Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[DBT]

Evidence provided in last post. There for all to see, when I quoted the whole comment.

No, I didn't. You said - ''First Hebrews is not a gospel'' and then moved on to ''what is assurance? What is CONVICTION?''

“AND THEN MOVED ON”…… exactly I completely moved on to what I said was more important. Right there in the comment you dishonestly cut short. I moved on to challenging you with these inferred notions of evidence......

As for the meaning of ''assurance'' and ‘‘conviction,’’ that is not contentious. I'm sure we know what 'conviction' means in terms of belief. You were dancing around the point that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence...and that Hebrews 11:1 defines it as such.

Nope….both “assurance” and “conviction” infer a belief based on evidence. End of point.


Then in a latter post you began to address my reasoning to which I said you had a “big slip”. Namely that you were attempting (unsuccessfully) to engage my evidence and reasoning, while at the same time believing that I had no evidence or reasoning. Overt conflict.

Your only lame attempt to reconcile that conflict was to assert that my reasoning was flawed, because it could possibly be wrong. Really. Thus inferring I had no evidence to begin with. Simply asserting that my reasoning and evidence is flawed does nothing for you. It does not render my evidence non-existent.

I have explained this to you several times now. And challenged you to engage properly beyond the level of simple childish assertion ……”You wrong because I say so.” You seem too afraid to engage the evidence and reason.

You have made my point to abaddon.
Thank you.

You are playing a dishonest game. Making claims that that are not true.

You said that you made no mention of where Hebrews 11:1 was located, but when I produced a quote showing you did in fact comment on the location of Hebrews 11:1, you shifted your emphasis to another issue, the nature of conviction.

Here it is again:

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel.

Absolutely none of my comment regarding your slip had anything to do with where Hebrews was in the Bible.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But I’m saying with reasonable certainty that the universe began to exist.

You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument. Therefore I am reasonably certain that your claim is a semantic argument only, and therefore reasonably dismissed.

But if you were able to show how any part of that universe began to exist, something simple, then we could have a reasonable discussion. We could then extrapolate that demonstration into that larger observation we call the universe.

But you know you cannot, which is why you don't.

Your position is a faith argument, not defensible science.

Take note: All physical matter present (in THIS universe, if you must) the planets and stars etc. & etc. 'unique' to this universe came from the big bang. The Big Bang itself was born, it came into existence!

Cern's exerpt:

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

Why are you being so dishonest? That's common parlance they are using, language. If you personally went to any of those scientists and asked them if the universe just appeared magically from nothing they would tell you "No." They would tell you that something was there, had to be there. I seriously doubt that any of them would tell you that a magical being is involved. Shame on you.

Would you please tell me when I began? None of the other magical being worshippers will even address the subject.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Remez missed his calling. He should have been a Christian fiction writer. There is a vast market.

If I had no scruples I would have a conversion and start writing pulp.

Or have your pen name convert, publish, drink to silence the voice of your conscience.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Some folks hear the word "nothing" and think it's an actual scientific term. It's just communication. The issue is that if I'm scientifically illiterate, reading scientific articles like I read my liturgical works, then I'm going to make tons of incorrect assumptions. None of the three amigos here understand science, which is why I suppose they are so religious. It makes sense.

 

[steve_bank]

Words are always contextua/. It is why science uses math and the Systems International instead of words.

In electrical engineering connect a bulb to a battery and one might ay the battery 'sees' the bulb. It will sound puzzling if you do not understand the underlying theory and the engineering culture.

The fault in the case of the BB and time is not the theory or science, the fault is in your limited comprehension.

Keep up with your philosopy and use of alternative contextual words. My bet's on Remez.

Again, math is not contextual. That is why we use math not words in science. In engineer heated debates can break out at times. Eventually somebody stands up and says 'What does the math say?'.

What you are doing is dancing around your lack of knowledge. You try to frame complex issues in very simplistic narrow terms, which is what literal Christians do. All must fit in some way in scripture. Masturbation(mental) may make you feel good, but the only person you are fooling is yourself.

The problem with both philosophy and religion is that there are no possible unquestioned unambiguous words and concepts.

