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.

[arian]

Word, .. He created the universe from His Word, .. that's what I see and understand from the Bible.

Readers, does it make any sense to claim that a god concept can create universes with words, but when it comes to killing off an entire planet (save 8) for example, he uses a flood for which there is no evidence for?

Universes with words, but gotta get rid of the sin from Adam and Eve, gotta have me some blood shed.

Define water?

H2O, .. words, see!?

Define biological life: A, C, G, T, .. DNA, see!?

No evidence of a flood? Lol, .. maybe all them quantum specks Big-Banging everywhere, and the crackling of bones evolving in the graves distracted your scientific observation of a world-wide flood Clownboat!?

I don't even know why you post sometimes.

Makes two of us.
For me it's "Well, now that I read all these comments, might as well make mine," .. right?

You didn't even attempt to refute my point, which is again:
"Universes with words, but gotta get rid of the sin from Adam and Eve, gotta have me some blood shed."

Clownboat (I like how JoeyK put it) my old nemesis-friend, the Bible makes it perfectly clear as to why the "shedding of blood", .. man started it, remember?

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" but finally God sent His Son as a last blood offering for our sins. So now, it's "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, pray for them that despitefully use you, .. etc." so no more blood for blood, aren't you happy? Isn't God merciful?
But look at all the religions, both theist and atheist go out and still shed blood, and they claim it is to prevent bloodshed, .. right? lol.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
(quantum specks Big-Banging - bones evolving in the graves)
Why such a lack of effort? At this time, I must assume that you cannot refute my point.

I don't see your point, so what's there to refute?

You keep mixing up religions and their gods with our Creator, and I have explained that error many times to you; that our Creator God "I Am" is not found in any religion. That "religions" have their own gods.

Then you accuse Bible-Creator/God of injustice while pointing out the justice and mercy He has shown us by sending His Son into the world to die for us. It's like if you have been charged and sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, then someone sends their own son to take your place, to take all death row inmates places, and you call that injustice.

It's OK, you don't have to accept the offer, it's your choice, but I have to tell you that your ideology is very "unscientific" (bones cracling in graves as proof of your evolution story)

[arian]

[Replying to post 302 by Clownboat]

The 4 royal flushes are directly observable

The universe is directly observable

Any act of intelligent agency behind each is not.

Thanks for having me!

I used to go to the Detroit Auto Show at Cobo Hall,

and the cars were all 'directly observable'.

Cobo Hall where this took place was also 'directly observable'.

Any act of intelligent agency behind each is not. (?huh?)

Thanks for having me explain all this.

[arian]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

Thank you

That's why I gave the example,

I would't assume bob was real no

But are you saying that if you worked at the fraud dept in a casino, and you watched a gambler sit down and play a royal flush at every table 4 times in a row.

You would assume he was lucky? of course not. Unless you can prove the negative, that he absolutely did NOT cheat, then you know he probably did.

Similarly if the police find someone with an axe in the back of their heads, until they can prove no assailant, they must assume there was one.

i.e. the implication of not being able to prove a negative.. depends entirely on the scenario does it not?

Bob is hurt you don't believe in him. He just ran by with tears in his eyes. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ok, back to your analogy. You are comparing two different concepts. God is unobserved, the card player is observed. If I was part of casino security there would be video and the opportunity for me to walk down and watch the player in action. This is nothing like God or the pink unicorn for which there are only stories. That was my point with the unicorn. You can't verify it for yourself, so you likely won't believe it. Same with a god concept.

Assuming something probably exists because there is no negative proof is a dangerous way to go I would think.

Can you prove Vishnu doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.
Can you prove Zeus doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.
Can you prove Bob the unicorn doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.

See how this is going?

No, I don't.

Ford Intelligently Designed and built cars, .. did Mr. Ford I.D. and build Tinkerbelle?
No, so does this prove that Mr. Ford the car builder doesn't exist?

You said:
Can you prove Vishnu doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.
Can you prove Zeus doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.
Can you prove Bob the unicorn doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.

What in in the name of Tinkerbelle do Vishnu, Zeus and Bob the unicorn have to do with the Creator of the universe and man I just cannot understand??

