Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I am surprised that a Pantheist or all encompassing God movement has not become more successful over the years. A movement that rejects all current religious descriptions of God and primitive mythology but still allows that they all had some inkling of Gods true nature (however distorted by mans own limited understanding).

I would say that it's a bit early in the history of some such movements to judge whether or not they will be successful in the long run. Certainly the Bahai faith comes close to this description, for instance, and has had some success - but it is barely over a century old. Christianity itself certainly had not spread all that far at its 100-year mark, so who's to say what we might see in another few centuries? Buddhism might be a better example of the success of a "religion" (I don't really see Buddhism as a religion, but more as a philosophy) that has survived while avoiding becoming dogmatic (or even taking any real position) about the nature of God.

Religions, more than any other form of belief system, seem historically to be very slow to change - possibly because they tend to be structures oriented toward preserving dogma rather than questioning it. Still, history also shows that they do change, often quite radically, and very often die out. I think many modern-day Christians would be rather surprised if they had to opportunity to directly compare their beliefs with those that were "mainstream" 500 or 1000 years ago.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
It is disengenous to say that even though evolution has some aspects that are merely speculation and certain aspects that cannot be falsified, that the theory is completely sound. (or maybe you are not saying that but I'm reading that.)

You once again have completely missed the point, which was about your misunuderstanding and misuse of the term "theory". If you did understand it, you would realize that no theory is COMPLETELY "sound" to the point of being unquestionable. However, the evolutionary model remains the best description we have so far, in light of the available evidence. If you can show it to be otherwise, then please do so - but to date, ALL creationist attempts to do so have either relied on extreme reaches - fitting the evidence to the pre-existing notion, rather than the other way around - or VERY significant misunderstandings of just what the evolutionary model is actually saying, or even of the scientific method itself.

What is merely theory about evolutionary theory? The idea that life started from primordial ooze. That the first lifeform was bateria or something closely related to it. Mostly, and this is NOT debatable, all "evidence" gathered is view as support but not PROOF.

Sorry, three strikes and you're out. PLEASE make an honest attempt to learn more about what the evolutionary model actually says before you attempt to debate the subject. Specifically with regard to the above:

1. No one says anything as silly as "life started from primordial ooze" in any serious discussion of the subject,

2. No current evolutionary biologist would say anything like "the first lifeform was a bacteria" (Ponder this question for a while, by the way - what is "life"?), and

3. As has been pointed out countless times, science DOES NOT deal in "proof" - and to try to disparage something as "merely theory" because there is no "proof" again simply shows how poorly you understand the terminology and processes of science.

It has NOT BEEN PROVEN what age the earth is. It is only an educated guess. No one, no scientist, no creationist, can honestly say how old the earth is. To do so with certainty is hubris.

Glad to hear that, because the only ones who ARE claiming "certainty" in this happen to do so on behalf of the creationist notion. The earth is said to be, UNQUESTIONABLY, fairly young (and often a specific figure, at least to the nearest 1,000 or 10,000 years, IS given), because that's what the Bible (supposedly) says, and that's that. No scientist will give you an answer to the question "how old is the earth?" WITH CERTAINTY. What they ARE pretty certain about, though, is an answer that begins with "Well, we know it's AT LEAST X years old, because..." and then citing observed evidence. Evidence of past occurences IS very, very often adequate for a very high degree of certainty. If you see a pile of ashes, it is not a stretch at all to claim that you're pretty sure there's been a fire at some time in the past.

But is evolution a fact? No.

Actually, many scientists WILL tell you that "evolution" is a fact - which you will no doubt object to - but again, your objection comes about because you're not speaking the same language. "Evolution" by itself simply means "change", and since we can directly observe change in living things, "evolution" IS a fact. It's observed. What you really disagree with is certain implications or models of how evolution may progress. Got it?

Because, it is being pitched as fact when, in fact, it is not. And that perspective must be maintained. I consider myself as a theistic evolutionist - meaning, if evolution did occur, rather than mere RANDOM occurance (meaning everything occuring just so to allow for life to spring forth which is a random occurrence - or if you like, the probablities came up such that all these things would come together at one point in time), it is God who guided evolution which caused simple bacteria to evolve into complex animals over billions of years. It stems from my understanding that the days in Genesis are not 24 hour days as that is only relative to this planet.

