DO NOT HAVE IT.

Not sure why you think there is something aberrant about that...or why you think it is contradictory, unless you are having a problem with the grammar.

Can I ask you to slow your roll on these overly constructed statements "I do not not believe there is not not a God" in favor of simple statements?

You certainly can ask.

My claim is and always has been that I FAIL TO ACCEPT YOUR CLAIMS THAT GOD EXISTS.

That is impossible, because I have NEVER, EVER...HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET...ever claimed that any god exists anywhere. EVER.

That's it. 100% Nothing more, nothing less.

Please read above.

Debate against THAT, and not your favorite "I do not not believe there is not not a non-God not God not not not believe not not not." type statements?

I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about here.

As for debating against something I have never said...I am not going to do it. I'll just ask you to quote where I have EVER said that a god exists...and I will apologize to you sincerely and without reservation of any kind. Just give me a link. I have posted tens of thousands of remarks on the Internet so you have lots to choose from.
(Save yourself the bother. I have NEVER said any such thing.)

 

[gfm7175]

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

No it isn't.

Nothing in the Bible implies that the Earth is billions of years old.

Nothing in the Bible implies that the Earth is 6,000 years old either.

Why would Christians ignore Biblical evidence in favor of non-Biblical evidence?

They don't.