Lets look at this from a scientific perspective; I have observed (science) that we man 'Intelligently Design things'; planes, trains and automobiles, robots like ASIMO, and yes even toasters. We tend to copy animals we see around us, like by carefully observing (science again) birds flying, we try to make something so we could fly also. Now even with my two years of grade school education I noticed that there is a lot of intelligence in the design of these birds, so man tries to copy the intelligence in the birds design so we can make a more efficient airplane.

If man really believed even for a second that that bird came about by a cosmological accident 13.75 BILLION Carl Sagan (give honor to whom honor is due: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZmafy_v8g8 years, and a sweating rock evolved the bird just by time, or just by waiting, no idiot would spend countless hours, and spend millions and billions of $$$ on trying to create something by 'Intelligent Design'! That would go against "Nature and natural selection" herself!

Instead, people would have piles and piles of scrap metal waiting to evolve. They would move the pile of scrap metals around from tectonic plate to tectonic plate (continent to continent) where they found evidence of said birds to have migrated over the millions and billions of years to hopefully influence the big pile of scrap metals to evolve into a bird-like creature where men can take a ride on, or in.

Now they claim to know with absolute certainty that if you put a single celled bacteria into some salty-muddy primordial soup, that it will eventually, given enough space and time will evolve some bird, so imitating these FACTS, they would do the same with the heap of scrap metals, for if nature can through natural selection influence DNA on a biological level, surely it can influence the elements the metals are made of, right? Isn't that the reason we have all these different cars, and planes, the Germans one species and the Italians another and so on!?

So like in any human created thing that we can see Intelligent Design in, how could ANYONE deny this same, .. actually "far more superior intelligent Design" in all the things man didn't make? The same eyes that scans the ID in a car, or a plane is the same one that scans a bird or a human that he wants to replicate. From the eyes the info goes to the brain, and from there our mind/spirit, another words; that's how we deal with the information.

So what exactly are we/mind dealing with here? It's "information", millions and billions of digital information.
When we dream up of a concept, it comes from us, the mind, sent to the brain and eyes to see how it would look like, .. then we the mind start to sent all that info to our brain to start creating the idea.

So using science (observing the world around us) everything, that is EVERYTHING we observe that man didn't create points to a Superior, Master Designer who is like our mind. But since we also know we didn't create our body, and that it is made of quantum dust particles (see, I even made that sound all sciency; "quantum dust particles") the Master Designer could not have a body or He would of been created also, so He must be an Infinite Conscious Creative Mind/Spirit. So from scientific observation all observations point to this Mind/Creator, and by golly we have a Book that explains who this Creator God is, actually it is HE that reveals Himself through His Prophets who wrote the books in the Bible.

See, .. the belief in the existence of God IS scientific, and denial is just a bunch of religious rhetoric.

At best we can say God as depicted in the Christian Bible MAY exist since we can't prove or even show good evidence He does or does not.

What do you mean "Christian Bible" ??? The Pope didn't write the Bible, nor did the deity god Emperor Constantine who created the Christian Religion.

Sure we can prove the existence of our Infinite Creator, I just did! But of course I used actual observation, not made up "millions and billions of years ago" sci-fi fairytales.

If anything, using the internal words of the Bible alone, many can make solid claims He doesn't exist due to contradictions. That gets into infallibility, interpretation, and all manner of issues though. So one can hardly make a claim that God probably exists because we can't prove He doesn't. It makes no logical sense. In this sub forum of Science and Religion we like to see evidence or at the very least logical consistency.

LOL, ..sorry, don't want to be rude or anything, but you said: "In this sub forum of Science and Religion we like to see evidence or at the very least logical consistency", yet the Science and Religion sub forum is FULL of millions and billions of years ago BB-Evolution stories and debates where it's even considered as science! Using skull and bones and fossils of different species to prove evolution, as if these bones were evolving and speciating right before our eyes!

[Clownboat]

I hear that same response from my teen-children about me, but of course on a much smaller scale. I just say to myself; "oh, they'll understand one day".

If what you are doing is idiotic, they may never understand though. Many of the decisions people claim your god did fall into this idiotic category.
- Eve ate the wrong fruit. I'm going to punish future women by having them suffer during childbirth. Idiotic, because it accomplished nothing.
- Mankind is sinners, all save 8. I'm going to kill off all life on the planet, save 8. Idiotic, because man still rebelled again. It accomplished nothing.

My point is that there seems to be a disconnect between what God wants us to do and what God is allowed to do.