For Christians words like god and holy spirit.

If remez works on the design of a bridge let me know so I can avoid it.

 

[remez]

Ok, I still do not see the scientific proofs you refer to. Mre ersatz.

You are now conflating proof (which is not what I offered) with evidence and reason (which is what I offered.)

As I have said several times, science can not prove or disprove god. Scince deals with quantifuiable measuremnts.

We sort of agree here. This is semantic…… science can’t “prove” anything. Again proof can only be found in mathematics and logic. However scientific evidence and reasoning can support God’s existence not prove it. That was my claim. Read it again.

I have said it many times here…..I’m assert/support/defend that science better supports theism than atheism.

People come up with all sorts of speculations based on sciennce, in particular quantum theory and cosmology. It is entertainment not science.

Like speculating that quantum theory and cosmology are not science but entertainment. Seriously flawed philosophy.

What science says or does not say is irrelevant. You have not put forth any science that proves the universe had a beginning.

Does an expanding universe more plausibly support a past finite or infinite universe? Simple question obvious answer.

You can interpret cosmology in terms of religion, you are free to do so. Interpretation is not a proof.

Philosphers with nothing else to do write books on philosophical implications of science.

Scifi authors write books based on interpretations of science.

Science is a set of equations, no more no less. How you look at it non mathematically is religion and philosophy.

What you think is your 'proof' is a subjective synthesis of misunderstood theory.

All of that is philosophy. You are using philosophy to discard philosophy. Thus again your philosophy is flawed. And again learn what “prove” and “proof” really mean.

 

[remez]

But I’m saying with reasonable certainty that the universe began to exist.

You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument. Therefore I am reasonably certain that your claim is a semantic argument only, and therefore reasonably dismissed.

But if you were able to show how any part of that universe began to exist, something simple, then we could have a reasonable discussion. We could then extrapolate that demonstration into that larger observation we call the universe.

But you know you cannot, which is why you don't.

Your position is a faith argument, not defensible science.

This is an important review….before I begin to address your post. So you understand how I addressing your last post.
REVIEW………because ultimately I’m not here to defend the KCA (I will to some extent because of Y)) below. But I here to burn down the straw man that theists have no evidence, which is why I offered the evidence and reasoning I did. Because your reasoning is that since the KCA is X) uncompelling and/or Y) is dead thus theists have no reasoning or evidence for their beliefs.

Well X) obviously fails.
And
Y) you have not made the case for. But you did attempt. That is what you attempted with the first law of thermodynamics. Which failed.

And now you claim some kind of semantics is in error so……………

But I’m saying with reasonable certainty that the universe began to exist.

You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument.

I offered….. the expanding universe, GTR, and the BGV theorem, etc.

How is that not plain to see?

Remember that was just a quick few. For any evidence supporting them would be evidence for my reasoning as well. For example and expanding universe is supported by red shift. Thus red shift would be evidence for a past finite universe as well.

Now. We both know that p2 is the universe began to exist. So if I support p2 with the scientific evidence of an expanding universe then why I’m I wrong to reason that I just offered scientific evidence for my beliefs.
For if…….
You rewind the expanding universe with GTR you come to the limit of science (nature) at the singularity. The BGV does not even assume GTR to accomplish same conclusion that you can’t escape a cosmic beginning. This is obviously straight forward reasoning with 3 given evidences.

Now….
Precisely tell me where I’m wrong with that obviously, straight forward, reasoning and evidence. My approach is reasonably obvious …no semantics. You are the one that is going do all the semantic gymnastics to get out of the crystal clarity of what I’ve reasoned.
Further…….
Before you attempt to use the line of reasoning….…..”Well the expanding universe does not ABSOLUTELY conclude that the universe began”…… you need to recognize that it would be YOU arbitrarily reasoning absolute certainty against me as the standard reasoning. And we just painstakingly established that it is not a reasonable approach. So don’t go there and make me waste time having to repeat US.
Also regarding absolute certainty vs reasonable certainty…….
Don’t assert that I’m claiming absolute certainty either. I’m claiming that it is far more reasonable that the universe began then it is eternal in the past. So don’t use absolute certainty to deny the very very very reasonable certainty that my evidence reasonably supports a past finite universe.
So again…….

