Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[kenblaster5000]

I see your suffocating fish and raise you one muskipper.

What is that, a type of frog? Frogs start off as tadpoles and go through a series of changes to become a frog, just as a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. In the same fashion, when we are born-again, we become a new creature in Jesus Christ. God did it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, it's not even really a well thought out criticism. Those such as the Jesus Seminar aren't adding new scholarship, they simply start with the assumption that anything miraculous cannot and never did happen and procede from there to mark out any text that has to do with miracles. Not a very intricate or hard thing to do. Hume Voltaire probably began this tradition in full force that the modern skeptics continue to this day. It's the same argument today as it was when the enlightenment started.

Ah yes, because the Jesus Seminar do it, and because they're sceptics, it necessarily follows that ALL sceptics do it. And it always amuses me when someone makes a sweeping insult against 'sceptics', implying that they themselves aren't sceptics - and someone who isn't sceptical is a gullible fool.

 

[3sigma]

What specific evidence do you have that the consciousness ceases?

Oh, wait, you’re right; people often seem to be wide-awake and conscious after they are dead. How could I have missed that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is that, a type of frog?

No, they are a fully amphibious species of fish. That is, they can breath and move freely in water and on land.

Frogs start off as tadpoles and go through a series of changes to become a frog, just as a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly.

That is a phenomenon called metamorphosis. Fascinating, but quite unrelated to evolution.

In the same fashion, when we are born-again, we become a new creature in Jesus Christ. God did it.

Whatever gets you through the night .

 

[Jnwaco]

Oh, wait, you’re right; people often seem to be wide-awake and conscious after they are dead. How could I have missed that?

Well, even the Bible says that.

 

[Jnwaco]

Ah yes, because the Jesus Seminar do it, and because they're sceptics, it necessarily follows that ALL sceptics do it. And it always amuses me when someone makes a sweeping insult against 'sceptics', implying that they themselves aren't sceptics - and someone who isn't sceptical is a gullible fool.

It's not an insult. It's just how they do it. Ehrman is the same way if you read him or watch him debate. It's the underlying premise of most of the discussion here, too - the need for naturalistic "proof".

 

[kenblaster5000]

Besides, we all started off as sperm and an egg, and through a process repeated over and again from the first human to us, we produced a human, male or female. All except for, in my belief, Adam who was made from the earth, and Eve who was made from Adam's rib. I do not believe that man came from ape, or ape from fish. Man is one type of flesh, fish are another, reptiles are another, so on and so forth. There are also celestial bodies, stars, planets, and spiritual bodies, such as the spirit we have inside and our soul. Angels and fallen angels, where do you think alot of false religions, doctrines, and cults come from. Yes, if sigma wants to learn a little about angels and dark angels, the devil, demons, and such, he can research on that, instead of making uneducated conjectures. I, on the other hand, do not know much about evolution. If you want to talk about natural selection, adaptation of species, natural selection, that is fine, but the science part of the whole thing is way to complex and a waste of time. I would rather show you how transformation looks like through sperm and egg producing a human, and a frog, transforming from a tadpole, because transformation from a natural to a spirit man is somewhat the same, though a bit different. But, those things that are spiritually discerned are hard to put across, because of just that, the Holy Spirit comes in and takes the scales from your eyes so that you may see the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God cannot be seen unless you are born-again. If any of you wanted to get to know your God, you could, if you put the effort forth to get to know Him, instead of putting in the time to know your god, evolution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not an insult. It's just how they do it. Ehrman is the same way if you read him or watch him debate. It's the underlying premise of most of the discussion here, too - the need for naturalistic "proof".

So you genuinely do not consider yourself to be sceptical in any way, shape, or form? You don't require any form of justification before you will accept any proposition presented to you? Then I submit to you, sir, that the world will end tomorrow at noon (BST) unless you send all your money to my bank account.

 

[Jnwaco]

So you genuinely do not consider yourself to be sceptical in any way, shape, or form? You don't require any form of justification before you will accept any proposition presented to you? Then I submit to you, sir, that the world will end tomorrow at noon (BST) unless you send all your money to my bank account.

I don't think I am as skeptical as you, no. But one does not have to be as naive as you present to believe, either.

 

[3sigma]

I wish I could say "Enjoy the paradise of complete nonexistence you have made up your mind to believe in, because you do not have proof of that "theory" just as my verses in the bible I present to you about the existence of hell do not ring true in your mind.

There is no sound reason to believe that death is anything other than the permanent end to our existence. Death is inevitable. I am going to die, you are going to die and your children are going to die. No amount of fear or wishful thinking is going to change that.

 

[MoonLancer]

Also an untrue statement. What else do you have?

How can i ever compeat with your one-liner rebuttals?

 

[3sigma]

Well, even the Bible says that.

Don’t tell me you actually believe it?

 

[kenblaster5000]

No, they are a fully amphibious species of fish. That is, they can breath and move freely in water and on land. That is a phenomenon called metamorphosis. Fascinating, but quite unrelated to evolution. Whatever gets you through the night .

