Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Kylie]

So can I, but I don't consider that "equally valid justification" that the Bible is a product of diabolical mimicry.

As I said, I give them credit for their Koran being spiritually written and sans corruption.

Do they do the same with our Bible?

Nope. They think it has been corrupted.

But all that aside, I have a feeling that if the whole world accepted the Bible as the valid word of God, it wouldn't make any difference to those who are convinced that It is just another piece of literature.

So you make a determination about the quality of their text based on what the followers of that text believe about your text?

Of course, they could do the same, and you'd still both be just as valid.

 

[Kylie]

I’m addressing your OP. Why won’t you answer my question that is directed to what you specifically wanted to discuss? I’ll answer for you, since you refuse to do so.

The answer is yes, it’s possible that the documentation is correct.

I'm not giving you a direct yes or no because no such answer is available regarding the Bible. If you ask a believer, you get assurances the Bible is correct. Ask a non-believer, you get answers saying that it might or might not be, or even answers claiming that it can't be correct.

If I was to give you a hard and fast answer to your question, I'd be taking the analogy away from the reality it is trying to describe.

 

[Kylie]

It’s not invalid because I’m not trying to defend scripture. I don’t need to. You know it’s true, but you suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

Stop it. You are not in a position to tell me what I know. I know exactly what I know and I don't need for you to come in and arrogantly tell me that I am wrong about my own beliefs just because your beliefs tell you what I am supposed to believe. You are a staff member on this site and you should know better. If you do it again I will report you.

 

[Kylie]

It doesn’t.

Yes it does. The Bible says it very clearly. Gen 30:37-39

 

[Kylie]

It’s not a story. It’s four separate accounts that are verified by other accounts.

Since we have no original copies, that's hard to verify. And textual analysis indicates that they are heavily based on each other.

You know, it';s hard to try to have a discussion about this with you when you are wearing religious blinkers.

 

[Kylie]

hi Kylie, nice to meet you!

I just stumbled onto this thread, and I think it's a great discussion starter.

so diving in, the first thing that comes to mind is the difficulty of placing balls in such a way that they appear to be the result of a break, and the savant level math skills needed to know that to be the case!

suppose the document says that the balls were placed by sophisticated laser guided robotic arms.

in that case, I can't see any significant reason for Joe to accept or reject the document's explanation.
of course, he could question why someone would go to the expense of using robotic arms.

moving to the idea of the Bible talking about God creating the universe, I don't see any reason that it could not have been created as though it had existed for eons.
(I think this view is sometimes called "last Wednesdayism".)

I know a lot of people consider it absurd, but a miracle will always produce a false backstory, imo.

Given that the position of the balls is essentially random after they have been broken (assuming that they were hit with sufficient speed), just about any position could be considered. To run a computer simulation of such a position to see if it could have come from a break would have so many variables that it's essentially impossible to calculate.

You are correct in that if there is no way to tell, either possibility should be considered. Hence, with no way to tell from the note, the best way to tell would be to investigate the reality - the table and balls themselves. This is analogous to us studying the universe to see what we can learn. Unfortunately, we have the equivalent of some people who insist that any study of the table and the balls themselves leads to the wrong conclusions and the text is right no matter what.

 

[SelfSim]

Unfortunately, we have the equivalent of some people who insist that any study of the table and the balls themselves leads to the wrong conclusions and the text is right no matter what.

That latter argument (underlined) has completely departed from rationality in this discussion also .. (unfortunately).
Logical thinking, free will, and our sense of self-awareness, are how we begin to distinguish ourselves from the continuum. When one looses track of that, one also looses one's human identity.

 

[Allandavid]

Here’s evidence.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
— Romans 1:18-19

Again, like many men throughout history, Paul of Tarsus made claims. Flat-earthers have made claims, creationists have made claims, birthers have made claims, anti-vaxxers have made claims.........so what?

 

[Hammster]

I'm not giving you a direct yes or no because no such answer is available regarding the Bible. If you ask a believer, you get assurances the Bible is correct. Ask a non-believer, you get answers saying that it might or might not be, or even answers claiming that it can't be correct.

If I was to give you a hard and fast answer to your question, I'd be taking the analogy away from the reality it is trying to describe.

So it’s impossible for the documentation as described in the OP to be true?

 

[Hammster]

Stop it. You are not in a position to tell me what I know. I know exactly what I know and I don't need for you to come in and arrogantly tell me that I am wrong about my own beliefs just because your beliefs tell you what I am supposed to believe. You are a staff member on this site and you should know better. If you do it again I will report you.

I’m not telling you what you know. I’m telling you what scripture says about you.

 

[Hammster]

Yes it does. The Bible says it very clearly. Gen 30:37-39

I don’t see where it says that it’s how I should do it.

 

[Hammster]

Since we have no original copies, that's hard to verify. And textual analysis indicates that they are heavily based on each other.

You know, it';s hard to try to have a discussion about this with you when you are wearing religious blinkers.

Based on each other, or based on actual true events.

 

[Hammster]

Again, like many men throughout history, Paul of Tarsus made claims. Flat-earthers have made claims, creationists have made claims, birthers have made claims, anti-vaxxers have made claims.........so what?

I gave evidence. You reject it. And I’ve already told you why.

 

[Allandavid]

I gave evidence. You reject it. And I’ve already told you why.

You have zero evidence. What you have is a group of men like yourself who make unevidenced claims. The plural of baseless claims does not equal ‘evidence’.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes it does. The Bible says it very clearly. Gen 30:37-39

Is it the same Bible that says this?

Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.

I know you unbelievers want to think the Bible is mistaken in having Mother Nature increase Jacob's flock, but the fact of the matter is: God did it.

 

[Hammster]

You have zero evidence. What you have is a group of men like yourself who make unevidenced claims. The plural of baseless claims does not equal ‘evidence’.

Unless you repent and believe the gospel, you will be judged by this evidence. I truly hope and pray that this doesn’t happen.

 

[SelfSim]

Unless you repent and believe the gospel, you will be judged by this evidence. I truly hope and pray that this doesn’t happen.

If the first sentence in that, is not you saying that, but only you telling us what the scripture says will happen to @Allandavid, then why would you then even think (or worse: 'truly hope') that it won't happen, if you hold the scripture as being true in the first place?

 

[Hammster]

If the first sentence in that, is not you saying that, but only you telling us what the scripture says will happen to @Allandavid, then why would you then even think (or worse: 'truly hope') that it won't happen, if you hold the scripture as being true in the first place?

Because I don’t want anyone to spend eternity in hell.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the first sentence in that, is not you saying that, but only you telling us what the scripture says will happen to @Allandavid, then why would you then even think (or worse: 'truly hope') that it won't happen, if you hold the scripture as being true in the first place?

I believe what he is saying is: He hopes and prays it doesn't have to come to this.

We Christians don't want to see anyone have to die and spend eternity in Hell.

 

[SelfSim]

Because I don’t want anyone to spend eternity in hell.

Sounds like you're suppressing the truth in unrighteousness!

.. and;

You're exercising free will in 'hoping' and 'wanting'. That's a human quality .. so you must also know you're not a person who denies their own humanity then?

 

[SelfSim]

I believe what he is saying is: He hopes and prays it doesn't have to come to this.

Can't be so because @Allandavid (along with the rest of us) are suppressing the truth in unrightneousness.
Thus the 'unless' condition can not happen!