Ask God for Me

[Kylie]

No you are not open minded. Nor are you willing to accept ANY claim with evidence to support it.

You have already proven that...

Judge not lest ye be judged.

If a claim is made, and evidence is presented, then I will accept the claim as true provided the evidence can withstand scrutiny.

If I have not accepted your claims, it is because the evidence you provided has not withstood scrutiny.

 

[Kylie]

Huh?

You said you are not closed-minded, but then you said something which was a very good definition of closed-minded.

 

[Kylie]

We are created, thus we are not God and God is the only perfect being. It wasn't a design FLAW, it was just the created vs. the non-Created.

So it was impossible for God to make us impervious to sin?

Evolution is after the fact of life from non-life. Abiogenesis is necessary PRIOR to evolution. Evolution is a dead end without life and non-living materials have never given rise to life. Even with the help from intelligent humans (and the success of any experiments depend on this) have never shown it possible.

Actually, natural selection would work on any self-replicating molecule, even if it wasn't what we would consider alive.

I don't care if you think it is plausible or not, that is not the point. You claim you are only about Valid evidence, and there is no evidence valid or not to show that non-living materials gave rise to life. There is no Valid evidence to show that non-intelligent matter gave rise to intelligence. It is just as extraordinary to claim this, which then would need extraordinary evidence to validate it.

And there is no valid evidence to claim it is impossible either.

So if we are faced with two choices (and I don't claim there are ONLY two choices, but these seem to be the ones we are dealing with here), we have:

1. The natural formation of life is impossible and God was required to get it started.
2. The natural formation of life is possible, and self replicating molecules (or some other naturalistic explanation) was able to get it started.

And I know which one of those is more extraordinary.

We as humans are looking back in time and labeled the system evolution. God didn't "make it look like evolution" we are studying how God did it and have labeled it evolution.

You missed my point.

It does not hagve the hand of a creator on it. It shows a naturalistic development that is rather inefficient if there is a conscious, all=powerful designer at work.

They are the authors of the New Testament. The New Testament is a historical manuscript that gives people, places, locations and events that historical scholars have shown to be accurate. They were eyewitnesses to the events written in that Historical document. There are 25,000 manuscripts to date.

Okay. Please show me that the texts in the new testament are the work of authors who wrote at the time of the events they described.

Well it is up to you to show manuscripts or documentation that would provide evidence that Jesus did not exist.

This again? I've already dealt with this argument in 1573 and 1599 when I spoke about Arthur the Giant poodle who was president of the world.

I've provided support in the New Testament, as well as other sources that support His existence and His crucifixion.

And I've explained why I don't find those sufficient.

I don't think I posted this before but :
This is very significant as it was written around 70 AD from Mara Bar-Serapion to his son to encourage him:

“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”

It is obvious that He is using real life people as his examples.

So? Just because some real people were mentioned, doesn't mean they were ALL real. I've often used examples from TV shows as moral lessons to my daughter, even when I use examples from real life people as well.

It isn't that you disagree, it is that you are ignorant of important facts about Christianity which you would not be if you had actually read the Bible as you claim you have.

Oh, and if I knew these facts I would no longer be an atheist, is that it?

Yes it did happen in the source.

Did you miss a quote here?

I explained this and I have said I am done with your analogy.

Your explanation was built on an assumption.

I accept them as historical manuscripts that historical scholars have determined to be accurate of the time. I have no reason to doubt them anymore than I would doubt other ancient writers of historical merit. We have people claiming to be who they are and that they did witness the events they have written about.

Care to show me a source that supports your claim that historical scholars have determined the Gospels were both accurate AND contemporary?

I'm sorry but I really have my doubts.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)
Why if He didn't exist would he call Him a man rather than a mythic person? Why would he talk about Him being crucified? You have to show that Lucian didn't know for sure Jesus lived and was crucified since that is exactly what he says. Just because it doesn't fit within your view, you throw it out and make an unsubstantiated claim.What criteria was that?

Just because Lucian believed he was a real man doesn't mean he actually was. Lucian was born in 125, there's no way he could do anything but repeat accounts told to him by other people. And if he spoke to people who believed that Jesus was real, where was he going to get evidence that Jesus was not real?

Ever hear of John Frum?

 

[miknik5]

It really says a lot when your reply does not actually respond to any points I raised but instead is just a lot of complaining about the way I accepted your point on one issue and withdrew my own claim.

