Biblical "good"

[MarkFL]

No need to quote or try to respond, you cannot have a discussion with someone who dismisses the validity of anything presented.

So far, I have dismissed nothing backed by evidence. Dismissal of fact is being done by many others here though.

As far as sciences : 5000 years ago the Bible told us about the gravitational field of the 7 sisters bound by Orion s belt.

Where?

As well long before Christ the earth was referenced as being round.

Where?

Rerove a scorned man,and you will get a Blot.
Reprove a wise man and he will love you for it.

You're preaching to the choir here.

No need reply.

So, you want to be able to reply, but have no rebuttals? You should set up a blog where you are the only one able to post for that.

Look, the only point I have been making all along is that beliefs, not backed by evidence, cannot be given as fact. You've then been making all kinds of statements about what you believe, which is fine, but you cannot legitimately present those beliefs as fact. They are not fact. Even if they are ultimately true, you have no basis for stating your beliefs as fact until you have some kind of compelling evidence. I'm not telling you your beliefs are wrong, I am only telling you they are not facts.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Markfl,

One doesn't simply attest that things are fact from simply repeatedly thinking them.

Atheism is the embracement of the physical while renouncing the spiritual. Science differs because it doesn't conclude the absence of something just because it isn't readily observable by a third party. This is the "religious" aspect of atheism and isn't synonymous with truthful scientific endeavour.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

Markfl,

One doesn't simply attest that things are fact from simply repeatedly thinking them.

Atheism is the embracement of the physical while renouncing the spiritual. Science differs because it doesn't conclude the absence of something just because it isn't readily observable by a third party. This is the "religious" aspect of atheism and isn't synonymous with truthful scientific endeavour.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

One states something as fact based on evidence, nothing else. That has been my point all along, which has been ignored at every step.

No, atheism is simply not having belief in gods. There is no religious aspect of atheism...where you guys are getting this is beyond me. It is a ploy used by theists to try to illegitimately shift the burden of proof. I also do not believe in anything else supernatural because of the same lack of evidence, but this is not part of the label "atheist" pushed upon me. Should I also wear labels for all the other things in which I do not believe for lack of evidence?

When have I stated something as fact without offering evidence (which is usually blatantly and willfully ignored)?

 

[popsthebuilder]

One states something as fact based on evidence, nothing else. That has been my point all along, which has been ignored at every step.

No, atheism is simply not having belief in gods. There is no religious aspect of atheism...where you guys are getting this is beyond me. It is a ploy used by theists to try to illegitimately shift the burden of proof. I also do not believe in anything else supernatural because of the same lack of evidence, but this is not part of the label "atheist" pushed upon me. Should I also wear labels for all the other things in which I do not believe for lack of evidence?

When have I stated something as fact without offering evidence (which is usually blatantly and willfully ignored)?

Atheism in general is stating that there is no creative force without proof of such a statement.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

Let's look at an online definition:

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Pretty much what I said in my own words above.

 

[Hebrews 11]

So far, I have dismissed nothing backed by evidence. Dismissal of fact is being done by many others here though.



Where?



Where?



You're preaching to the choir here.



So, you want to be able to reply, but have no rebuttals? You should set up a blog where you are the only one able to post for that.

Look, the only point I have been making all along is that beliefs, not backed by evidence, cannot be given as fact. You've then been making all kinds of statements about what you believe, which is fine, but you cannot legitimately present those beliefs as fact. They are not fact. Even if they are ultimately true, you have no basis for stating your beliefs as fact until you have some kind of compelling evidence. I'm not telling you your beliefs are wrong, I am only telling you they are not facts.

It's a pointless discussion, of rebuttal after rebuttal.
On the where,where, where aspect of my statements Google may help.

Quite frankly I do not understand why debunking Religon is a priority among,non believers.

Job: 38. 1. Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2. Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3. Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6. Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 17. Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? 18. Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. 19. Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 31. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? -




Ascribed by Jewish tradition to Moses, it is generally agreed by scholars that the book comes from the period between the 7th and 4th centuries BCE, with the 6th century as the most likely date for a variety of reasons.[17] The anonymous author was almost certainly an Israelite, although he has set his story outside Israel, in southern Edom or northern Arabia, and makes allusion to places as far apart as Mesopotamia and Egypt.[18] According to the 6th-century prophet Ezekiel, Job was a man of antiquity renowned for his righteousness,[19] and the book's author has chosen this legendary hero for his parable.[20]

Source Wickopedia

 

[MarkFL]

I'm not debunking religion, I am just saying that faith-based beliefs cannot be legitimately referred to as facts. That's all. If you believe something, but cannot demonstrate the truth of it by compelling evidence, then it is not a fact, it is only a belief. It may or may not be true, however without evidence you cannot call it a fact. This is a simple point, a fundamental truth by the very definition of the concept of fact, yet no one so far has the integrity to agree.

 

[Hebrews 11]

So far, I have dismissed nothing backed by evidence. Dismissal of fact is being done by many others here though.



Where?



Where?
Isaiah: 40. 22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

You're preaching to the choir here.



So, you want to be able to reply, but have no rebuttals? You should set up a blog where you are the only one able to post for that.

Look, the only point I have been making all along is that beliefs, not backed by evidence, cannot be given as fact. You've then been making all kinds of statements about what you believe, which is fine, but you cannot legitimately present those beliefs as fact. They are not fact. Even if they are ultimately true, you have no basis for stating your beliefs as fact until you have some kind of compelling evidence. I'm not telling you your beliefs are wrong, I am only telling you they are not facts.