That's fine, and I have no quarrel with the notion of theistic evolution - obviously, it is always possible that the answer to WHY evolution happened is "God made it happen", and that's a question for theologers and philosophers, not science. But I would also have to note that if you think that the scientific model of evolution claims that the whole process happens "randomly", that again you really don't understand it all that well.

Since you can't prove or disprove God or evolution, I find it prudent to allow for both possiblities rather than be humanly arrogant and eliminate one in favor of the other.

I don't see why anyone would think they are in opposition in the first place. The opposite of theism is atheism, not evolution. To be sure, there are those who see evolution as "necessarily" atheistic, but again that is simply nonsense, since it's clearly possible for there both to be a God and for life to have developed per the evolutionary model; questions of "how" are still never the same thing as questions of "why".

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
Excerpt on randomness and evolutionary theory from an MIT physicist.

"At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: that changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome, and that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive. With nature's selection, evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. The selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness, however, remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied morphologies behind the selection.

Sure. But absolutely NONE of this has anything to do with the "randomness" that has been used by creationism apologists in trying to discredit evolution. They make the implicit assumption that EVERYTHING happens randomly, and that should be the most obvious nonsense to anyone who managed to pass high-school chemistry.

Take any of Bob Enyart's examples - they're all about equally silly - in which he tries to show that the formation of this or that molecule essential for Earthly life is improbable to the point of being impossible over the age of the universe. What's patently silly about ALL such examples is that they treat the formation of chemical compounds as if these processes WERE just random throws of dice. He in essence models them as placing an equal amount of all possible elements together and shaking up the mix - with the assumption that they can form ANY combination with equal likelihood. That's the real meaning of his silly "let's see if we can get the alphabet, in order, by shaking up letters" experiment. It's just too bad that it has absolutely NO relevance to the evolutionary model.

The simple fact is that atoms and compounds do NOT come together in all possible combinations, and you DON'T have all the elements there are available in equal and unlimited quantities, and so forth. A helium atom, for instance, will NOT under ANY sort of remotely normal circumstances combine with ANYTHING. One oxygen atom doesn't combine with three hydrogen atoms or just one (and remain that way for very long) - it combines with two, and just two, and you've got water. Bob's models make it look like you would be as likely to make H3O or H5O or even H356O (sorry, wish I could do subscripts properly here!) as H2O - but it simply doesn't work that way. You put hydrogen and oxygen together, you start them to combing, and you get water - and ONLY water. Gosh, imagine that!

THIS is what the scientific side of this debate is complaining about when we speak of the creationist's misuse of the notion of "randomness" - not that there are not random factor at work in some of the underlying mechanisms of evolution, but that the creationists make a straw man by slapping "RANDOM!" on the whole thing and then using silly examples such as this. It's just pure nonsense - and again, the only reasons I can see that such arguments are still being put forth are either ignorance or a willful intent to deceive. If it's the former, then the people using such arguments are not qualified to be debating the matter in the first place. If it's the latter, then they're not worthy of debating at all.

 

[isaiah 1:18]

Bmyers.

forget about Bobby. I haven't even followed his debate. I don't even know him. And from what you post of him, yes, I too am in disagreement.

One more time, on why certain aspects as I had stated are merely theory in the classical sense of the word and not scientific sense. There are parts of the theory that are extrapolated without observation or experimentation. According to the scientific method, that would place it outside of science. I have read plenty of scientific articles that do just that with their new "theories."

The broad concept of evolution has yes been accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The Theory of Evolution broadly describes how animal and plant species grow, develop, and change over time. The term "evolution" has also been applied to the life history of galaxies, stars, the Earth and other planets. Though each of these processes have their own seperate terms, their foundation is based on evolutionary principles. And this is where without Intel. Design, randomization comes into play. And as per that article I supplied, even "change" in evolution must has an element of randomization. And if you will be honest, evolution must have a start somewhere with some basic lifeform (what is life - biologically a chemical reaction that involves amino acids to put it simply in bio terms.) Therefore, the processes, that started the processes, that started life - i.e. big bang, etc. are either of a random nature or of Intel. Design.

And yes, I know that many scientist consider evolution as fact. Some do so solely out of politics against creationism. The problem with stating evolution as fact is that:

Knowledge of many specific details of evolution are unknown at this time. And many never ever be known through observation or experimentation. Details are only gradually being filled in. The full "'truth' can probably never be determined. Results must always be held open to extension, modification, even possible replacement.