Seems like you're a sore winner.

Actually, it puts you in the same category that you assume of others...and says quite a lot about you, Kylie...

It says you think people lie and are more prone to lie than to speak the truth..

Therefore, I do not understand how you care to accept anyone´s testimony as truth....

 

[miknik5]

You said you are not closed-minded, but then you said something which was a very good definition of closed-minded.

I did? Please explain what that would be?

Could it be that because GOD has revealed HIMSELF to me that I am steadfast and you consider that close-minded?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not sure I'm following here. Didn't you claim that you had experiences that you later decided were not from God? Were you not a Christian for years? How can you be a sincere believer and then beg to believe?

Yes, when I learned a better epistemology I realized my reasons for belief were insufficient. I did believe just like any other christian, later I realized those beliefs were unjustified.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And don´t Don´t you think, that is the way that it should be? That when one makes a ¨claim¨, it should be considered true until proven false, and not the other way around?

Absolutely not. The default position is unbelief until it can be supported by evidence. That is the logical epistemology. If not then you will believe everything someone says to you and that can be dangerous. When people do not believe what you say they are not calling you a liar. They are saying I need more evidence to believe your claim. Do you believe a Muslim when they say Allah talked to them?

Believing anything someone says is not being open minded, that is gullibility.

 

[miknik5]

Absolutely not. The default position is unbelief until it can be supported by evidence. That is the logical epistemology. If not then you will believe everything someone says to you and that can be dangerous. When people do not believe what you say they are not calling you a liar. They are saying I need more evidence to believe your claim. Do you believe a Muslim when they say Allah talked to them?

Believing anything someone says is not being open minded, that is gullibility.

Then here is the claim I will leave you with...you need more evidence?

Follow the method of the townspeople in John 4 then.

See, I have left it in your hands to do the work of examining my claim...as well as the first evangelical woman at the well...

See if it provides you with the evidence you need...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Then here is the claim I will leave you with...you need more evidence?

Follow the method of the townspeople in John 4 then.

See, I have left it in your hands to do the work of examining my claim...as well as the first evangelical woman at the well...

See if it provides you with the evidence you need...

The key verses here are John 4:40-44

So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”

43 After the two days he departed for Galilee. 44 (For Jesus himself had testified F)" that a prophet has no honor in his own hometown.)

So these people did not ultimately believe because of the woman's testimony but because they met Jesus himself and he talked to them for two days. How can I follow the method of the townspeople as you request if Jesus won't meet me for two days in the flesh?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So it was impossible for God to make us impervious to sin?

God is God and doesn't create gods. The only way someone is impervious to sin is for God to live within them.

Actually, natural selection would work on any self-replicating molecule, even if it wasn't what we would consider alive.

No, actually you need more than the self-replicating molecule which is where we were before. Think of it this way, the self-replicating molecule is the hardware as in a computer system, and the information management is the software. The chemistry is the hardware and the information the biology. Natural selection can't do anything unless the information part of the system is present.

And there is no valid evidence to claim it is impossible either.

Oh, so you are ok with no valid evidence for possibility in your naturalistic worldview, but demand valid evidence for the Christian worldview. See the problem? You aren't really about evidence...valid or not as long as it fits within your own worldview but you still demand it for others. That is hypocrisy. So whatever evidence doesn't fit within your worldview you consider insufficient or missing but if it happens to be within your worldview you are quite alright with that.

So if we are faced with two choices (and I don't claim there are ONLY two choices, but these seem to be the ones we are dealing with here), we have:

1. The natural formation of life is impossible and God was required to get it started.
2. The natural formation of life is possible, and self replicating molecules (or some other naturalistic explanation) was able to get it started.

And I know which one of those is more extraordinary.

That is just because you will accept implausible non-evidential explanations and believe they are more possible than God, but you really have no real reason to believe that a naturalistic worldview can stand alone. Information is not produced by the chemistry of molecules, to believe that life arose from non-living materials by chance is just as extraordinary as God is to you.

You missed my point.

It does not hagve the hand of a creator on it. It shows a naturalistic development that is rather inefficient if there is a conscious, all=powerful designer at work.

That is simply ridiculous. Inefficient?

Is this inefficient?
cellular machines - Bing video
cellular machines - Bing video
You have a very simplistic view of even the cell.

