Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

The driver could visit a manufacturing plant and watch people create cars. The driver could prove, empirically, that cars are the result of manufacturing. Did I miss where someone provided empirical proof that the universe is made by your, specific God?

Just like the millions of people who claim they have experienced the supernatural that’s just an example where he is being deceived by his senses. Additionally, the fact that the manufacturing plant (if it did exist) created those particular cars would not prove they indeed created his particular car. Let’s be rational here! :-P

You do realize that your position would be that which claims that fully-functional cars occur naturally? I just ask because you probably thought you were being clever.

Of course they occur naturally! After all, they are far simpler than a living organism and you believe that fully functioning living organisms appeared naturally! I am just taking a page from the atheist’s playbook. If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your playbook.

[Ryantology]

Just like the millions of people who claim they have experienced the supernatural that’s just an example where he is being deceived by his senses. Additionally, the fact that the manufacturing plant (if it did exist) created those particular cars would not prove they indeed created his particular car. Let’s be rational here! :-P

The experience would not be a personal revelation, there would be ample opportunity to independently verify the existence of the manufacturing plant. I don't have to have faith in the existence of manufacturing plants to prove that one exists.

As for the question of particular cars, invoking that invalidates monotheism.

Of course they occur naturally! After all, they are far simpler than a living organism and you believe that fully functioning living organisms appeared naturally! I am just taking a page from the atheist’s playbook. If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your playbook.

If you were familiar with our playbook, you'd know that complexity forms no part of our argument. It is the theist argument that complex objects require an intelligent creator. It is the failure of the theist argument that they cannot prove the existence of this creator.

[Statler Waldorf]

The experience would not be a personal revelation, there would be ample opportunity to independently verify the existence of the manufacturing plant. I don't have to have faith in the existence of manufacturing plants to prove that one exists.

And many people claim to have directly experienced the supernatural, how are you any different than they are? Additionally, I have never been to a manufacturing plant, are you really suggesting that I should not believe that cars are created until I fly to Japan and visit Toyota?

As for the question of particular cars, invoking that invalidates monotheism.

No it doesn’t, if we were able to synthesize life forms in the lab that does not prove that all life forms we observe were synthesized in the lab. It’s the old problem of reasoning from the particular to the general.

If you were familiar with our playbook, you'd know that complexity forms no part of our argument. It is the theist argument that complex objects require an intelligent creator. It is the failure of the theist argument that they cannot prove the existence of this creator.

So you really are suggesting that a person cannot believe that their car was created merely because it is specifically complex and natural processes do not give rise to such systems? All people have to visit a manufacturing plant firsthand in order to logically believe their car was created? Really?

[Minimalist]

All people have to visit a manufacturing plant firsthand in order to logically believe their car was created?

Cars are not "created," bozo. No one poofs them into existence like you claim your sky daddy did with fucking everything.

[Statler Waldorf]

Cars are not "created," bozo. No one poofs them into existence like you claim your sky daddy did with fucking everything.

Why didn’t you call Ryantology out on this when he was the first one to use the term creator when referring to cars? Oops.

Actually, cars are created though (creation does not have to be ex nihilo), as are works of art, pieces of music, and films. You’re just not very sophisticated at this sort of thing are you?

[Ryantology]

And many people claim to have directly experienced the supernatural, how are you any different than they are? Additionally, I have never been to a manufacturing plant, are you really suggesting that I should not believe that cars are created until I fly to Japan and visit Toyota?

People who make supernatural claims conveniently frame them in such a way that they are in no way testable, reproducible, or observable by anyone else. Every single such claim can, in no way be distinguished, from a hallucination or a lie.

I am suggesting that you can believe in the existence of manufacturing plants because there are manifold independent ways to verify this. Going to visit one in person is only if you do not find the secondary sources acceptable. Furthermore, manufacturing plants are entirely rational ideas. Their existence does not conflict with what we know to be true about the universe.

