Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[3sigma]

If you came around telling my children that they had nothing to look forward to after they died, you would not stay around very long.

I choose life, you have chosen death.

You didn’t answer the questions. It appears that you are so fearful of death that you can’t even bear to think about the idea that this life is all you have and that when it is over, there is nothing. I haven’t chosen death; it is simply inevitable. Everyone dies eventually. I’m going to die, you are going to die and your daughter is going to die. You haven’t chosen life; you are still going to die. You’ve just chosen to deceive yourself into believing that you won’t.

I am not a shallow thinker, nor do I seek shallow answers.

Of course your religion gives shallow answers and you appear to be satisfied and comforted by them. You are comforted by the belief that you will never really die and you seem satisfied with “God did it” as an explanation for things such as the diversity of life we see on the Earth today. Do you ask any deeper questions about it? Do you ask how your God did it? How did it create stars, galaxies, the Sun, the Earth, viruses, bacteria, plants and animals? Have you ever asked those questions? What detailed explanations for each of those did your religion provide?

I am not driven by fear: God does not give me the spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind.

You certainly appear to have a fear of death that is assuaged by your religious beliefs. I think it is no coincidence that the most successful religions all offer the comforting promise of eternal life to attract their believers.

Your mind and your whole life are shackled, that is why you force that nonsense on others. You live in glass house and should not cast stones. I live on the Rock and your accusations do not phase me. You are full of something and it is not the Holy Ghost.

Now you appear to be just whistling in the dark to allay your fears. You seem to be trying to convince yourself that what I’m saying can’t be true and you aren’t afraid of it, no sir, not at all…

I could not die for my sins. God did it when He sent His Son to die for my sins, and anyone else's sins for that matter.

Again, you try to convince yourself that you won’t die. What’s more, your religion teaches you that you don’t have to accept responsibility for your actions and that someone else’s execution allows you to avoid any penalty for your transgressions. Does that seem like an adult attitude to you?

I think good science backs up the bible, for the bible is truth.

Good science does not support the claims in the Bible that the universe, the Earth and life were created in six literal days; that the Earth was covered by a global flood sometime in the last 10,000 years; that plants and animals can talk; or that a man can walk on water and come back to life after being dead. Good science soundly refutes all that nonsense and more in the Bible.

Knowledge of God may seem like illusion, but alot of it is spiritually discerned.

Saying that knowledge of God is “spiritually discerned” is tantamount to saying that you imagine it.

I already told you that I know what I believe about creation, evolution, and stuff like that. I do not care what these great thinkers or whatever say. God created everything in the beginning, and evolution is a farce in my opinion.

Is this what you call non-shallow thinking? It doesn’t appear that you’ve explored the question in any depth. In fact, it appears that you have simply assumed an answer that reinforces your comforting religious beliefs and you are unable or unwilling to investigate any further.

 

[3sigma]

You'd raise your children according to your own world-view and hope to instil in your children the values that you hold to be true. Just like kenblaster.

No. The way I would raise my children would be nothing like the way kenblaster has raised his. I would never teach them nonsense that was unsupported by any sound evidence.

You hold to scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions just like everyone else, don't be so coy about it.

I’m not talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions when I refer to religious beliefs as being unwarranted. I’m talking about believing things actually exist or events actually occurred when there is zero sound evidence to support those claims. I do not believe there are such things as gods, that people can come back to life after death or similar unwarranted claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

That depends on the speaker. It may be true for you. However, I say something is nonsense when it's unsubstantiated or meaningless or unintelligible.

I wouldn't go to a foreign country then.

All you'll hear is "unsubstantiated nonsense".

 

[AV1611VET]

How many men did Solomon have?
1 Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."

Twelve thousand.

 

[theFijian]

No. The way I would raise my children would be nothing like the way kenblaster has raised his. I would never teach them nonsense that was unsupported by any sound evidence.

Like I said, you would teach them to believe the things that you would believe. Just like kenblaster.

I’m not talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions when I refer to religious beliefs as being unwarranted.

You're not talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions? Well then how do you 'warrant' your beliefs if not by scientific verification?

I’m talking about believing things actually exist or events actually occurred when there is zero sound evidence to support those claims.

Erm.... so you are talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions?

I do not believe there are such things as gods, that people can come back to life after death or similar unwarranted claims.

That would be a scientifically unverifiable philosophical belief.

 

[Cabal]

I wouldn't go to a foreign country then.

All you'll hear is "unsubstantiated nonsense".

Backing up someone else's claim now?

How insubstantial.

 

[3sigma]

Like I said, you would teach them to believe the things that you would believe. Just like kenblaster.

Again, no, there is a difference. Kenblaster teaches his children to believe things that have zero sound evidence supporting them. I would not do that.

I’m not talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions when I refer to religious beliefs as being unwarranted.

You're not talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions? Well then how do you 'warrant' your beliefs if not by scientific verification?

I’m talking about believing things actually exist or events actually occurred when there is zero sound evidence to support those claims.

Erm.... so you are talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions?

