• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Viruses are manufactured

7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
God-hater, you've given us some textbook examples of self-defeating atheistspeak stupidity, here:
Avajs said:
I dont accept God as a person
Click to expand...
By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?

  • If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "I don[']t accept [a person] as a person".
  • If No, then by your word "God" you are not referring to God.
Avajs said:
Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?
Click to expand...
By your phrase "your God", are you referring to God? Yes or No?

If Yes, then why did you choose to not just write "God", and choose to, instead, write "your God"? That little shtick is a common way you modern God-haters habitually, robotically advertise your irrational hatred against God.
 
A

Avajs

Active member
7djengo7 said:
God-hater, you've given us some textbook examples of self-defeating atheistspeak stupidity, here:

By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?

  • If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "I don[']t accept [a person] as a person".
  • If No, then by your word "God" you are not referring to God.

By your phrase "your God", are you referring to God? Yes or No?

If Yes, then why did you choose to not just write "God", and choose to, instead, write "your God"? That little shtick is a common way you modern God-haters habitually, robotically advertise your irrational hatred against God.
Click to expand...
God is a word. I don't hate words.
I wrote God because Clete used that word. I wrote your God because Clete used that word and to differentiate it from Allah, Thor, etc.
Why do you always seem so angry?
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I asked @Avajs:
7djengo7 said:
By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer the question I asked you, God-hater?

Avajs said:
God is a word.
Click to expand...
God is not a word. The word, "God", is a word.

Avajs said:
I don't hate words.
Click to expand...
What's your "point"? Nobody asked whether or not you hate words, God-hater.

Avajs said:
I wrote God
Click to expand...
False. You did not write God, since God is not a word. You wrote the word, "God".

You say you're in your late 70s, right? It's crazy that you can have gotten to that age yet remain ignorant of something as elementary as quotation marks.

Avajs said:
to differentiate it from Allah, Thor, etc.
Click to expand...
Are you even referring to something or someone by either of your words, "Allah" and "Thor"? If not (and I don't assume you are), then you're not differentiating at all, but instead are merely stringing your words together in a cognitively-meaningless way -- which, of course, is the vast majority of what atheistspeak is.

Avajs said:
I wrote your God because Clete used that word
Click to expand...
Do you mean you wrote the phrase, "your God"? I already knew and stated in my post the truth about why you God-haters choose to say things like "your God" and "your god" instead of simply saying "God".
 
A

Avajs

Active member
7djengo7 said:
I asked @Avajs:

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer the question I asked you, God-hater?


God is not a word. The word, "God", is a word.


What's your "point"? Nobody asked whether or not you hate words, God-hater.


False. You did not write God, since God is not a word. You wrote the word, "God".

You say you're in your late 70s, right? It's crazy that you can have gotten to that age yet remain ignorant of something as elementary as quotation marks.


Are you even referring to something or someone by either of your words, "Allah" and "Thor"? If not (and I don't assume you are), then you're not differentiating at all, but instead are merely stringing your words together in a cognitively-meaningless way -- which, of course, is the vast majority of what atheistspeak is.


Do you mean you wrote the phrase, "your God"? I already knew and stated in my post the truth about why you God-haters choose to say things like "your God" and "your god" instead of simply saying "God".
Click to expand...
Wow!!
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Avajs said:
Why do you always seem so angry?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that? Please describe exactly what (if anything) you mean by "seem so angry".

Over the years I've gotten that same, mindless reaction that I got from you from countless others, your fellow atheistspeak-chanting God-haters. All because I ask y'all questions about your atheistspeak language game, questions to which y'all know you have no hope of ever responding rationally.😁
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Avajs said:
To paraphrase Sgt Friday "Just trying to get the facts, Maam, just the facts" Because some people make a big deal of "no death before the Fall" and read that as NO DEATH, which seems a little different than your reading. When I say death, I mean actual death, physically, since I dont accept "spiritual" death meaning human spirit separated from God since I dont accept God as a person/thing/actual concept or being. So just trying to sort out your reading of the story--because per you there was animal death pre Fall--insects, rodents, etc. Which effectively deals with the issue of why do felines have big canine teeth etc--it avoids the idea that every animal was a vegetarian preFall.
Click to expand...
Don't end up making the same idiot mistake the Ayn Rand made and think that everything that passes for Christianity even remotely resembles what the bible actually teaches.

