Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[remez]

Never said I know, I said it is not knowable and is noit testable...........

Right here....

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….you reject the expanding universe.
and since.......
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
then........
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

 

[steve_bank]

Right here....

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….you reject the expanding universe.
and since.......
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
then........
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

If you really had comprehension of since as you say you do, then we would be having a much higher level of discussion.

You argued your position, I presented mine. Neater are provable in any objective physical sense.

Is there anything else? Other than repeated tit for tat.

 

[remez]

Never said I know, I said it is not knowable and is noit testable...........

Right here....

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….reject the expanding universe.
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
So….
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

Neater are provable in any objective physical sense.

I’ll say it slower……
Now when you reject an expanding universe….. that directly means YOU BELIEVE that the universe is not expanding. Right?
Thus…..
I’m rightfully asking you why YOU BELIEVE the universe is not expanding.

Now……read slow…..

To simply assert……neater are “provable” in any objective physical sense…..directly condemns by your own words…… that your belief that the universe is not expanding…… cannot be “proven” in any objective physical sense. AND YET YOU BELIEVE IT.
THUS……..
You are guilty of the very thing you falsely charge against me.

Anyone can see I have given you several opportunities to provide evidence for what you believe. All you have highlighted is your own hypocrisy.
Again and again.

 

[steve_bank]

Right here....

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….reject the expanding universe.
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
So….
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

Neater are provable in any objective physical sense.

I’ll say it slower……
Now when you reject an expanding universe….. that directly means YOU BELIEVE that the universe is not expanding. Right?
Thus…..
I’m rightfully asking you why YOU BELIEVE the universe is not expanding.

Now……read slow…..

To simply assert……neater are “provable” in any objective physical sense…..directly condemns by your own words…… that your belief that the universe is not expanding…… cannot be “proven” in any objective physical sense. AND YET YOU BELIEVE IT.
THUS……..
You are guilty of the very thing you falsely charge against me.

Anyone can see I have given you several opportunities to provide evidence for what you believe. All you have highlighted is your own hypocrisy.
Again and again.

You da man....

I cited Laws Of Thermodynamics. If you want to discuss that start a science thread.

You are AFI arguing from ignorance. You aud you have been emerged in science, if LOT is not comprehended by you I think not. Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does.

Arguing over the unprovable as if it really matters gives the religious meaning and purpose. How many do you think, after all Christians believe angels exists, so it is a fair question.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

search
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" (alternatively "How many angels can stand on the point of a pin?"[1]) is a reductio ad absurdum challenge to medieval scholasticism in general, and its angelology in particular, as represented by figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas.[2][3] It is first recorded in the 17th century, in the context of Protestant apologetics. It also has been linked to the fall of Constantinople, with the imagery of scholars debating while the Turks besieged the city.[4][5]
In modern usage, the term has lost its theological context and is used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence, while more urgent concerns accumulate.[1][4]

 

[James Brown]

What if God created the universe, but he died in the explosion of the Big Bang?

Wouldn't the evidence that supports a finite expanding universe justify that belief as well?

 

[steve_bank]

What if God created the universe, but he died in the explosion of the Big Bang?

Wouldn't the evidence that supports a finite expanding universe justify that belief as well?

Hee Hee You mean like being hoisted by your own petard?

 

[abaddon]

What if God created the universe, but he died in the explosion of the Big Bang?

Wouldn't the evidence that supports a finite expanding universe justify that belief as well?

Yep. Or maybe he was startled when a singularity popped up out of nothing and Ka-Boom'd it and died in the explosion without intending the universe. Thus the universe but also why there's no agency in it.

 

[remez]

What if God created the universe, but he died in the explosion of the Big Bang?

Wouldn't the evidence that supports a finite expanding universe justify that belief as well?

Are you asking about the Christian God or some demigod, or superhero.? It makes a difference. Because how does something that is non-physical and eternal die in a temporal physical explosion?

 

[Lion IRC]

What if God created the universe, but he died in the explosion of the Big Bang?

Wouldn't the evidence that supports a finite expanding universe justify that belief as well?

Are you asking about the Christian God or some demigod, or superhero.? It makes a difference. Because how does something that is non-physical and eternal die in a temporal physical explosion?

We already have a resolution to the matter of what would happen if God died.

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”

 

[remez]

Never said I know, I said it is not knowable and is noit testable...........