You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument. Therefore I am reasonably certain that your claim is a semantic argument only, and therefore reasonably dismissed.

……. here is the big question….
Why is the evidence and reasoning I presented above not to be considered evidence and reasoning for what I belief? Sematic or otherwise.

But if you were able to show how any part of that universe began to exist, something simple, then we could have a reasonable discussion. We could then extrapolate that demonstration into that larger observation we call the universe.

But you know you cannot, which is why you don't.

Categorical fallacy in your reasoning there. I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.
Think about it…….
Would it be reasonable for me to conclude that since you can't tell me HOW life began to exist that you are unreasonable to belief THAT life began to exist?

This is essentially your reasoning there. Right?

Hence fallacious reasoning doesn’t damage the KCA.

Your position is a faith argument, not defensible science.

It is your position that is in need of evidence and good reasoning. Because all you just presented was obvious error in reasoning on your part that you concluded eliminates the KCA.

Really examine what I wrote above. What reasoning did you offer (that I did not reasonably counter) to conclude the KCA is dead? And that theists don’t have evidence and reason for their faith.
Thus….for the obvious lack of evidence and reason……….
Your last statement there is one of “faith.”

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Let's cut through all the painful word salad and just stipulate (for the sake of the argument) that our universe had a "beginning" and that was the Big Bang. So what? How does that in any way scientifically support a belief in a magical being?

Because there was a beginning, a magical being therefore must have initiated that beginning or something? Is that where you're going with all of this?

 

[remez]

You are playing a dishonest game. Making claims that that are not true.

You said that you made no mention of where Hebrews 11:1 was located, but when I produced a quote showing you did in fact comment on the location of Hebrews 11:1, you shifted your emphasis to another issue, the nature of conviction.

Here it is again:

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel.

Absolutely none of my comment regarding your slip had anything to do with where Hebrews was in the Bible.

No here you go again. You completely left out the trail in between those two quotes. Particularly the part where you got lost.
And…..
I never said that I made no mention of where Hebrews was located. I did right off the bat and moved on to more important things. I don’t deny it in the slightest.

But you then …. in another quote latter…. on thought that my comment “absolutely none of my comment regarding your big slip” was me denying any mention of Hebrews. The big slip had nothing to do with Hebrews as you thought. So below I have carefully taken the time to requote the trail. My honesty can be measured by the fact that I painstakingly quoted everything in it proper place….meaning you or anyone interested……can use the “blue button>>” to jump back to each quote in context.

Ok here you go………………play back time.

''Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'' - Hebrews 11:1

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel. But more importantly…. What is assurance? What is CONVICTION?
Try this

Hebrews 11:1 King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

EVIDENCE?

So at this point.... the real question is......

Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?
Serious question.

That was post 102 responding to post 100
You responded in post 105 that you knew Hebrews was not a gospel. To me the matter was over. I focused on something else you said in 105. This is where you left the trail……

Nor does your 'scientific evidences' support your faith.

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.
Because…….
According to you I can have no evidences and reasons to begin with because I have faith. The moment you begin to challenge any evidences or reasons I present for my belief, you would affirming that I have reasons and evidence for my belief, which logically contradicts your reasoning on faith. It's really that obvious.
Again…
It’s your get out of reason card.

So where does that leave you and I? Well you have your get out of reason card so there is nothing more really to reason. Unless you revise your reasoning on faith. Should you do that we could then we discuss if my evidence and reasoning is reasonable.

Now pay attention. It is at this point in between my response above and your reply below where you messed this all up.
Here is where you quote only part of the comment regarding your “big slip” reasoning conflict as explained by the whole comment……and accidentally took it out of context in your fantasy to conclude I was talking about where Hebrews was in the NT.

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.