First and foremost my worldview is rational and it is Christian only in the sense that it is consistent with what the bible ACTUALLY teaches, not what some moron happens to say from behind a pulpit.

Avajs said:
Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?
Click to expand...
God is not "all knowing" in the sense you are using the term here and, even if He were, it would not answer the question you ask. The majority of Christians have no idea how to answer such a question nor would they the slightest inkling that the premise of the question is flawed.

Also, in relation to this exchange with 7djengo7, He is THE God, there is only one, which makes Him your God whether you choose to acknowledge His existence or not.

Incidentally, the fact that you can read and understand this sentence is proof that God exists. Every intelligible syllable that ever registers in your mind, stacks up one more piece of evidence that you're wrong and you can't say a word about it, whether for or against, without borrowing from MY worldview and tacitly accepting it's validity.

If you don't believe God exists, what do you believe and why?
 
Last edited:
A

Avajs

Active member
Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books. Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago. Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved. And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.
7djengo7 said:
What do you mean by that? Please describe exactly what (if anything) you mean by "seem so angry".

Over the years I've gotten that same, mindless reaction that I got from you from countless others, your fellow atheistspeak-chanting God-haters. All because I ask y'all questions about your atheistspeak language game, questions to which y'all know you have no hope of ever responding rationally.😁
Click to expand...
atheistspeak language game? Interesting.
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Avajs said:
Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books.
Click to expand...
The premise of your implied argument here would suggest otherwise. I'd wager that you have no idea what the bible actually teaches about almost anything.

Avajs said:
Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
Click to expand...
He has done precisely that! It is human beings that confuse it - very often on purpose.

Avajs said:
The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. I will prove it - if you stick around long enough.

Avajs said:
I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
Click to expand...
What you see or don't see is irrelevant to whether such evidence exists. A lamp doesn't shut off because a blind man walks into the room.

Avajs said:
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago.
Click to expand...
Why?

Avajs said:
Earth 3-4 billion years ago.
Click to expand...
Why?

Avajs said:
Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved.
Click to expand...
Why? (i.e. why do you believe this?)

Avajs said:
And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

What qualifies as evidence and why?

To be clear, I am not asking for specifics here. I'm not trying to start a debate about evolution. I'm asking you, in general terms, what qualifies something as evidence for a particular proposition?
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Avajs said:
atheistspeak language game?
Click to expand...
Are you trying to ask a question?

Avajs said:
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "year"? The time it takes for the earth to make one full revolution around the sun?

Have you ever heard that piece of atheistpeak stupidity wherein God-haters say something along the lines of that God couldn't have created the earth in six days, because He didn't create the sun until Day Four? They foolishly claim that you can't have days until you have the sun for the earth to revolve around. (Then, of course, the same boobs will turn around and say "...therefore, billions of years!" apparently too dumb to see the obvious fact that if you can't have days passing, then you certainly can't have years passing, let alone billions of years.)
 
A

Avajs

Active member
Avajs said:
Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books. Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago. Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved. And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.

atheistspeak language game? Interesting.
Click to expand...

7djengo7 said:
Are you trying to ask a question?


What do you mean by "year"? The time it takes for the earth to make one full revolution around the sun?

Have you ever heard that piece of atheistpeak stupidity wherein God-haters say something along the lines of that God couldn't have created the earth in six days, because He didn't create the sun until Day Four? They foolishly claim that you can't have days until you have the sun for the earth to revolve around. (Then, of course, the same boobs will turn around and say "...therefore, billions of years!" apparently too dumb to see the obvious fact that if you can't have days passing, then you certainly can't have years passing, let alone billions of years.)
Click to expand...
Hard to beat your logic
 
A

Avajs

Active member
Clete said:
The premise of your implied argument here would suggest otherwise. I'd wager that you have no idea what the bible actually teaches about almost anything.


He has done precisely that! It is human beings that confuse it - very often on purpose.


On the contrary. I will prove it - if you stick around long enough.


What you see or don't see is irrelevant to whether such evidence exists. A lamp doesn't shut off because a blind man walks into the room.


Why?


Why?


Why? (i.e. why do you believe this?)


Evidence?

What qualifies as evidence and why?

To be clear, I am not asking for specifics here. I'm not trying to start a debate about evolution. I'm asking you, in general terms, what qualifies something as evidence for a particular proposition?
Click to expand...
A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", work for you, or do you have a different definition
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Avajs said:
A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", work for you, or do you have a different definition
Click to expand...
As you say, it is a place to start but I ask the question, not to discuss evidence per se, but to get to your more fundamental presuppositions. I know that such leading questions can get tiresome and so I won't string you along for much longer. You're already very close to the answer.

