Proof Of God

[noble dirge]

No. And it's not magic

[hearty leaf]

You being special isn't?

Or is everyone special? 😽

[noble dirge]

Everyone is special in their own way. Just because you have a "spiritual experience" doesn't make anyone different

[elfin sleet]

The human brain is capable of creating absolutely insane experiences. If you’ve ever done dmt or ayahuasca you know just how far down the rabbit hole your brain can go. Attributing things you can’t easily explain or understand to the divine is called the God of the gaps argument and should be avoided. Humans have created roughly 10k gods and spirits throughout our history to explain everything from weather to death. And as we learn more and we fill in our knowledge gaps the realm of the divine shrinks. Just because you can’t explain it now doesn’t mean a human 100 years from won’t be able to.

If you believe then believe. But do not make a scientific statement based on your belief. It’s silly.

[night remnant]

@inner shale

[acoustic cove]

bruh you are trying to burn all the bridges to Jesus

[acoustic cove]

Wait you are not a creationist Pete?

[night remnant]

lol

[acoustic cove]

?

[night remnant]

I am not

[acoustic cove]

oh

then why are you so opposed to abortion?

[night remnant]

I said abortion should always be legal in all cases

[acoustic cove]

I'm just messing with you man just drunk 5 Jamesons and now i'm bored at home as my wife is asleep already 😦

[night remnant]

lol

Are you subscribed to Risky Fil's YouTube?

[acoustic cove]

And the looking for game channel is always dead

[acoustic cove]

no

[night remnant]

He's about to reach 1000 subs

[acoustic cove]

only Risk guy i follow is Pete

[night remnant]

and make partner on yt

he's live on twitch

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfHBgXxCnvNTwBqkD3CDPYA

[acoustic cove]

does he want a shoutout or something?

[night remnant]

https://www.twitch.tv/riskyfil

this is where the risk peeps are RN

[acoustic cove]

If he doesn't have 1000 by tomorrow morning i'll post his channel in my discord

[night remnant]

it'll happen in the next few mins

[noble dirge]

Great now I can have some fun with you.

[acoustic cove]

I'm drunk whoever wants free shoutouts i can do it lol

i'll ping 5k

or make a community post haha

[acoustic cove]

go ahead i won't be too argumentative

@noble dirge Speak to me 😿

[acoustic cove]

how about you stream? i'm bored

[night remnant]

You missed it bro I was on before Fil

[acoustic cove]

i was drinking out

Pete come to the death penalty forum. Apparently you can be pro-life and pro abortion and they are not mutually exclusive or hypocritical

[night remnant]

I gotta sleep brother

tournament tomorrow

[acoustic cove]

good night!

[inner shale]

NO SELF PROMOTING IN MY CHANNEL PETE!

I AM THE AUTHORITY HERE

[hearty leaf]

Thanks for making my point for me (not that I've ever used psychedelics but I'm certainly not opposed to them). Clearly, I wasn't trying hard enough.

[gaunt quest]

I Believe that there is a God because it is too statistically unlikely for any of this to happen with out something or someone

eg big bang

[inner shale]

How can you say something is unlikely if you don’t know if the probability of there is any that the universe could exist

This is an argument from ignorance as you don’t know what starts a godless universe

[acoustic cove]

You winning the lottery is statistically unlikely, but sure enough someone always wins it

[elfin sleet]

If the universe didnt exist or earth didn't form or life didn't evolve or form, then you wouldn't be here to observe the universe or exist.
Therefore the only possible way you would exist would be in a universe where all the conditions coincided and life formed on a habitable planet even if the probabillity was 1 in a googolplex the only possible way you would be conscious and living is if you won the planet lottery therefore the only condition in which you're here to observe your existence is if you won the planet lottery.

You don't have to take my arguments as truth but if you're arguing that the probabillity would be infinitesimal that wouldn't make a difference as i said

[inner shale]

The main thing Is that we don’t know much about the universes origins so to assume that there is a probability less than 100% that our universe had to exist the way it does is to assume the unknown

We know our universe is here so why assume that there was an arbitrary cause

Life on earth however is easily explained by the glove phenomenon

[elfin sleet]

And tbh the assumption that the universe was created due to the big bang which almost fully matches up with our current notion of physics (other than maybe, the start of the bigbang) seems much more probable than an existence of a god creating stuff by some magical power which we don't even know of, can't currently be explained by physics or any type of science and neither is there any proof for it.

[elfin sleet]

Whats glove phenomenon

[inner shale]

If earths conditions fit the glove of life then life will come to observe it

U explained it well

Also it is a misconception that the Big Bang “created” the universe

The Big Bang was simply the expansion of space time that is the last trace of the physical universe as we know it

That simply means we don’t know what came before that

What reality was before it

[elfin sleet]

Ok btw it's not really called the glove phenomenon

It's the anthropic principle

[inner shale]

I’ve heard it called that before 🤷‍♂️

[elfin sleet]

Idk theres no search results on google for it

[inner shale]

Maybe I remembered wrong 🤔

[elfin sleet]

Ya probably

[inner shale]

One sec

[elfin sleet]

Search anthropic principle on google

[inner shale]

Ik what it is

U explained it well

Hmm yea I can’t find it either

Not an official name

[hearty leaf]

Never mind that even probability 0 doesn't mean an event is impossible since a probability can be a limit. Imagine some arbitrary process randomly selects a point from a line uniformly then think about what the probability of selecting a given point is.

[vast girder]

I should just send him my archeology book. But probably wouldn't believe it

Yes. For example- force of gravity. The human (or just the eye)

[calm vault]

I took a shit in the kitchen once

[elfin sleet]

God is real

This proof...

Is irrefutable

He took a shit in the kitchen once

✝️

[calm vault]

Irrefutable. Why would I shit in the kitchen without divine instruction?
I wouldn't. It's a very silly place to evacuate one's bowels

[inner shale]

The god of Christians sure makes no sense

A deism makes more sense than the contradictory Christian religion

[inner shale]

Holy shit…

Get it? 😆

[vast girder]

https://www.gotquestions.org/DNA-Creator.html

[inner shale]

Gotcha questions .org lol

[elfin sleet]

Bruh

Bruh

I still dont know how someone can think that just cause its complex and hard to understand that points to existence of a creator

And when you say that evolution explains that they be like "no, we're too lazy to study evolution in detail so we wil assume what it is and make fun of it despite knowing nothing about it and we will make fun of a strawman constructed from our own ignorance of what evolution really is"

Just because it contains information that means it's made by a creator, wow, what a rational inference.. Just ignoring the possibillity of evolution, wow.. This is what you call generalization but when you do it from such a narrow minded view that the information is biased. Anybody can do this. You see, throughout history, every single instance of real humans I have experienced in my entire life by myself have been in the place / places ABC. Therefore, the most rational inference, based upon my experience, is that no place / places other than ABC is inhabited by humans.

And what do you call information? What is this label specifically given to a few things created by humans? Why can't the sediment in the soil and the archaeological bones and fossils of ancient dinosaurs be information? After all, they convey information and store it too. Ask any geologist or paleontologist if fossils or sediment and ancient rocks convey information. Millions of people have entire careers based on finding things not created by humans and that convey so much information about history.

[elfin sleet]

And someone please explain me why it's not possible for the big bang to have created DNA? Why is it seemingly impossible that over quadrillions and possibly more inhabitable planets in our universe, one planet (we don't even know if there might be more) got some chemicals to react and created the first single-celled organisms? At best the argument will be "See, I can't comprehend how it can happen, therefore it didn't." And "How can a big bang create humans and dna with billions of information that's so impossible and dumb". Well then I ask you, almost every single thing from the big bang leading up to evolution is explained by physics, chemistry and biology. You may deny it because "Well that's stupid!". I agree with you. If you can't bother to research about it, learn about it, or even comprehend it, we should ridicule it and deny the possibillity of it. But well, if you "believe" in cold hard empirical science and the laws constructed by the observation of experiments that are confirmed all over the world, The single unknown is how the big bang started, and even then there are many viable theories, if you research you will find many. Whereas, if you think there must have been a god, I advise you to think as cynically about your own beliefs as you do about others'. Take an example: "There is a flying man in the sky who created humans from his unknown mystical powers. He punishes people eternally for doing extremely malicious and evil things such as, simply not believing in him. Nobody can still agree on who the prophet to deliver his messages to humankind is, and nobody has verified his existence other than from an old book written allegedly 2,000 years ago by allegedly completely trustable people containing allegedly the words of god and allegedly the truth and the truth only." Examine this paragraph and take your own opinion.

Also judge me all you want but i'm really too lazy to respond and argue against fallacious arguments in a risk server whose best understanding of proof is "trust me bro" so i'll leave that job to the other sensible people in this forum

[acoustic cove]

God will punish you

[inner shale]

how dare u

u deserve eternal torture

[unique herald]

Lest see Do we all agreed that everything That we see has a beginning?

[vast girder]

why is it impossible for the Bang to have created DNA. the simple answer is, when something explodes, aka the Big Bang, it creates more chaos. this is evident in any bomb or explosion or impact that we come across in our universe, regardless of cause. Lets look at the first two laws of thermodynamics. 1- The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system's internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. IN ORDER FOR THIS to be true, the universe must have ALWAYS been in existence. The second law- The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.

In regards to the second law of thermodynamics, the evidence lies in our own lives. we, and the things we can create, (mostly all) create heat. I am going to paste the resolution to these two laws and their seeming contradiction here : But this produces a contradiction: the first law of thermodynamics demands that the universe be eternal, while the second law of thermodynamics demands that the universe cannot be eternal. Both laws appear to be fundamental and inviolate, so there is no way one law can be made subordinate to the other. One could hypothesize that in the past one of the two laws did not apply, but that would be a departure from the way in which the natural world is known to operate. The physical world today follows these two laws (and others), so any past departure from how the world now works would have amounted to a non-physical operation. Another word for non-physical is metaphysical. There is no physical mechanism whereby physical processes would suddenly change. In fact, such a change would undermine the underlying principle of physical processes (and makes science as we know it possible). Thus, if physical processes changed at some time, it must have had a cause outside of the physical. That is, the origin of the universe requires a radical departure from how the physical world operates Hence, the origin of the world is beyond the realm of science, as science is the study of the physical, or natural, world, not the metaphysical or the spiritual.

[inner shale]

Ah yes cuz thermodynamics has anything to do with natural selection lmao

Please enlighten me on how transfer of thermal energy has anything to do with how we evolved

[supple saddle]

I don't think the 2nd law of thermo prohibits the universe from being eternal? Entropy cannot decrease but it can remain constant, as one would expect in heat death, no?

I've skipped like a week of this thread admittedly but I caught up on the start and past few days, seems interesting and ironic that the athiests seem to be taking the bible more literally than the thiests (i.e. arguing against a higher power because noah's ark wouldn't work)

I think a distinction should be drawn (if it hasn't already, forgive me for not reading 4117 posts) between 'a higher power' and God specifically. Personally I believe loosely in a higher power but I'm completely apathetic towards the christian God

[supple saddle]

Ok so to elaborate now that my easily distracted mind has put my points together cohererently

So firstly, I think we can agree that religions or belief systems don’t just occur spontaneously, they would require something to inspire believers. This may be a prophet, a miracle, a strange natural phenomenon, etc. Any and all of these could be construed as proof of the religion, certainly by believers, though the quality and validity of the proof may vary. We for instance know that Jesus was a real person, and there’s similar evidence for all manner of religions around the world. When asking if we can prove God, we must ask ourselves if we cannot also prove other gods exist, which I say we can’t. Evidence: every religious war ever.

