False Science Exposed

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Au contraire, mon frere."

(Token George Carlin quote, chosen because Carlin, like you, refused to partake of the entirety of knowledge available to us.)

I know that the Creator of the universe loves me and watches over me (as you say, I am included in "the entirety of human kind" ). I know that this universe and reality was created for us, the bel ...[text shortened]... ting and least important part.

One could say that "You do not know anything through science."

I know that you CLAIM to know things through faith.

However [simplistically speaking without going down an unnecessary philosophical rabbit hole]
knowledge is a "Justified, True, Belief".

And regardless of whether what you believe based on faith is true [which it almost certainly isn't]
faith does not and cannot ever give you Justification for that belief and thus can never give you
knowledge of anything.

The relevant meaning of faith in this context is that you believe a proposition to be true or false
without evidence sufficient to justify that belief in the truth or falsity of the proposition, or despite
evidence that contradicts it.

You are claiming as knowledge that which is either not-known to be true, or is known not to be true.

And all you are doing is claiming that your faith IS your evidence that it is true.

That if you believe something strongly enough that belief is itself evidence that the claim is true.

And that allows you to claim ANYTHING as being true, and people do claim anything as being true
based on faith. EVERY world religion and god claim is a faith based belief for which they have no
evidence and claim to know based solely on the fact that they believe it to be true.
This is evidence sufficient on it's own to prove that faith cannot be a way of knowing the truth
as it evidently allows people to believe mutually exclusive and contradictory things that cannot
possibly all be true, and worse it allows people to believe things that we can prove via evidence
and reason not to be true.

To be able to know something you must be able to show that you know that thing to others.
If you cannot show it you cannot know it.

And faith does not allow you to show anything, and thus does not allow you to know anything.

You claim to know 'why' we are here, and yet you cannot provide any convincing argument or
evidence that shows that there IS even a why we are here, let alone demonstrating that you
know what that reason is.


Atheist Debates - Appeals to Faith
"A brief look at appeals to faith and why they don't and can't add anything of substance to
conversations about the foundations of a belief."
by Matt Dillahunty

YouTube



What we can and cannot say we know
By Aron Ra

YouTube

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Edit: We're also accustomed to a smoother writing style. Ancient peoples only recorded significant information (significant to them). So although there appears to be some similarity to the big bang theory (Genesis) no one should be surprised to see what looks like a spotty account, events out of order, and missing most of the relevant details descr ...[text shortened]... ould go without saying, but experience has shown me this does need to be explained now and then.[/b]

Careful.

RJH is one of these literalists we've been talking about. He does think the Bible is like a children's story, telling us everything in a clear, straight-forward manner. He believes that creation only took 6 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago, for example. Where he gets this information, since it doesn't actually say this anywhere in the Bible is beyond me, but believe it he does. I'm not sure, but I think he considers the BB theory to be a lot of hot air.

This is why I say it's not in what the Bible actually says, it's in what it means. The words are only as good (for you) as your interpretation. This is also why atheists get nothing from the Bible. Their interpretation is that it's all bunk. So that's what they get: bunk.

"Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it."

Originally posted by Suzianne
Careful.

RJH is one of these literalists we've been talking about. He does think the Bible is like a children's story, telling us everything in a clear, straight-forward manner. He believes that creation only took 6 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago, for example. Where he gets this information, since it doesn't actually say this anywhere in t ...[text shortened]... reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it."

It's strictly a cultural thing which book you use for wisdom. Other cultures have their own books of wisdom and you would readily agree they are man made with no input from a deity needed.

What separates you from reality is your insistence the bible is the only document with actual input from a deity.

It is very unlikely on a statistical basis the bible is the only book EVER with input from a deity.

The only thing you have in the way of support for that stance is your 'faith'.

With this faith you feel empowered to go through the vicissitudes of life with little consequence for reality since your 'faith' tells you this is not the only life and you will go to a great reward in some kind of heaven.

Atheism proves you need no such faith to live your life, dealing with each situation as they happen, basically living in the here and now, not worried about some hypothetical afterlife.

If it makes you feel empowered, I would be the last to tear that faith down but just remember that IS faith and not a whole lot more.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I know that you CLAIM to know things through faith.

However [simplistically speaking without going down an unnecessary philosophical rabbit hole]
knowledge is a "[b]Justified, True, Belief".

And regardless of whether what you believe based on faith is true [which it almost certainly isn't]
faith does not and cannot ever give you ...[text shortened]... hat we can and cannot say we know
By Aron Ra[/b]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhdLg7uCj5g[/b]

We are only justified in the death and resurrection of the Son of God, the living Christ.

"The Most High has spoken... even in His own blood. Surely, we know."




All the argument I need has already been written, but you ignore it.

