Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[3sigma]

Some music today has been indocrinating our children into satanism and all kinds of evil practices, but because I abstain from this, and try to live a wholesome life around everyone I am indoctrinating my children in nonsense? Nonsense, because you cannot understand it?

No. It is nonsense because it consists of claims that are absurd or contrary to good sense. Claims such as those in this [post=53968677]post[/post] of mine that contained several questions you have chosen to ignore. Let’s just check to see what sort of nonsense you’ve instilled into your children. Have you taught your children that any of these claims are true?

• The universe, the Earth and life were created in six literal days.
• Plants and animals can talk.
• The Earth was covered by a global flood sometime in the last 10,000 years.
• A man can walk on water.
• A man can come back to life after being dead.

All of those are nonsense and have been refuted by sound evidence.

Have you taught your children that any of these claims are true?

• Your God is real.
• Heaven is real.
• Hell is real.
• Angels are real.
• Satan is real.
• You will have eternal life.

None of those claims has a single shred of sound, objective evidence supporting it.

If you’ve convinced your children to believe even one of those claims then you’ve done them a disservice by teaching them not to use sound logic, reasoning and evidence when coming to conclusions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you taught your children that any of these claims are true?

• The universe, the Earth and life were created in six literal days.
• Plants and animals can talk.
• The Earth was covered by a global flood sometime in the last 10,000 years.
• A man can walk on water.
• A man can come back to life after being dead.

I know a well-known evangelist who was committed to the psychiatric unit for answering questions similar to the above ones.

It took a Christian psychiatrist to override the resident psychiatrist's orders and get him released.

(Note: He either overrode the resident psychiatrist's orders, or he convinced the resident psychiatrist to rescind his orders.)

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I know a well-known evangelist who was committed to the psychiatric unit for answering questions similar to the above ones.

It took a Christian psychiatrist to override the resident psychiatrist's orders and get him released.

(Note: He either overrode the resident psychiatrist's orders, or he convinced the resident psychiatrist to rescind his orders.)

What is this "well-known evangelist's" name?

 

[kenblaster5000]

No. It is nonsense because it consists of claims that are absurd or contrary to good sense. Claims such as those in this [post=53968677]post[/post] of mine that contained several questions you have chosen to ignore. Let’s just check to see what sort of nonsense you’ve instilled into your children. Have you taught your children that any of these claims are true?

• The universe, the Earth and life were created in six literal days.
• Plants and animals can talk.
• The Earth was covered by a global flood sometime in the last 10,000 years.
• A man can walk on water.
• A man can come back to life after being dead.

All of those are nonsense and have been refuted by sound evidence.

Have you taught your children that any of these claims are true?

• Your God is real.
• Heaven is real.
• Hell is real.
• Angels are real.
• Satan is real.
• You will have eternal life.

None of those claims has a single shred of sound, objective evidence supporting it.

If you’ve convinced your children to believe even one of those claims then you’ve done them a disservice by teaching them not to use sound logic, reasoning and evidence when coming to conclusions.

Go take a hike. You are not good soil to sow in. I believe a donkey talked in the old testament, rebuked the madness of the prophet Baalam for trying to put a curse on God's people Israel. I do not believe a plant has talked. All the others are true.

Jude 9-11

9. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!
10. But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts,in these things they corrupt themselves.
11. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

John 8:44-47

44. "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
45. "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.
46. "Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?
47. "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is this "well-known evangelist's" name?

Bob Jones --- not the Bob Jones --- but Bob Jones.

 

[3sigma]

Go take a hike.

I’m just telling you how it is. If you wish to shield yourself from the harshness of reality by denying it then perhaps this isn’t the forum for you.

I believe a donkey talked in the old testament, rebuked the madness of the prophet Baalam for trying to put a curse on God's people Israel. I do not believe a plant has talked.

You didn’t answer the questions. Have you convinced your children to believe this nonsense as well? If so, then I am dismayed that you would teach your children not to use sound logic, reasoning and evidence to come to conclusions.