For this reason, it is patently foolish to hold evolution as fact. It merely has a high probability based on the LIMITED observation conducted at this time. Therefore, it is a reasonable concept. For now, nothing more.

And to be technical for your sake, yes, biologists would not say that life started from bacteria. I see I have to be very specific with you in order to not be berated as some ignorant theist. I was merely reducing it to the simplest lifeform, one with no nucleus, for the purpose of other readers. The common theist argument is about the irreducibility of a complex system such as a cell's nuclei. But what makes that argument fail is that we do have lifeforms that have no nucleus. And since most can relate to certain bacteria that have no nuclei, I choose that as a representation of probably initial lifeforms.

Anyway, the argument when speaking of evolution, my friend, is not that species change, but that a lower lifeform evolved into all life on earth. That lower lifeform had a start. Correct? What process was it that started that lifeform. nature? Sure. but what started the laws of nature? what event? At this point it boils down to randomness or Intelligent design and all of their subheadings.

You should realize this 200 or so year old arguemnt for what it really is. everyone knows that evolution measn to evolve or change. No need to "remind" to berate. The definition is in the term. The argument is that evolutionist, many of which are atheists, say that there was no intelligent design at work at any point in existence. You like to harp on the mere changing of lifeforms. But the argument goes further to was it an initial simple lifeform that changed? and if so, did it do so randomly or by intelligent design. Don't get cocky and say, "neither, it was nature." I went over why that would be disengenuous.

To review:

1. What process started existence as we know it?
2. What process started the laws of nature as we have obsevred it?
3. What process allowed for conditions of life on this planet?
4. What started the process that (for your technical sake) Amino acids molecule chains to combine in such a way as to exhibit life?

In answering each of these qeustions you will be stuck on #1 since all the rest predicate on it.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
Bmyers.

forget about Bobby. I haven't even followed his debate. I don't even know him. And from what you post of him, yes, I too am in disagreement.

One more time, on why certain aspects as I had stated are merely theory in the classical sense of the word and not scientific sense. There are parts of the theory that are extrapolated without observation or experimentation. According to the scientific method, that would place it outside of science. I have read plenty of scientific articles that do just that with their new "theories."

The broad concept of evolution has yes been accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The Theory of Evolution broadly describes how animal and plant species grow, develop, and change over time. The term "evolution" has also been applied to the life history of galaxies, stars, the Earth and other planets. Though each of these processes have their own seperate terms, their foundation is based on evolutionary principles. And this is where without Intel. Design, randomization comes into play. And as per that article I supplied, even "change" in evolution must has an element of randomization. And if you will be honest, evolution must have a start somewhere with some basic lifeform (what is life - biologically a chemical reaction that involves amino acids to put it simply in bio terms.) Therefore, the processes, that started the processes, that started life - i.e. big bang, etc. are either of a random nature or of Intel. Design.

And yes, I know that many scientist consider evolution as fact. Some do so solely out of politics against creationism. The problem with stating evolution as fact is that:

Knowledge of many specific details of evolution are unknown at this time. And many never ever be known through observation or experimentation. Details are only gradually being filled in. The full "'truth' can probably never be determined. Results must always be held open to extension, modification, even possible replacement.

For this reason, it is patently foolish to hold evolution as fact. It merely has a high probability based on the LIMITED observation conducted at this time. Therefore, it is a reasonable concept. For now, nothing more.

And to be technical for your sake, yes, biologists would not say that life started from bacteria. I see I have to be very specific with you in order to not be berated as some ignorant theist. I was merely reducing it to the simplest lifeform, one with no nucleus, for the purpose of other readers. The common theist argument is about the irreducibility of a complex system such as a cell's nuclei. But what makes that argument fail is that we do have lifeforms that have no nucleus. And since most can relate to certain bacteria that have no nuclei, I choose that as a representation of probably initial lifeforms.

Anyway, the argument when speaking of evolution, my friend, is not that species change, but that a lower lifeform evolved into all life on earth. That lower lifeform had a start. Correct? What process was it that started that lifeform. nature? Sure. but what started the laws of nature? what event? At this point it boils down to randomness or Intelligent design and all of their subheadings.

