Thanks. Let me be more clear: your citation of this verse, in the context you present, makes no sense whatsoever at all even a little. You raise this verse to answer a question about the existence of a deist God. This verse dies not address a deist God.
Further, this verse cites a subjective experience, not one that can be independently verified by an outside observer. It is therefore, as far as "proof" is concerned, meaningless. Might as well cite Shirley MacLaine's memories of her past lives as evidence of reincarnation.
In terms of proving anything, this verse not only fails to address (even tangentially) the point I was making,bit also fails to prove anything to anyone who doesn't already believe it.
Raf, if God couldn't very well "establish" (i.e., prove beyond any and all doubt) who He was to Israel through all the signs, miracles and wonders over hundreds of years (of which perhaps only a mere fraction are actually recorded in scripture), why think any extension or continuation of it would bring about any different result with the people of today than it did for them?
You give them eyes but they cannot see. Nor can Superman, through lead.
Those stories are FICTION. There was no Egyptian captivity. There was no Exodus. There was no parting of the Red Sea. There was no slaughter of all the firstborn of Egypt. Perseus never killed the Gorgon to defeat the Kraken. We are not on the back of a turtle. These are myths! Citing the signs, miracles and wonders of Exodus, Kings and Chronicles is like citing the Simillarion history of Middle Earth to explain why we never see Hobbit footprints. I show unto you a more excellent way.... it never happened.
Well, I see and think about scripture from an entirely different vantage point, Raf. Whether this does or doesn't make much of any sense to you, I've had to learn to allow the Bible be it's own language. But it's not like one that Google translate (or any other translator) works for. It's like one that needs to be learned on it's own (with a lot of trial and error, so to speak.) No, I don't really know how the brain of young child learns its first language... but its learning like that, that I'm referring to.
Maybe this doesn't make any sense at all to anyone else. Or maybe it does. I don't know much at times, aside from the unfortunate fact my brain seems to be wired different than a lot of other folks. It's a personal handicap that I always have to keep in mind when trying to communicate with others.
Given what is written in Romans 8:16, I disagree. However, aside from (or previous to) that experience (of Rom.8:16), I may have been inclined to think otherwise.
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spiritthat we are God’s children."
Using one scripture to prove another is circular. Like that recent commercial....
TLC, When you jumped into this conversation (which anyone and everyone is welcome to do), you quoted my previous post. Specifically, you quoted the following:
18 hours ago, Raf said:
There is simply no way whatsoever to establish that any such God does or does not exist -- and no consequence whatsoever to believing either proposition.
You then went on to cite Romans as a way to establish that God (the Christian God, the God of the Bible) does indeed exist. Never mind that you're using the Bible to prove the Bible (which Waysider accurately pointed out is circular reasoning: it would be like citing the Qu'ran to prove Islam). The real intellectual crime here is that you ripped my original statement from its immediate context. I expect better.
Here's the full(er) quote with the preceding line. restored here with emphases added:
A deist God would have created the universe according to natural laws and then gone fishin. There is simply no way whatsoever to establish that any such God does or does not exist -- and no consequence whatseoever to believing either proposition.
You see, my statement was about the deist God, not the Christian God. Debunking the Christian God, from my perspective, is boatloads easier than debunking the deist God, because the Christian God makes testable claims that fail. Remember the time Jesus said he would come back before those who heard his voice died? They did, and he didn't. Enter Biblical contortionism to save the day! "Well, he didn't really mean what it looks like he meant. He used air quotes."
Remember the time Paul counted himself among those who would be alive when Christ returned? Well, he (Paul) isn't, and he (Jesus) still hasn't.
Remember the time God said he flooded the whole earth and saved just one family of 8? Testable claim. Genetic research would reveal a bottleneck. None exists. Because it never happened. Oh, the flood was regional? Then why ask Noah to take 120 years to build an ark when he could have given him six months warning and told him to move to another region?
Remember the Exodus? History doesn't. In the USA, we have a story about how we fought for independence from the British. It's an easy story to tell, because it's true. And the more details you seek, the more you find. Which king? George III. What year? 1776. Where? We have precise locations. How does Exodus compare? When did it happen? Well, we're not really sure, historically. Which Pharoah? Funny, the story doesn't actually name the Pharoah. Fine, but SURELY there is evidence of Egypt losing a couple o'million slaves over a shockingly short period of time. Actually, there is no such account in the whole history of Egypt. Well, the Egyptians didn't record that because they were embarrassed. (WTF?)
Yeah, the Bible makes all sorts of testable claims about God that fall short once you start looking at them.
The deist God? Makes no claims. None. That's why he's impossible to prove or disprove. "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands."
