"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

Loudmouth · Nov 17, 2011

SkyWriting said:
That's because you don't believe that it's source is God Himself.
Many Christians do.

Believing something to be true does not make it true. There is this thing called evidence. You should present some.

I will go back to my original question. Can you name a single question where actions of a supernatural deity is a verifiable (i.e. evidenced) answer? Name a single mechanism in nature where we can verify that God is involved. Just one.

From everything I have seen, every mechanism in nature that we have verified a cause for the cause has been natural, not supernatural. So I am wondering why anyone thinks that supernatural causation is a reasonable answer to any question.

CTD · Nov 17, 2011

sandwiches said:
While I don't agree with this claim, I have tried avoiding the word "reasonable" because I understand what's reasonable depends on your premises. It is "reasonable" that if I believe in leprechauns that there would be pots of gold at the end of rainbows, for instance.

I try to stick with words that are more meaningful in different contexts such as "demonstrable," "verifiable," or "observable," or even "parsimonious." Though, I use the last one sparingly. So, while you and I can argue all day long about whether it is reasonable that an infinitely powerful, wise, and merciful being would kill all living beings save for those on a boat to "cleanse" the world, there's not much room for argument when we ask if this claim is demonstrable, observable, or verifiable.

You got one right.

When investigating the past, we all employ the same method (if we desire the truth.) I mean everyone - not just "professional historians" - men, women, and children follow the same procedure. Contrary to some assertions, it doesn't change. We employ the same methods investigating last month as we do investigating the most ancient history ...if we desire the truth.

The system consists of three steps: discovery, verification, and reconciliation. That's it. Any event which is discovered, verified, and reconciled, we accept.

Of course when investigating the present we employ observation. We also employ it in collecting evidence. We do not attempt to observe the past; neither does any honest man reject history on the basis that he doesn't observe it.

Demonstration applies to investigating the laws God has established for the normal operation of the world around us.

One should employ the right tool for the right job, and no man has any excuse to fail in that regard. Everyone knows, even small children and animals.

sandwiches · Nov 17, 2011

CTD said:
You got one right.

When investigating the past, we all employ the same method (if we desire the truth.) I mean everyone - not just "professional historians" - men, women, and children follow the same procedure. Contrary to some assertions, it doesn't change. We employ the same methods investigating last month as we do investigating the most ancient history ...if we desire the truth.

The system consists of three steps: discovery, verification, and reconciliation. That's it. Any event which is discovered, verified, and reconciled, we accept.

Of course when investigating the present we employ observation. We also employ it in collecting evidence. We do not attempt to observe the past; neither does any honest man reject history on the basis that he doesn't observe it.

Demonstration applies to investigating the laws God has established for the normal operation of the world around us.

One should employ the right tool for the right job, and no man has any excuse to fail in that regard. Everyone knows, even small children and animals.

When we can't observe events, we try to find evidence of past events that we can observe and verify and that are parsimonious and consistent with current knowledge and understanding.

And demonstrating has nothing to do with God, as far as anyone's been able to... well, demonstrate. =P

jay1 · Nov 17, 2011

Hey AV1611VET,

anything to say about the talking snake?

Phred · Nov 17, 2011

FrenchyBearpaw said:
Phred, may I present Mr. Darryl Dawkins.

Brilliant! That must be what she meant!!!

CTD · Nov 17, 2011

sandwiches said:
When we can't observe events, we try to find evidence of past events that we can observe and verify and that are parsimonious and consistent with current knowledge and understanding.

You employ the very method I said you employ any time you desire to discover the truth. Everyone does, without exception.

sandwiches said:
And demonstrating has nothing to do with God, as far as anyone's been able to... well, demonstrate. =P

It's beginning to seem pretty clear this isn't one of those occasions.

SkyWriting · Nov 17, 2011

jay1 said:
So do we stone each other to death? what's the protocol here?

See #3.

SkyWriting · Nov 17, 2011

jay1 said:
Hey AV1611VET,

anything to say about the talking snake?