There’s also the argument that you cannot prove God, and that’s the point of having faith. I get why atheists would consider this a red flag, sort of a ‘I’m real just trust me’, but I think that misses the point. The very point of a higher being such as (but not limited to) God is to be unknowable, if we understood how a higher being worked it would become part of science and no longer a ‘higher’ power. Having faith in a higher power, to me, is believing that ‘everything will turn out okay’ when we don’t know how things will turn out. And that’s fine.

.
I’d also argue that everybody believes in a higher power to some extent. We as humans are, right now, incapable of grasping the nature of the universe in its entirety and things will happen to us which are beyond our understanding. As I said before if we ever did understand them, they would no longer be ‘higher’ powers. Of course there are those who believe in various religions, and some believe in luck or fate, which are the most obvious examples. Now suppose that one religion in particular believed in an all-powerful deity who in a single instance started the entirety of the universe, and has since been following through their plan and orchestrating every moment of reality. That is exactly what the big bang theory and subsequent causal determinism is. I’m not going to call science a religion because I don’t believe it is, but it does seem that in answering an unanswerable question the scientific community have found a higher power of their own, albeit one that is the most consistent with the world around us. That said, the big bang cannot be proven, it can only be shown to be consistent with what we observe in the universe.

So no, I don’t think you can prove that God, or any specific higher power, exists and is responsible for natural phenomena. That said we also cannot prove the big bang. There will always be natural phenomena beyond our understanding, for which the explanation of a god or science could make equal sense. I don’t think your question can be answered.

[unique herald]

There is proof. But to those of you that want to see the proof with your eyes. When that proof comes by that time it will be too late.

[inner shale]

Most Christians say it’s the perfect word of god

We don’t take it literally

It’s is an old book

[inner shale]

Give the proof

[supple saddle]

Idk I know a lot of christians who don't take it literally and do accept that the bible is imperfect.

I also think there's a lot more truth in the bible than people give credit to even if it's not factual, it's an old book but it's also really important and shouldn't be disregarded

[inner shale]

You don’t know many Christians 🤷‍♂️

[supple saddle]

I've been meaning to read it for ages lol I really should

[inner shale]

To say otherwise was “blasphemy” in my church’s

[supple saddle]

no I think I do know who I know

are u in US? I think it's different over there

[inner shale]

Yes the us

Protestant

[unique herald]

Many so-called “Christians” Which for me to be a Christian us to follow Jesus teachings. Many of them don’t actually follow all his teachings so they’re fake Christians.

[supple saddle]

fair, I think the christian vibe is very different here in the UK

[inner shale]

No true Scotsman

[unique herald]

Yep

[supple saddle]

Most probably don't considering how much the bible has been mistranslated by the church

[inner shale]

You know what no true Scotsman is @unique herald?

Cuz u just used it

[unique herald]

No?

[inner shale]

It’s basically a fallacy that involves an appeal to purity

protect their universal generalization of your argument

[unique herald]

I’m trying to be.

[inner shale]

😆???

[supple saddle]

"No true scotsman puts sugar in his porrige" is an example right?

[inner shale]

Yep

In an attempt to protect your argument you attempt to falsify a counter example

“You are a fake Christian if you don’t follow Jesus’s teachings

Many Christians don’t take Jesus litteraly

[supple saddle]

If I recall it's also a christian teaching that only God can pass judgement on people, right?

[inner shale]

Nah

Ever read judges? Lol

God placed ppl to judge lol

[supple saddle]

ah that's fair

wait you mean like judges in a court right?

are they related to the church?

I guess that makes sense if so but also feels weird, unless I'm confused and there's other types of judges or something I just don't know, definitely not my area of expertise

[supple saddle]

also I just realised this is a 'no true scotsman' as well

for what it's worth, doesn't really matter much lol

[inner shale]

when did i tell you what a christian is

just saying that you dont know many dosent mean im giving a criteria for a "true christian"

[supple saddle]

you said most christians say the bible is the perfect word of God
I said that I know plenty of christians who don't
you said that I don't know many christians, implying that the christians I know aren't real christians

so granted it was implied but still

[inner shale]

not what i implied

i was saying most Christians take the bible litteraly

not all

most = over 50%

@supple saddle

[supple saddle]

It was implied from my point of view but I appreciate the clarification

[supple saddle]

technically yes but 50.005% vs 49.995% is negligible, saying 'most' implies much more than 50% imo

[inner shale]

ok im telling you what i meant by most soooo

[supple saddle]

yeah that is fair

[inner shale]

still u dont understand what the no true scotsman is

it is a generalization of all members of a group

not "most"

[supple saddle]

It's excluding a counter-example to defend a generalisation of a whole group, no?

[supple saddle]

The more I think it through I do see the differences between what you said and the other scotsman fallacy the chap said earlier.

Pre-clarification I do think there would have been some fallacy if the implication was that the christians I know 'didn't count' because they contradicted your argument, if not a scotsman fallacy it definitely seems similar, but as you've said that's not what you meant so that's fair enough.

Either way I learned something so cheers for that

(and as an aside and v much as a joke, ask the vast majory of people in the UK if 51.9% should be considered 'most' lol)

[unique herald]

Well my Proof may not be enough for you, but is for me, The world we live in right now spreads confusion And self-destruction. The world the Bible talks about Has a way of taking away confusion and explaining the enemies we have, Who are they and what are their forces, It also explains that the reality we live in And the two sides that are available to us. If you go into this world and you look for information there is so much uncertainty yet the Bible provides all of it all the certainty you need to understand reality and to be a part of it. That is one of my points. My second point is that everything we see has a starts and a ending, So it’s safe to assume that the universe as we know it had a start how did it start it couldn’t just happened all On its own.

[supple saddle]

I respect this. Existence is crazy and any belief system that helps you navigate it is valid.

[unique herald]

I didn’t expect that thank you. There was no need for you to respect me yet you did. I appreciate it.

[vast girder]

well said

[vast girder]

I would say yes, you do have a point. Because the bible is meant to be taken both literally, and with a grain of salt. a great example of this comes from Isaiahs prophecies, which both have come true during biblical times, and will again come true when Jesus returns a second time. So i can understand why you would be confused, because, honestly, even Christians still do not know everything, and we have to rely on our faith and trust in God to fill in the holes we cant explain. The debates between my friends Ken and Dean come to mind. they differ on a LOT of the wishy washy secondary things of scripture, such as how the judgement will happen at the end times, but in the end, they both hug, agree that Jesus is God and has died for their sins (and their disagreements 🙂

[unique herald]

Most people believe that the Bible it’s not a history book it’s just a book of stories. I say the stories are like the stories that our parents tell us just as true as they say.

[inner shale]

if it is just a book of stored why treat it as historical fact

[vast girder]

so, the archeological evidence that supports the existence of places, events, and people means nothing to you? the fact that over 500 eyewitnesses saw Jesus resurrected means nothing? there are several documents that prove the stories of the bible as being real (biggest example is the dead sea scrolls). Why dont you do your research before you toss out the bible as just a storybook

[vast girder]

ABOVE.

[acoustic cove]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are ancient Jewish and Hebrew religious manuscripts

not to mention half of them have been forged

[inner shale]

500 wittnesses?

who

show me where u are getting your info

[vast girder]

1 Corinthians 15:1-11

[fallow thorn]

can we all agree that jesus is a chad

[fallow thorn]

actually no we can't xD

[inner shale]

I can lol

[inner shale]

Why do you take this as truth

You say that 500 people saw him resurrect but can’t demonstrate it

[vast girder]

how do you know this? prove it

[acoustic cove]

It’s been proven. I don’t need to prove facts to you. Why don’t you do your research first?

[vast girder]

show me the evidence. i just did a few minutes of research and there is nothing but opinion pieces brother

[vast girder]

i wasnt there. but eyewitness testimony from eyewitnesses is enough for me. as well as the consistency of scripture across generations without contradiction. there are differing viewpoints on certain events, but that is expected given multiple eyewitness testimony

Ill be honest, I know you dont even want to examine your own worldview, so my conversations with you aren't going anywhere with someone who is closeminded

[acoustic cove]

Consistency without contradictions? Wow

[vast girder]

Thats correct.

[acoustic cove]

Btw even the Bible museum in DC admitted their collection of scrolls were forged after the report what do you mean opinion pieces? 😂

[acoustic cove]

If that were true all bibles would be the same. And all translations accurate to the original.

[vast girder]

They are translated.. which means they will not be the original Hebrew. You ever translated anything bro? No two languages are identical dummy

[inner shale]

the issue is your cant demonstrate that there was eyewitness testimony in the first place

yet u take it as such

[vast girder]

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/?_gl=1*btvgr4*_ga*UlZHRHNBa2JxcmtNaFZJUHZqTWVGc1VSNm9EMmpxdEVIV2U1WHRGc094Vlplcmp0aC1kMmVTTC1qYWlsVFVjeQ..

Read this

[acoustic cove]

Translating slaves to servants for example is the complete opposite meaning 😂 and there is an English word for the original doulos… it’s slave..

Lol how does he come to this inference? 😆

[inner shale]

Read

Now

Answer the question

[inner shale]

.

[sonic field]

But the existence of events, places and people still does not extrapolate to everything in the bible that there is no proof of. You cannot be serious when you say, well x part of y is real so everything in y is real

I mean, sure the flood in the Noah story was a real flood, but that does not prove nor disprove anything related to the validity of the bible itself

[acoustic cove]

There is more writings, “eyewitnesses” and evidence about the Ancient Greek gods than The Bible’s God

With your train of thought they also existed

And are gods

[sonic field]

I mean the whole argument of "the world looks designed" is in favour of the multiple gods idea anyway. The odds that some God can exist, and it is only one God no more is extremely tiny. Couple this wirh the hundreds of god's existent in religions across the world and suddenly believing that the Christian god is the one true God is not really likely anymore is it?

[inner shale]

Lol it was not a real flood because it is impossible

[sonic field]

I mean, it has been proven that around 5000 years ago a massive flood hit the plains of mesopotamia. As jewish, christian and islamic religions all stem from people that lived in that region around that time, and it is described in all three religions, it is very very very likely that those were the same floods, and thus the floods described in the bible were real floods

However, the whole story about noah etc is probably made up

Its like, there was a flood, it was a real flood and it can be proven, but the way it is described in the bible is most likely not how it actually happened

but saying there was no real flood is just ignorant

But also, the fact that there was a flood and that it is described in the bible does not tell us a single thing about the validity of the contents of the bible itself

So even though the flood was real, it does not ''proof that the bible is true'' at all

In contrast to what a lot of religious people would claim

It would be the same as saying Snow White is real because there was an apple in the story and apples are real therefore Snow White is real

[inner shale]

yea

[inner shale]

Still surprised no one has submitted proof

[verbal knot]

Since this thread has attracted a lot of attention, I'll add my 2cents as well.

