Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 126 by rikuoamero]

So he didn't conjure up the animals, in more or less the same way as he did the food in the loaves and fishes story?

You do realize that you just neatly closed a loophole you could have used to argue in favour of Jesus? By saying that Jesus didn't conjure up these animals, this prevents you from saying that these animals were Jesus's. They would have been someone else's property, property that according to this story Jesus tells his disciples to steal.
At no point in the story does Jesus say "Go and buy the animals" or "Go and ask politely for animals". No, it's " Untie them and bring them to me."
If you disagree that this is a command for theft, I want to ask how much more blatant does a story have to be, before you'll agree that yes it is theft. Does Jesus literally have to say "Go and steal those things from those people over there" before you'll agree that it's theft?

According to the Bible, magic and miracles are not the same; Jesus did not perform magic; Jesus brought his own things - he did not steal, or encourage others to steal.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 122 by arian]

As I always say, "The proof is in the pudding."
Jesus said, "Wisdm is proved righteous, by all its children."
So I say, give them the time they need.
If it's even the next kazillion years, just give them that time to unravel that 75% of unknown.

I mean, who knows what they will discover.
As we have been seeing, the universe is full of surprises.

And again, this isn't science.
It's preaching.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 127 by rikuoamero]

Sorry rikuoamero.
That commen was not directed to you.
I was just making an adjustment to my comment, based on what you said.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 126 by rikuoamero]

So he didn't conjure up the animals, in more or less the same way as he did the food in the loaves and fishes story?

You do realize that you just neatly closed a loophole you could have used to argue in favour of Jesus? By saying that Jesus didn't conjure up these animals, this prevents you from saying that these animals were Jesus's. They would have been someone else's property, property that according to this story Jesus tells his disciples to steal.
At no point in the story does Jesus say "Go and buy the animals" or "Go and ask politely for animals". No, it's " Untie them and bring them to me."
If you disagree that this is a command for theft, I want to ask how much more blatant does a story have to be, before you'll agree that yes it is theft. Does Jesus literally have to say "Go and steal those things from those people over there" before you'll agree that it's theft?

According to the Bible, magic and miracles are not the same; Jesus did not perform magic; Jesus brought his own things - he did not steal, or encourage others to steal.

TheStudent has completely abandoned science and reverts to preaching, and proves nothing.

[H.sapiens]

My own experience showed me too, as it is written in the same Bible, that he uses his power to prevent those who do not value it, but search it with a view to finding fault with it, from understanding it.

There you go with the secret handshake and decoder ring stuff again combined with "god as a trickster." If you don't join Loki's treehouse club you will be denied eternal life, eh?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 121 by benchwarmer]

This sounds like "Do as I say, not as I do".

It also sounds like you are admitting that God is breaking His own rule, but since He is the 'life giver' He is free to be a 'life taker' as well. Convenient.

In what way does it sound like "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Simple: God says don't murder. When God is displeased, murder ensues. You call it 'just punishment', but fail to explain how infants are justly punished. I think I've made the point pretty clearly. There's not much else to add.

In what way does it sound like I am admitting that God is breaking His own rule?

Because you reverted to the whole 'life giver'/'life taker' argument. Why bother with that if you are not trying to explain why God is 'justly punishing' infants. God either killed infants or He didn't. If He did, he broke His own law. You can try to wiggle out of it all you want.

]Yes I disagree. Love and patience would be preserving all who did not deserve 'just punishment'. Not simply wiping everyone out. Surely an all powerful God can come up with a better solution (and a more believable one at that).To be clear I don't believe the story at all, but I was simply arguing based on what is written in the Bible. You asked for examples where Gods rules are broken by God. I gave them. You are now 'apologizing' to try and explain what's plainly written doesn't mean what it says, it means what you think it means.

He did not wipe everyone out.

Ok, now you're being pedantic for the sake of argument. Fine, He wiped everyone out expect for Noah and his family. How does that help your argument?

Tell me your alternative solution.

I have multiple solutions, surely an all wise God could do even better than world wide destruction:

- Send the angel of death and only take out those who have broken God's law.

- Make breaking one of God's laws instant death. (This would have been better at the start.)

- Appear to those breaking the laws and explain the immediate consequences (instant death) of not changing their ways. Follow through.

None of the above require indiscriminately wiping out every living thing except those that make it onto a boat or already live in the water.

I could also argue that you are just seeking to find a fault to justify a turning away benchwarmer. In the same way that people try to find fault with righteous people in order to justify their immoral lifestyle.

Are you implying you know my motives? Do tell of your evidence. Just because I successfully showed something in your beloved book does not give you the right to imply my motivations. It's always the same when apologists can't successfully defend an argument made using the very scripture they hold dear. Blame the one who showed the fault and assume there is something wrong with them rather than the material in question.

Your belief is noted. I'm simply pointing to what's written in the book and showing that it's open to interpretation. It's hardly clear.

Our words are open do inerpretation. So what?
Does it mean our words are not what we say, or mean?

You lost me on this one. Are you trying to say the scriptures are clear or not? You make it sound like it's obvious what's being said, then turn around and say 'so what' when interpretation issues are brought up.