A minor slip, a trivial slip made in an off the cuff remark. A slip that you seized on and clung to as a means of defense.....even after I acknowledged making the slip and explaining what I meant. Clinging to it even though it is completely irrelevant to the point: the given definition of faith. It wouldn't matter where the quote was located, OT, NT, Gospels, Paul's letters, it is the definition of faith that was the point.

Remember check the “blue button >>” .
Thus when I responded with this…………………..

A minor slip, a trivial slip made in an off the cuff remark. A slip that you seized on and clung to as a means of defense.....even after I acknowledged making the slip and explaining what I meant. Clinging to it even though it is completely irrelevant to the point: the given definition of faith. It wouldn't matter where the quote was located, OT, NT, Gospels, Paul's letters, it is the definition of faith that was the point.

Absolutely none of my comment regarding your slip had anything to do with where Hebrews was in the Bible. It had to do with you finally beginning to address the evidence and reasoning I provided, which you reasoned I could not have in the first place. See the slip? If I have no evidence and reasoning then why are you asserting that my evidence and reasoning are flawed?

......I was trying to show you where your wires had crossed. Not only did you not understand….
You then…..
Further crossed another set of wires by wrongly concluding that I was now denying that I initially told you Hebrews was not a gospel.
So again…….
I took the time to quote everything above in its place so that you could go back using the “blue button >>” check it all out and apologize.

So I can honestly conclude that you were not being dishonest as I suggested earlier. For that I apologize. You simply got your wires crossed?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Let's cut through all the painful word salad and just stipulate (for the sake of the argument) that our universe had a "beginning" and that was the Big Bang. So what? How does that in any way scientifically support a belief in a magical being?

Because there was a beginning, a magical being therefore must have initiated that beginning or something? Is that where you're going with all of this?

In order to justify personal belief in a magical, ghosty being they have had to leave the known universe completely.

The way the ghost logic works is first of all to recognize that beginnings exist. And now that beginnings exist those beginnings need explained, because nothing can exist without a beginning. And because something exists it must have had a beginning, meaning it needs a cause. How's that circle?

But magical beings don't need a cause. They exist but don't have a beginning because they are magic. Understand?

So because magical beings don't need a cause and have no beginnings they must exist to cause all the things that exist and have beginnings. Simple.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Let's cut through all the painful word salad and just stipulate (for the sake of the argument) that our universe had a "beginning" and that was the Big Bang. So what? How does that in any way scientifically support a belief in a magical being?

Because there was a beginning, a magical being therefore must have initiated that beginning or something? Is that where you're going with all of this?

In order to justify personal belief in a magical, ghosty being they have had to leave the known universe completely.

The way the ghost logic works is first of all to recognize that beginnings exist. And now that beginnings exist those beginnings need explained, because nothing can exist without a beginning. And because something exists it must have had a beginning, meaning it needs a cause. How's that circle?

But magical beings don't need a cause. They exist but don't have a beginning because they are magic. Understand?

So because magical beings don't need a cause and have no beginnings they must exist to cause all the things that exist and have beginnings. Simple.

Oh, I know the argument. I want remez to tell us his version.

 

[Learner]

Take note: All physical matter present (in THIS universe, if you must) the planets and stars etc. & etc. 'unique' to this universe came from the big bang. The Big Bang itself was born, it came into existence!

Cern's exerpt:

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

Why are you being so dishonest? That's common parlance they are using, language.

Dishonest? Do look in the mirror (if not merely mistaken). So what language do you think can be phrased or expressed, with the "correct" choice of words that would describe best how you see it, and they should be using instead? There are enough words available.

If you personally went to any of those scientists and asked them if the universe just appeared magically from nothing they would tell you "No." They would tell you that something was there, had to be there.

Hey hold on! You're stealing our line (in bold) or you're switching debating roles. It does look like theists have something in common with the fellows at Cern... there WAS a beginning (planets, material world and stuff) and there was something before.

I seriously doubt that any of them would tell you that a magical being is involved. Shame on you.

Doesn't have to be "magic" involved, but you (plural) must have an alternative 'philosophical' proposition.

Would you please tell me when I began? None of the other magical being worshippers will even address the subject.