You keep claiming that there is evidence against our faith, that it is somehow 'known' to be not true. You must have another definition of 'evidence' than the rest of us. We know, because we are told by the Most High. His blood speaks to us through the ages. By claiming that our faith is the same as the meaningless faith of others distracts from our message, but then, that's your job, I guess. You sound like the noob out on the internet, "Pics or it didn't happen." Let's hope your defense before God at Judgement is better than that. You already will have to explain why you ignored all the "life preservers" thrown your way. Go ahead and stand up to Him with your middle finger raised... I'm gonna take the path of understatement here and just say, "That might not be the best plan."

I hope someday, before it's too late, that you receive an epiphany, like the one Paul experienced on the road to Damascus, and you realize then, just how much knowledge you've been ignoring. After all, ignorance is the result of ignoring knowledge. We hope you're not ignorant much longer, the time is very short.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It's strictly a cultural thing which book you use for wisdom. Other cultures have their own books of wisdom and you would readily agree they are man made with no input from a deity needed.

What separates you from reality is your insistence the bible is the only document with actual input from a deity.

It is very unlikely on a statistical basis the b ...[text shortened]... ld be the last to tear that faith down but just remember that IS faith and not a whole lot more.

"With this faith you feel empowered to go through the vicissitudes of life with little consequence for reality since your 'faith' tells you this is not the only life and you will go to a great reward in some kind of heaven."

This is so totally untrue. I spend a good portion of my life "dealing with reality" every single day. I still occasionally suffer from PTSD caused by certain events in my late teens, and I am involved with helping the homeless. I could have ended up there myself. I know all too well how this modern world can beat you down and then keep kicking at you until you either die or force yourself to stand up and fight back. And how sometimes the most courageous thing you can do is accept help that is offered. And I see almost every day how the Word of God can help people to get out of the gutter and stand on their own two feet, perhaps for the first time in their lives.

You can sit there and assume all kinds of things about me that aren't true. But I like to think that I, along with God, are making a difference. The sheer ocean of deprived humanity makes it almost a useless battle, but for those we help, it means everything.

Yes, it IS faith, and yes, it IS "a whole lot more".

Originally posted by lemon lime
This is the first I've heard of a "gap theory", but I think I know what this might mean.

Modern day readers like ourselves are accustomed to reading books that relate events in a strictly chronological order. But I've noticed how the Bible often jumps around, back and forth, and then repeating something from a previous page... that sort of thing. When ...[text shortened]... ould go without saying, but experience has shown me this does need to be explained now and then.

Now that you have dispensed with this geocentric theory exercise so well, you might want to help me with sonship and his belief in the gap theory on thread "Genesis 1:1-2". I have just about given up on reasoning with him.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, this is the mistake of the literalist. They glean an all-too literal meaning from the words and miss the intent.

A near-last step in figuring intent and meaning is to consider the era when it was written and understanding cultural norms of the time. This is where all those who say "The Bible God supports and defends xxxxxxx!!" (substitute slavery, ...[text shortened]... , one could make the same mistake by substituting capitalism, conservatism or even Republicans.)

Well, if we were to consider everything in the Psalms as just song and poetry for entertainment with only figurative meaning, we would miss the prophecies about Christ in them. So we must carefully consider the possibility of either literal or figurative meaning and in some cases both.

(Some also make the mistake of subsituting socialism, liberalism, and even bleeding heart Democrats.) 😏

Originally posted by Suzianne
Careful.

RJH is one of these literalists we've been talking about. He does think the Bible is like a children's story, telling us everything in a clear, straight-forward manner. He believes that creation only took 6 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago, for example. Where he gets this information, since it doesn't actually say this anywhere in t ...[text shortened]... reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it."

You should know by now that I get much of my information and knowledge from intelligent selection of the appropriate Youtube videos. 😏

YouTube

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]"With this faith you feel empowered to go through the vicissitudes of life with little consequence for reality since your 'faith' tells you this is not the only life and you will go to a great reward in some kind of heaven."

This is so totally untrue. I spend a good portion of my life "dealing with reality" every single day. I still occasionally ...[text shortened]... for those we help, it means everything.

Yes, it IS faith, and yes, it IS "a whole lot more".[/b]

The problem with googlefudge is that he thinks our faith is blind faith based on nothing more than fairy tales from an old book written by ignorant people. He does not accept the many irrefutable proofs for the resurrection of Christ spoken of in the Holy Bible. He does not see the empty tomb in Jerusalem, the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, or the Christian religion as proof of anything. It is all superstition and false legends to him.

He believes the Genesis account of creation has been proven false by science. You don't help any when you deny the creation in 6 days of 24 hours each by God that is revealed there in the very book that you claim to believe.

Originally posted by Suzianne
We are only justified in the death and resurrection of the Son of God, the living Christ.

"The Most High has spoken... even in His own blood. Surely, we know."




All the argument I need has already been written, but you ignore it.