Right here....

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….reject the expanding universe.
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
So….
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

Neater are provable in any objective physical sense.

I’ll say it slower……
Now when you reject an expanding universe….. that directly means YOU BELIEVE that the universe is not expanding. Right?
Thus…..
I’m rightfully asking you why YOU BELIEVE the universe is not expanding.

Now……read slow…..

To simply assert……neater are “provable” in any objective physical sense…..directly condemns by your own words…… that your belief that the universe is not expanding…… cannot be “proven” in any objective physical sense. AND YET YOU BELIEVE IT.
THUS……..
You are guilty of the very thing you falsely charge against me.

Anyone can see I have given you several opportunities to provide evidence for what you believe. All you have highlighted is your own hypocrisy.
Again and again.

You da man....

I cited Laws Of Thermodynamics. ......

Did ya now?
Well I'm calling your bluff of desperation...........
Explain how in-the-universe you could reason that the LoTs support your belief that the universe is not expanding? The LoTs are not evidence to your faith until you can make a more reasonable case than the one for SBBM.

 

[steve_bank]

Right here....

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….reject the expanding universe.
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
So….
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

Neater are provable in any objective physical sense.

I’ll say it slower……
Now when you reject an expanding universe….. that directly means YOU BELIEVE that the universe is not expanding. Right?
Thus…..
I’m rightfully asking you why YOU BELIEVE the universe is not expanding.

Now……read slow…..

To simply assert……neater are “provable” in any objective physical sense…..directly condemns by your own words…… that your belief that the universe is not expanding…… cannot be “proven” in any objective physical sense. AND YET YOU BELIEVE IT.
THUS……..
You are guilty of the very thing you falsely charge against me.

Anyone can see I have given you several opportunities to provide evidence for what you believe. All you have highlighted is your own hypocrisy.
Again and again.

You da man....

I cited Laws Of Thermodynamics. ......

Did ya now?
Well I'm calling your bluff of desperation...........
Explain how in-the-universe you could reason that the LoTs support your belief that the universe is not expanding? The LoTs are not evidence to your faith until you can make a more reasonable case than the one for SBBM.

Asked and answered, several times.

I do not have faith as you try to infer. An old theist tactic, make science to be a faith as is theism. Science is a faith, religion is a faith therefore creationism is as valid as cosmology.

Try again.

Adding we are beyond discussing religious faith and are way off topic. Start a thread on science forum on finite versus infinite universe.

You can test your logic with others.

 

[abaddon]

Unfortunately ...it won't be the same. I believe the talking snake and few others won't be there. You'll still enjoy it though if that still suits you.

I'm wondering if you believe the talking snake WAS there in the Garden of Eden?

You often speak of scripture like it's the ultimate authority for your theism. Does that mean it's all to be taken very literally, talking snakes and all? Or is it metaphorical about some things and literal about others?

 

[remez]

Never said I know, I said it is not knowable and is noit testable...........

Right here....

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….reject the expanding universe.
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
So….
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

Neater are provable in any objective physical sense.

I’ll say it slower……
Now when you reject an expanding universe….. that directly means YOU BELIEVE that the universe is not expanding. Right?
Thus…..
I’m rightfully asking you why YOU BELIEVE the universe is not expanding.

Now……read slow…..

To simply assert……neater are “provable” in any objective physical sense…..directly condemns by your own words…… that your belief that the universe is not expanding…… cannot be “proven” in any objective physical sense. AND YET YOU BELIEVE IT.
THUS……..
You are guilty of the very thing you falsely charge against me.

Anyone can see I have given you several opportunities to provide evidence for what you believe. All you have highlighted is your own hypocrisy.
Again and again.

You da man....

I cited Laws Of Thermodynamics. ......

Did ya now?
Well I'm calling your bluff of desperation...........
Explain how in-the-universe you could reason that the LoTs support your belief that the universe is not expanding? The LoTs are not evidence to your faith until you can make a more reasonable case than the one for SBBM.

Asked and answered, several times.

Still calling your desperate bluff. If you stated it several times then simply requote your explanation as to why the LoTs support your BELIEF that the universe is not expanding.

 

[steve_bank]

Right here....

Why?

….. My reasoning is based on science we do know…..