I can't tell you that exact date when your parents begot you but you certainly didn't exist over a hundred years ago ...as you are now, moogly the conscious human being.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Surely it all started on the back of the Great Turtle? Are we to throw out the Great Turtle narrative because of a few snide commentators?

 

[Learner]

Was just about off to my zoom meeting, and caught you. I'll just say...

Like our friend steve & Co. ...you do like using replacement theology.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hey hold on! You're stealing our line (in bold) or you're switching debating roles. It does look like theists have something in common with the fellows at Cern... there WAS a beginning (planets, material world and stuff) and there was something before.

Oh, Darling me, more of the cutesy semantics about "beginnings." I hope those CERN people eventually find the magic ghost that causes everything.

I can't tell you that exact date when your parents begot you but you certainly didn't exist over a hundred years ago ...as you are now, moogly the conscious human being.

Did any parts of me exist?

I don't expect you to answer.

It's incontrovertible scientific fact that every part of me already was in existence when my parents "begot" me. As someone who believes in phantoms you might make some claim that the Moogly spook was not already there. Humorous.

 

[steve_bank]

God created thre universe meaning created and done?

Through those pesky things called telescopes w see star and planetary formation. Supernova formation of black wholes.

In the BB Theory all stars and planets began with the event without saying what wound up the initial conditions.

Simulations of the theory do lead to galaxy like structures.

Nothing appears static, continuous chamge and transformation.

 

[steve_bank]

You are now conflating proof (which is not what I offered) with evidence and reason (which is what I offered.)

We sort of agree here. This is semantic…… science can’t “prove” anything. Again proof can only be found in mathematics and logic. However scientific evidence and reasoning can support God’s existence not prove it. That was my claim. Read it again.

I have said it many times here…..I’m assert/support/defend that science better supports theism than atheism.

People come up with all sorts of speculations based on sciennce, in particular quantum theory and cosmology. It is entertainment not science.

Like speculating that quantum theory and cosmology are not science but entertainment. Seriously flawed philosophy.

What science says or does not say is irrelevant. You have not put forth any science that proves the universe had a beginning.

Does an expanding universe more plausibly support a past finite or infinite universe? Simple question obvious answer.

You can interpret cosmology in terms of religion, you are free to do so. Interpretation is not a proof.

Philosphers with nothing else to do write books on philosophical implications of science.

Scifi authors write books based on interpretations of science.

Science is a set of equations, no more no less. How you look at it non mathematically is religion and philosophy.

What you think is your 'proof' is a subjective synthesis of misunderstood theory.

All of that is philosophy. You are using philosophy to discard philosophy. Thus again your philosophy is flawed. And again learn what “prove” and “proof” really mean.

Ok, what are your 7 pieces of evidence?

1
3
3
4
5
6
7

 

[DBT]

You are playing a dishonest game. Making claims that that are not true.

You said that you made no mention of where Hebrews 11:1 was located, but when I produced a quote showing you did in fact comment on the location of Hebrews 11:1, you shifted your emphasis to another issue, the nature of conviction.

Here it is again:

No here you go again. You completely left out the trail in between those two quotes. Particularly the part where you got lost.
And…..
I never said that I made no mention of where Hebrews was located. I did right off the bat and moved on to more important things. I don’t deny it in the slightest.

But you then …. in another quote latter…. on thought that my comment “absolutely none of my comment regarding your big slip” was me denying any mention of Hebrews. The big slip had nothing to do with Hebrews as you thought. So below I have carefully taken the time to requote the trail. My honesty can be measured by the fact that I painstakingly quoted everything in it proper place….meaning you or anyone interested……can use the “blue button>>” to jump back to each quote in context.

Ok here you go………………play back time.

''Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'' - Hebrews 11:1

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel. But more importantly…. What is assurance? What is CONVICTION?
Try this

Hebrews 11:1 King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

EVIDENCE?

So at this point.... the real question is......

Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?
Serious question.

That was post 102 responding to post 100
You responded in post 105 that you knew Hebrews was not a gospel. To me the matter was over. I focused on something else you said in 105. This is where you left the trail……

Nor does your 'scientific evidences' support your faith.

