The Christian God

[POI]

For Debate

1) Is the claim for the Christian God demonstratable? If so, how?
2) Is the claim for the Christian God falsifiable? If so, how?

[1213]

All your described states are still controlled by the hypothalamus....

Why do you expect anyone to believe that?

[1213]

It takes science to tell us about both.

Science is just a method, it says nothing, it is the people who speak. And people are often wrong.

...What do you lose if you're wrong? You go to hell, that's what. Just ask any Muslim.

Actually I would not lose anything in that case, I would gain hell. I can only lose things that I already have.

But, I think Bible God is only one worth to be kept as God, so it really doesn't matter how many gods would you invent. And, I think I have already received many things from God in this life, possible eternal life is only bonus, if God gives it.

...going with the evidence, or making the evidence fit the Faith.

I think all evidence points to Bible God.

[TRANSPONDER]

It takes science to tell us about both.

Science is just a method, it says nothing, it is the people who speak. And people are often wrong.

...What do you lose if you're wrong? You go to hell, that's what. Just ask any Muslim.

Actually I would not lose anything in that case, I would gain hell. I can only lose things that I already have.

But, I think Bible God is only one worth to be kept as God, so it really doesn't matter how many gods would you invent. And, I think I have already received many things from God in this life, possible eternal life is only bonus, if God gives it.

...going with the evidence, or making the evidence fit the Faith.

I think all evidence points to Bible God.

That was a semantic trick. Ok Science doesn't speak. It is a method. A valid one with reliable results hat you and I trust to work every day. That 'people' speck the results makes no difference and was merely an attempt to score a cheap and irrelevant point on your prt. Hoo boy. O Finland, home of Kimi Riekennen, Sibelius and Tove Johnansen, that it can still produce such religious dennialists.

You again play the semantic fiddle. You lose in that you do not win, not something solid you own. And salvation is what you lose and hell is what you suffer, if you wager wrong and Islam is true. Your claim that Biblegod is the only one worthy, gets you nowhere. Allah is Biblegod, too. Just there was a further new testament. That you reject it makes no more difference than the Jews reject yours. And no, the evidence is debatable, which we do here and has not been shown to credibly point to any god, let alone Biblegod.

[fredonly]

For Debate

1) Is the claim for the Christian God demonstratable? If so, how?

Demonstrble? Yes. Facts about the world can be attributed to this hypothetical being. (That's not to say CG (Christian God) is the best explanation for any facts).

2) Is the claim for the Christian God falsifiable? If so, how?

Nope. An omnipotent/omniscient being makes it easy to rationalize anything.

[1213]

Ok Science doesn't speak.

Thank you!

...O Finland, home of Kimi Riekennen, Sibelius and Tove Johnansen, that it can still produce such religious dennialists.

Nice that you know.

You again play the semantic fiddle. You lose in that you do not win, not something solid you own. And salvation is what you lose and hell is what you suffer, if you wager wrong and Islam is true. Your claim that Biblegod is the only one worthy, gets you nowhere. Allah is Biblegod, too. Just there was a further new testament. That you reject it makes no more difference than the Jews reject yours. And no, the evidence is debatable, which we do here and has not been shown to credibly point to any god, let alone Biblegod.

Luckily Quran says that people should believe Jesus, so I should be fine.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

[Data]

For Debate

1) Is the claim for the Christian God demonstratable? If so, how?
2) Is the claim for the Christian God falsifiable? If so, how?

I forgot about the post I'm working on, Is the Bible falsifiable? A quasi-scientific experiment.

First you have to demonstrate what the claim is. Everything is falsifiable: able to be altered or represented falsely: able to be proven false:

[Data]

That only makes the same question. What is 'spirit'? What is love?

Spirit, in this context, from the Biblical Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma means breath, blow. The English pneumatic and pneumonia come from the Greek. It means an active invisible force which produces visible effect. So it can be translated as wind, breeze, breath. It can also mean compelled mental inclination, like mean spirited, broken spirit, high spirits. It applies to beings in the spiritual heavens (as opposed to the physical heavens) such as God, angels, cherubs, and seraphs.

Love is an intense feeling of deep affection; a great interest and pleasure in something; feel deep affection for (someone); like or enjoy very much. The expression God is love signifies his personification of love evident in his creation. God created Michael out of love, all else created through Michael with God's holy (sacred, belonging to) spirit (active force) was a product or perhaps a better phrase, result of, that love. He has a deep affection, great interest and pleasure, enjoyment for his creation.

Apart from human emotions, products of an evolved brain, what are they in terms of a god? How can they be a being, entity and a thing outside human thought?

For the sake of argument let's say created.

How do you validate that? How does one falsify it? Why should one believe it?

Same as anything else; a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions.

I see no good reason, not 'we need it, true or not'; nor any of the apologetics scams like Pascal's wager or 'What if you're wrong?', and certainly not because the Bible says so, as I would not trust it any more than Giuliani on the witness stand.

Oooo, that's bad! Not good. Not good at all. But how do you know it (the Giuliani comparison) is good? Aside from the subjectivity rather than objectivity of the term 'good' how do you establish right or wrong, good or bad? No good reason indeed. Each of us decide what we think is good and what we think is bad. Your estimation of the Bible may or may not be well informed, sophisticated and objective, so, if "you're wrong" and influence, say, 100 people, and as a result those people judge themselves undeserving of God's love, faith in his promises, they lose a great deal. If you're right what would they gain?

[POI]

Luckily Quran says that people should believe Jesus, so I should be fine.

And if the Quran instead says that people should NOT believe in Jesus, then what?

[TRANSPONDER]

That only makes the same question. What is 'spirit'? What is love?