Your reasoning is …….reject the expanding universe.
Your reasoning is…….based on the science you know.
So….
What is the science you based your reasoning on….. to reject an expanding universe?

Neater are provable in any objective physical sense.

I’ll say it slower……
Now when you reject an expanding universe….. that directly means YOU BELIEVE that the universe is not expanding. Right?
Thus…..
I’m rightfully asking you why YOU BELIEVE the universe is not expanding.

Now……read slow…..

To simply assert……neater are “provable” in any objective physical sense…..directly condemns by your own words…… that your belief that the universe is not expanding…… cannot be “proven” in any objective physical sense. AND YET YOU BELIEVE IT.
THUS……..
You are guilty of the very thing you falsely charge against me.

Anyone can see I have given you several opportunities to provide evidence for what you believe. All you have highlighted is your own hypocrisy.
Again and again.

You da man....

I cited Laws Of Thermodynamics. ......

Did ya now?
Well I'm calling your bluff of desperation...........
Explain how in-the-universe you could reason that the LoTs support your belief that the universe is not expanding? The LoTs are not evidence to your faith until you can make a more reasonable case than the one for SBBM.

Asked and answered, several times.

Still calling your desperate bluff. If you stated it several times then simply requote your explanation as to why the LoTs support your BELIEF that the universe is not expanding.

Reread my post until it sinks in you have a comprehension problem,. Very Trump like. Then start a thread on science. Be there or be square.

 

[Learner]

Unfortunately ...it won't be the same. I believe the talking snake and few others won't be there. You'll still enjoy it though if that still suits you.

I'm wondering if you believe the talking snake WAS there in the Garden of Eden

You often speak of scripture like it's the ultimate authority for your theism. Does that mean it's all to be taken very literally, talking snakes and all? Or is it metaphorical about some things and literal about others?

Whether you take it as Literal or metaphorical, it wouldn't affect the 'message,' although the bible has it ALL which is more advantageous than there being only one particular type of language expression, e.g. the most obvious for example, the commandments is plain literal, where as parables are analogeous metaphors. Psalms may have a bit of both like proverbs etc..

I suppose talking animals isn't such a surprise (if humans are to be considered talking apes). There are creatures that can mimick the sound of words by hearing humans speak them, although the speech part of the brain is not so developed, where as apes and dolphins for example... seem to understand, simple dialogue or key-words which they can remember and communicate with symbols or gestures, although... lacking the ability to mimick and re-produce word sounds.

 

[steve_bank]

Unfortunately ...it won't be the same. I believe the talking snake and few others won't be there. You'll still enjoy it though if that still suits you.

I'm wondering if you believe the talking snake WAS there in the Garden of Eden

You often speak of scripture like it's the ultimate authority for your theism. Does that mean it's all to be taken very literally, talking snakes and all? Or is it metaphorical about some things and literal about others?

Whether you take it as Literal or metaphorical, it wouldn't affect the 'message,' although the bible has it ALL which is more advantageous than there being only one particular type of language expression, e.g. the most obvious for example, the commandments is plain literal, where as parables are analogeous metaphors. Psalms may have a bit of both like proverbs etc..

I suppose talking animals isn't such a surprise (if humans are to be considered talking apes). There are creatures that can mimick the sound of words by hearing humans speak them, although the speech part of the brain is not so developed, where as apes and dolphins for example... seem to understand, simple dialogue or key-words which they can remember and communicate with symbols or gestures, although... lacking the ability to mimick and re-produce word sounds.

Is that an argument for the plausibility of a snake talking in the bible?

Did Adam and Eve speak English, if not what?

 

[James Brown]

Balaam's donkey was just mimicking human sounds? Something that no donkey has ever been recorded having done?

 

[Learner]

Is that an argument for the plausibility of a snake talking in the bible?

Did Adam and Eve speak English, if not what?

It works for me.

 

[Learner]

Balaam's donkey was just mimicking human sounds? Something that no donkey has ever been recorded having done?

It describes that ONLY Balaam's donkey (and no other donkeys) had a unique involment to that particular situation.

 

[James Brown]

Balaam's donkey was just mimicking human sounds? Something that no donkey has ever been recorded having done?

It describes that ONLY Balaam's donkey (and no other donkeys) had a unique involment to that particular situation.

Then why did you say "I suppose talking animals isn't such a surprise" ?

It's either a unique situation, or it isn't. It can't be both.