Yeah, I know what you mean. God acts as if He Created everything, and that as if we didn't know anything, right? But we'll show Him, we got the BB-Evolution stories down to just about where we can believe it, and feel proud of it!
Nyeeah, .. who needs God, and with the New "One World, .. Coexist" theology, we can redefine moral laws too, where it includes EVERYONE, right!?

Arian, you totally failed to address is point that there is a disconnect between what a god wants us to do and what a god is allowed to do.
It would be great if you could debate without crying about the Big Bang or new world orders. If you have no actual rebuttal, then consider why instead of whining about other things.

God is certainly not leading by example, but simply asking us to follow some rules regardless of what He is up to.

Again, I know what you mean, like you said, God commands us not to kill, yet the Old Testament is full of killing, especially by this King David fellow. I mean oh-my Lord, I just brushed up on my OT reading a bit and I tell you it was almost as bad as my teen-sons gaming where they shoot-em, slice-em and dice-em just about anyone, including their friends sometimes (I hate those games, and makes me almost sick to my stomach knowing he plays them.)

But look, let's just go by the Bible, then follow it into our present history and ask ourselves: "Who started the killing/murder, .. or try to live outside of Gods rules!?" Did God ask Cain to kill his brother Abel? That's when the law murder was invented.

God created man in His image, He gave man a clear command, "don't try to live your life based on your own merit, cause you don't know everything yet, but I do." But just like a typical teenager, there goes Adam testing the waters, .. right!? All he needed was a little suggestion (like teens trying drugs for the first time: "Try it, it will make you feel like a god dude! Really, you'll be able to fly man!"

Again, you totally failed to address is point that your god concept does not lead by example. Please stop with the distractions and complaining and debate, or admit that you cannot.

At the very least, how about just wipe out those who were committing the sinful acts? God created the universe with a word and can't selectively take out those causing the problems?

But don't you see, even if He did that (which He came very close to doing in the past) we still have free will. There is still that "Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil" the ability to decide "should I, .. or shouldn't I?". Like others here suggested in our debates in the past that; God should never have put that tree of good and evil there, .. and we debated that to death already, remember?

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the symbol of our free will, take that out and we would no longer be "created in Gods image", but would be EXACTLY as the BB-Evolution religion says we are: "dumb, mindless animals acting by the influence of our environment on the chemicals in our bodies." If I'm hungry, just go take and eat, .. if I'm in need of anything, heck just take it. if I'm horny, hey she looks hot, take and f_, .. I mean; take and make love to her.

Actually, as you can see we are coming to that; "Do as thou wilt who-needs-God-ideology", it is fast becoming our present reality. So let's see how that works for "All"? It does seem to work for the men in Islam, and the Catholic church is now opening their gates even wider, and the rest of the denominations are following close behind.
Heck, soon all they will have is the door posts where the door used to be, no fences or walls.

All these words and you yet again failed to address his question.
"how about just wipe out those who were committing the sinful acts?"

If you don't believe in the stories in the Bible, what's your point?

I'm simply showing the internal inconsistency in the Bible.

To paraphrase:

1) God says don't kill.

2) God gets angry and kills.

I know right? My dad used to tell me; "don't fight, don't hurt or hit your brother!", and proceeded to get the whip and beat me with it!?!?

Great story, but why are you unable to address what he asks you?
He is pointing out inconsistencies in your god concept, and you think it is appropriate to tell us some story about your dad? Are you just trolling us?

[Clownboat]

You didn't even attempt to refute my point, which is again:
"Universes with words, but gotta get rid of the sin from Adam and Eve, gotta have me some blood shed."

Clownboat (I like how JoeyK put it) my old nemesis-friend, the Bible makes it perfectly clear as to why the "shedding of blood", .. man started it, remember?

So your god can kill off all life on the planet, even innocent life, because 'man started it'. That's your justification for why a god that can create the universe with words would resort to global genocide? I find it to be a wanting explanation, don't you?

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" but finally God sent His Son as a last blood offering for our sins. So now, it's "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, pray for them that despitefully use you, .. etc." so no more blood for blood, aren't you happy? Isn't God merciful?

No! Your god concept is not merciful. That is one of the points!

But look at all the religions, both theist and atheist go out and still shed blood, and they claim it is to prevent bloodshed, .. right? lol.