All the others are true.

To be correct, you merely believe all the others are true. None of them has been shown with sound reasoning and evidence actually to be true and several of them have been shown to be false.

 

[Doveaman]

You definitely have this part right. Trying to make sense of your statement is an exercise in futility. So, now, what you're saying is that your claims cannot be empirically or forensically verified but they're logically unsound, as well. Sounds like the very definition of 'nonsense,' as AV and I have been talking about.

If by 'nonsense' you mean "foolishness", that would be the correct definition:

God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe...

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom...

I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that...

For the message of the cross is foolishness... – 1 Cor 1:21,1 Cor 1:25, 2 Cor 11:1, 1 Cor 1:18.

The truth is you're masking your blunder behind a wishful veil of mysticism.

That's because you do not comprehend "foolishness" when you hear it.

Either you're 100% good or you're not.

The "foolishness" of the gospel says I am both at the same time.

Now, if you're going to claim that logic doesn't apply to good and evil, then why are you trying to make logically sound arguments out of them?

If my arguments are logical and sound, then why don't you believe them?

Is it because my arguments sound like "foolishness"?

 

[Doveaman]

No true Scotsman. I'm guessing you know you're right. I'm guessing those who don't see you as a true Christian also 'know' they're correct.

You remind me of scientists, they are always guessing.

Oh yea... By the by, you haven't shown your 'proof' of a man coming back from the dead. You made a big deal about this 'proof' and you haven't shown it.

"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand...You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes." - Matt 13:13-15.

I think that about sums up why you are not 'seeing' the proof.

 

[Doveaman]

How little you know about me. Here's a big difference between you and me:
You deliberately wanted to change from whatever belief system you had to Christianity. I was a Christian and DID NOT want to lose faith. I was in denial of my losing faith for years, during which the knowledge that I possessed and the faith I wanted were at terrible odds. I became depressed and felt terribly lost. I would cry myself to sleep praying and begging for something that would reignite my faith. This went on for the better part of my teen years. Eventually, I had to accept I didn't believe, despite all my wishes to love God. I went from calling myself an agnostic to, after some more years of thinking and learning, calling myself an atheist.

So, don't preach to me about opening my heart and blah blah blah. Unlike you, I didn't change or lose my faith willingly. I literally became an atheist against my will. Not only that, but I do wish I could believe that I will see my dead relatives in paradise one day. I wish I could believe that evil deeds are always punished. I do wish I could believe all that but I don't, not because I don't want to (I do,). but because I can't.

Did you have a personal relationship with Christ?

If you didn't, then you had no faith.

If you did, it is impossible for you to now believe He no longer exists.

That would be like a man being married to a woman and, after they divorced, he no longer believes she exists.

If you no longer believe Christ exists, then you never knew Him.

And if you never knew Him, then you never had faith.

Whatever you might have had, if you never knew Christ, it wasn't faith.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Did you have a personal relationship with Christ?

If you didn't, then you had no faith.

If you did, it is impossible for you to now believe He no longer exists.

That would be like a man being married to a woman and, after they divorced, he no longer believes she exists.

If you no longer believe Christ exists, then you never knew Him.

And if you never knew Him, then you never had faith.

Whatever you might have had, if you never knew Christ, it wasn't faith.

I had a 'personal relationship' with Christ. Now I don't. I believe he most likely existed, but that's about as far as it goes. The fact that I did this proves that entire post wrong.

Applying your own beliefs to other people gives a very 'holier than thou' impression - I'd advise against it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You remind me of scientists, they are always guessing.
"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand...You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes." - Matt 13:13-15.

I think that about sums up why you are not 'seeing' the proof.

So, basically, you haven't got any proof, have you. I've got proof that God doesn't exist, but your mind is too closed to 'see' it. It's still proof though, so God must not exist.

 

[FreeInChrist88]

I had a 'personal relationship' with Christ. Now I don't. I believe he most likely existed, but that's about as far as it goes. The fact that I did this proves that entire post wrong.