That's why you constantly hear Christians (and other theists) arguing, well, if there's no God, how do you explain the universe existing? Why is there something rather than nothing? Those are terrific attempts to get an atheist to acknowledge the possibility of a god, but it's a deist god. I could say tomorrow, hey, you know what? I think I believe in the god of deism. And you will still not be even a little closer to defending the existence of the Christian God. Genesis 1? Testable claims that never happened. Exodus? Testable claims that never happened.
So I'm left a little frustrated here, in this thread, because I can see that you did not carefully read even the portion of the post that you cited in order to present a verse in Romans to prove a point that, sorry, it simply doesn't prove.
And then, when that's pointed out, you come along and post some drivel about allowing the Bible to be its own language, which, on top of making no rhetorical sense, is not anywhere near the topic of this thread.
From reading this thread one perspective I can offer is to examine is good, but from what perspective? I think all have a choice whether they will view things from a positive or negative overall perspective. Is the glass half full? Or is the glass half empty?
A glass that is half full is faith.
A glass that is half empty is doubt.
The struggle between them is wisdom.
'Whaddya mean I was talking bout whether God exists or not. '
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Does God exist in a clear blue mountain sky? Does God exist in the sunrise dew on the flowers? Does God exist in the first breath of a new colt on a sweetgrass plain?
Maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe it depends on your perspective.
Remember the time God said he flooded the whole earth and saved just one family of 8? Testable claim. Genetic research would reveal a bottleneck. None exists. Because it never happened.. . ..
Careful. It's my understanding that the human species going through a bottleneck and nearly being wiped out is a well established scientific fact. Google it.
How that is interpreted by the generations following that event and told through the ages may certainly be open to interpretation. Lots of un-falsifiable assertions can be made.
Maybe this doesn't make any sense at all to anyone else. Or maybe it does. I don't know much at times, aside from the unfortunate fact my brain seems to be wired different than a lot of other folks. It's a personal handicap that I always have to keep in mind when trying to communicate with others.
Careful. It's my understanding that the human species going through a bottleneck and nearly being wiped out is a well established scientific fact. Google it.
How that is interpreted by the generations following that event and told through the ages may certainly be open to interpretation. Lots of un-falsifiable assertions can be made.
The way it works is, you make an assertion, you prove it. You don't send somebody else to prove the assertion that you're making. In other words, you Google it. I am looking forward to evidence that the human race was bottlenecked by 8 people roughly 5,000 years ago. Give or take 5,000 years.
The way it works is, you make an assertion, you prove it. You don't send somebody else to prove the assertion that you're making. In other words, you Google it. I am looking forward to evidence that the human race was bottlenecked by 8 people roughly 5,000 years ago. Give or take 5,000 years.
I am not making the assertion that the human race was bottlenecked to 8 people roughly 5,000 years ago.
There's evidence the human race was bottlenecked thousands of years ago. That should be common knowledge, not news. That's one reason why we are all so alike as a species.
Upon googling, it appears this may have happened more than once.
So in response to my post saying genetic research shows no evidence of a bottleneck of 8 people in a flood that took place 5,000 years ago, you cite an event that meets neither criteria.
So in response to my post saying genetic research shows no evidence of a bottleneck of 8 people in a flood that took place 5,000 years ago, you cite an event that meets neither criteria.
Come on guys, seriously?
You made an assertion that it was a testable claim.
What I mean is, I made a fairly straightforward comment. If the human race was bottlenecked to 8 people at the time of the Flood, genetic research would show it. I never said there have been no bottlenecks ever in the entire history of the human race. My comment has to be taken in context. If the human race bottlenecked to 1,200 people 40,000 years ago, that's fascinating, but it has f-all to do with the flood account in Genesis.
So if your rebuttal to my comment does not support a Genesis-era bottleneck bringing the human race down to 8 people, then in the obvious context of this discussion, it is irrelevant.
See, this is why I get so painstakingly nitpicky in some of my posts. Because people strain at every single sentence, often out of context, to disprove an assertion not being made.
Yes, it sounds like that. At first I thought You were making the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" claim. I see now that you were not. Good.
You see, if an assertion is made that leads one to conclude that evidence should exist, but that evidence does not exist, that is evidence that the assertion is not true. It's not PROOF, but it is CERTAINLY evidence.
If I told you my house burned to the ground yesterday and you went to my house and did not see the charred remains of what used to be a standing structure, but instead saw a house that was still standing, you could safely conclude that I lied.
If I told you a snowstorm kept me from leaving Fort Lauderdale on May 13, 1986, and you checked weather reports from May 13, 1986 and found no evidence that it snowed that day or any day before or after, then you could safely conclude that I lied.