You should realize this 200 or so year old arguemnt for what it really is. everyone knows that evolution measn to evolve or change. No need to "remind" to berate. The definition is in the term. The argument is that evolutionist, many of which are atheists, say that there was no intelligent design at work at any point in existence. You like to harp on the mere changing of lifeforms. But the argument goes further to was it an initial simple lifeform that changed? and if so, did it do so randomly or by intelligent design. Don't get cocky and say, "neither, it was nature." I went over why that would be disengenuous.

To review:

1. What process started existence as we know it?
2. What process started the laws of nature as we have obsevred it?
3. What process allowed for conditions of life on this planet?
4. What started the process that (for your technical sake) Amino acids molecule chains to combine in such a way as to exhibit life?

In answering each of these qeustions you will be stuck on #1 since all the rest predicate on it.

Oh people, come on. Not AGAIN this form of sophistry.

Please look up this thread with a quote from Hegel, which already show where your idea simply goes wrong.

(small excerpt)

"It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself"

Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

Or see my thread on the Fundamental Question

and the thread on Why it is impossible that time had a beginning?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18

For this reason, it is patently foolish to hold evolution as fact. It merely has a high probability based on the LIMITED observation conducted at this time. Therefore, it is a reasonable concept. For now, nothing more.

I agree, given what I now know is your meaning in using the term "evolution." And yes, I had made the (apparently unwarranted) assumption that you were coming from a strict-creationist perspective. My apologies.

Anyway, the argument when speaking of evolution, my friend, is not that species change, but that a lower lifeform evolved into all life on earth. That lower lifeform had a start. Correct? What process was it that started that lifeform. nature? Sure. but what started the laws of nature? what event? At this point it boils down to randomness or Intelligent design and all of their subheadings.

Again, I agree completely.

You should realize this 200 or so year old arguemnt for what it really is. everyone knows that evolution measn to evolve or change. No need to "remind" to berate. The definition is in the term. The argument is that evolutionist, many of which are atheists, say that there was no intelligent design at work at any point in existence. You like to harp on the mere changing of lifeforms. But the argument goes further to was it an initial simple lifeform that changed? and if so, did it do so randomly or by intelligent design. Don't get cocky and say, "neither, it was nature." I went over why that would be disengenuous.

And here, I believe, is the crux of whatever issues we may have. You are again correct in noting that many evolutionists also happen to be atheist. However, not all are, and most definitely I am not. I think we may both have been guilty of unwarranted assumptions here. I am NOT trying to present evidence in favor of the evolutionary model because I am also trying to promote atheism. I am simply attempting to point out the flaws in the "creationist" arguments against evolution itself to date. Personally, I do not see the "creation vs. evolution" debate as even being particularly relevant to the question of whether or not there is a God; as I believe we are both saying, life on Earth and in fact the cosmos itself could have originated per the current mainstream scientific models, and there is still most definitely room for God to be behind it all.

My ONLY quarrel in all of this is with those who would insist that, if you don't accept a model of the origin of the universe which is quite frankly silly, then you "must" be promoting atheism. I have been hoping that this discussion of "is there a God?" could get beyond such trivial matters.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Bmyers,

You should have been the one to argue for a God.

Instead they put forward a fundamental Christian literalist.

That is like getting a Flat Earther to argue for heliocentricity.

I would agree that a theist could argue a lot better for a God if not hamstrung by their own primitive religious tenets !

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bmyers,

You should have been the one to argue for a God.

Thank you...assuming I'm taking that as I believe it was intended...

But while I could possibly argue for A God, I doubt that I could argue for the particular one they'd be looking to have defended.

I would agree that a theist could argue a lot better for a God if not hamstrung by their own primitive religious tenets !

I'd have to agree; I've had some very good discussions with some extremely intelligent theists, who held extremely sophisticated beliefs. And there ARE some of those here, too.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

BMyers

I hope I am not THAT sarcastic that it is so unobvious when I am sincere…LOL.. Yes I did mean you would debate the case FOR much better than Bob !

My point was as soon as I see someone has a creationist style belief It is easy to virtually dismiss anything else they say as obviously they have flawed grasp on reality.

 

[jeremiah]

To bmyers and, or, Aussie Thinker:

We know the Attributes of the God of the Bible. Could you please explain the attributes of a god behind a 5 billion year old earth, a god behind evolution, a god behind scientific laws and discoveries. Describe a god who wrote no books, was not seen by any man, who left no unexplainable supernatural miracles, who left us no instructions on how to live. and who does not indicate that he cares for us, and never left his son to die for us.
Please describe in any detail you so desire the attributes of your god or god who has none of the attributes described above?