He gets me through my whole life. He even puts me in situations to get me through it. It is for my benefit, so that I may become stronger. Are you a wicca child or not? Wicca believes in a god and a goddess, right? Let us get this perfectly clear. I cannot be put into a box called Christianity, just as many of you cannot be labeled with a term like evolution, and wicca child be labeled wiccan. Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses cannot even follow their own doctrines and dogmas. I am definately not just stupid Christian. I am ignorant of alot, but to be stupid would just be an insult to the Holy Spirit, who takes of the Father and gives to us, if we are indeed born of the Holy Spirit. My spirit does bear witness with the Holy Spirit that I am a child born of God. Who will bring an accusation against God's elect, it is Him who justifies.

 

[MoonLancer]

You don't have a clue what I'm saying, do you?

do you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Besides, we all started off as sperm and an egg, and through a process repeated over and again from the first human to us, we produced a human, male or female. All except for, in my belief, Adam who was made from the earth, and Eve who was made from Adam's rib. I do not believe that man came from ape, or ape from fish. Man is one type of flesh, fish are another, reptiles are another, so on and so forth. There are also celestial bodies, stars, planets, and spiritual bodies, such as the spirit we have inside and our soul. Angels and fallen angels, where do you think alot of false religions, doctrines, and cults come from.

You are entitled to your beliefs, whatever they may be.

Yes, if sigma wants to learn a little about angels and dark angels, the devil, demons, and such, he can research on that, instead of making uneducated conjectures. I, on the other hand, do not know much about evolution.

Inheritable mutation in enviromental attrition leads leads to adaptation within the species. This is evolution. Long-term evolution leads to speciation and modern terrestrial biodiversity. Bam. That is evolution in a nutshell.

If you want to talk about natural selection, adaptation of species, natural selection, that is fine, but the science part of the whole thing is way to complex and a waste of time. I would rather show you how transformation looks like through sperm and egg producing a human, and a frog, transforming from a tadpole, because transformation from a natural to a spirit man is somewhat the same, though a bit different. But, those things that are spiritually discerned are hard to put across, because of just that, the Holy Spirit comes in and takes the scales from your eyes so that you may see the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God cannot be seen unless you are born-again. If any of you wanted to get to know your God, you could, if you put the effort forth to get to know Him, instead of putting in the time to know your god, evolution.

When in doubt, accuse atheists of secretly being religious!

 

[MoonLancer]

What is that, a type of frog? Frogs start off as tadpoles and go through a series of changes to become a frog, just as a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. In the same fashion, when we are born-again, we become a new creature in Jesus Christ. God did it.

Its not a frog. Its a half fish and half amphibian. basically the death blow to the video posted earlier. It is a living transitional species, that many creationists wish did not exist because it blows their unfounded claims right out of the water

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He gets me through my whole life. He even puts me in situations to get me through it. It is for my benefit, so that I may become stronger. Are you a wicca child or not? Wicca believes in a god and a goddess, right? Let us get this perfectly clear. I cannot be put into a box called Christianity, just as many of you cannot be labeled with a term like evolution, and wicca child be labeled wiccan.

"Wiccan_Child" is my alias on Christian Forums. It is not indicative of my actual faith (though I can see why it would be misleading).</br></br> Moreover, you can indeed by categorised and pidgeon-holed. You are, among other things, a Christian. I would also (tentatively) call you a Creationist, as you seem to believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account.

Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses cannot even follow their own doctrines and dogmas. I am definately not just stupid Christian. I am ignorant of alot, but to be stupid would just be an insult to the Holy Spirit, who takes of the Father and gives to us, if we are indeed born of the Holy Spirit. My spirit does bear witness with the Holy Spirit that I am a child born of God. Who will bring an accusation against God's elect, it is Him who justifies.

Which doesn't really mean much to one who doesn't believe God exists. Would you be at all perturbed if a Hindu said the same things about Brahaman?</br></br> Didn't think so.

 

[MoonLancer]

I don't think I am as skeptical as you, no. But one does not have to be as naive as you present to believe, either.

they do not, but that does not stop them from believing things without evidence

 

[Freodin]

Perhaps I am wrong - or to "myoptic" - but to me there seem to be a little nagging inconsistency in the argumentation presented by the Christian side here.

So, faith is proof. You have faith in God, and this is your proof. You don´t need to present anything, show anything, because all you need is faith... and we wouldn´t see anything regardless, because we are "myoptic".

But it takes more faith to believe in science than in God.

We believe in science. We have more faith than you. And faith is proof, so we have just proven our claims. Simply by using your own method.

So where is the rub? Why don´t all those who say that believing in Big Bang, Evolution, science takes more faith don´t bow to those who have this "more faith"?

I guess this is where it gets down to the personal. "Faith" is only proof when it is faith in something true. If you have faith in something false, it is not proof.

But how do you know what is true or false? Well, you obviously have to have faith that your faith is true. You HAVE faith that your faith is true, and so this is proof. Change of emphasis: YOU have faith that YOUR faith is true, and so this is proof.

You are right, and because of that, those who disagree with you must be wrong. Scientists, evolutionists, "consensus cosmologists", catholics... they are not you, so they must be wrong. Your faith tells you so.

And their faith tells them the same.


Wouldn´t it be better to find a method that could establish truth independently of the speaker? Something like, gasp, science?

 

[Jnwaco]

they do not, but that does not stop them from believing things without evidence

We have historical evidence that suits me just fine. Again, I am not as skeptical as you.