No, I’m not talking about scientifically unverifiable philosophical assumptions. I’m talking about unwarranted religious beliefs of the kind I just described. I hold no religious beliefs.

I do not believe there are such things as gods, that people can come back to life after death or similar unwarranted claims.

That would be a scientifically unverifiable philosophical belief.

No, that is a lack of belief.

 

[Doveaman]

You stated that you're 100% good 100% of the time and then you state that everything is evil. Are you saying that we're making too much sense when it comes to YOUR statements? I have to say, this is a pretty sad cop out and ad hoc argument.

More human logic.

What about your statements? Are those part of the 'many things human logic cannot make sense of?'

Yes!!

 

[Doveaman]

Why do you think yourself incapable of surpassing whatever it was by yourself or without belief in your god and the Bible?

The resurrection from the dead is beyond our capabilities.

 

[SithDoughnut]

More human logic.

Saying that something is beyond the reach of human logic is merely a get-out clause for you to use when your ideas are shown to be illogical.

If God told me what you'd said, I could understand, but seeing as you are a human and these are your conclusions, then they are bound to human logic. If logic doesn't fit it then it's probably because your conclusions are wrong.

 

[Doveaman]

Saying that something is beyond the reach of human logic is merely a get-out clause for you to use when your ideas are shown to be illogical.

If God told me what you'd said, I could understand, but seeing as you are a human and these are your conclusions, then they are bound to human logic. If logic doesn't fit it then it's probably because your conclusions are wrong.

As I have said before, I know of a Man who rose from the dead after being buried for three days. He then flew off into the sky like superman to save the world.

How logical is that?

But it's true.

And please don't tell me I don't know it's true, because I do. I have evidence of it. Proof.

Scientific evidence provides a theory. Divine evidence provides proof.

 

[Skaloop]

Twelve thousand.

Pretty sure he meant stalls. But still, even I can pretty easily explain this one to show it's not a contradiction.

The first verse says 40,000 stalls of horses, an indeterminate number of chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.

The second verse says 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots (separate from the 40,000 stalls of horses).

It's like having four garages for your trucks (which you use to pull trailers), and then two separate garages for housing a truck when it has a trailer attached.

There you go, I'm an apologeticist! Whattaya think, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whattaya think, AV?

Pretty good there, Skaloop ---

 

[CoderHead]

Eve is just as dead as Adam.
Satan is still a spirit. He was a good spirit, then he evolved to an evil spirit. His goodness was not absolute. Only God's goodness is absolute.

You said everything was 100% good and then Satan (and everything else) became 100% evil. I think I'm finished arguing this with you.

You are being too logical. Human logic has its limits in the real world.

Do you realize statements like this only serve to make me happier that I've no longer bought into the "shut down your brain" mentality of religion? I can't tell you how many times I've discussed religion with friends and family, only to be told, "You're thinking too much." Why, oh why would I ever believe in a deity who only makes sense to people who have stopped thinking????!!!!!

In the real world there are many things human logic cannot make sense of. Good and evil are two of them.

Yet the Biblical God seems to be perfectly content with punishing humans eternally for concepts which He knows they cannot grasp.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As I have said before, I know of a Man who rose from the dead after being buried for three days. He then flew off into the sky like superman to save the world.

How logical is that?

But it's true.

And please don't tell me I don't know it's true, because I do. I have evidence of it. Proof.

Scientific evidence provides a theory. Divine evidence provides proof.

Let's have it, then -- or is this magical evidence that only you can see?

 

[Doveaman]

This analogy is pretty easy to shoot down, as evidence for the claim 'I've had a first pair of shoes' is extremely easy to show. Just come see me and you'll see me wearing shoes. If I'm wearing shoes, then either this is my first pair of shoes OR I had a first of shoes before this. Either way, that's the evidence and the end to this silly analogy. If you think your analogy was hard to crack or made a lot of sense, then I can see why you'd think your arguments are impenetrable.
Now, if the claim is 'the shoes I'm wearing is my first pair of shoes,' then there might indeed be no way to substantiate that claim. Then, it'd be reasonable to say 'I have seen no reasonable evidence to accept your claim as true.'
No one has to be omniscient to not have a belief in what can't be independently verified nor observed.

Evidence of my first pair of shoes =/= evidence of God creating the earth.
Does this mean that if we do have evidence of something it definitely exists? We have transitional fossils, genetic data, embryology, etc.
I have baby photos.
In a courtroom, if the prosecution does not have any evidence to show the defendent commited a crime, he would be acquited due to lack of evidence.
I am quite alive right now and I have shoes. It stands to reason that if I am currently living and have a pair of shoes then sometime in my life I received my first pair of shoes.
God is currently not available to see if he created the world. He might have created it yet the only evidence he left was in the Bible. There are also many other religions that claim the earth was made by their god(s). If all of these manuscripts claim the world was made by their deities, and there is no physical evidence available in the world, then we must acquit due to lack of evidence. There is no way of knowing which is right if there is no other evidence.
It it is true, it can be verified through science. Totally different concept.
No. Scientists are wrong a lot. The difference is we change when we realize we are wrong.
No. A supernatural deity would be outside the boundary of science yet there is no indirect evidence a deity exists. If a supernatural deity refuses to show itself and there is no way to reliably test for a deity why assume there is one?
No. Not knowing=/= does not exist.