So now your god can hand out idiotic and barbaric punishments because some religions of today shed blood? This does not get your god concept off the hook in any way, shape or form.

You keep mixing up religions and their gods with our Creator, and I have explained that error many times to you; that our Creator God "I Am" is not found in any religion. That "religions" have their own gods.

This battle of yours is with dictionaries, not with me. You simply don't understand what constitutes a religion.

Then you accuse Bible-Creator/God of injustice while pointing out the justice and mercy He has shown us by sending His Son into the world to die for us. It's like if you have been charged and sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, then someone sends their own son to take your place, to take all death row inmates places, and you call that injustice.

Yes arian, the Bible god is not just, but this seems off topic.

It's OK, you don't have to accept the offer, it's your choice, but I have to tell you that your ideology is very "unscientific" (bones cracling in graves as proof of your evolution story)

Arian, you have for years now shown that you don't understand evolution, so your charge of 'unscientific' is meaningless.

I just wish for once you could debate without resorting to whining and crying about a big bang or evolution, but that is what all your posts seem to boil down to.
"I don't have a rebuttal for what you say, so I will just make complaints about other topics"

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 348 by Bust Nak]

Yes, it says so right there in the text itself, Isaiah 18:3 is referring to the shape of the Earth, it says it take shape like clay under a seal. Just one of many references to a flat Earth in the Bible.

I probably am having difficulties seeing.
Could you specifically point it out in the text for me?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 348 by Bust Nak]

Yes, it says so right there in the text itself, Isaiah 18:3 is referring to the shape of the Earth, it says it take shape like clay under a seal. Just one of many references to a flat Earth in the Bible.

I probably am having difficulties seeing.
Could you specifically point it out in the text for me?

Yea, come on Bust Nak, the text doesn't say "The earth is flat!". What were you thinking pointing to something that talks about the earth being like a piece of clay that gets squished flat. Come on, nothing similar going on here.

I love this debate tactic: "I don't understand what you just clearly pointed out (because it doesn't agree with my viewpoint). It doesn't say what I want it to say exactly, can you please clarify it for me." Wow.

And just for giggles, here's a sixth reference:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Daniel 4
10 These are the visions I saw while lying in bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Apparently King Nebuchadnezzar was a flat earther as well (though maybe only in his dreams).

Still waiting for a spherical reference. Anything. Dream, myth, prophesy, story, whatever. I'm not so picky.

[Bust Nak]

I probably am having difficulties seeing.

I don't believe you.

Could you specifically point it out in the text for me?

Yes, yes I could. See my post where I already specifically point it out in the text for you, by bolding the text. Repeated here for your convenience.

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal."

Now you can continue to have "difficulties seeing," or you can address my points - the literal reading of the Bible teaches a flat Earth, ancient Hebrew believed in a flat Earth, as per the culture norm of that time and place, brushing that off as just one interpretation doesn't change any of that.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 335 by Talishi]

Satan took Jesus to the summit of a tall mountain where all the nations of Earth could be seen at once. This could only occur on a flat earth. As your altitude (a) increases without limit above a spherical Earth, the area you can see approaches 2*pi*(r+a)^2, or 50% of the area of the Earth, leaving the other half of the world obscured.

Hi T.
That's a good observation.
If you recall, in this post, I took the time to explain why it's not reasonable to pull one scripture from the Bible, and understand it.
If you read verses 1, 5, and 8, you can see that Jesus is in the wilderness.
So the questions we need to ask are,

• Did Jesus leave the wilderness to follow the Devil into the temple, and up onto the roof?
• Did Jesus then again follow the Devil somewhere - perhaps into the wilderness, to go up on an "unuually high mountain"?
• Would that not make Jesus, the Devil's puppet?
• Would it not seem more reasonable that since the Devil was really just trying to get Jesus to obey him, that it likely was in a vision that the Devil led Jesus in?
  This is not difficult for a spirit creature to do, since Jesus at that time is mortal/flesh.
  God himself used a vision to transfigure Jesus, before the apostles. The vision appeared to be so real, that Peter believed he was a part of it. (Matthew 17:1-9).
  That demonstrate the power, of the supernatural.

I think ability and willingness to reason, is essential, if one is to understand scripture.

Are you serious? This is what you consider to be "reason"?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 358 by Bust Nak]

I still do not see any scripture.
I could only guess at why.
Here's my final response.