 

[Bigotboy]

Sorry to weigh in so late on this. I see the debate has moved on, but the point needs to be made !!

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
You know I am getting real sick of the crappy.. “even if they see with their own eyes they would not believe” stuff !

You know in the modern day this doesn’t happen. Fair dinkum eyewitnesses do not deny real happenings if they actually see them. Generally if something is disbelieved it was because their were NO eyewitnesses and the event is a likely impossibility.

The simple fact is NO-ONE rose from the dead. It not possible.

Aussie !!! You almost get it !!! In point of fact there were over 500 people who claimed to be eyewitneses of Jesus' resurrection. And some were willing to die rather than deny what they knew to be true. Now I may be willing to die for what I THINK is true, but how many people will die for what they KNOW is a lie, especially if it is of no consequence ? Most of the eyewitnesses had absolutely nothing to gain from professing a belief in the resurrection.
As for the reliability of the accounts ? There have been quite a few people in history who have set out to prove that the resurrection could not have happened, and some have come to the conclusion that it was in fact an actual event. Probably the most notable was Simon Greenleaf, the Harvard professor of law, who specialized in the field of evidence. He lived around the turn of the 20th century. More contemporary are Josh McDowell and Frank Morison.

 

[Bigotboy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bigotboy,
.....
You don’t like the analogy between God and Santa ?? Why ??

Both were created by man.. both cannot be proven to NOT exist. For you it is a cruel analogy because your God is SOOO important to you. But to us he is a mere figment of your imagination.. he is just as childlike to us as Santa is to you.. you just never grew out of your fantasy.

Actually I grew INTO the fantasy. The difference is that Moses and a whole host of others have testified that they were eyewitnesses of the attributes of God. They have seen Him in action. For your analogy to stand you would need eyewitnesses to Santa going around the whole earth in a flying sleigh, pulled by "eight tiny reindeer", and jumping down chimneys with toys. I know, given enough time Santa could evolve.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jeremiah,

I don’t think such a God exists but I could easily argue for one.

A God that makes sense

A God which exists outside of the Universe and material laws that created all the matter and laws under which is functions.

A God which allows it’s creation to unfold without pre-destined outcomes.

A God that may know about all the sentient forms its creation spawned and has great interest in them all but lets them find their own way to him.

A god that may have let his presence be known in the Universe and all men have an inkling of it. Some better than others.

The religions of the world all have a modicum of truth but are flawed by mans inability to grasp the nature of God and his message.

A God who may take us to him when we reach true understanding.



It would be easy to “create” a God like this. I could lay down many other tenets if necessary but I think you get the general picture.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Bigotboy.

Actually I grew INTO the fantasy. The difference is that Moses and a whole host of others have testified that they were eyewitnesses of the attributes of God. They have seen Him in action. For your analogy to stand you would need eyewitnesses to Santa going around the whole earth in a flying sleigh, pulled by "eight tiny reindeer", and jumping down chimneys with toys. I know, given enough time Santa could evolve.

Eyewitnesses of the attributes of God ???
But NO-One has actually seen him !
So how could they see him in action ??
Didn’t they just attribute some action to him ?
Did they also have an agenda to lie or at least exaggerate ?
Was what they said they saw faithfully reported ?
Didn’t most them have a “dream” or a “vision” ?

There are plenty of Eyewitnesses to the attributes of Santa.. ask any child under 8 on Christmas Morning.

So basically No one has seen God and no one has seen Santa.. aren’t we back to the same thing ?

 

[Bigotboy]

Heino, before I get into responding to you I want to mention that I recognize your picture from "your" album cover from around 1973. I was just a toddler back then, but a very perceptive one.

Originally posted by Heino
Oh, please!!! Always we have to talk about the Nazis. I am sick of hearing about it. Adolph Hitler was not a scientist, and had a distorted view of Darwin, just as he had a distorted view of Socialism. The People who Blow up buildings and shoot people because they belong to a cult, and think that God wants them to do this are not Christians, even though they might claim to be. They distort Christianity. Hitler was an occultist. He associated with Madam Blavatsky (an occultist and scam artist), and wanted us to worship the old Teutonic Pagan Gods like Wotan and Thor.