1. You @inner shale asked for a "proof of God" and phrased the question as if you had a specific entity in mind. Since you didn't provide us any reasonable definition of that entity, it's easy to misunderstand what we're talking about. But well, let's rephrase the vague aim of your endeavor into two sub questions which could then be answered one after another.
2. New question A: Given that a universe's existance could be caused by either external forces or itself, could there be structural qualities that might lead to insights into its specific genesis from within?
3. New question B: What about our very own universe? Of course question B might become irrelevant when question A's answer would be negative.
4. If question A's answer would be negative, we could ask for a less demanding "God" as usually done by asking for extra terrestrial but intra universal powers. And this question would then be comparable to other historical inquiries. The method of choice would then be an inference to the best explanation - like a Sherlock Holmes puzzle. I don't know what evidence we migh have overlooked so far, and what crooked and cooked up "findings" people would produce in such a research project, but so far I guess I've done well with Occam's Razor in comparable situations and would probably use that algorithm-optimization here as well😉

[inner shale]

I’m asking for evidence of the classical definition of a god

Being a thinking agent that created the universe

If u can’t give evidence no point in respondin

[verbal knot]

Since you're the op, you're probably only the rethoric addressee of my comment to your honey trap question. Despite that being said, it might nevertheless help those, who wanna take part in an inquiry regarding the existence of higher powers, by structuring the endeavor 😇

[inner shale]

Uh

All I’m gonna say to that is two words

word salad 🥗

[steep mantle]

Lol

[inner shale]

@steep mantle

u wanna have a go?

[steep mantle]

Nah lol, its pretty clear it would be completely unproductive

I made my points clear, theres things that influenced my conversion but ultimately I accept I hold an absurd position, such is the nature of faith

[inner shale]

Too bad so many people can’t see the Clarity

[steep mantle]

Yeah I could bet maybe 100 messages within this entire thread have any worth, maybe fewer. Like no offense but this seems like a massive waste of time lmao

[acoustic cove]

well yeah but early on we made some distinctions. By God, not referring to anything (science can be god, belief, anything). We focused on a specific higher power "creator" and that being a specific creature. not an idea. You are not wrong, but we did make this distinction a few thousands comments ago. I don't expect you to read them of course I'm just letting you know.

[verbal knot]

Thanks for letting me know @acoustic cove. Indeed the format here comes at an end in regard to functionality - at least without pins😝. So I imagine you went with an outsider creator (at least partially external to its created universe) or would my modified question 4 (internal creator of not the whole universe but only specific parts within) also qualify?

[hearty leaf]

Hey, at least I've had way fewer messages than that in this thread 🤷‍♂️

[acoustic cove]

I am of the other side actually. Pure science.

[verbal knot]

"You" as in you all above in this debate. Didn't want to insinuate any fancy ideas here😉

[acoustic cove]

If you care about what I personally said also I am of the opinion that faith and proof are mutually exclusive. If you know for a fact you can’t have faith in it. You are simply knowledgeable

[inner shale]

Maybe u will find the new thread i made productive 🤷‍♂️

[sonic field]

Found this fitting
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/yn1ixx/percentage_of_population_absolutely_certain_god/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=13&utm_content=share_button

[gray kettle]

It has probably been stated in all of these comments but my greatest form of evidence for God would be the Bible. I’m happy to discuss any conflict you might have with that.

[inner shale]

Go ahead

How is it proof of god

[gray kettle]

It is the words of God and it is the basis for SO many things that matter to mankind IE good and bad, right and wrong etc. as a starting point

[inner shale]

You just asserted that

Prove it is the word of god

[gray kettle]

Correct. Would you agree or disagree. In the word of God, God himself says and defines who he is and the world he shaped. Do you disagree with that?

[inner shale]

I say there is no evidence that it is the word of god

None presented yet at least

So I can’t agree that “god” defined anything

Humans wrote the Bible

@gray kettle

[gray kettle]

But if the God of the Bible said he inspired the humans to write it according to what he wanted then he still achieves what he wants.

I also believe that the complexity of life itself and the design of the universe points to intelligent design. I believe the God of the Bible is that designer

[inner shale]

Ok but that’s not proof you are just saying “if”

[inner shale]

No begging the question

“The design points to design”

U have to prove it is design not assert

[gray kettle]

Right but you have to academically or through a hypothesis say a god or the God does not exist. To assert that one does because he communicated with mankind is a basis to believe. The most intelligent and learned men in history and up to date would all agree whether theist or atheist that “intelligent design” is shown in the making of life itself. That if all of this “existence” was random, the numerical possibility of that is waaaaay outlandish and the evidence of even one persons DNA is too fine a thing to just have happened together by “chance”

[sonic field]

''The most intelligent and learned men in history and up to date would all agree whether theist or atheist that “intelligent design” is shown in the making of life itself.'' - Just because some people thought that something is true does not make it true. For a very very very long time people thought that bugs etc just ''spawned'' from nothing, even the smartest people alive thought that. Does not make it true

[inner shale]

“Say a god or a god does not exist”

Idk what you are saying

Also the notion that most intelligent men believe in intelligent design is fairly wrong

[sonic field]

That if all of this “existence” was random, the numerical possibility of that is waaaaay outlandish and the evidence of even one persons DNA is too fine a thing to just have happened together by “chance”

Just because you cannot imagine something being true does not make it false

thats wrong in so many ways

[inner shale]

Also if you are talking about a point in history where people have limited information I could say the same thing about outdated medical practices

Like bleeding out

Or acupuncture

[gray kettle]

I agree but the same reason we have now is based off of the smartest (or dumbest) people in history. The very science that makes up a AC was developed over time and we accept it as a real reality. If you disagree with some of the greatest scientific and scholarly minds of history then so be it but that was not the point of my comment.

[gray kettle]

Proof? Fairly?

[sonic field]

science is a method of obtaining knowledge. Does not mean that everything a good scientist thinks is true

If you think that is the case you grossly misunderstand what science is

[gray kettle]

How so? We are talking BILLIONS of years (a fact that the world hasn’t existed for that long) unless you think it does, that would be akin to blowing up a printer for millions of years and EVENTUALLY you believe a full sheet of paper containing the names of all plant life will in fact be made is honestly more faith than I have as a theist

[sonic field]

wait how old do you think the earth is?

[sonic field]

again, this is a misinterpretation

and i dont understand the printer analogy

what does blowing up a printer mean ?

i think the analogy makes no sense tbh

[gray kettle]

It is relating to if every aspect of life is “random” or just happenstance then the likelihood of a dictionary coming from blowing up a printer is as likely

[gray kettle]

I personally believe in a young earth but I was speaking g relatively so as to not have people answer “the earth is very old” and divert from the conversation in general

[gray kettle]

How so?

[gray kettle]

I do not think that but I think just saying all the advancements in knowledge and so forth is not thrown aside just cause someone “could” be wrong

[sonic field]

Yeah I mean, there is not really an analogy between blowing up printers and the origins of life really

But I guess purely mathematically speaking, if you have a change, however small it may be, of obtaining significant information (in your example a dictionary) trough some seemingly random (because it is not true random) event (blowing up a printer?), then given enough time and tries it will happen as the probability of acquiring this information through this event converges to 1

[sonic field]

Well your argument breaks down to: ''because smart people think this, it must be true'', which is like the first fallacy you learn in school

[sonic field]

The misinterpretation is that you believe that there is true randomness involved in the origins of life if it is not done by intelligent design

But actually there is not that much randomness involved at all

and so based on this misinformed notion of how you interpret the stance of other people you claim it to be (nearly) impossible

If you truly think that the idea that life or whatever cannot be spontaneously exist due to randomness, I would really like to know what factors in this theory are true randomness

And again, just because one alternative seems unlikely, does not automatically make the other alternatives more likely

thats another fallacy

[sonic field]

Assuming they are independent events* (e.g. either life is created by intelligent design, or was formed spontaneously, but not both)

[gray kettle]

i'm not saying it "must" be true but am also saying what has been discovered has been either on accident or by smarter people and we can bank on what has been given enough trial and error as well as deep thought.

[gray kettle]

im saying that according to the theory that this is either "all random" or "an intelligent designer" that the random theory requires much more faith and belief than a designer who (according to christians) wrote a book and revealed himeself to them throughout history and also sent a man named Jesus to earth to save its people.

[sonic field]

But it is not all random and that is the whole point

[inner shale]

Our universe is deterministic not random idk why you guys keep saying we think it’s random

Can you prove god even exists? @gray kettle

[gray kettle]

How do we know it is not? And are you stating that something or someone designed it?

[gray kettle]

Outside of human faith I cannot "Prove" God exists. I can say that "if" he does he has said he will come back and prove it himself. When he said that he gave one giant book of 66 books and letters and songs that spoke about who he is and what he did, and will do coming soon. But I do not have to prove God does not exist for anyone because he has left enough evidence of himself in the world he gave us.

Also deterministic derives from the fact that it is determined by something or someone. So my question is who?

[sonic field]

What I am trying to get across is that you imply that there are two options 1) either it is random or 2) it is designed. But my point is that what you mean with random is not true randomness, so even if it is not designed, it is still not necessarily random.

You make a wrong assertion about the nature of randomness in our universe and I am trying to explain to you why it is not the case

For example, if you were to assume that the life is not created but spontaneously formed, then this would still go according to the laws of interacting matter and energy, therefore it is inherently NOT random,. though it is still not designed

but you keep saying random random random random

and i am sick of creationists misrepresenting the ideas of ''the other side'' of the discussion

if you dont understand our arguments that is fine, but please stop twisting our arguments

Like, if i perform a chemical reaction, lets say a transesterification, than although the motion of the molecules and the specific molecules that do react with eachother is random, the outcome is predictable, therefore the reaction is not random

i cannot predict which EXACT molecule will react with which EXACT other molecule

but I can make pretty decent predictions about the state of the system as a whole

that is the whole point of my argument

there is nothing inherently random in the origins of life according to the theories I believe

[inner shale]

Ok let me rephrase

Give at least one piece of evidence

To justify the claim

That god exists

[elfin sleet]

I would say that the disproving God's existence is much more difficult than proving God's existence

[inner shale]

indeed

no one is doing that

[elfin sleet]

The moral argument is a good example. Many theists have used this such as C.S Lewis or Peter Williams. I will used Williams logic for this example. --> 1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist 2) At least one objective moral values exists 3) God exists

Moreover, you can find online C.S Lewis' moral argument as it's pretty popular.

[gray kettle]

I would agree. If in fact i could not PROVE God exists does NOT mean he does not. It just means i have yet to be able to PROVE that he does. I would say that scripture or the Bible is evidence from him of who he (God) is and there is a LOT of evidence there. @inner shale

[inner shale]

objective moral values can exist without god

i have objective moral values

and dont use god to justify

[gray kettle]

so what or who made matter to do what it does that is not random then?

