Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 340. (Read 845809 times)

Here you tell us to look favorably upon the doctrine of Saul even as you attack the truth in favor of the lie. If the doctrine of Saul is different from the truth then surely no amount of good intentions will help Saul's lie! In the end, good intentions were used to validate the lie, as you can see below, you exalt the good intentions of one who was never a "follower" of Emmanuel; why did you tell us this if you knew that good faith is no excuse for a lie? All I want is for you and I to have an open appraisal of the truth about Saul.


I recognize the wisdom in the Bible, but you call me crazy because I have read more wisdom than you?

What is your standard for truth,  BADecker?

Your response to the evidence for rebirth (silence)
is a lie (Concealment) told in bad faith
because just like others in this thread
You did not provide a simple and plausible explanation for this evidence.

Accordingly, i discern that the survival hypothesis is the simplest and most valid and rebirth is likely to be fact; in my opinion this is so unless you provide a simpler explanation as I have requested.

Be sure to take a close look at evidence (Eisenbeiss and AECES); once you have seen all the evidence, then you can make judgment, but not before.
It really helps to have an open mind in any intellectual inquiry, so I hope you will engage this evidence instead of writing it off.

Responding in order:

1) Logic fail.  You're shooting yourself in the foot again.  Let me get this straight - you think that the way to determine whether a religion is true or false is to first assume Christianity is true and then look to it for a method of distinguishing true religions from false ones?  What the heck kind of logic is that?  You're putting the cart way, way, WAY before the horse. 

The point here is that you can't just assume Christianity is true before you've subjected it to a method to determine whether it is true or false.  The result is that you are self-evidently using an illogical approach to determine whether Christianity is true rather than a logical one.

2) Stop contorting what science is.  When you say things like, "...A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here)..." you are just talking out your rear.  The word 'science' has several concrete, established definitions.  When you start making up new definitions on the fly, you are simply demonstrating an inability to effectively communicate with others.

Type in "science definition" into Google and check the result.  The definitions that pop up are the only definitions applicable to 'science.'  When you use the word 'science,' it must be used according to those definitions.  If you don't, then you're simply not talking about science.  Period.

And, when you say "...the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them..." I would remind you that you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what science is (because you continually invent definitions for it).  It's pretty hard for the "things we call science" to match the "scientific ideas that should be applied to them" when you change the definition of what 'science' is but not the definition of 'pure science' or 'the scientific method.'  Your reasoning here is shockingly terrible.

3)  Talking about prophecies is irrelevant if you can't subject Christianity to the same method used to determine whether a religion is true or false. 

Lol.  A fall that lasted 1900 years?  Haha what the hell?  Are you joking?  Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

Are you joking? Those "prophecies" are general and anyone with an IQ over 83 can make them. The roman empire fell, the byzantine empire fell, etc and etc, all of which were far, far more powerful than Israel could ever dreamed of being back then. All empires eventually fall, so that prophecy about Israel falling is laughable(I actually made a smirk when I was reading what you typed).


Now everyone reading this can fully conclude that everything you've said has been bullshit with this statement: "One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years"

Thank you for typing that.

Giving the response "wrong" seemed like a potential trap, so I linked to antonyms for "right," which of course lists "wrong."

Wow.. pray tell me, what is the opposite of right, just remind me?

I'm sorry. You are the one who is right. It is I who is wrong. Thankfully, Jesus will forgive me.

Too late; I'd already thought of it. In the future, perhaps consider telling me in advance instead of trying to brainwash me retroactively.

Then why are there so many otherwise logical people who throw logic right out of the window when it comes to religion? They have confirmation bias toward religion being true, rather than being neutral about it. And thanks for pointing out a supposed fallacy, even though you might want to learn how to even spell the word.

The past does not exist and never can, for in time, only the eternal present experience is true, and is our lifespan. As for the future? It will never exist. For tomorrow never comes.

To have someone for life is a phallacy

Imagine if you were raised a Christian, you felt you knew the truth and was very passionate about your beliefs. Then you find out most of the Beliefs of the Christian religion are based on older versions of Paganism, Astrology and other Secret Orders.