You keep claiming that there is evidence against our faith, that it is somehow 'known' to be not true. Yo ...[text shortened]... result of ignoring knowledge. We hope you're not ignorant much longer, the time is very short.

You know how stupid it is to threaten me with imaginary hells.
Not least because you guarantee my coming back and explaining why it's stupid and mocking you for doing so.

NOTHING you just said amounts to any sort of evidence whatsoever.

However, you are claiming evidence here [albeit really bad 'evidence' which can be shown to not do what
you want it to] and not faith.

As it said in the first video, If you claim your belief is based on faith, which is based on evidence, then your
belief is based on evidence and the faith part isn't doing anything.

Just show me the evidence.

The problem is I then show your 'evidence' is nothing of the sort and you just go back to claiming that you
believe based on faith and that this faith IS your evidence.

Which shows your claim of believing based on evidence to be disingenuous at best.

We know, because we are told by the Most High.

You cannot prove "the Most High" [I'm assuming you mean your version of the bible god] exists, you cannot
prove that "the Most High" has spoken to you, and you cannot prove what was said, or that it is true.

Not only does this mean that you cannot demonstrate this to anyone else, but you cannot even demonstrate
it to yourself sufficiently to claim to KNOW this as you meet NONE of the accepted justifications required for
knowledge.

His blood speaks to us through the ages.

How? What does that even mean? What sort of evidence are you claiming here?

By claiming that our faith is the same as the meaningless faith of others distracts from our message, ..

You constantly and consistently don't get this.

For 'faith' [as I define it, as a description of what it is you are actually doing] to be a valid means of determining
what is or is not true. Which is what you are claiming. Then faith must lead to one and ONLY one conclusion, the truth.

Given that people of different religions with no more or less evidence or reason to suppose that they are true than
you have for your religion have come to mutually exclusive and contradictory positions, many of which have been
shown to be false by applying scientific methodology to the available evidence. It cannot be claimed that faith
leads to only one true conclusion and thus cannot be claimed as a valid method for determining what is or is not
true.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Careful.

RJH is one of these literalists we've been talking about. He does think the Bible is like a children's story, telling us everything in a clear, straight-forward manner. He believes that creation only took 6 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago, for example. Where he gets this information, since it doesn't actually say this anywhere in t ...[text shortened]... reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it."

I had the same take on the Bible as you when I first starting reading it, but I'm not as sure of that first impression as I used to be. I also believed in the infallibility of science, and trusted most of its declarations of fact... but I've seen too many examples of institutionalized rallying behind questionable theories to give all of science a big thumbs up.

In spite of some people here who indulge themselves in mindless over generalizations, and would like nothing more than to paint all Christians as being opposed to science, I'm not talking about (or have ever criticized) all areas of science. Because areas of science where there are immediate practical applications (and no religious implications) are still operating within the boundaries of pure (real) science. The problem I have is with areas of science that have succumbed to personal whims.... those areas have morphed into institutions intent on their own survival, and are committed to supporting a particular philosophical mindset.

A preponderance of evidence that fits neatly together usually points in the right direction. But whenever I see scientists trying to force pieces together (like a caveman whacking away at something with a huge wooden mallet) it's a fairly reliable sign that something has gone horribly wrong.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now that you have dispensed with this geocentric theory exercise so well, you might want to help me with sonship and his belief in the gap theory on thread "Genesis 1:1-2". I have just about given up on reasoning with him.

I don't know if I can help you or not. This is the first I've heard of a gap theory, and so the first question that comes to mind is... how much of a theory can anyone build from two verses?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I had the same take on the Bible as you when I first starting reading it, but I'm not as sure of that first impression as I used to be. I also believed in the infallibility of science, and trusted most of its declarations of fact... but I've seen too many examples of institutionalized rallying behind questionable theories to give [b]all of science a b ...[text shortened]... g with a huge wooden mallet) it's a fairly reliable sign that something has gone horribly wrong.[/b]

Lets stop talking in meaningless vagaries and insinuations.

NAME me some areas of science where you claim this happens and say
SPECIFICALLY what is wrong.

Anyone can indulge themselves in mindless generalisations, so let's have
us some specific examples where you can prove yourself right.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't know if I can help you or not. This is the first I've heard of a gap theory, and so the first question that comes to mind is... how much of a theory can anyone build from two verses?

The whole idea of the gap theory seems to be to fit billions or millions of years of death and destruction in the Genesis account to accomodate the time needed for the evolution theory to be possible.

There are other scriptures that sonship brings up on the Genesis 1:1-2 thread to construct the past history. It seems to be something like evolutionists have done to construct histories of cavemen and their families all from a tooth that turned out to be from an extinct pig.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Lets stop talking in meaningless vagaries and insinuations.

NAME me some areas of science where you claim this happens and say
SPECIFICALLY what is wrong.

Anyone can indulge themselves in mindless generalisations, so let's have
us some specific examples where you can prove yourself right.

Yes, let us stop doing that.