[gray kettle]

i agree with that thus I believe that someone or something is orchestrating the non random nature of life itself and all the elements of life on this earth/galaxy

[gray kettle]

How can they exist without God or rather without someone making them? If some human made them then why should i agree or uphold them? Just cause he thinks its morally right? I believe in the right things and in morally good things because gave explicit rules about what is right and what is wrong. So if I do wrong I am going against his law and he says not to do that and it is wrong. I dont want to go against the one who gave me life and grace and mercy. But if a human is responsible for my morality, why should i care? and why should i not just do what ever i want when i want and however i want?

[elfin sleet]

Yes, this may be true. However, the point is where did these objective truth derive from. If objectivism states that this is something objectively true, who are what makes it objectively true. Just because you chose to partake in the truth of it does not disprove that the moral objective truth did not derive from a creator.

[inner shale]

i desire human wellbeing

anything that harms that is immoral

it is objectively true that i base my morals for secular purposes

[gray kettle]

Why? What for? As long as your alive and thrive why does it matter to do good to others?

[gray kettle]

Immoral according to what? not just a "feeling" inside (i believe we feel bad for doing bad or feel good for doing good because thats how we are designed) but a reason you believe besides "thats what my parents or the government taught me"?

[inner shale]

for the same reason i desire food shelter and happiness

it is a biological precondition

[gray kettle]

only one of those is required to survive in the world. And happiness is subjective not objective. What if running red lights and tripping old people brings me happiness, should i do those things? What if inappropriately touching people in public brings me happiness, should i do it? I think it stands to reason that everything that makes me "happy" is also "good" at least not objectively. And everything that does not make me Happy is "bad for me (objectively).

[gray kettle]

nothing in your biology says u must have anything but food and water and sleep to survive. You dont have to care about people or desire happiness (that doesnt bother others)

[elfin sleet]

Adding on to this I would say that a big distinction between humans and other creatures is the presence of morality. There's aren't any biological preconditions or instincts that determine a persons morality. Additionally, aspects of morality tend to change under reformers. Further, you hurt your argument of biological precondition by failing to recognize that certain aspect of morality are learned.

[sonic field]

why should it be ''made'' just because its not random

i dont follow the logic

There is no reason to assume that everything is random if the universe was not created

[inner shale]

if killing increased wellbeing it would be good

but it doesnt

you are fundamentally misunderstanding secular morality

[inner shale]

our biology is very similar which is why most people care about wellbeing

i base my morality on wellbeing so i dont know why you are bringing up other peoples thoughts

your bible condones slavery and i say that is immoral

most people disagree on moral matters

but as soon as i set my standard as "wellbeing" i have an objective unchanging structure

[elfin sleet]

I would argue that if the universe was not created it would seem improbable for it to happen. I have looked to the Big Bang theory and gravitation anomalies and it seems too improbable to me to occurred completely by chance.

[sonic field]

if the universe was not created there is no reason to assume things were random

[elfin sleet]

I think that is a misconception of biblical text. Also, I understand your point to set you standard to well-being. However, my only issues with this is how have you determined what well-being is. In order for this to have happened, there must have been some base objective morality that enabled you to determine what well-being is.

[elfin sleet]

I do not think am following can you reword it.

[sonic field]

well we agreed that true randomness is not present in our universe

[inner shale]

it absolutaly true

[sonic field]

and then someone said because nothing is random i assume the universe is created

[inner shale]

just read the book

[sonic field]

which implies that if the universe was not created, things would be random

but then my question is, why should things be random if the universe was not created

there is no reason to assume things would be random

[inner shale]

you dont need a foundation to define a word

i can define somthing however i want

thats how language works

[sonic field]

just because randomness doesnt exist does say nothing about creation

[elfin sleet]

Okay, I understand your point. However, I claim that without a creator, everything is random. Consider the origin of the universe, the probability of "spontaneous creation" occurring through gravity is low. Moreover, in order for humanity to have began, there is an extraordinary amount of luck involved. If even a spec of our solar system is different, human life would not have been possible. However, I will recognize the opposing view on this. The argument states that if the universe is infinite, there will eventually be a habitable planet that has single-celled organisms all the way to intelligent life. This is a good counter argument to Christian thought. However, I still think that the universe is "too" perfect for humanity to have formed.

[sonic field]

''Okay, I understand your point. However, I claim that without a creator, everything is random''

Yeah sure but I dont understand why you claim this

like there is no basis for this claim other than you saying this

[elfin sleet]

Okay, so if there is no creator, no orchestrator of the universe, how would it have been formed?

[sonic field]

''Moreover, in order for humanity to have began, there is an extraordinary amount of luck involved.''

what luck?

[sonic field]

idk no one knows

but that is not a reason to assume creation

just because we dont know doesnt mean it is god

However, I still think that the universe is "too" perfect for humanity to have formed.

But the thing is that the universe is not perfect at all

[elfin sleet]

Our entire solar system is based on a balance. If the earth was not perfectly located where it was, life would not of possible.

[elfin sleet]

Most people agree on the theory of relativity and as hawking taught "spontaneous creation is possible by gravity"

[elfin sleet]

Explain what you mean by the universe is not perfect

[elfin sleet]

And I don't assume it was god. There is no good answer to the Irgun of our universe. Even hawkings theory has holes in it. The idea of creator seems more likely than the randomness of creation.

[sonic field]

There are literally billions of planets in our universe with similar conditions, our solar system is not special in any way

[sonic field]

Idk what you mean

[sonic field]

Well there are a lot of things that could be better, especially within life

Many things are inefficient

[sonic field]

so you assume it is god

because something else is ''too unlikely;';

[elfin sleet]

That is a fair point. There are billions and billions of planets in the "habitable zone".

[elfin sleet]

I mean, I would say that the complexity of nature would point to a designer. However, there is other answers. I just find the other answers don't make as much sense personally. But I am willingness to agree to disagree on this one since there is not clear answer to creation claim.

[elfin sleet]

You would have to explain this one further

[sonic field]

yeah i guess for me creation doesnt make any sense. So in some way we are in the same boat

[sonic field]

for example that changing energy to another form is not perfectly efficient

if a universe is designed, why would you design it that way

does not make sense to me

[elfin sleet]

Haha fair enough.

[elfin sleet]

Doesn't make sense to me either.

[sonic field]

i dont see how ''creation'' would be a better explanation

I dont understand the philosophy behind:

''things don't seem random therefore i think it is created'' becuause it assumes that if things were not created it would be random

[gray kettle]

It is made because random is equal to chaos and determined order comes from a determiner so to speak

[sonic field]

but there is no reason to assume things were random if the universe was not created

[sonic field]

yeah but there is no logic ther

like one statement does not logically follow to the other

it assumes that ''randomness'' needs to be the case without creation

which is not true

[gray kettle]

I don’t misunderstand it. I actually believe it is not founded on “secular” thinking as opposed to borrowed from “religious” practices and beliefs to the point where it has been cherry picked to the point of “I like this and don’t like that” so now I will be moral about certain things and not others cause I feel like it or society says I have to.

[inner shale]

If I used your Bible as a moral guide I would be stoning gays

[sonic field]

to put it differently, randomness and creation are not mutually exclusive, neither are non-randomness and spontaneousism (or however to call it idk the right english word)

[gray kettle]

That is a very scary, brutal, and uncaring world if that where to become this world

[inner shale]

Yea but it’s morally ok to own slaves according to your Bible

[gray kettle]

Where does it condone slavery?! As in says slavery is good and should be done?

[inner shale]

Have you not read your own holy book?

Wow

[sonic field]

i mean, when most of the old testament was written, slavery was a quite normal concept

[inner shale]

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

[elfin sleet]

I mean, without a creator, the universe is one big probability.

[gray kettle]

Well-being is subjective. For example. My well being is in the best place possible if you @inner shale deposit 5000$ into my bank account every month for 60 years. As someone who mutually cares about well being you need to fulfill this, no?

[sonic field]

but why??? that is what i cant follow

there is no logic why it should be just one big probabilty without a creator

[inner shale]

We aren’t discussing individual well-being

[gray kettle]

I agree with this position. Especially since a bang of this degree has not happened since the last one.

[inner shale]

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Don’t tell me morality comes from god when he commands this

[gray kettle]

Exactly

[elfin sleet]

I mean scientifically, isn't everything in nature related to probability. Such concepts like evolution from single called organism. Similar to Darwinism, which is somewhat still probability. And the reason that the universe is broken down to probability is because it's mostly mathematical.

[sonic field]

You guys do understand that the big bang theory does say nothing about the creation of the universe right? It is only talking about the young universe (~ thousands to hundred of thousands of years after the start of the universe)

[inner shale]

No

[gray kettle]

How so? Can you give examples or evidence of this claim. If not for any other reason than to show me that my faith in a deity is flawed because of my own misunderstanding.

[gray kettle]

Well yes, right. If NOTHING is random then everything is determined. Am I misunderstanding this?

[elfin sleet]

Yes, but for the universe to be fully formed, wasnt the Big Bang necessary? Correct me if I'm wrong. Im not completely educated on this subject l

[inner shale]

You believe in a “moral” god
A perfect god
You also say slavery is wrong
Yet your perfect moral god condoned it

That is one of the most backward things about Christianity

[sonic field]

the big bang is not a synonym to the start of the universe though

thats where there is a misconcept i guess

[elfin sleet]

Okay, I need to do more research on this topic.

[sonic field]

the big bang is a theory about the time just AFTER the start of the universe: e.g. the young universe

[elfin sleet]

God does not condone slavery though

[gray kettle]

If things happened by “chance” then it didn’t happen for a reason. If a billion atoms flew around till eventually some collide and then some collide exactly the way to create space and matter and then planets and galaxies and suns and this exact planet exactly far enough away from the sun to sustain life and each organism has a dna structure that just happened to be what was needed to make a living organism and then we show up eventually (able to eat and breath and drink on this planet) and we all have the EXACT necessary reproductive organs and so forth to reproduce. Obviously there are time gaps but as a brief example: all those things just “happened” to be exactly what they needed to be? Without a predeterminer to decide these things exactly then the person who believes that has more faith than I do.

[inner shale]

Is the Bible’s gods word?

[elfin sleet]

Okay. Then the origin of the universe started with the colliding of Antimatter because of gravitational forces. Or was that the Big Bang

[gray kettle]

Except the ones who claim to know I suppose.

[elfin sleet]

Sure

[sonic field]

Quite a long sentence. The idea is that through the laws of the universe (e.g. the way matter and energy interact) make that things are inherently not random. So yeah particles/energy waves collide and form structures. That is not something very special imo

i dont see how from that it logically follows that it must be created

[inner shale]

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites.

Why don’t you actually read your book

You don’t know what your own Bible says

[sonic field]

there is no single scientific evidence for the start of the universe, so no one knows

[sonic field]

but the misunderstanding you have is that the ''big bang'' was one single event, but it is not

it only describes the universe at the very start of it, just after it was created

it says nothing about HOW it was created

[gray kettle]

But what about exhausting all resources for research purposes. Science has gone so far and (as one example) a Christian says the Bible holds the answers. Even if a person concluded that a maniac god of the Bible made everything and that where true then by definition that god created everything and is a maniac and woe is me. But if whatever god of the Bible didn’t create it then being upset at elements of the Bible that feel wrong is irrelevant or at least as relevant as being upset at Voldemort in Harry Potter because the book is pure fiction.