Both of you obviously didn’t get the analogy.

I may not have evidence of your first pair of shoes, but this does not man you didn’t have a first pair of shoes, does it?

As they say, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Many guilty men are set free for lack of evidence.

You may have the evidence of you shoes, but I don’t.

To you, your shoes are real based on your evidence. To me, they are not real because I have no evidence.

To me, God is real because I have the evidence. To you, He is not real because you have no evidence.

As for the Universe, you do not believe God did it because you lack the evidence, but you do believe Big Bang did it despite the lack of evidence.

You are not being consistent.

 

[SithDoughnut]

As I have said before, I know of a Man who rose from the dead after being buried for three days. He then flew off into the sky like superman to save the world.

How logical is that?

But it's true.

And please don't tell me I don't know it's true, because I do. I have evidence of it. Proof.

Scientific evidence provides a theory. Divine evidence provides proof.

It's unlikely, but it's logical. I'd like to see your proof though. I will however warn you in advance that the Bible is not divine proof unless you can prove it was written by God (Proving that the Bible is divine proof by quoting the Bible is circular reasoning and therefore not proof so you can't do that either - you'll have to use an alternative source to show that).

With that said, let's see the proof. Nobody's ever shown me any proof like what you're claiming before.

Saying that everyone is evil, evil people go to hell, but you and other christians will go to heaven even though you can never be good (you have to be 100% good, remember?) is a contradiction and therefore impossible, proof or no proof. Either everyone is evil and we're all going to hell, or not everyone is evil and there is a sliding scale of good and evil.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Both of you obviously didn’t get the analogy.

I may not have evidence of your first pair of shoes, but this does not man you didn’t have a first pair of shoes, does it?

As they say, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Many guilty men are set free for lack of evidence.

You may have the evidence of you shoes, but I don’t.

To you, your shoes are real based on your evidence. To me, they are not real because I have no evidence.

To me, God is real because I have the evidence. To you, He is not real because you have no evidence.

As for the Universe, you do not believe God did it because you lack the evidence, but you do believe Big Bang did it despite the lack of evidence.

You are not being consistent.

And you're talking nonsense.

You have every right to doubt the existence of my first pair of shoes. In fact, my claim cannot be a fact until I come and prove it to you. For something to be fact, the evidence must be available to everyone. My shoes are available for anyone to see who wants them. Your evidence for God's existence is not, therefore it cannot be fact unless you make it available.

Saying "I have proof, but you haven't seen it but it's still true". There is evidence (cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.) that led us to realise that the Big Bang (whatever that exactly was - we're still not entirely sure) happened, as it is the best conclusion that fits the evidence. You have nothing at all that points to the existence of God.

On a side note, this:

Many guilty men are set free for lack of evidence.

Needs proof. Which you don't have because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. If you know they were guilty then so would the court, but they didn't, so you don't. Don't make claims like this up.

 

[Doveaman]

It's unlikely, but it's logical. I'd like to see your proof though. I will however warn you in advance that the Bible is not divine proof unless you can prove it was written by God (Proving that the Bible is divine proof by quoting the Bible is circular reasoning and therefore not proof so you can't do that either - you'll have to use an alternative source to show that).

To be honest, every Christian know God wrote, or inspired the writing of, the bible because God told us personally.

Since you don't believe when we tell you, He will have to tell you personally Himself, just like He told us.

With that said, let's see the proof. Nobody's ever shown me any proof like what you're claiming before.

Saying that everyone is evil, evil people go to hell, but you and other christians will go to heaven even though you can never be good (you have to be 100% good, remember?) is a contradiction and therefore impossible, proof or no proof. Either everyone is evil and we're all going to hell, or not everyone is evil and there is a sliding scale of good and evil.

Look at it this way: If you owed the bank a million dollars and could not repay it, and I chose to repay the million dollars on your behalf, the bank would accept my million dollars as your payment, making you debt free.

Christians are evil free.

 

[Doveaman]

And you're talking nonsense.

You have every right to doubt the existence of my first pair of shoes. In fact, my claim cannot be a fact until I come and prove it to you. For something to be fact, the evidence must be available to everyone. My shoes are available for anyone to see who wants them. Your evidence for God's existence is not, therefore it cannot be fact unless you make it available.

Well, I certainly do hope my existence is a fact, even though I am not known by everyone.

Saying "I have proof, but you haven't seen it but it's still true". There is evidence (cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.) that led us to realise that the Big Bang (whatever that exactly was - we're still not entirely sure) happened, as it is the best conclusion that fits the evidence. You have nothing at all that points to the existence of God.

“Cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.” --> Big Bang did it.

The universe, life, etc. --> God did it.

On a side note, this:

Needs proof. Which you don't have because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. If you know they were guilty then so would the court, but they didn't, so you don't. Don't make claims like this up.

The court learned they were guilty after they committed the crime the second time, after it was too late.