It was a Serpent. Look stuff up.

jay1 · Nov 17, 2011

SkyWriting said:
See #3.

Skywriting, please read the rest of my post and answer the questions.

jay1 · Nov 17, 2011

SkyWriting said:
It was a Serpent. Look it up.

I will. Oxford English Dictionary

serpent: Any of the scaly limbless reptiles regarded as having the properties of hissing and stinging; Zool. a reptile of the group Ophidia n.; a snake; now, in ordinary use, applied chiefly to the larger and more venomous species.

Looked it up. What are you saying?

SkyWriting · Nov 17, 2011

jay1 said:
Skywriting, please read the rest of my post and answer the questions.

You'll have to edit it better first. I can't make it out. Sorry.

sandwiches · Nov 17, 2011

CTD said:
You employ the very method I said you employ any time you desire to discover the truth. Everyone does, without exception.

It's beginning to seem pretty clear this isn't one of those occasions.

It is never one of those occasions when you inject "god" here and there because you'd like to think your theology is true.

AV1611VET · Nov 17, 2011

jay1 said:
Hey AV1611VET,

anything to say about the talking snake?

Plenty:

AV1611VET said:
How about you show me talking snakes in the Bible; otherwise, I'll assume you are the one making up this fable.

I'm sure, if you are truly an evolutionist that understands subtle differences in species, you'll be able to answer my challenge.

(Lurkers: You're about to be educated in the difference between a real evolutionist and an Internet evolutionist.)

AV1611VET said:
I'm even calling it a snake myself, evolutionist.

Can you describe these talking snakes [sic]* for us, using evolutionist terminology?

* I'm cutting you some slack in knowing the difference between singular and plural (you're welcome). I'm focusing on the more important aspect of an evolutionist here describing these talking creatures [sic].

AV1611VET said:
WOW -- you are an educated man, aren't you?

Here it is, evolutionist, plain as the writing on a clipboard:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Now, before you go claiming that evolution says some snakes [sic] are indeed 'beasts of the field', let me point out what further happens to this dragon-beast after the Fall:

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

-- He lost his legs!

A real evolutionist would have caught this (and don't get any ideas, I'm not a real evolutionist).

And again, I won't mention knowing the difference between singular and plural -- -- but I will ask you this:

I'll bet you Internet evolutionists think that we KJVOs believe God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of creation, don't you?

SkyWriting · Nov 17, 2011

jay1 said:
I will. Oxford English Dictionary

serpent: Any of the scaly limbless reptiles regarded as having the properties of hissing and stinging; Zool. a reptile of the group Ophidia n.; a snake; now, in ordinary use, applied chiefly to the larger and more venomous species.

Looked it up. What are you saying?

Then look deeper into my eyes....your eyelids are getting heavy....heavy..
ser·pent/ˈsərpənt/

Noun:

A large snake.
A biblical name for Satan (see Gen. 3, Rev. 20).

ser·pent (sûr p nt)n.1. A reptile of the order Serpentes; a snake.
2. often Serpenta. In the Bible, the creature that tempted Eve.
b. Satan.

3. A subtle, sly, or treacherous person.

serpent [ˈsɜːpənt]n1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) a literary or dialect word for snake
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Old Testament a manifestation of Satan as a guileful tempter (Genesis 3:1-5)

sandwiches · Nov 17, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Plenty:

Ah... so, it's a talking, LEGGED snake. So much yakking and yipping for so little content, kid.

jay1 · Nov 17, 2011

SkyWriting said:
Then look deeper into my eyes....your eyelids are getting heavy....heavy..
ser·pent/ˈsərpənt/

Noun:

A large snake.

A biblical name for Satan (see Gen. 3, Rev. 20).

ser·pent pn.1. A reptile of the order Serpentes; a snake.
2. often Serpenta. In the Bible, the creature that tempted Eve.
b. Satan.

3. A subtle, sly, or treacherous person.

serpent [ˈsɜːpənt]n1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) a literary or dialect word for
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Old Testament a manifestation of Satan as a guileful tempter (Genesis 3:1-5)

Really, you choose wikipedia as a source? how about a quote from a reputable dictionary?