[gray kettle]

Logic doesn’t have an answer to a seemingly miraculous event.

[elfin sleet]

Okay it's clear I am really uninformed

[inner shale]

@gray kettle started ignoring me when I brought up your gods moral system?

Orrr

[gray kettle]

Why would you do that vs forgive and ask for forgiveness. Mercy to others where you have needed mercy. Love where you have received hate. Grace where others have judged. Your talking a entirely different context with an entirely different people.

[inner shale]

Different people same god

[elfin sleet]

Okay so, your claim that slavery in Leviticus was condone is true. However, you may be a little uniformed Leviticus 19:33–34:
"When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

So sure you may make a claim that ancient Israelites condoned it

But they also were forbade against treating them less than human

[gray kettle]

That is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. Historically Bible believing men where instrumental in abolishing slavery in the United States. This claim is not only inaccurate but also unfounded aside from blind ignorance or hatred.

[elfin sleet]

Looking at ancient slavery, it seems closer related to servants than that of the Atlantic slave trade that was much more ruthless

[inner shale]

Yet you can own them and beat them

[gray kettle]

I try to read it daily but I do forget or get too busy from time to time I admit.

[inner shale]

It doesn’t matter how we abolished slavery you are ignoring the fact your god condoned it

That alone is enough to drop your Bible and run

[gray kettle]

So do you know the definition or the context of these passages? These are where we get the context of indentured servants. After 7 years ANY slaves or “bondservant” was to be freed and helped back home or offered a permanent place to stay with them.

[inner shale]

Bro…

[elfin sleet]

Plus, I am pretty sure it never said beat

[inner shale]

Kinda sad I know more about the Bible than you

Servants were Israelites

It was a 7 year servitude to pay off debt

Foreigners were the slaves

[gray kettle]

That’s dodging my friend because each of these issues stems from an individuals well being.

[inner shale]

Once again you need to open your book

Exodus 21

[gray kettle]

Condoning and allowing are two different things. Also you don’t know the context behind what your claiming with is a terrible mistake during a mutual beneficial conversation.

[gray kettle]

Is that the only thing you know about it. And arguably someone told you this and you bandwagoned with no context as to what you heard and decided it was wrong.

[elfin sleet]

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.(R

Simply doesn't condone it

[inner shale]

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

[inner shale]

Bro

Read it

[gray kettle]

These are bondservants or indentured servants this is NOT equivalent to the slavery you understand from American history.

[inner shale]

They aren’t punished if the slave recovers in 2 days

[gray kettle]

How and why would you assert this or know that I don’t know?

[inner shale]

Bro read the damn verse

Listen

Servitude is limited to Israelites

[gray kettle]

Scientifically that is true. Biblically it says God spoke and then creation came.

[inner shale]

Slavery is for forginers

Read the verse

[gray kettle]

I’m not ignoring I’m catching up?

[inner shale]

“You may own them for life”

“They are your property”

[inner shale]

Because you have demonstrated this to me several times

[inner shale]

With statements like this

[gray kettle]

Again. Condoned and allowed are two different things and he also offered protocols towards these people to be treated fairly and with love. I also gave examples of when they where to be released. And also what they were known as.

[inner shale]

No they are EXACT same thing

The are synonyms

It doesn’t matter

Cuz god “allowed” slavery

[gray kettle]

This was ANY indentured servant as well as slave. And later on it spoke specifically about men being equal. And you have not spoken about Biblical men going against modern slavery to have it abolished in America???

[inner shale]

Have you not read the verse

READ IT

may be your slaves FOR LIFE

they are YOUR PROPERTY

[gray kettle]

Wait so allowing evil to happen is evil in your eyes? If so then you are not a fan of free will.

[inner shale]

you may bequeath them to your children

[inner shale]

Stop deflecting

Your god is directly telling the Israelites that they can OWN SLAVES

AND BEAT THEM

[elfin sleet]

““An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭NIV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/111/exo.21.26-27.NIV

[inner shale]

Yea ik about the eye thing

[elfin sleet]

Ik

[inner shale]

As long as you aren’t destroying eyes your good

You can beat them all you want as long as they don’t die

[elfin sleet]

Well no, because the entire Jewish law was built on fairness. Whatever is done to the "slave" is done to the master.

Eye for an eye

[inner shale]

Absolutely not

Exodus 21:21

Read your Bible

[elfin sleet]

But then I could point to the same verse I just pointed to

[gray kettle]

So you think the context of this is the exact same as what?

[elfin sleet]

And the would contradict your claim

[inner shale]

Ok yea you can beat them but if you knock out a tooth or eyes they leave

[gray kettle]

Do you know the point of the laws given at the time?

[inner shale]

Don’t even start with the “god allowed Evil for them to learn

I’m gtg now I suggest you read your Bible and stop ignoring unfavorable parts

It’s what helped me leave this poisonous religion

Read the whole thing

Cover to cover

And think criticaly

Did an omnipotent perfect being inspire this?
Or was it some old tribes that wanted control

[gray kettle]

I will offer my thoughts after reading ALL of the context. I advise that you read everything as well and not cherry pick what you think is right and wrong and figure out what is the reason why certain things happened.

[gray kettle]

Just jotting these down as references to what I am reading.

Exodus 21:16 I am reading all of the context not just that verse.

[gray kettle]

Actually all of exodus 21 for starters in totality.

[inner shale]

I’ve read the entire Bible

[inner shale]

Galath finds that funny

[steep mantle]

I do lol

[gray kettle]

Reading and understanding are two different things

[inner shale]

Ok then

I was a Christian lol

I would have died on it

[sonic field]

lol yeah same until i started to learn about the world around us

[gray kettle]

What happened?

[gray kettle]

What about the world changed your mind to believe that we come from nothing and go to nothing.

I have learned a lot of context behind being a bond servant in the old and New Testament as well. Perhaps we could do a discord chat (as in a voice mail channel) if not then I will begin the walls of text that I have found but I believe a chat would be more beneficial.

[verbal knot]

Maybe a re-interpretation of „Christian“ and its fundamental terms could help someone to stay Christian despite giving up on the fairy tale part of Christian Dogma and the over-blown power fantasies in regard to JHWH ?

Although, in my experience, most Christians don’t even know what their declarations of belief actually contain or are supposed to include - so even a profound modification of fundamental aspects could go unnoticed by the majority 😇

[inner shale]

I grew up

[inner shale]

Evolution
Carbon dating
etc

[sonic field]

Well, doing a chemisry degree you learn a lot about the fundamental principles on which our universe works. Many of the things that are "explained" through god can easily be explained without needing a god. Couple that with learning about the history of religion and the fact that multiple religions exist and suddenly Christianity is not so "obvious" anymore

Even if you believe in (a) god(s) there is no reason to assume the existence of one God over the existence of other gods

[elfin sleet]

Well I would argue on those specific subjects that there are certain Christian views that accepts Evolution and Carbon dating.

[elfin sleet]

I do think you bring up a valid point. However, Christianity is fundamentally different there other religions. In majority of the structure of religion, the prosperous ending or "heaven" is achieved by a person's action. Christianity, on the other hand, argues that humanity is imperfect and cannot achieved heaven alone.

[sonic field]

I agree, but that would result in believing in god for the purpose of believing in a god as the sole reason. Which may be a viable way of faith for you, but it is not for me

[elfin sleet]

Of course there are explanation to the natural word that are attributed to science. However, many scientists in the past also held the belief that a God or gods existence. Additionally, there are things that cannot be explained by science. For example, there are many theories about the origin of universe (Quantum tunneling or geocentric). However, these arguments are not compelling because they ignore that the nothingness has no properties. Such as a quantum field that attempts to explain the creation. However, I would ask, how was the quantum field there. And further, how can nothingness hold properties to create 'something'.

[sonic field]

Many people believe in (a) god(s) because they were brainwashed as children, not because they have thought critically about their position. That is probably my main issue with religion in general.

[elfin sleet]

I agree. I would not use this as a rational attempt to prove 'God' exists.

[sonic field]

I understand your point, this is what I believed for a long time myself. ''Not everything we can explain so there must be something else'' is basically what it breaks down to as an argument. But the problem with this argument is that just because you don't know something, does not mean it has to be a god

[elfin sleet]

Personally, I do agree with this. I think that majority of 'religious' people have not challenged their views. This is why many academics have seen Christian's as delusion. However, there are also a great many thinkers that believe in a God. And these people bring up valid arguments.

[elfin sleet]

And my counter to this would be that just becuase some things can be proved without a God, does not mean that there is not a God.

[sonic field]

I just never have heard a good argument in favour of (a) god(s) (I dont want to single out the Christian one as for me they are all the same concept). Personally, my time as a believer was probably the worst time in my life on the mental perspective

[sonic field]

Oh yeah I totally agree

I just don't see what believing in a god does for someone that is so special that their whole life revolves around it

Also, if you start learning about the origins of religion etc, it is almost impossible to accept the bible/quran/whatever biblical text as the word of god

And without the bible, religion starts to fall apart quite fast

[elfin sleet]

I attempted to lay out the moral argument in the beginning of this forum. However, I encourage you to look at some good Christian thinks such as William Craig. They have much better explanations than I do. Further, I only attribute my knowledge of theism to Christianity because that the 'religion' that I am associate with.

[elfin sleet]

I am curious about this one could you explain it further.

But I do not believe it's possible to prove the existence of God. I believe there is some proof. This is open to debate by theists and atheist. However, I would conclude it is impossible to fully prove God exist. I also claim it's impossible to prove he doesn't exists. And I think this is something we can both agree on.

[sonic field]

Yeah no it is impossible to prove either way, I agree on that.

But I dont believe there is ''some proof'' for the existence of god either

i firmly believe there to be none

[sonic field]

yeah ill come back to it after i finish my dinner

[elfin sleet]

Okay. I understand that. Back to the conversation about the origin of the universe. I found some philosophers logical proof and would love to hear your thoughts on it. He states it's not possible to prove God exists rather prove that he is the best option out of the others. His 4 premises include 1) there are things which come into existence 2) Everything which comes into existence is chased to exist by something else 3) there cannot be an infinite series of past causes 4) therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence

There's no rebuttal so I figured I would get someone's else's thoughts on it.