And if I told you that 5,000 to 10,000 years ago the human race was reduced to 8 people, but genetic research revealed no bottleneck that severe, or anywhere within 15,000 years of that time period, you could safely conclude that's an actual error.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
53
16
24
21
Popular Days
Mar 14
16
Mar 29
16
Mar 16
14
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 53 posts
waysider 16 posts
Bolshevik 24 posts
TLC 21 posts
Popular Days
Mar 14 2017
16 posts
Mar 29 2016
16 posts
Mar 16 2017
14 posts
Mar 17 2017
14 posts
Popular Posts
Rocky
Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I tou
Rocky
May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning
TLC
Of course not, if you want it.
Rom.8
[16] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks. Let me be more clear: your citation of this verse, in the context you present, makes no sense whatsoever at all even a little. You raise this verse to answer a question about the existence of a deist God. This verse dies not address a deist God.
Further, this verse cites a subjective experience, not one that can be independently verified by an outside observer. It is therefore, as far as "proof" is concerned, meaningless. Might as well cite Shirley MacLaine's memories of her past lives as evidence of reincarnation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Raf, if God couldn't very well "establish" (i.e., prove beyond any and all doubt) who He was to Israel through all the signs, miracles and wonders over hundreds of years (of which perhaps only a mere fraction are actually recorded in scripture), why think any extension or continuation of it would bring about any different result with the people of today than it did for them?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You give them eyes but they cannot see. Nor can Superman, through lead.
Those stories are FICTION. There was no Egyptian captivity. There was no Exodus. There was no parting of the Red Sea. There was no slaughter of all the firstborn of Egypt. Perseus never killed the Gorgon to defeat the Kraken. We are not on the back of a turtle. These are myths! Citing the signs, miracles and wonders of Exodus, Kings and Chronicles is like citing the Simillarion history of Middle Earth to explain why we never see Hobbit footprints. I show unto you a more excellent way.... it never happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I see and think about scripture from an entirely different vantage point, Raf. Whether this does or doesn't make much of any sense to you, I've had to learn to allow the Bible be it's own language. But it's not like one that Google translate (or any other translator) works for. It's like one that needs to be learned on it's own (with a lot of trial and error, so to speak.) No, I don't really know how the brain of young child learns its first language... but its learning like that, that I'm referring to.
Maybe this doesn't make any sense at all to anyone else. Or maybe it does. I don't know much at times, aside from the unfortunate fact my brain seems to be wired different than a lot of other folks. It's a personal handicap that I always have to keep in mind when trying to communicate with others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's Clark, nice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children."
Using one scripture to prove another is circular. Like that recent commercial....
"They can't lie on the internet."
"How do you know that?"
"I read it on the internet."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Exactly. Back to topic...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC, When you jumped into this conversation (which anyone and everyone is welcome to do), you quoted my previous post. Specifically, you quoted the following:
You then went on to cite Romans as a way to establish that God (the Christian God, the God of the Bible) does indeed exist. Never mind that you're using the Bible to prove the Bible (which Waysider accurately pointed out is circular reasoning: it would be like citing the Qu'ran to prove Islam). The real intellectual crime here is that you ripped my original statement from its immediate context. I expect better.
Here's the full(er) quote with the preceding line. restored here with emphases added:
You see, my statement was about the deist God, not the Christian God. Debunking the Christian God, from my perspective, is boatloads easier than debunking the deist God, because the Christian God makes testable claims that fail. Remember the time Jesus said he would come back before those who heard his voice died? They did, and he didn't. Enter Biblical contortionism to save the day! "Well, he didn't really mean what it looks like he meant. He used air quotes."
Remember the time Paul counted himself among those who would be alive when Christ returned? Well, he (Paul) isn't, and he (Jesus) still hasn't.
Remember the time God said he flooded the whole earth and saved just one family of 8? Testable claim. Genetic research would reveal a bottleneck. None exists. Because it never happened. Oh, the flood was regional? Then why ask Noah to take 120 years to build an ark when he could have given him six months warning and told him to move to another region?
Remember the Exodus? History doesn't. In the USA, we have a story about how we fought for independence from the British. It's an easy story to tell, because it's true. And the more details you seek, the more you find. Which king? George III. What year? 1776. Where? We have precise locations. How does Exodus compare? When did it happen? Well, we're not really sure, historically. Which Pharoah? Funny, the story doesn't actually name the Pharoah. Fine, but SURELY there is evidence of Egypt losing a couple o'million slaves over a shockingly short period of time. Actually, there is no such account in the whole history of Egypt. Well, the Egyptians didn't record that because they were embarrassed. (WTF?)
Yeah, the Bible makes all sorts of testable claims about God that fall short once you start looking at them.
The deist God? Makes no claims. None. That's why he's impossible to prove or disprove. "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands."