Applying your own beliefs to other people gives a very 'holier than thou' impression - I'd advise against it.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by " 'personal relationship' with Christ"?

I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just curious as to what that meant to you.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by " 'personal relationship' with Christ"?

I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just curious as to what that meant to you.

I believed in Christ, I prayed to him and a truly believed that I got answers in return. It's most probably different to other people's 'personal relationship' with Christ, but I considered it to be one. In all honesty, it's rather hard to have a normal relationship with a supernatural being that exists outside of what we consider to be the physical world.

 

[Doveaman]

Your statement was "cosmic radiation, red shift, etc -> Big Bang did it". Now what that mean?

What does it mean to you? Nothing. Empty. No meaning at all.

It means a drowning monster grabbing at straws to keep him afloat.

You read the phrase and you hear that it "did" something... and you deny it, because you don´t believe that "big bang" is only "hypothetical" - which means "non existent" for you - and thus cannot "do" anything.

What I heard is: “Cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.” --> Big Bang did it.

What I believe is: The universe, life, etc. --> God did it.

Your evidence for Big Bang = Cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.

My evidence for God = The universe, life, etc.

We are on par so far.

What does it mean to me? It is an explanatory model meant to fit together observations, search for corrobating evidence and combine them into a working model (in two meanings: a model for working with as well as a model that works).

A model that “works” because mathematical dark fairies are invoked to make it “work”.

God did it doesn’t require mathematical dark fairies to work.

Why the Big Bang?

Because scientists have a hard time admitting they don’t know.

How did the Big Bang "do" red shift? What did it "do"? Paint stars red? Embarass stellar objects? No.

Exactly. It did nothing. It never happened. It’s all a made up story. A myth.

Red shift is an observed physical phenomenon. It is the observation that objects don´t (seem to the observer to) send out light of the wavelength they should, according to their chemical makeup. It is tested, calculated and verified. It is real.

It was real even before scientists discovered it and added their flawed interpretation to it.

This phenomenon is caused by the change in the wavelength of light observed between moving objects. This again, the explanation for this observation, is tested, calculated and verified. In the case of red shift, the relative movement of the observer and the observed object is one of getting further away. If object and observer would be getting closer, the shift would be towards the blue end of the spectrum.

Now if objects are observed to show this red shift, a reasonable conclusion is that they are moving away from the observer.

It is only reasonable if you have a myopic view of the universe, which you obviously have.

If they are moving away, they must have been closer together in the past.

The thing is, they are not all “moving away”, and some of them are even connected to each other despite having different redshifts:

Four different redshift objects connected by a luminous plasma bridge.

It is observations like these that falsifies the Big Bang. This is why Consensus Cosmology tend to ignore them.

Now the question is "how close"?

If it has been observed that they are not all “moving away”, then this question is irrelevant.

As there is no observable explanation for any stage, one possible answer is "really, really, really close" - the hypothetical singularity.

Your faith is obviously stronger than mine if you believe in this hypothetical nonsense.

That’s the problem with the Big Bang; for it to work you have to keep making up fairytales.

Now we do the reasoning process in the opposite direction: if such a singularity existed, and expanded to form what we observe now, it could have done it in a certain way, based on what we know / can observe now. This certain way would leave certain results observable now.

Only if you took something observable and pretend it was produced by a Big Bang that never happened.

It is amusing to see the extent to which some people will go to convince themselves that something happened that never happened.

Can we find these results?

Considering the Big Bang never happened, nope.

And it is indeed that proposed results - like the cosmic background radiation - have been observed. Strengthening the hypothesis of the "big bang".

Cosmic background radiation has been predicted many times before with a high degree of accuracy, and it had nothing to do with a Big Bang, so you are late on that one. You cannot expect to come last and lay claim to it. It has already been predicted by others for other sources other than Big Bang radiation.

This is the why and how of the Big Bang "doing" things.

Yes, I can clearly see why and how it does things.