[dense flicker]

kalam cosmological argument

Interesting note-- it's been proven in mathematics that there are true things that are not provably true.
Not super applicable obviously

[sonic field]

Alright so the Abrahamic religions (judaism/christianity/islam) have their roots in the same cultures, so for this purpose I will refer to them as being one ''religious group''. So in the bronze age, there were many different cultures around the Levant and Mesopotamia region, that probably have been settling there with their respective cultures since around 10.000BC (so 12000 years ago). In this time, writing was not yet invented so it is only natural to assume that the start of these religions/cultures were stories told from generation to generation. In the bronze age, there started to be a lot of ''international'' trade (though international is a bit misleading as there were not countries back then). This trade also coincides with starting of big time wars, and merging of various dominant cultures throughout these regions. Basically, all of the religions at this point were polytheistic and a lot of different gods were present to ascribe natural phenomena to. So throughout this point in history, many of the cultures started to mix and take religious practices and influences from eachother. Among these were Canaanites (later Punics), Egyptians, Babylonian, Hittites etc. At some point during this time, the Canaanites started to transform their religious beliefs from a polytheistic religion to a religion where they do have multiple gods, but only one that were really special, sort of like the ''main'' god, later known as Yaweh. From this so called monolatristic religion where only one god was worshipped, a branch-off happend that resulted in the origins of the modern Abrahamic religions, starting with Judaism. (1/2)

So knowing this, to me claiming that your bible/quran/torah whatever is the one ''true'' word spoken by god himself seems strange, as it is a combination of many different cultural and religious practises from various cultures that naturally evolved over thousands of years to where it is presently. This either implies that none of this can be the ''true'' word of god, or they are all the ''true'' word of god.

Because I don't follow the logic where the religions as they are now are ''true'' but their predecessors are not. As a lot of the practises and beliefs are similar or the same. So either both are true or none are true.

I hope that makes sense

And frankly ther is probably a lot that happened between 10.000 and ~3000 BC but as there is no written history there is no way to actually know

So yeah, you may not agree with me, but I hope you understand where I am coming from

When I claim that it is almost impossible to accept the bible as the word of god

[elfin sleet]

Yes, that was a good explanation. I have heard of some of the point you brought up. However, you go into great detail. I don't have enough knowledge on that to create a stance in it. Personally, I do not consider the Quran in the same "religious" groups as Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are both follow the same God. And Jesus is accepted as the fufillment of the Tanakh as the destined messiah. With the Quran, I think of it as a different religion due to its opposition of certain Christian principles.

[elfin sleet]

I understand where your coming from.

And I think I will look into it a little more deeply

[dense flicker]

I would argue that some practices are the same because they are intrinsically understood by humans, and the reason for our intrinsic understanding is because their meanings are rooted in objective truth. Take sacrifice, for instance. Humans have always understood that sacrifice held meaning, and nearly every culture has respected it in some form.

In the Old Testament (and pretty much everywhere else in the world) that refers to priests offering living sacrifices. This is fulfilled in the New Testament with Jesus, who is both the priest and the sacrifice.

In modern culture, self-sacrificial stories often hold the most emotion

[elfin sleet]

Yes I agree with this description. As a question, what was the sacrificial practices of other religions around the same time period? I've read there have been certain practices around sacrificing children and other humans. However, were there other sacrifices similar to those shown in the Old Testament?

[dense flicker]

Sure, for one there's Egyptian culture. I don't know specifics but I know they had priests that offered sacrifices to their gods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice lots of stuff here

[elfin sleet]

Alright thanks. I'll go through this.

[dense flicker]

I think the strongest evidence for God's existence is the human recognition of meaning in the world

But I have to leave in three minutes and do not have the time to elaborate

[sonic field]

Yeah I woudl advise you to do this. Not for the purpose of religion, but just because it is very interesting point of history 😄

[sonic field]

And about the quran, it has the same origins as the bible/torah and much of the old testament part is the same. They are considered by theologians as Abrahamic religions. I'd say it is similar on the same way that urangutans, humans and chimps are related. Obviously chimps and humans are more related but urangutangs are still great apes

[elfin sleet]

Haha of course. I find all this interesting anyway.

[elfin sleet]

I suppose that makes sense for classification purposes. And the analogy makes sense.

[sonic field]

Yeah, it involves the start of agriculture and civilization as well as the start of using metal and invention of writing

a lot of human progress in relatively little time

very cool

[gray kettle]

I would agree to a point. Saying that A God exists and saying no God exists is two entirely different things. I think science compliments Theology. Christianity is the religion and belief I believe to be the only accurate one and only truthful one.

[gray kettle]

I agree except for where carbon dating is self admittedly flawed due to the lack of scientific advancement of the current age.

[gray kettle]

You don’t only have to believe in god for the sole purpose of believing in god (I would argue that has many flaws) a Christian does not believe in God because he has to or “must” he or she does because the “evil” of the world has been something they have contributed to in there lifetime (called sin) and God is Just to punish sin with death. However God saw fit to send his son to die and pay the price for sin and belief in what he did and who he is is what will grant salvation. Nothing in a persons life can scrub away the “bad” things that have been done and no amount of good will out weigh the bad. Ever. So the NEED for redemption and salvation from this sin is felt by everyone. Jesus according to the Bible is the only one who offers this freely.

[small cradle]

This is still popular? Really?

[gray kettle]

Brainwashed is a strong term I believe. (Granted in some cases this actually happens and is terrible) but every functioning family grooms there young to be who they grow up to be. Whether it’s table manners, not hitting someone, sharing, saying “yes ma’am or no ma’am” these are attributes groomed into the child by the parents that some would not frown at. Right? So I’m theory if a parent taught a kid: Treat others with love, respect, kindness, and honesty. Be gracious and forgiving, be calm tempered and long suffering, put others desire before yourself. Seek to fulfill your goals by helping others achieve there’s. Eat hearty and share what you have left over. Etc etc I don’t know a single person on the planet that would say “wow what a terrible parent for teaching there children these things.” Right?

[gray kettle]

I concur

[gray kettle]

I agree but to that same point you cannot definitively say as well that it is not God either.

[gray kettle]

Wait why is that?

[gray kettle]

Agreed

[gray kettle]

True I do not agree and that is a big gap that can be seen and explained in the Old Testament (not exactly year to year kind you) but it describes why the canaanites and Israel where at odds…not one becoming another?

[gray kettle]

The Quran is VERY different than the Bible and is as close to the Bible as is Iron man and SpongeBob

I would also resource cross examined as well. The scientific end discussed is really great information. He debated hitchins as well I believe. The discussion is solid.

Nabeel Qureshi Is a great resource for the differences and context of Quran vs Bible as well.

[sonic field]

You may believe this, but if you drop your religious beliefs for 1 second you will see that outside of how you were raised or what you were taught as a child, there is no reason to believe in your god over any other

[sonic field]

I mean, I am raised christian, you dont have to explain to me how god/the bible works. So you are saying you believe in god so jesus can wash away your sins?

[sonic field]

Alright, indoctrination is a better term? ''A process of teaching a person a set of beliefs uncritically''

Anyway, what you are saying is that teaching kids about religion is similar to teaching them manners. Well they are royally different. Manners only teach you verbal and non verbal interactions that you require to live alongside other people. Religion tries to teach you how to live your life and what you should and should not do. They are not the same at all.

Moreover, anyone should be able to critically assess their opinion on religion voluntarily. If you get raised christian with the idea that non-christians will go to hell or whatever, that makes it impossible to think critically about your position

and it can scar children for life

teaching them manners does not scar them for life

[sonic field]

i explained after. Just read

[sonic field]

here

[sonic field]

im talking historical evidence, not what is described in the bible. You cannot take the bible and say it is historical evidence for what is described in there. That only works for secondary or tertiary sources. So for example when the Romans describe Jesus, we can be pretty sure Jesus existed. But when the old testament describes something from a very long time ago where they did not write yet, you cannot take it as a historical fact

It is a fairytale that you choose to believe in, but as evidence for any historical event it is not reliable in any way

[sonic field]

nope, but specifically the Christian, Jewish and Muslim god are the least likely, under the assumption that gods can exist

Because it is a really big leap from no gods to 1 god. But if you assume that one god exists, there is no reason to assume multiple gods exist. Every religion in prehistory was based around polytheism too. Purely probabilistic speaking, the odds of our universe having multiple gods is more likely than having one

So to claim that your god is the only true god and the rest is false or whatever makes no sense

The only sense it makes is to you because you are indoctrinated with the idea that you are right

If you would try and place yourself in the shoes of someone who is not Christian (so atheist or any other religion) you would understand that there is not a single reason to believe your god is ''better'' than any other

Anyway, I liked discussing with Cowan as we got an actual good conversation. With you I have a hard time as I feel you are ridiculing me for my point of view, for the sole reason that they do not allign with yours. Can't have a proper discussion because ''i am right and you are wrong'' mentality

[gray kettle]

I actually found a “higher power” “creator” or God as I know him by BECAUSE I was faced with the fact that if “objective” or “absolute” truth exists ANYWHERE then someone or something made it or designed it to be true. If not the EVERYTHING is subjective and relative and I should just be allowed to do what I want when I want with 0 repercussions. When I challenged that way of thinking it slowly led me to my faith over time.

[gray kettle]

The price for sin was paid for yes.

[gray kettle]

I respectfully disagree. Teaching someone how to interact with others IS teaching them what they should or should not do. With themselves or with others. The same is true to “indoctrination” of road Etiquette as well as proper dress in public. You don’t “have” to obey these things but it is accepted as wrong if you don’t because it is widely taught this in a society. My question stems from “where did society get these rules?” And if the answer is someone or some culture older than they. Then a further inquiry would be where did they learn them etc etc.

[gray kettle]

The doctrine is stated that sin has a price and that if you do not find yourself in the family of God then you have then chosen not to be. It is not a forced outcome. It’s “accept that if you live a life one way or the other they both have different destinations”

[gray kettle]

That opinion is held by many and that is okay but at the end of the day both sides (theist and atheist) have to concur that at this point and for a very long time “proof” is not held by either side just evidential examples that can be believed or not.

[gray kettle]

It makes sense if the “god” you claim to follow says it is true. Then you test the truth claim vs the “religion” or “belief system proposed by that god. If self defeating ideologies are found or utter false claims then it objectively is easy to find that truth to be (possibly good natured) but wrong

[gray kettle]

Better implies there is “another”. Which as a Christian you have 0 reason to believe. But as a non Christian which I stated I came from being (I sought knowledge wisdom and truth) I wanted to know what and who was right. And after research I easily found atheism to be something I could not believe as well as looking into other religions I found gaps, holes, self defeating arguments, or just false claims. So naturally when I found and truly began understanding Christianity I was more than just a “drink the coolaid” Christian. I asked questions and challenged ideals. And continue to be a Christian despite my MANY flaws

[gray kettle]

How have I ridiculed you? I feel as though I have conversed and asked questions back and forth vs just said “you’re wrong and I’m right.”

[sonic field]

Maybe I just misunderstood the way you said things. Friendly reminder I am not a native english speaker, and though I am quite fluent, some implicit things in the English language will never come natural to me.

Its the way you phrase things that would be considered rude I guess

but that might also just be me

so I apologize if that was not the case

[sonic field]

This is only true under the assumption that something objective must be designed. Or rather that something that is not designed cannot be objective. But if that is what you believe than I can understand your viewpoint

[sonic field]

I respect your position

[sonic field]

I was more aiming at the idea that for a lot of people raised religious (not necessarily christian for that matter), are not allowed to challenge their beliefs without getting outcast by their friends/family etc.

[sonic field]

Yep, i totally agree.

[sonic field]

Yeah so from my pov, there is no reason to believe in your god over another god or gods. Also, atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief. Strictly speaking, no one can belief in atheism as it is not a belief system as e.g. religion.