Religious claims, on the other hand, fail on both accounts. The ideas are pure fantasy, and it is impossible to prove otherwise. You can't just go visit God and watch him make things. There are no independent sources to consult. You have set it up so that critical analysis is impossible. That's fine. An assertion which cannot be critically analyzed is worthless. An assertion which is specifically designed to be immune to critical analysis is certain to be a lie. Factor in the obvious agenda of the religious to make the assertion immune to criticism and the lie is obvious.

No it doesn’t, if we were able to synthesize life forms in the lab that does not prove that all life forms we observe were synthesized in the lab. It’s the old problem of reasoning from the particular to the general.

Yet, it strikes you as entirely acceptable to suggest that since we do not know exactly how life began, the answer must be the Christian God. "I don't know the answer, so here's the answer."

So you really are suggesting that a person cannot believe that their car was created merely because it is specifically complex and natural processes do not give rise to such systems? All people have to visit a manufacturing plant firsthand in order to logically believe their car was created? Really?

Obviously not, because that is your stupid logic at work, not mine.

It has to be possible to visit a manufacturing plant, firsthand, in order to logically believe their car was created. If someone claimed that cars come from a manufacturing plant which was was invisible and in no way detectable to anyone who didn't have faith in it, and there were explanations for the existence of cars which could be independently tested and verified, continuing to believe in the manufacturing plant would make you an idiot.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Perhaps in your spare time you could put together a website showing that these are all no real contradictions regardless of the words used.

Why would I need to? There are already hundreds of websites and books that prove none of these fit the definition of a logical contradiction. I will tell you what though, you choose the one from this list that you believe is the strongest case for a logical contradiction and I will address it for you (can’t let you get away with “elephant hurling” now can I?). Surely, if your best example of an alleged contradiction fails you’ll have to concede that the lesser examples also fail, eh? Give me your best shot, now’s your chance!

You do not need to do anything if you do not give a damn about supporting you claims.

As to choosing from the list, one would think there is some place an equivalent website addressing them.

My issue of course was your implication that you know of no contradictions, as though the entire idea is new to you. If I were really playing this game I would start at the beginning and ask how Gen I and Gen II can have conflicting, infallible divine inspirations. If you really wish to play the game, start in the beginning.

---

@ Statler Waldorf, he want use the cud chewing rabbit, I've already educated him on that one, of coarse he did not listen, typical with him. So be prepared for insane arguments.

As to education you dream quite well. You also may take a shot at Gen I and II and show how before means after or after means before depending upon your preference.

---

Everyone hold their horses!

There are conflicting statements in my car maintenance manual.

For example:

1) On page 17, it says "Remove the drain-plug from the oil sump".

but

2) On page 33, it says "Make sure the oil sump drain-plug is tightly in place".

What a load of rubbish eh?

There, I have just debunked the myth of car maintenance

Unless you are claiming the manual is both infallible and divinely inspired I do not see your point. Care to explain?

[Godscreated]

@ Statler Waldorf, he want use the cud chewing rabbit, I've already educated him on that one, of coarse he did not listen, typical with him. So be prepared for insane arguments.

As to education you dream quite well. You also may take a shot at Gen I and II and show how before means after or after means before depending upon your preference.

That's not on your little list, you'll need to be more specific.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

If you were familiar with our playbook, you'd know that complexity forms no part of our argument. It is the theist argument that complex objects require an intelligent creator. It is the failure of the theist argument that they cannot prove the existence of this creator.

But when the WWII cargo cult leaders were brought to the US and shown the manufacturing facilities they decided the factories were owned by their gods and thus were still being stolen by the white man.

Believers are hopeless.

---

As to education you dream quite well. You also may take a shot at Gen I and II and show how before means after or after means before depending upon your preference.

That's not on your little list, you'll need to be more specific.

It takes balls to try to weasel out of your offer that way. Te Salude!

[Godscreated]

@ Mouse, no weaseling from me I asked you for more specific information, if you want do that then who truly is the weasel. I'm willing to take your challenge just be precise.