That's why you constantly hear Christians (and other theists) arguing, well, if there's no God, how do you explain the universe existing? Why is there something rather than nothing? Those are terrific attempts to get an atheist to acknowledge the possibility of a god, but it's a deist god. I could say tomorrow, hey, you know what? I think I believe in the god of deism. And you will still not be even a little closer to defending the existence of the Christian God. Genesis 1? Testable claims that never happened. Exodus? Testable claims that never happened.
So I'm left a little frustrated here, in this thread, because I can see that you did not carefully read even the portion of the post that you cited in order to present a verse in Romans to prove a point that, sorry, it simply doesn't prove.
And then, when that's pointed out, you come along and post some drivel about allowing the Bible to be its own language, which, on top of making no rhetorical sense, is not anywhere near the topic of this thread.
Come on already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
From reading this thread one perspective I can offer is to examine is good, but from what perspective? I think all have a choice whether they will view things from a positive or negative overall perspective. Is the glass half full? Or is the glass half empty?
A glass that is half full is faith.
A glass that is half empty is doubt.
The struggle between them is wisdom.
'Whaddya mean I was talking bout whether God exists or not. '
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Does God exist in a clear blue mountain sky? Does God exist in the sunrise dew on the flowers? Does God exist in the first breath of a new colt on a sweetgrass plain?
Maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe it depends on your perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Imagine for a moment an empty glass.
Saying it's half-full is faith.
Saying it's half empty is incomplete.
Saying it's empty is not fear. It is not doubt. It is not negative or pessimistic. It's an empty glass.
Now I want you to imagine... there's no glass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And speaking of perspective.......
Some will look at the glass and say "It's half empty."
Some will look at the glass and say "It's half full."
I look at the glass and say "Hey! who's been drinking my beer?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Careful. It's my understanding that the human species going through a bottleneck and nearly being wiped out is a well established scientific fact. Google it.
How that is interpreted by the generations following that event and told through the ages may certainly be open to interpretation. Lots of un-falsifiable assertions can be made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe there's a handicap. Maybe there's not.
Maybe it's really about choice. Maybe it's not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The way it works is, you make an assertion, you prove it. You don't send somebody else to prove the assertion that you're making. In other words, you Google it. I am looking forward to evidence that the human race was bottlenecked by 8 people roughly 5,000 years ago. Give or take 5,000 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I am not making the assertion that the human race was bottlenecked to 8 people roughly 5,000 years ago.
There's evidence the human race was bottlenecked thousands of years ago. That should be common knowledge, not news. That's one reason why we are all so alike as a species.
Upon googling, it appears this may have happened more than once.
But here's a link of the Toba Catastrophe
The numbers of people and dates may not align perfectly with a creationist view. But I would never argue there was no bottleneck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So in response to my post saying genetic research shows no evidence of a bottleneck of 8 people in a flood that took place 5,000 years ago, you cite an event that meets neither criteria.
Come on guys, seriously?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You made an assertion that it was a testable claim.
I don't see a reference to your study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why would I cite a study that doesn't exist? Come on, this is trolling, not dialogue!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I have no idea why you would call it trolling. I had good intentions. If my point was missed, I'm sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What I mean is, I made a fairly straightforward comment. If the human race was bottlenecked to 8 people at the time of the Flood, genetic research would show it. I never said there have been no bottlenecks ever in the entire history of the human race. My comment has to be taken in context. If the human race bottlenecked to 1,200 people 40,000 years ago, that's fascinating, but it has f-all to do with the flood account in Genesis.
So if your rebuttal to my comment does not support a Genesis-era bottleneck bringing the human race down to 8 people, then in the obvious context of this discussion, it is irrelevant.
See, this is why I get so painstakingly nitpicky in some of my posts. Because people strain at every single sentence, often out of context, to disprove an assertion not being made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We agree on the Genesis account.
But this argument sounds like evidence of absence to me.
Edited by BolshevikRedundant statement
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, it sounds like that. At first I thought You were making the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" claim. I see now that you were not. Good.
You see, if an assertion is made that leads one to conclude that evidence should exist, but that evidence does not exist, that is evidence that the assertion is not true. It's not PROOF, but it is CERTAINLY evidence.
If I told you my house burned to the ground yesterday and you went to my house and did not see the charred remains of what used to be a standing structure, but instead saw a house that was still standing, you could safely conclude that I lied.
If I told you a snowstorm kept me from leaving Fort Lauderdale on May 13, 1986, and you checked weather reports from May 13, 1986 and found no evidence that it snowed that day or any day before or after, then you could safely conclude that I lied.
And if I told you that 5,000 to 10,000 years ago the human race was reduced to 8 people, but genetic research revealed no bottleneck that severe, or anywhere within 15,000 years of that time period, you could safely conclude that's an actual error.
Come. On. People.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.