[inner shale]

Two definitions of atheism

One is someone who believes there is no god

The other is someone who lacks belief in a god

So depends on what you mean

You could “believe in atheism” under the first definition

[inner shale]

Truth is a value of propositions how can any truth exist without the concept existing?

[gray kettle]

Why do you say no reason? And this discussion is not “which god” it is essentially “is god real or does god exist?”

[gray kettle]

Lacks beneath is not the definition. Respectfully just inserting your own opinion is not logical fact. It’s okay to have an opinion but not to say essentially “I don’t believe you cause I don’t believe you”

[inner shale]

So

That’s what we are saying we are

Whether it is the definition doesn’t matter

[gray kettle]

A-theism means no god so one who believes there is no god

[inner shale]

It is the definition but even if it wasn’t we are telling you what we believe

[gray kettle]

Definitions matter very much and if they don’t matter this conversation becomes very trivial and immature very quickly. Because the. We stop basing decisions on logic and on personal leaning.

[inner shale]

Ok we are telling you our definition

[gray kettle]

Lacks belief meaning doesn’t have it so it’s synonymous

[inner shale]

So we call all just use that definition within discussion

[inner shale]

Yea

[gray kettle]

There is not 2 definitions of atheism though?

[inner shale]

There is an array of definitions anyone can use

All that matters is the one we are using

As long as we agree we can discuss on it

[gray kettle]

So then for the sake of the discussion pick one for the topic and don’t pick one that suits the argument in the moment.

[inner shale]

Ofc I never have

I lack belief in a god

So I call myself and atheist because that fits the definition

[gray kettle]

There is not an array of definitions or weather “meanings” of atheist. You either believe, don’t believe, or are not sure. Theist, Atheist, Agnostic. So forth not some variation of theist atheist agnostic. That’s illogical

[inner shale]

Oml

I’m telling you what I believe

Let’s move on

[gray kettle]

Which means you don’t believe in god. Yes I concur. But to say you don’t believe in any god just because you have a perspective about one religion would be fine however little research has been put to a higher power, let alone the “God of the Bible” so fine for the sake of the argument—that god doesn’t exist (this is not my position) so then there is no god or you just don’t believe in the god of the Bible. Which however bad, wicked, cruel etc the god of the Bible is you would have to prove he doesn’t exist for your claim to be accurate (aka atheism) he could exist and he could be as terrible as you think and then that would be mankind’s reality.

[inner shale]

I don’t believe he exists

I don’t believe he doesn’t exist

Does that make sense?

I don’t say “there is no god”
I say “I have no evidence there is a god”

Open to the evidence but to this day I have found no good evidence

[gray kettle]

Not “wanting to believe the God of the Bible exists” is not the same thing as “he does not exist”. I can respect either points suffice it to say the “truth claim IE (God does not exist)” is proven. You can have the opinion that evidence doesn’t exist that he is real but then you would have to disprove (not agree with) that the evidence say towards the Christian God that the Bible is a false document meant to lead millions astray and randomly has done some good in mankind’s history (or something to that effect).

[gray kettle]

“Good” evidence is irrelevant tbh. “Evidence” in general should be the first (and maybe only) thing considered.

[inner shale]

Lol ok so give me the evidence

[gray kettle]

Aka disproving the Bible’s claims (again NOT agreeing with them) IE gods wrath and judgement blah blah blah if these are true things coming then despite what we like we would have to see these as truths unless proven otherwise (which lies usually are or at least get found out in time.)

[gray kettle]

I did “The Bible”

Disprove it

[inner shale]

The Bible is an old book why do I need to disprove it

U need to prove it’s true

[gray kettle]

I already know you don’t like it IE “your God allows slavery and condones it” comments from earlier.

[inner shale]

U have the burden of proof sir

So prove it’s the word of god

[gray kettle]

I don’t need to prove it. It claims that it is of itself and I choose to believe what was written. Simple as that. But to not believe something I would need evidence to disbelieve it. (Not everyone is that way I just speak for mysef)

[inner shale]

You are the one saying it’s proof of god

[gray kettle]

I do not if historically these events happened. Which again I accept that they did until proven otherwise.

[inner shale]

I’m asking how

You believe something until proven otherwise?

[gray kettle]

Because he (in the Bible) says so. Not me. I AGREE with what he said.

[inner shale]

You believe something until proven otherwise?

[gray kettle]

Not everything but I am a trusting guy sure.

[inner shale]

Ok so there is a invisible spaghetti monster behind you

You should trust me

I have the ultimate truth

[gray kettle]

Opinion is one thing IE if you told me you love Taco Bell I would try it and see if I liked it. If I didn’t no biggie. However if you made a claim that Taco Bell is the BEST restaurant hands down I would believe you until I tried it and researched it for myself and found out otherwise. Which in the case of my faith I have not found or been told a reason NOT to follow this faith and that I’m fact it is bad for me. I have not discovered this at all.

[inner shale]

Listen

Do you believe there is a spaghetti monster behind you

Cuz I know there is

I’m telling you so

You believe me right?

[gray kettle]

Cool well 1st before I trust your word I would analyze your character. If have lied to me in the past I would not trust the claim that you have ultimate truth. Thus no spaghetti monster. See easy.

[inner shale]

Uh

So you saw an old book that says it is the word of god and you believed it cuz it said so

[gray kettle]

Before I believe the monster claim I have to 1st know you are not claiming something (like many other people or religions do) so I trust you initially but I do not devote myself to spaghetti monster religion with no questions asked.

[inner shale]

Lol I’m asking for the proof of god

All you are saying is the Bible

I ask you why you believe the Bible and you say you are a trusting guy

How is this proof of god?

[gray kettle]

At first heck no. However through time and interacting with people who claim this religion. And in research of historical documents that claim minimally that A man named Jesus did in fact exist (this recorded outside of the Bible) and so I said fine I’ll bite. And afterward I found that I had nothing to combat.

[gray kettle]

I never claimed it as proof. Just evidence.

[inner shale]

Sure a man named Jesus may have existed so what

[gray kettle]

Also it was already decided earlier. I cannot proof without a shadow of a doubt he exists. But you also can’t prove without a shadow of a doubt he doesn’t. So either this “Jesus” will come back and prove it. Or scientific knowledge will eventually reach a conclusion that gives an iron clad argument that it’s all a hoax.

[inner shale]

You can’t prove the spaghetti monster doesn’t exist

[gray kettle]

So the next step would be to research his claims. Not only to be the Son of Man. But also the things he did. miracles fulfillment of prophecy to an undeniable accuracy that has never been done in the history of prophetic documents.

[inner shale]

Son of man?

U know that means David right?

[gray kettle]

How not? Is there a book written or inspired by this monster that claims he exists? And even if it did exist that’s ok, it doesn’t claim to be some all powerful being. Or does it? If it does how do you know?

[gray kettle]

Why do you say that?

[inner shale]

Bro what??? For you to believe it must be in a book???

[inner shale]

Doesn’t matter

[gray kettle]

No it could be a email. A YT video. What ever you got.

[inner shale]

😆 what

[gray kettle]

The why say it. Respectfully.

[inner shale]

Cuz if Jesus is the son of David that doesn’t say anything than that he was a man

[gray kettle]

Because in the New Testament in the Jewish context when Jesus claimed to be the “son of man” that was directly calling back to a prophecy that spoke of a descendant of David who would rule forever. Not David himself.

[gray kettle]

Well he was a man walking on the earth.

[inner shale]

And Jesus wasn’t a descendant of David according to the Bible

[gray kettle]

So when he claimed this they called him a blasphemer and wanted to kill him.

[inner shale]

He was born of a virgin so Joseph didn’t fuck marry

😆

[gray kettle]

Umm have you read the New Testament? They walk through his lineage in the gospels.

[inner shale]

Joseph was said to be David’s descendant
(Even tho when you read scripture the two books don’t even agree on his father)

[gray kettle]

Right and who was Mary related to?

[gray kettle]

Again. What a claim. Not sure why you say that.

[inner shale]

Yes are you familiar with the two separate family lines they give Joseph???

[inner shale]

Family lines aren’t traced by women

[gray kettle]

Like it’s one thing if I was fooled by this book but all of the millions of people on the earth don’t see the glaring holes that you do? How is that?

[inner shale]

One word Quran

😆

[inner shale]

Cuz they are brainwashed

[gray kettle]

That is a very dangerous book. Just in the context of what it claims.

[gray kettle]

Everyone?? Like maybe I am but EVERY SINGLE other person is as well?

[inner shale]

You asked about the millions

[gray kettle]

So wait are you a practitioner of Islam?

[inner shale]

😂

Yea

Allahu akbar

[gray kettle]

So then your not atheist?

[inner shale]

Lol no ofc I’m an atheist

[gray kettle]

You believe in Allah.

Sigh.

[inner shale]

Allah means god lol

[gray kettle]

This is devolving quick

[inner shale]

Here is the issue

[gray kettle]

Not the same one.

[inner shale]

You have a small standard for evidence

I say that an old book isn’t evidence for the supernatural

You say it is

[gray kettle]

So your example of the Quran is VERY flawed. Because you just threw a whole mother religion to disprove another one and that religion can’t even agree amongst itself according to its own book.

[inner shale]

Knowing human instincts we can reasonably call these fictional stories written by humans

Ok just listen

I demand higher evidence than an old book to believe something it says

In the context of extraordinary claims

[gray kettle]

Right but to say it is not and convince someone else you would have to say why. Which I’m okay if you personally accept it as “old” therefore not believable. However that would mean 1000 years from now US history book of the 1900’s history would be false just because there “old” so not an air right reason to believe but one could believe in it sure.

[inner shale]

Yikes man

I’m talking about extraordinary claims

[gray kettle]

“Instinct”??? Who’s instincts? Are everyone’s instincts the same? Where did the instincts come from? You see?

[inner shale]

Yes humans like to come up with ad hawk explanations for the unknown

Generally speaking

[gray kettle]

“Extraordinary” is subjective. 200….heck 100 years ago people would have thought talking to someone around the world with a tiny box in our hand was “extraordinary”

[inner shale]

It is reasonably expected to find religious beliefs within humans

Yea

It is extraordinary

Yet I have empirical evidence that it is true

I don’t believe extraordinary claims on bad evidence

It is essential to ground beliefs in logic

And reasoning

[gray kettle]

That itself is a claim that needs substantiating. At least for me. I do t accept “people have made stuff up before therefore I will just say that ms what this old book is doing just cause it has been done before” again. A person can have this belief but I personally could not because it’s got holes in it galore.

[inner shale]

There are religions all over the world

Each different

With stories that explain the unexplainable

Humans made them up

Why

Because we want answers

So we make them

[gray kettle]

Sure and some are self defeating and others are nonsense and very few others claim anything with real possible truth and so if they don’t pass a certain number of questions then easily they are false.

[inner shale]

Yep all I want is someone to give me good evidence for god

And no one has done it to this day

[gray kettle]

Sure some groups of people have done that. I agree 100%. But to say ALL of mankind has done this is a dangerous claim. Because then it would mean everything is meaningless (which no one truly believes)

[inner shale]

Omg I never said all mankind

[gray kettle]

I have given you the evidence.