I have to object to using the description "Nazi" to describe everything you do not like, and the linking of all things that are unwanted to Nazis and Hitler. There is no comparison. What is this fascination you have with Nazis? You have organizations of Nazis (we have banned them in Germany) who think Hitler was a great guy, I watch the History Channel and see nothing but World War 2 and Nazis, and you are so quick to call everyone a Nazi when you don't like them. It is wrong to use loosely that word.

I do not use the term NAZI loosly. In this case I was using it to illustrate the point that Biblical morality has not been the basis for most of the bloodshed in history. And I would argue that Adolph was NOT out of line with Darwin. Darwin was very plain in explaining his belief that "mud" races and women were inferior on the evolutionary tree. And if we all arose by pure chance, then why not follow the motto "might makes right" ?

Your mention of the Neo NAZI groups in this country is the perfect illustration of some people who will not accept historical data as factual, no matter how much evidence you give them. Look at this in light of people who do not accept the overwhelming evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[jeremiah]

To Aussie Thinker:
If there were such a god, do you, or I or anyone alive today have any hope or possibility of ever knowing him on a much more intimate level? If yes, then how so? Please speculate for me.

 

[Bigotboy]

Originally posted by bmyers
First, we unfortunately have no direct evidence of the resurrection; we have a story in a book. This story may be true, and many people do, in fact, believe it to be true, but I don't think that very many of them confuse this belief with "evidence".

See previous responses concerning evidence of the resurrection.

Originally posted by bmyers
That is an extremely oversimplified - to the point of being almost unusable - statement of current evolutionary models. And please note that "random changes in the cells" (i.e., mutations) do not make for a process that is, in its overall workings, random.

But I believe it captures the essence of Charles' view. As you have correctly pointed out, and as is evidenced in other posts, the original theory has been greatly modified.

Originally posted by bmyers
In many of these cases, yes, they are laymen with respect to the field in question..... Do you really want to propose that such questions should be decided by the number of "experts" you can get to testify for one side or the other?

Absolutely not. I would loose the argument.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jeremiah,

Ok I’ll keep the game going.

This God does communicate with us. The proof of this is the inkling we all have that there is something “out there”.

Special humans whose senses have been heightened has got glimpses of his true nature.. Buddha, Jesus Mohammed etc…

We all have a sense of “right and wrong” and how to find our way to God.

It is possible to obtain this plain of enlightenment where God message (always out there) becomes obvious and ways to reach him are also obvious.

You must clear your mind of all other pre conceived man made notions of God and allow yourself to think clearly about the universe. Accept the best science has to offer in the way of explanation but let your mind clear itself of myth and superstition.

Gods message is there the way to him is there when you reach the right level of enlightenment you will hear it !

 

[Bigotboy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Eyewitnesses of the attributes of God ???
But NO-One has actually seen him !
So how could they see him in action ??
Didn’t they just attribute some action to him ?
Did they also have an agenda to lie or at least exaggerate ?
Was what they said they saw faithfully reported ?
Didn’t most them have a “dream” or a “vision” ?

There are plenty of Eyewitnesses to the attributes of Santa.. ask any child under 8 on Christmas Morning.

So basically No one has seen God and no one has seen Santa.. aren’t we back to the same thing ?

We have the testimony of Abraham, who moved when God told him to. He claimed to have talked with God. He claimed to have been told by God to get Lott out of Sodom. Moses says God told him to hold his staff over the Red (Reed) Sea, and Moses did it and the waters parted. So I would discount your claim that there were no eyewitnesses. And then we have Jesus with all the things He did.

And which child has actually seen Santa flying ?

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Bigotboy,

We have the testimony of Abraham, who moved when God told him to. He claimed to have talked with God. He claimed to have been told by God to get Lott out of Sodom. Moses says God told him to hold his staff over the Red (Reed) Sea, and Moses did it and the waters parted. So I would discount your claim that there were no eyewitnesses. And then we have Jesus with all the things He did.

Believe me I say I don’t mean to put you down with this so don’t take offence but..

Mental institutions are FULL o f people who hear God talk to them.

We have many cases today of people who see and hear and even been abducted by aliens .. do you believe them ?

And which child has actually seen Santa flying ?

I can only repeat.. who in the Bible has actually seen God ?