Spirit, in this context, from the Biblical Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma means breath, blow. The English pneumatic and pneumonia come from the Greek. It means an active invisible force which produces visible effect. So it can be translated as wind, breeze, breath. It can also mean compelled mental inclination, like mean spirited, broken spirit, high spirits. It applies to beings in the spiritual heavens (as opposed to the physical heavens) such as God, angels, cherubs, and seraphs.

Love is an intense feeling of deep affection; a great interest and pleasure in something; feel deep affection for (someone); like or enjoy very much. The expression God is love signifies his personification of love evident in his creation. God created Michael out of love, all else created through Michael with God's holy (sacred, belonging to) spirit (active force) was a product or perhaps a better phrase, result of, that love. He has a deep affection, great interest and pleasure, enjoyment for his creation.

Apart from human emotions, products of an evolved brain, what are they in terms of a god? How can they be a being, entity and a thing outside human thought?

For the sake of argument let's say created.

How do you validate that? How does one falsify it? Why should one believe it?

Same as anything else; a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions.

I see no good reason, not 'we need it, true or not'; nor any of the apologetics scams like Pascal's wager or 'What if you're wrong?', and certainly not because the Bible says so, as I would not trust it any more than Giuliani on the witness stand.

Oooo, that's bad! Not good. Not good at all. But how do you know it (the Giuliani comparison) is good? Aside from the subjectivity rather than objectivity of the term 'good' how do you establish right or wrong, good or bad? No good reason indeed. Each of us decide what we think is good and what we think is bad. Your estimation of the Bible may or may not be well informed, sophisticated and objective, so, if "you're wrong" and influence, say, 100 people, and as a result those people judge themselves undeserving of God's love, faith in his promises, they lose a great deal. If you're right what would they gain?

So we have normal human stuff we know about 'spirit' . Feelings, meanings, ethos. Then you add beings in the heavens, which are only faith -claims.

When I ask about how emotions and feelings can be a being outside, 'created' explains nothing. It avoids explanation.

"Same as anything else; a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions." That just leaves you with a personal hypothesis. After that come the questions and testing. Prepare yourself.

Aside the comparison, the Bible is not to be trusted. Neither OT or New. The discussion has gone on for some time and will no doubt go on for some time. It is not left as you suggest, as what each of us decide. It is, as you also suggest, what 100 browsers decide. They are the ones that matter.

You ask, what if I'm right? I watched a phone in from a lady who had pretty much lost Faith but was still fearful of Hellthreat. I have no fear of Hell. Atheism removes that fear. As to the gains, they get you nothing as a guarantee as Islam has a Hell too. Faith in Christianity is no guarantee that one has picked the right faith.

Bottom line, there are people who care about what's true, so fr as we can determine. They want to know, question and discover. I think it's what makes us human. Others who are content with Faith and need to know no more are welcome to it.

[Data]

So we have normal human stuff we know about 'spirit' . Feelings, meanings, ethos. Then you add beings in the heavens, which are only faith -claims.

We know that spirit means invisible active force. Just like we know that the Biblical "soul" is life. Blood. Soul literally means "breather."

When I ask about how emotions and feelings can be a being outside, 'created' explains nothing. It avoids explanation.

Correct. Created is created, being is being, feeling is feeling, emotion is emotion, spirit is spirit, and nothing is nothing. Explanation? We'll work on it.

Aside the comparison, the Bible is not to be trusted.

Even when it says itself that it is not to be trusted? No revelation there.

Neither OT or New.

Define OT and new testament? What exactly is the "New Testament" and how does it differ from the Old? And let me give you some advice. Pulling stuff out of a hat to explain something you know very little about, isn't just a bad idea in science.

The discussion has gone on for some time and will no doubt go on for some time.

You never know.

It is not left as you suggest, as what each of us decide. It is, as you also suggest, what 100 browsers decide. They are the ones that matter.

Well, I . . . uh . . . . What? You lost me there. Browsers?

You ask, what if I'm right? I watched a phone in from a lady who had pretty much lost Faith but was still fearful of Hellthreat.

Then was the accurate knowledge of the Bible pointed out to her? That the soul is the life of any breathing creature and it dies or can be destroyed, therefor can't be literally tortured forever? That the wages of sin is death, not eternal hellfire, that upon death we are acquitted of all sin therefore are not punished afterwards? That a spirit being wouldn't be harmed by a literal fire? That the lake of fire is only symbolic of everlasting destruction, and hell is figuratively thrown there with death? That Jehovah God is, in effect, in hell? That Jesus went to hell and that Jonah thought the belly of the fish would be his hell? That hell is an Old English word that means cover, conceal, and was once an accurate translation of the Hebrew sheol and Greek hades? etc. The common grave.

Knowledge is power. Better than gold or diamonds.

I have no fear of Hell.

Due to all of your knowledge on the subject?

Atheism removes that fear.

Oh [laughs] that. For all you know atheists invented it. The Bible writers certainly didn't.

As to the gains, they get you nothing as a guarantee as Islam has a Hell too.

So does Buddhism, which isn't theistic, which means it is atheistic.

Faith in Christianity is no guarantee that one has picked the right faith.

The only one that can decide whether they have picked the right faith is the one doing the picking. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for everyone else.

Bottom line, there are people who care about what's true, so fr as we can determine.

Really?! I find that difficult to believe, at least as the norm.

They want to know, question and discover.

i don't think so. They want ideology. It becomes a part of them and they spend the rest of their lives, so long as they have the intellectual capacity, to protect and defend that at any cost.

I think it's what makes us human. Others who are content with Faith and need to know no more are welcome to it.

And you are human? You're talking about hell as if you know about it when you don't appear to, is that not faith? Blind faith.

My faith isn't blind.