It would make for a very good science fiction documentary.

Can you do the same for "God did it"?

Nope. God is not into science fiction. Sorry.

Yes, there is a potential explanation for redshift by "tiring of light". The problem is though that this cannot explain the opposite phenomenon: blueshift.

Nor does it explain this:

Four different redshift objects connected by a luminous plasma bridge.

 

[Doveaman]

I had a 'personal relationship' with Christ. Now I don't. I believe he most likely existed, but that's about as far as it goes. The fact that I did this proves that entire post wrong.

You are not making any sense at all.

You are saying you had a personal relationship with someone that "most likely existed"?!

Did He exist or not?

Applying your own beliefs to other people gives a very 'holier than thou' impression - I'd advise against it.

You need to make sense before you give advice.

 

[Freodin]

It means a drowning monster grabbing at straws to keep him afloat.
What I heard is: “Cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.” --> Big Bang did it.

What I believe is: The universe, life, etc. --> God did it.

Your evidence for Big Bang = Cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.

My evidence for God = The universe, life, etc.

We are on par so far.

On par? I though I had "more faith" than you? That places me in the lead, I´m sure.

But I fear we are still not "on par" with your assertions at all. You still ignore the most basic ways of reasoning to keep up your version.

There could be a different explanation for cosmic background raditation or red shift. But the reality of the Big Bang will inevitable result in these. That´s why we can use CBR and red shift as evidence.
On the other hand, the existence of God would necessarily result in... what? Unknown. Nothing, everything, something in between. Impossible to say. That´s why the existence of the universe and life can not be used as evidence for God.

Far from "on par".

 

[theFijian]

It isn’t unsupported or unverified. Kenblaster has verified that he teaches his children about his God. What is unverified is the claim that this God is even real.


Of course I believe things. I believe things that have sound evidence supporting them. As far as I know, I don’t believe things that have zero sound evidence supporting them or sound evidence refuting them (whereas religious believers do believe such things and they indoctrinate their children with this nonsense). However, if you can point out instances where I do believe that something exists or an event occurred that has no sound evidence supporting it or has sound evidence refuting it then I will promptly stop believing it. You seem certain that I do believe such things so can you give me some examples, please?

I would venture that you hold to the statement: only empirical evidence can be used as evidence that something exists; please prove this statement empirically.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You are not making any sense at all.

You are saying you had a personal relationship with someone that "most likely existed"?!

Did He exist or not?
You need to make sense before you give advice.

I believed Jesus existed and had a personal relationship with him. Note the past tense.

Now I believe that he most likely existed, but wasn't the Son of God or anything like that. Note the present tense.

Therefore, your earlier generalisation of a post that I replied to earlier is false.

 

[dawiyd]

The thing is, they are not all “moving away”, and some of them are even connected to each other despite having different redshifts:

Four different redshift objects connected by a luminous plasma bridge.

It is observations like these that falsifies the Big Bang. This is why Consensus Cosmology tend to ignore them.

Care to be any more dishonest? If science tends to ignore them (I note you have not listed any more than NGC 7603), could you explain papers such as http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0203/0203466v2.pdf And the conclusion at the very end? This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift. Future studies of this system are clearly warranted.

 

[SkyWriting]

My aunt wanted to come out here to stay with me to get over alcoholism. She lives in Minnesota, where she has a lawyer who gave her a card of a person who lives here in Arizona, to ask for a job, and it just happens to be the man that I work for.

That is excellent testimony. It is the kind of answered prayer that led me to become a believer about 20 years ago. When you hear enough testimonies of people discovering that Goddidit, a time finally come when you'd like some of that Goddidit in your own life because the alternative just doesn't cut the mustard.

I prayed for a job one time during a lousy interview. About a year before I was a believer by the way. My first job out of college. I got the job at one of the best companies a kid could hope for, BP Amoco, but the Spirit told me to move on quickly.
Many people have died who also worked in that building, which was emptied of people soon after I quit.