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.
Because…….
According to you I can have no evidences and reasons to begin with because I have faith. The moment you begin to challenge any evidences or reasons I present for my belief, you would affirming that I have reasons and evidence for my belief, which logically contradicts your reasoning on faith. It's really that obvious.
Again…
It’s your get out of reason card.

So where does that leave you and I? Well you have your get out of reason card so there is nothing more really to reason. Unless you revise your reasoning on faith. Should you do that we could then we discuss if my evidence and reasoning is reasonable.

Now pay attention. It is at this point in between my response above and your reply below where you messed this all up.
Here is where you quote only part of the comment regarding your “big slip” reasoning conflict as explained by the whole comment……and accidentally took it out of context in your fantasy to conclude I was talking about where Hebrews was in the NT.

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.

A minor slip, a trivial slip made in an off the cuff remark. A slip that you seized on and clung to as a means of defense.....even after I acknowledged making the slip and explaining what I meant. Clinging to it even though it is completely irrelevant to the point: the given definition of faith. It wouldn't matter where the quote was located, OT, NT, Gospels, Paul's letters, it is the definition of faith that was the point.

Remember check the “blue button >>” .
Thus when I responded with this…………………..

A minor slip, a trivial slip made in an off the cuff remark. A slip that you seized on and clung to as a means of defense.....even after I acknowledged making the slip and explaining what I meant. Clinging to it even though it is completely irrelevant to the point: the given definition of faith. It wouldn't matter where the quote was located, OT, NT, Gospels, Paul's letters, it is the definition of faith that was the point.

Absolutely none of my comment regarding your slip had anything to do with where Hebrews was in the Bible. It had to do with you finally beginning to address the evidence and reasoning I provided, which you reasoned I could not have in the first place. See the slip? If I have no evidence and reasoning then why are you asserting that my evidence and reasoning are flawed?

......I was trying to show you where your wires had crossed. Not only did you not understand….
You then…..
Further crossed another set of wires by wrongly concluding that I was now denying that I initially told you Hebrews was not a gospel.
So again…….
I took the time to quote everything above in its place so that you could go back using the “blue button >>” check it all out and apologize.

So I can honestly conclude that you were not being dishonest as I suggested earlier. For that I apologize. You simply got your wires crossed?

I had no 'wires crossed' - that appears to be you - I pointed out what the accepted definition of faith happens to be in relation to religious belief: a belief held without the support of evidence, and provided a quote from the bible that describes faith as being it's own justification, it's own 'evidence.'

You can't deny the fact that faith - not trust or confidence - is a belief held without the support of evidence. Or that a belief in the existence of a God or gods is a matter of faith.

You talk about reason but fail to provide evidence, hence your belief in the existence of a God is a matter of faith.....just as Hebrews 11:1 describes: faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If you have anything more substantial than faith to support your belief in God, please provide your evidence.

 

[Learner]

Again, math is not contextual. That is why we use math not words in science. In engineer heated debates can break out at times. Eventually somebody stands up and says 'What does the math say?'.

Math means confusion without contextual words; who's going to understand and explain what the math says with the appropiate words?

What you are doing is dancing around your lack of knowledge.

I suppose I don't need to dance around NOT lacking in a little common sense, but at least - there's a wealth of knowledge out there available to look up instantly... should something in the discussion comes up.

You try to frame complex issues in very simplistic narrow terms, which is what literal Christians do.

Possibly I may have done once or twice, but I'd say, some simple issues, people try to make complex.

All must fit in some way in scripture. Masturbation(mental) may make you feel good, but the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Fitting to scripture or what ever position you take could be tested on the individuals merit. And beside from the look of your posts ... some of you seem to have been "feeling good" for quite some time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Math means confusion without contextual words; who's going to understand and explain what the math says with the appropiate words?

but the math is the important part.
You get hung up on what the words say to you, without understanding the math, then get upset when people point out you're wrong because you use tge words wrong.

Like, you can read a novel. Or you can read the summary on the dust jacket and pretend you know what the novel is about. But when the lit major says you got it wrong, you probably should consider you got it wrong.