SkyWriting · Nov 17, 2011

jay1 said:
Skywriting, please read the rest of my post and answer the questions.

I still say follow the local laws when sentencing. That's how the Bible reads.
The Bible is an accurate historical book. Things you read in it are historically accurate,
so not everything you read is always politically correct in 2011.
I still say follow the local laws when sentencing. And leave that to the judges.
Unless you want to be one, then go for it dude! There are very few prerequisites.

jay1 · Nov 17, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Plenty:

So you do admit then that it spoke?

Evolution does not explain talking snakes (or however you want to define it) because they have never existed. If you want however i could describe to you how humans came to speak, if you like?

As to the KJV of the bible , sorry i don't remember exactly the "once upon a time.." part of your fairytale.

As to even the validity of the KJV. For you the only true bible is the one written 1600 years after jesus? really?

jay1 · Nov 17, 2011

SkyWriting said:
I still say follow the local laws when sentencing. That's how the Bible reads.
The Bible is an accurate historical book. Things you read in it are historically accurate,
so not everything you read is always politically correct in 2011.
I still say follow the local laws when sentencing. And leave that to the judges.
Unless you want to be one, then go for it dude! There are very few prerequisites.

So you believe in the bible literally, everything is the word of god! but, ignore that bit.

Would that be an accurate summary of your beliefs?

SkyWriting · Nov 17, 2011

jay1 said:
Really, you choose wikipedia as a source? how about a quote from a reputable dictionary?

Authors:Anderson, SallieSource:Australian Journal of Anthropology; Dec2001, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p291, 11pDocument Type:ArticleSubject Terms:*SERPENTS in art
*INDIGENOUS peoples
*ARTISTS
*CHRISTIANITYNAICS/Industry Codes:711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and PerformersAbstract:In this paper, I illustrate the way one Aboriginal artist challenged what he perceived as an essentialised concept of Aboriginality, by rejecting rainbow serpent iconography. The motivations for this rejection were the artist's strong belief in the Christian God as creator and his reaction against New Age representations of Aboriginality in which the rainbow serpent signifies Aboriginal spirituality and is posited as the single creator for all of Aboriginal Australia. A conflict arose at the artist's gallery when he refused to exhibit a rainbow serpent painting by another Aboriginal artist. Publicised in the local newspaper, the rejection of these artworks started a brief public debate about the role of Christianity in Aboriginal culture. The various positions adopted by the Aboriginal protagonists highlight the complex processes of negotiation, dialogue and debate surrounding diverse constructions of identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]Eve and the Serpent: A Rational Choice to Err.Full Text Available By: Dekker, Sidney W. A.. Journal of Religion & Health, Dec2007, Vol. 46 Issue 4, p571-579, 9p; DOI: 10.1007/s10943-007-9118-1Subjects: RATIONAL choice theory; HUMAN error; GUILT; SERPENTS in the Bible; CONTROL (Psychology); EVE (Biblical figure)
Database: Academic Search Premier

OLD TESTAMENT Q&A.Full Text Available Ignite Your Faith, Winter2009, Vol. 67 Issue 6, p16-16, 1/7pSubjects: QUESTIONS & answers; SERPENTS in the Bible; SERPENTS -- Religious aspects; BIBLE. O.T.; MOSES (Biblical leader)
Database: Academic Search Premier

THE FALL PARADOX.Detail Only Available By: Brooks, Thom. Philosophy & Theology, 2007, Vol. 19 Issue 1/2, p3-5, 3pSubjects: GOD -- Love; LOVE -- Religious aspects; FORBIDDEN fruit; SERPENTS in the Bible; EVE (Biblical figure); ADAM (Biblical figure)
Database: Academic Search Premier

"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Newbie

Junior Mint

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

Newbie

Newbie

The Librarian

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Librarian

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Newbie

The Librarian

Newbie

Newbie

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency