Why does science always upstage God?

[pocaracas]

And there it is, boys and girls.
The "I've seen it all" argument, again.

I appreciate all of the work you put into that post, but we are going in circles citing authors that support our side. I know what these secular scholars say.

I was under the impression that I cited a Christian scholar. Let me double check...

Not explicit, but it seems like James D. Tabor is a man of god.

"Tabor was born in Texas but lived all over the world as the son of an Air Force officer. He was raised in the Churches of Christ and attended Abilene Christian University, where he earned his B.A. degree in Koine Greek and Bible. While earning his M.A. from Pepperdine University he taught Greek and Hebrew part-time at Ambassador College, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and president of the Worldwide Church of God. "


Bart Ehrman, however, is well known for not believing in these things.

I also know I could teach someone about the death of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice from any one of the Gospels. But besides that I'm also OK with theology developing. Not in the sense that new beliefs developed that didn't originate with Jesus, but in the sense that the pinpoint language used to describe them grew, for example the trinity. And that's what Paul does, he develops the words used to express the theology that was taught by Jesus and the OT.  

No, that's not what Paul does.
That's what the whole collection of intellectuals who came to believe in the version of Paul has come up with to quell your questioning of what happened in this time period. I tip my hat to them, for I too see no shred of original thought coming from you.

I have read these arguments and I don't find them compelling. You're not giving me anything new that I haven't already sifted through. And that's not a criticism of you by any means, just that we aren't going anywhere or adding anything new. Same evidence, different understanding of that evidence. I'm not trying to be rude, I've just already gone through this.

If you already went through this, then humour me. What was always the outcome for the other party?

I know you will accept the immaterial mind that emerges from the material brain, you just won't be able to justify that belief.

LOL.
I experience it, every waking hour of my existence.
I think, therefore I am.

Then I need to be slightly pragmatic in the assumption that I am also a physical body with a brain and notice that this brain is what brings forth my mind.
If you want to read up on this, I strongly advise a pop-sci title "The Tell-Tale Brain", by Ramachandran. Very easy to follow.

Then I have to be further pragmatic and believe what my body's sensors convey in as much as there is a world out there and people... other people that have similar bodies to my own... and, hearing them talk or reading their writings, they seem to have thoughts similarish to mine.

Now tell me, how do you justify your belief?

---

We've got another one that's confused a fairy's subjective whims for an objective system.

Actually if there is a God that is the standard of truth and He gives us His standard for morality and we use that standard for morality and that standard doesn't come from our minds or feelings or opinions then it would be objective.

Actually, that is a mighty big IF.

One has to establish that a god exists. Not done given the clear requirement of belief.
One has to establish that this god is the standard of truth. Not done - a cursory reading of any holy text can attest to this.
One has to establish that this god somehow gives his standard for morality. Not done - at best, we got 10 rules where 3 of them are all about worshipping god.


How much simpler it is to consider that anything that increases the amount of suffering is morally bad and whatever decreases the amount of suffering is morally good?
Sure, suffering is somewhat subjective, but one can consider the average of humanity suffering instead and that is as objective as you can get, as it's not attached to any particular individual.