[inner shale]

Bad evidence

An old book

With unverifiable claims

Like Thousands of other books around the world

[gray kettle]

I didn’t say you did. But one would have to concur that all of the beliefs in the world are true, false, partly true, or only one is actually true.

[inner shale]

Ok then stop attacking that claim

[gray kettle]

According to what? WhT evidence has been misproven?

[inner shale]

If I never made it

[inner shale]

I have no empirical evidence to make a logical conclusion so I call that bad evidence

[gray kettle]

I’m not I’m stating an inevitable end result of reason if it’s not true. Which is Nothing matters of truth is relative to each person.

[inner shale]

Ok I would say that doesn’t follow the premise but let’s move on

Cuz I never made the claim so no reason to discuss it

[gray kettle]

Sure you can call it that but that doesn’t make what you “call” it true. It’s just what you have chosen to believe.

[inner shale]

I’ve told you why I believe it

I didn’t just choose

[gray kettle]

Again that’s my claim. So if you are right then that is the end result.

[inner shale]

I made a rational argument

[gray kettle]

Based on your opinion of the old book. Sure.

[inner shale]

I made a rational argument for why I call it bad evidence

I don’t just assert it

I made an argument

[gray kettle]

I can make a lot of rational arguments for many things but that doesn’t change the fact of truth.

[inner shale]

Ok so you tell me why my argument is wrong lol

Why are u ignoring the argument

Tell me why it’s flawed

[gray kettle]

You didn’t present any rational basis. Just the fact that you don’t believe it. Because it’s old. And people make stuff up. And some things are unverifiable.

[inner shale]

Yea exactly

[gray kettle]

Which argument?

[inner shale]

What is wrong with that

You just said it

Humans make shit up
The Bible is unverifiable and old

[gray kettle]

“Wrong” is a tough shell to crack. But I will say it’s not a position I could just say I don’t believe without further explanation and fact finding/checking.

[inner shale]

What are you on about

I just gave an argument

Are you gonna address it?

[gray kettle]

Certain things in the Bible are unverifiable I grant you that. However some things a person would have to choose to believe or not believe based on what is verifiable.

[inner shale]

Ok great so what in the Bible is proven

I will believe any claim in the Bible that is proven

[gray kettle]

Respectfully that’s not an “argument” it’s a personal belief and I cannot change a persons mind. They must make it up for themselves

[inner shale]

How is that no an argument 😆

Humans make shit up

True statement

The Bible’s unverifiable

True statement

I’m losing brain cells fast

[gray kettle]

It is proven that the events of the New Testament happend. Let’s say that potius pilot was indeed the man in actual recorded history.

[inner shale]

I base my beliefs in rationality not just cus I wanna believe it

[gray kettle]

Humans make stuff up isn’t an argument it’s a claim. And it’s a BROAD claim.

[gray kettle]

Then I would assert your rational is flawed.

[inner shale]

It is a part of the argument broo

Oml

Here is what is happening

I’m asking for evidence

You given me a book

[gray kettle]

I’m not arguing that the Bible has elements that are unverifiable. I agree. I’m also not arguing that humans make stuff up. I agree. However to say the humans in the Bible made all of it up is a massive claim that would need to have evidence behind it as proof. (At least for me to believe it)

[inner shale]

I’m not claiming that dude

No straw man’s please

[gray kettle]

So your position is that “humans make stuff up” so the Bible is false. The Bible has unverifiable components to its writings. The Bible is false. These claims do not match up “rationally” to the accusations.

[inner shale]

No

Stop strawmaning

[gray kettle]

That is not a straw man.

[inner shale]

Yes it is

[gray kettle]

I’m not sure you know what this means.

[inner shale]

You are telling me I’m saying something I’m not

[gray kettle]

I’m saying objectively I have nothing to argue good sir.

[inner shale]

You are saying that I believe something that I don’t believe

[gray kettle]

I didn’t say “you” believed it. I presented two claims based on the example sentences. I also said that they do not match.

Not you specifically.

[inner shale]

“So your position is that “humans make stuff up” so the Bible is false.”

You exact words

[gray kettle]

You can believe however you want.

[inner shale]

A strawman

[gray kettle]

That was a question not an assertion.

[inner shale]

….

What does a period mean

[gray kettle]

So be it.

So, your position is “ humans make stuff up.” So the Bible is false because humans make stuff up?

There you go.

[inner shale]

Thank you

That is not my position

[gray kettle]

Splitting hairs I feel but sure.

I know this. But you have yet to state what IT IS. You have just been saying that that sentence is your argument.

[inner shale]

I am not taking a position
You are saying the Bible is the world of god
I am simply asking why

[gray kettle]

I have answered this.

[inner shale]

I musta missed it lol

[gray kettle]

Because it claims to be the word of God. The ONLY God. The ACTUAL God and the real God.

[inner shale]

The Bible’s true because it says it’s true?

[gray kettle]

A person then can (does not have to) read the Bible and agree and concur to this claim. Or not. You have decided not to, to my understanding.

Yes.

[inner shale]

Ever heard of circular reasoning?

[gray kettle]

If you want to find any holes in it you are welcome to.

Sure. But this has not reached that yet.

I am eating a doughnut right now.

That stands to be true until proven wrong. (However easy or hard that it is to prove it wrong is not relevant to it being actually true or not)

[inner shale]

How do you know the Bible says the truth?
Because it is the word of god
How do you know it is the word of god?
Because the Bible says the truth

How do you know the Bible says the truth?
Because it is the word of god
How do you know it is the word of god?
Because the Bible says the truth

[inner shale]

This is so incredibly fallacious

[gray kettle]

Which I am not eating a doughnut right now. (Again you would have to choose to believe me or not)

[gray kettle]

Are you sure you know the meaning of that word.

[inner shale]

You know why I would accept it as true?

Because humans have been observed eating donuts
And you have no reason to lie to me

[gray kettle]

Not the Bible “says the truth” it claims to “BE” the truth and the man (named Jesus) claims to be the truth of perfection.

[inner shale]

This is a logical fallacy dude

Circular reasoning

[gray kettle]

Reason is irrelevant. I could just because I wanted to and that would be enough “reason” to. You can convince yourself I don’t have a reason but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have reason to lie to you.

[gray kettle]

You may have that claim if you like.

[inner shale]

Just outta curiosity can I ask how old you are?

[gray kettle]

And humans eating doughnuts is not relative to my claim of “I AM eating a doughnut” so sure you conclude this is a possibility but not a fact. (However probable or not)

[gray kettle]

You can.

[inner shale]

Yep so

How old are you

[gray kettle]

I am 33 next year. Yourself?

[inner shale]

Oh wo

I’m 16 dabs

Ok now

[gray kettle]

Checks out.

[inner shale]

How do you know the Bible says the truth?
Because it is the word of god
How do you know it is the word of god?
Because the Bible says the truth

Is that representative of what you believe?

It’s a yea or no

[gray kettle]

I have tested the truth claims it says. Such as being kind to others and treating others fairly. Not harming others has come to my benefit. Being selfless is better than being selfish. Etc etc.

[inner shale]

Um

Can you answer the question?

There is 0 reason for a paragraph

It’s a yes or no

[gray kettle]

The Bible Does claim to be a collection of books inspired by the Holy Spirit that is the word of God given to man. It claims to be the truth and the guide to people who will believe. Simply put. It claims to be true and I believe this claim. (Again not without asking questions or researching)

There is multiple questions. Did my answer suffice.

[inner shale]

Sure

So I’m guessing no

Now can you demonstrate WHY u believe the claims in the Bible

[gray kettle]

I don’t just “Willy Nilly” believe the Bible “just cause” I don’t believe anyone should. I believe you should know why you believe it. (And anything for that matter)

What do you mean demonstrate.

[inner shale]

Look up the definition of demonstrate lol

[gray kettle]

I mean you want me to record my life for a bit and send you the video? (That technically fulfills the definition of demonstrate) and for conversation sake it would bode well for you to not ask questions and then when asked to elaborate, give a proverbial “google it” type answer. (That’s not a direct quote btw)

[inner shale]

Yea this is how ik that you haven’t been involved in much philosophical debate

Demonstrate is a very common word meaning giving evidence to support a claim

Often used in a debate type context

There is another definition meaning to show how something works

[gray kettle]

Simply put I believe the words of the Bible because they are not self defeating, they have not been disproven, they have improved the quality of my life and the lives of my wife and 2 kids, and they have not led me astray or “forced” anything from me, and also because they are making me a better parent, husband, friend, employee, and man. Every single day.

[inner shale]

Ok stop typing really quick

[gray kettle]

I didn’t lack the understanding good sir. I lacked the context of your request.

Sure.

[inner shale]

Can you agree that just because something improves your life doesn’t demonstrate it’s validity or truth?

Yes or no

[gray kettle]

For sure.

[inner shale]

Ok so let’s ignore the last reason yes?

[gray kettle]

“Improves is ambiguous” but sure

[inner shale]

Ok great

[gray kettle]

No.

To ignore it doesn’t make it untrue.

How about a answer form you.

[inner shale]

Ok so what about it improving your life demonstrates that it is true

[gray kettle]

Is it entirely possible that due to possible misinformation you have been led to believe a lie about “the Bible” and you are now an angry (towards religion or god) young man who seeks truth and is confused?

[inner shale]

😆

I’m young but my mind is older

[gray kettle]

The claim wasn’t that it makes it true. It was WHY I believe the Bible is true. Because I believe it.

[gray kettle]

So every young man claims haha.

But imagine

[inner shale]

Very true lol

[gray kettle]

Your sixteen. And allllllll of the things you learned in your sixteen years.

Think about how much you know now since you where 13

[inner shale]

A lottt

[gray kettle]

So from 13-16 you have improved your knowledge a lot.

I agree.

Now

Imagine for a moment

How much MORE you will find out in three more years

Let alone 10

[inner shale]

Yea I will learn a lot

[gray kettle]

Or in the case of our age gap

[inner shale]

I am young and don’t have all the answers yes

[gray kettle]

Double the amount of years spent learning.

That’s not the point

[inner shale]

Ok what is the point

[gray kettle]

The point is that you have a set amount of knowledge now. And you will (hopefully) gain more.

[inner shale]

I will yes

And?

[gray kettle]

And so the things you think are true now may stand the rest of time up till your 32 but some will undoubtably turn out to be not true (because you look up context) you have some trial and error. Etc

[inner shale]

Yea

you know what I have learned in the last three years?

Bro why the paragraphs 😂

[gray kettle]

I could not hope to “prove” to you in my life and nail down an exact “why” I believe what I do. But I can tell you I have asked a LOT of questions (for example I was raised to believe that the Bible taught that the races shouldn’t mix) spoiler alert it DOES NOT teach this. And yet my pre RA led me to believe a number of things that are false. But I had to go through periods of doubt, uncertainty and “I know what I know and you can’t tell me otherwise” period of my life too haha. However I have found the truth to be in the Bible. Yes because it claims to be the truth. And also yes because I have asked questions of it and have found the answers to my questions. (Not all of my questions, but the ones that matter most)

Boom lol