Earlier you mentioned the earth was round.

The book of Isaiah predates views from outer space.

 

[MarkFL]

Okay, let's assume the writers of the Bible had some notion that the Earth is roughly spherical. Does this then give credence to claims of the supernatural? I mean, the ancient Greeks also believed the Earth was spherical (and even calculated the circumference with a remarkable degree of accuracy), so do we then say Zeus must be real?

 

[popsthebuilder]

The Sumerians actually knew that the earth wobbles slightly on its axis. How did they possibly know that?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Alithis]

there is a reason david said what he did about those who say there is no God

 

[MarkFL]

there is a reason david said what he did about those who say there is no God

Yes, anyone claiming knowledge one way or the other about the supernatural is being dishonest. The only honest folks are the agnostic, whether they be theist or atheist. Once you say "I know..." about anything supernatural, then you are lying.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes, anyone claiming knowledge one way or the other about the supernatural is being dishonest. The only honest folks are the agnostic, whether they be theist or atheist. Once you say "I know..." about anything supernatural, then you are lying.

More like there is ample evidence all around us for God.

 

[MarkFL]

More like there is ample evidence all around us for God.

People frequently say that, yet actually provide no compelling evidence. There is no compelling evidence for anything supernatural, much less one specific god out of the tens of thousands put forth by various religions throughout history.

 

[psalms 91]

People frequently say that, yet actually provide no compelling evidence. There is no compelling evidence for anything supernatural, much less one specific god out of the tens of thousands put forth by various religions throughout history.

Mark I respect your beliefs but the bible tells us that nature itself cries out for a higher being than man and all creation testifies of God. To you noit proof or evidence but to me who as a child laid on the ground looking at the stars and knowing that there was something greater than myself it is all I need

 

[MarkFL]

Mark I respect your beliefs but the bible tells us that nature itself cries out for a higher being than man and all creation testifies of God. To you noit proof or evidence but to me who as a child laid on the ground looking at the stars and knowing that there was something greater than myself it is all I need

I respect your right to hold your own beliefs as well, Bill. All I have been saying is that one cannot say something is a fact without compelling evidence. This started when someone said it is a fact that I need to repent for my disbelief. This is not a fact, but rather a belief.

As far as looking at the complexity of the universe and saying it has to have been designed by an intelligence--this is a fallacy called "passing the buck" because then one must, using that very same reasoning, declare that a being even more complex than its creation must also have been created, and then the creator of the creator would also require a creator, and so forth infinitely many times. At least it would be a countable infinity in the mathematical sense...haha.

None of us, theists and atheists alike, have any valid reason to be stating anything as "fact" regarding the supernatural. However, we can state beliefs, which is fine. Only when we put forth something as fact are we then required to provide evidence.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I respect your right to hold your own beliefs as well, Bill. All I have been saying is that one cannot say something is a fact without compelling evidence. This started when someone said it is a fact that I need to repent for my disbelief. This is not a fact, but rather a belief.

As far as looking at the complexity of the universe and saying it has to have been designed by an intelligence--this is a fallacy called "passing the buck" because then one must, using that very same reasoning, declare that a being even more complex than its creation must also have been created, and then the creator of the creator would also require a creator, and so forth infinitely many times. At least it would be a countable infinity in the mathematical sense...haha.

None of us, theists and atheists alike, have any valid reason to be stating anything as "fact" regarding the supernatural. However, we can state beliefs, which is fine. Only when we put forth something as fact are we then required to provide evidence.

So are you trying to say that if there is a Creator God that created all existence as we know it that there must also be infinite other gods that created one another subsequently? That's the first time I've ever heard that.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

So are you trying to say that if there is a Creator God that created all existence as we know it that there must also be infinite other gods that created one another subsequently? That's the first time I've ever heard that.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

No, what I am saying is that if we look at the universe and all the complexity contained within, and then declare that something this amazing and complex has to have been created/designed, then we have to observe that anything able to create a universe must by definition be even more complex than its creation, and so by the same logic that led us to conclude that the universe needs a creator must be applied to the creator as well. And then to the creator of the creator, and so forth in an infinite regression.

When we attempt to answer the question of where did such complexity as we observe in the universe come from by introducing a creator, we have only replaced that question with an even more difficult one to answer. That's why it's called passing the buck. We have in effect not answered anything.

So, only if we require for complexity to be designed and created do we fall into the fallacy of passing the buck.

 

[popsthebuilder]

No, what I am saying is that if we look at the universe and all the complexity contained within, and then declare that something this amazing and complex has to have been created/designed, then we have to observe that anything able to create a universe must by definition be even more complex than its creation, and so by the same logic that led us to conclude that the universe needs a creator must be applied to the creator as well. And then to the creator of the creator, and so forth in an infinite regression.

When we attempt to answer the question of where did such complexity as we observe in the universe come from by introducing a creator, we have only replaced that question with an even more difficult one to answer. That's why it's called passing the buck. We have in effect not answered anything.

So, only if we require for complexity to be designed and created do we fall into the fallacy of passing the buck.

The fallacy in your statement is that the thing that created everything must have been created that just doesn't compute to me. Just because one thing created something doesn't mean that something created that one thing.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Not to mention to assume that the complexity of our universe as we know it was created by absolutely nothing seems far more absurd than it being created intelligently by something outside of our understanding.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.