I don't think there is anything hard about understanding what stealing is.
Stealing is taking withut permission, what does not belong to you, but belongs to someone else.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. The land didn't belong to the people in question, it currently belonged to the Canaanites (you argue it belongs to God). My point is that if everything belongs to God, God's people can never steal. Get it?

As far as evicting, how was that accomplished? Did they receive letters saying their rent was past due and they need to move out? I'm pretty sure some 'justified killing' was involved in the 'eviction' thereby actually breaking two laws at once. The hole just gets deeper...

What are you talkng about?
Who evicted whom?
I used an example of a landlord to make the point that as owner, the landlord decides who occupy his property.
Concerning God, he has that same right, and regarding the inhabitants of the land, God said he was going to clense the land not only of those engaging in unclean practices, but also those opposed to his people.
He also promised his people the land that belonged to their forefathers - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I believe you know these things are in the Bible.

I'm not sure why you are asking me what's in the Bible either. Who was in the land that God's people were to occupy? Who 'cleansed' them from the land? God? or God's people as they moved in?

I understand the promises. I'm simply pointing out the land theft and the way it was taken. If you want to stick to the 'God owns it' theory, then please explain why stealing was even a law? How can God's own people steal what belongs to God? What is it they are not supposed to steal? Everything belongs to God or it doesn't. Unless of course you have a secret list of what God owns and what He doesn't.

Besides, if there are so many immoral things that God did, as you claim you can show, why not bring the strongest one.

What was wrong with the 3 I gave? You have not convinced me any of them were wrong. You've argued interpretation and God can do as He pleases with His property (including our lives). Fabulous. As far as I'm concerned you proved my point. God does as God wants, regardless if lines up with the laws given.

If I seem unreasonable, after you try to prove your argument is sound.
Write me off as being just plain stubborn.
How does that sound?

It sound a fair challenge to me.

I think it's fair to say we are all stubborn otherwise none of us would be here tilting at the same windmills over and over.

I presented my points, you presented yours, now we let the readers decide for themselves. You haven't swayed me and I haven't swayed you, but maybe we both gave others something to ponder.

Have a good one.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 156 by benchwarmer and theStudent]

From my seat the conversation you've been having is almost fun to observe. Two guys arguing whether god did or did not do this or that. The funny part is that the claimant in this case has yet to provide proof of his god as he has been challenged to do. So I'm thinking the whole conversation needs a reset until the elephant in the room has been removed. IMHO, of course.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 126 by rikuoamero]

So he didn't conjure up the animals, in more or less the same way as he did the food in the loaves and fishes story?

You do realize that you just neatly closed a loophole you could have used to argue in favour of Jesus? By saying that Jesus didn't conjure up these animals, this prevents you from saying that these animals were Jesus's. They would have been someone else's property, property that according to this story Jesus tells his disciples to steal.
At no point in the story does Jesus say "Go and buy the animals" or "Go and ask politely for animals". No, it's " Untie them and bring them to me."
If you disagree that this is a command for theft, I want to ask how much more blatant does a story have to be, before you'll agree that yes it is theft. Does Jesus literally have to say "Go and steal those things from those people over there" before you'll agree that it's theft?

According to the Bible, magic and miracles are not the same; Jesus did not perform magic; Jesus brought his own things - he did not steal, or encourage others to steal.

So who did the animals belong to?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 128 by Bust Nak]

Unknown forces and causes should not be ruled out, supernatural beings doesn't even qualify for consideration in science. If science does indeed one day confirm the existence of God, it would render God a materialistic being. The very premise of science demands naturalism.

This sounds to be what I understand.

You are telling me only God knows what he meant. Well God isn't available for public questioning, one person says "God told me in private, he meant ball Earth;" another say "God told me in private, he meant flat Earth." One person says "God told me in private, he meant young Earth;" another say "God told me in private, he meant old Earth."

Where does that leave those who don't have God's number on speed dial? The text literally says young Earth, the text literally says flat Earth, it's still your words against other Christians' when it comes to what it actually means.

This is good.

I'll apply it to us humans for clarity.
Suppose you wrote a book. It's a deep book, because you are a deep thinker.
People buy your book, and different people get different thoughts, that could throw your conclusions way off.
These people are from all parts of the world, and getting in touch with you is not easy.
Suppose your book was to a degree, quite important. It probably could affect their lives either positively or negatively.
Some persons may try hard to locate this author. others may not bother too much. Still, others may just like the idea they got from it, and may even enjoy a bit of argument with those who got a different idea.
I know you probably will say you would try to make the book easier, or get in contact with the people, etc., but I don't want us to dwell on that just yet.
Where does that leave those who may never locate you?

To use another example.
When the man Jesus Christ walked the earth, according to the Bible, he performed many powerful works/miracles.
Some people believed, some didn't.
In fact, one man said that it is impossible for a man to perform such works, if God is not with him.
Jesus himself said that the works he performed, should be evidence that he is from God.
If Jesus, and that man who believed, were correct...
Where does that leave those who never believed the miracles?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 129 by Bust Nak]

Doesn't look good for God, does it? We can detect something that does not absorb or emit light, millions and light years away but we cannot detect God.

Escuse me?
I couldn't see this and just let it slide.
Could you explain please how they are able to detect dark matter.