Okay. Please show me that the texts in the new testament are the work of authors who wrote at the time of the events they described.

What?

This again? I've already dealt with this argument in 1573 and 1599 when I spoke about Arthur the Giant poodle who was president of the world.
And I've explained why I don't find those sufficient.

So? Just because some real people were mentioned, doesn't mean they were ALL real. I've often used examples from TV shows as moral lessons to my daughter, even when I use examples from real life people as well.

Arthur the Giant Poodle being a president of the world would be struck down pretty easily. Your analogies really have no relationship to the subject.

You may give examples from TV shows as moral lessons, which again is not in the same vein as a person giving examples of living people in a narrative.

Oh, and if I knew these facts I would no longer be an atheist, is that it?

If you had these facts you could make an informed response to those you encounter on a Christian forum.

Your explanation was built on an assumption.

I said I was done.

Care to show me a source that supports your claim that historical scholars have determined the Gospels were both accurate AND contemporary?

Richard Bauckham.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Rich.

Just because Lucian believed he was a real man doesn't mean he actually was. Lucian was born in 125, there's no way he could do anything but repeat accounts told to him by other people. And if he spoke to people who believed that Jesus was real, where was he going to get evidence that Jesus was not real?

Michael Grant, a historian and an expert on ancient classical civilization, noted: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”

Rudolf Bultmann, a professor of New Testament studies, stated: “The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community [of Christians].”

Will Durant, a historian, writer, and philosopher, wrote: “That a few simple men [the Gospel writers] should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Ever hear of John Frum?

Nope, but looked it up.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, when I learned a better epistemology I realized my reasons for belief were insufficient. I did believe just like any other christian, later I realized those beliefs were unjustified.

So perhaps God did reveal Himself, but you changed your mind.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, it puts you in the same category that you assume of others...and says quite a lot about you, Kylie...

It says you think people lie and are more prone to lie than to speak the truth..

Therefore, I do not understand how you care to accept anyone´s testimony as truth....

Your refusal to respond to my questions does not put me into any category.

 

[Kylie]

I did? Please explain what that would be?

Could it be that because GOD has revealed HIMSELF to me that I am steadfast and you consider that close-minded?

Post 1585, when you said:

No. I believe myself to be firmly planted on THE FOUNDATION...and because of it, no....sand....can come between my feet and THE FOUNDATION...​

You claim you are not closed-minded, but then you claim that nothing can come between you and what you believe.

 

[miknik5]

The key verses here are John 4:40-44

So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”

43 After the two days he departed for Galilee. 44 (For Jesus himself had testified F)" that a prophet has no honor in his own hometown.)

So these people did not ultimately believe because of the woman's testimony but because they met Jesus himself and he talked to them for two days. How can I follow the method of the townspeople as you request if Jesus won't meet me for two days in the flesh?

What did the woman say to the townspeople? You missed that part...and you also must have overlooked Romans 10 as well.

Why is CHRIST preached, sir...so that people will seek HIM to know HIM for themselves...

 

[miknik5]

Your refusal to respond to my questions does not put me into any category.

I have responded to your questions...with the same answer...the FOUNDATION is sufficient. You then went into an analogy about shopping. There haven´t been any other questions after that.

 

[miknik5]

Post 1585, when you said:

No. I believe myself to be firmly planted on THE FOUNDATION...and because of it, no....sand....can come between my feet and THE FOUNDATION...​

You claim you are not closed-minded, but then you claim that nothing can come between you and what you believe.

Um...no, I also went further to say...when GOD makes HIMSELF known, one certainly will NOT be moving...and no ONE can move you...

 

[Kylie]

God is God and doesn't create gods. The only way someone is impervious to sin is for God to live within them.

Could you answer my question with a yes or a no please.

No, actually you need more than the self-replicating molecule which is where we were before. Think of it this way, the self-replicating molecule is the hardware as in a computer system, and the information management is the software. The chemistry is the hardware and the information the biology. Natural selection can't do anything unless the information part of the system is present.

Do you even understand why proteins and such do what they do? It's because of their shape. And their shape is an emergent property of their construction. If I told you to mark a point on a piece of paper, and then make a series of other marks that are all the same distance from that first mark, you're gonna get a circle. It's an emergent property of the process.