Notice the circular reasoning contained within that definition. The "facts" that indicate whether a proposition is "true". If truth is being defined by facts, and facts are defined as what is true, then we end up with a logical loop. To avoid circular reasoning, you'd need to clarify the independent basis by which facts are established and how evidence functions without presupposing the conclusion it is meant to support.

So, by what independent basis would you establish something as a fact and how would you know whether it indicated that a proposition was true?

There is a one word answer to those two questions. It's starts with the letter "L".
 
A

Avajs

Active member
Clete said:
As you say, it is a place to start but I ask the question, not to discuss evidence per se, but to get to your more fundamental presuppositions. I know that such leading questions can get tiresome and so I won't string you along for much longer. You're already very close to the answer.

Notice the circular reasoning contained within that definition. The "facts" that indicate whether a proposition is "true". If truth is being defined by facts, and facts are defined as what is true, then we end up with a logical loop. To avoid circular reasoning, you'd need to clarify the independent basis by which facts are established and how evidence functions without presupposing the conclusion it is meant to support.

So, by what independent basis would you establish something as a fact and how would you know whether it indicated that a proposition was true?

There is a one word answer to those two questions. It's starts with the letter "L".
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting you personally clarify the independent basis by which facts are established? Do you accept the fact of plate tectonics? If so, how did you determine the underlying facts that support that theory?
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Avajs said:
A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
Click to expand...
The funny thing about saying that evidence is fact is that by doing so you advertise that whenever you claim something is evidence, you are claiming it is fact. So, when you say "X is fact!" and someone says to you, "What 'evidence' do you have to support your claim that X is fact?" then, when you respond to them by saying, "W is evidence that X is fact," you are thereby adding to your first claim (viz., that X is fact) another claim (viz., that W is fact). So now, in addition to having saddled yourself under the problem of trying to support your claim that X is fact, you have also saddled yourself and that first problem under which you saddled yourself, under another problem: the problem of trying to support your claim that W is fact. What do you do, then? Do you then say, "V is evidence that W is fact," and then say "U is evidence that V is fact," and so on?
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Avajs said:
Are you suggesting you personally clarify the independent basis by which facts are established?
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that I came up with the means of clarifying such things, I am suggesting that there is one, and only one, way to do so.

Go ahead, give it a guess! I promise that if you don't get it on your next post then I'll let you off the hook here and we can proceed on from there.

Avajs said:
Do you accept the fact of plate tectonics?
Click to expand...
LOL! Plate tectonics isn't even presented as a fact by most of those who hold to it as a theory! It is clear that there was, at some point in the past, one large land mass. You can see on a globe how well the continents fit together. I can remember noticing that when I was in second grade! That's how obvious it is. Plate tectonics, however, isn't about whether "Pangea" ever existed but about HOW continental drift happens. Put simply, there is no known mechanism for plate tectonics. The theory is based (largely) on the assumption that convection currents in the mantle drive the movement of plates. These currents have never been directly observed, only inferred. In other words, the presumed existence of convection currents is an ad hoc rescue device used to arbitrarily provide a mechanism for the theory. That is the opposite of science. In fact, it is precisely what atheists claim God to be!

This sort of thing is rampant throughout modern "science", by the way. Evolution, cosmology (i.e. the Big Bang Theory), astronomy, geology, and especially the "soft sciences" such as archeology, paleontology, psychology are filled to the brim with ad hoc rescue devices to the point that the prevailing theories in these fields (and others) are completely unfalsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are sort of tied in the race to see which major theory can have the most holes in it and still survive in the mind's professional scientists.

Avajs said:
If so, how did you determine the underlying facts that support that theory?
Click to expand...
So I want to be clear here. I don't mind mentioning some specific field of inquiry for use as an example of a contested issue and I don't mind making some cursory observations concerning it, as I just did above, but let's not side track the discussion by launching into a discussion that is focused on that specific example.

In answer to your question, I'd say that I determine the veracity and pertinence of underlying facts (regarding any particular issue) the same way you do, except that, unlike you, I do it in a manner that is not self-contradictory and that doesn't tacitly undermines my entire worldview.

So, once again, give it a guess what it is you think I'm driving at here and if you don't get it. Then I'll just make the point and move on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top