Oh, so you are ok with no valid evidence for possibility in your naturalistic worldview, but demand valid evidence for the Christian worldview. See the problem? You aren't really about evidence...valid or not as long as it fits within your own worldview but you still demand it for others. That is hypocrisy. So whatever evidence doesn't fit within your worldview you consider insufficient or missing but if it happens to be within your worldview you are quite alright with that.

As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Something which we have no evidence for, but is perfectly consistent with known scientific principles is a lot LESS extraordinary than invoking a deity.

That is just because you will accept implausible non-evidential explanations and believe they are more possible than God, but you really have no real reason to believe that a naturalistic worldview can stand alone. Information is not produced by the chemistry of molecules, to believe that life arose from non-living materials by chance is just as extraordinary as God is to you.

I believe it stands alone because I have never seen any situation where it can be demonstrated that a naturalistic worldview alone can't explain something.

That is simply ridiculous. Inefficient?

Is this inefficient?
cellular machines - Bing video
cellular machines - Bing video
You have a very simplistic view of even the cell.

Yes, because the Laryngeal nerve is most efficient, the way it goes from the brain to the larynx by way of the aortic arch.

What?

I asked for sources about Jesus that come from the time of Jesus.

You said that the documents in the New Testament are such examples.

I am now asking you to provide evidence that the documents in the New Testament about Jesus actually came from the time of Jesus.

I don't know how you found this unclear.

Arthur the Giant Poodle being a president of the world would be struck down pretty easily. Your analogies really have no relationship to the subject.

But in the far future, some person who believes in Arthur the Giant Poodle could say to an Arthur Denier, "Okay, show me some source from 2020 that says that Arthur doesn't exist!"

Now why on Earth would anyone alive today write about the non-existence of a character who hasn't even been invented yet?

You may give examples from TV shows as moral lessons, which again is not in the same vein as a person giving examples of living people in a narrative.

Irrelevant. You claimed that Mara Bar-Serapion referenced several people and since we can show that some of those people were real, we should conclude that they were all real. I am pointing out that people can refer to real people and ficticious people all in the same sentence.

If you had these facts you could make an informed response to those you encounter on a Christian forum.

Love this take on the, "If you knew what I knew, you'd know that I'm right."

Richard Bauckham.

Yes, just giving me the person's name and not any actual paper they have written is enough to convince me!

Care to actually provide a SOURCE in which he demonstrates what you claim he demonstrated? You're the one who has to support your claim, don't do a half way job of it. I'm not going to finish your homework for you. I'm not your mum.

Rich.

Then don't judge.

Michael Grant, a historian and an expert on ancient classical civilization, noted: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”

And what pagan figures would those be?

Rudolf Bultmann, a professor of New Testament studies, stated: “The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community [of Christians].”

Given the amount of actually verifiable evidence I've seen, I doubt his statement.

Will Durant, a historian, writer, and philosopher, wrote: “That a few simple men [the Gospel writers] should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Of course, if they didn't and merely drew upon pre-existing myths, then it's no surprise at all, is it?

Nope, but looked it up.

And...?

 

[Kylie]

I have responded to your questions...with the same answer...the FOUNDATION is sufficient. You then went into an analogy about shopping. There haven´t been any other questions after that.

Well, I asked you if you were closed-minded and you said no, but then you immediately said nothing could eve change your mind which is pretty much the defintion of being closed-minded, but let's just forget that for the moment...

I asked in post 1599 quite a few questions. You had a go at me for one of the first things I stated in that post, and I agreed with you and withdrew that comment. You never responded to ANY of the questions in post 1599, and now you are apparently claiming that those questions don't exist.

Please go back and check post 1599. You will find quite a few questions, please answer them. Here is a link: CLICK HERE.

 

[gentlejah]

I'm in. Just the idea of praying for a "Clizby WampusCat' makes me smile.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What did the woman say to the townspeople? You missed that part...and you also must have overlooked Romans 10 as well.

How does this make it better for your point? She said "He told me all that I ever did". Then the townspeople said they no longer believe because of what she said but because they met Jesus. Where can I meet Jesus in the flesh like these townspeople did? You are asking me to believe because you say so and then you reference a passage that clearly says these people believed because they met and heard from Jesus in the flesh.

Why is CHRIST preached, sir...so that people will seek HIM to know HIM for themselves...

I know this is what the bible says but why ask us to believe without evidence when he could provide the evidence?