In a world without God...

[Drich]

Odd, that. I say odd because the title of the thread and the subject of the OP was about a world without god, not a discussion of god or what a world is with god.

Are you not aware that one is not to judge a book by it's cover? Or in this case a thread by it's title??

Again content and context my good man. The discussion was centered around the God of the bible is it not? Then Again it is to the bible we must go for those answers.

See above.

ditto

Because field experience has far more impact intellectually and emotionally.

If your intelectual answers are contingent on an appeal that envokes an emotional response then i would seriously question the vality of your 'intelectual' conclusions.

You can talk about fossils and sedimentary layers in a classroom or in a forum until the cows come home, but there is no substitution for seeing them in the field IN CONTEXT.

yikes.

I worked at the Louisville Science Center for four years as assistant science curator, and am very aware of the fact that many skeletal displays are reproductions.

Then why challenge what i said?

Crinoids Of The Muldraugh Member of The Borden Formation...

Looks like a red herring to me.

---

Are you really going the fallacious route of If you have never seen the London Bridge, how do you know it is real?

That's not the arguement at All. I Ask would Obama standing before you be proof of His existance?

In turn would God standing before you be Proof of his existance?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's one of those "my god is bigger than I thought" moments that the faithful consistently pass on. Drich, confronted with fossils - rather than say ....

"fuck me that's badass! The world was covered in these things millions of years before there was ever a single human being? Praise the lawd!"

sees them as falsification of his religious convictions.

[Silver]

I Ask would Obama standing before you be proof of His existance?

Yes.

In turn would God standing before you be Proof of his existance?

No.

[Drich]

Which is a problem why?

Asked, and answered already.

It dates the garden as well.

Book, Chapter and Verse. (BCV)

It also dates the planet by relation to the garden and man.

BCV

"Any" amount of time could not have elapsed. See, heres the deal. -You- feel compelled to tie this story to reality, so -you- are the one creating a falsifiable narrative. If you don't like the dates given just give up - put the garden "a long time ago in a galaxy far away". I'm disappointed at how quickly your imagination seems to have fled in an otherwise imaginative thread when confronted with this unfortunate reality.

Until you show the bible supports your first two assertions the conversation is over.

---

So if you wanted tangable proof of President Obama (not a picture or clip) and He stood before you, this would not be proof enough for you that he indeed who he says he is?

That said if you wanted to meet the President, do you think you could just text him and he drop everything he was doing to come proove himself to you.. Or do you think there is a proceedure you must first subject yourself to in order to meet Him? If we understand we have to respect the proceedures in place to meet a simple leader of a country, then why do we assume the Master and Commander of ALL of creation is at our beckon call?

A/S/K as out lined in Luke 11 is the proceedure Christ says we must to in order to have Proof of God. If you can not humble yourself enough to A/S/K then God will not 'see you.'

The flaw here is that we have independent means to verify the existence of Obama. We can see pictures of him, watch his speeches, even do some verifiable research into him if we want. Obama is not claiming to be miraculous and capable of suspending the laws of reality. So the fact that it may be difficult to get a meeting with Obama isn't so much of an issue; we know he exists because at the very least we can be in the same room as he walks past. He does have a physical presence.

Meanwhile, god; no pictures, no recordings, no verifiable witnesses. And what witnesses we do have vary wildly; you don't have people seeing Obama speak on, say, gun control, and have some people coming away with the impression he's in favor of it, and another group coming away just as fervently sure he's against it. Oh, and their Obama is eighty feet tall and can shoot lightning.

See, you can't pretend they're at all alike; the real, demonstrable evidence for Obama converges to a set of known facts. The spotty, second hand subjective evidence for god fractures and splits, over and over, and not a one of you is able to demonstrate his existence outside of simply demanding that he does.

Again not the arguement.

I asked would president obama standing before you be proof enough of his existance.

---

'They' are living monuments to the fact that artisians know how to make fiberglass structures that look like dinosaur bones.

So, you are not only going to ignore my response, but ignore the real explanation for the above? Doesn't your god punish dishonesty?

wait your turn sport, everything has it own time. Everyone here gets the same treatment. i answer post in the order they were written.

---

I Ask would Obama standing before you be proof of His existance?

Yes.

In turn would God standing before you be Proof of his existance?

No.

So what would be proof? someone smarter than you telling you that there was a God?

[orogenicman]

Odd, that. I say odd because the title of the thread and the subject of the OP was about a world without god, not a discussion of god or what a world is with god.

Are you not aware that one is not to judge a book by it's cover? Or in this case a thread by it's title??

So you are saying that titles mean nothing. That a title to a book, or a thread, is not intended to give the reader an idea of what is inside? Isn't that a bit dishonest?

Again content and context my good man. The discussion was centered around the God of the bible is it not? Then Again it is to the bible we must go for those answers.

No, actually, and going on the question raised in the OP, the discussion was the center around "A world without god". You choose to make it otherwise.

Because field experience has far more impact intellectually and emotionally.

If your intelectual answers are contingent on an appeal that envokes an emotional response then i would seriously question the vality of your 'intelectual' conclusions.

Every intellectual endeavor evokes some sort of emotional response, be it amazement, curiosity, or any of a dozen such responses. The fact that these emotions are evoked does not in any way detract from the importance or validity of the intellectual experience. Perhaps if you had intellectual experiences outside your own narrow world view, you'd come to understand this very simple concept.

You can talk about fossils and sedimentary layers in a classroom or in a forum until the cows come home, but there is no substitution for seeing them in the field IN CONTEXT.

yikes.

Oh my. An emotional response.

I worked at the Louisville Science Center for four years as assistant science curator, and am very aware of the fact that many skeletal displays are reproductions.

Then why challenge what i said?

Because you are clearly attempting to make it appear that all the billions of fossils that have been discovered have, by some deviant conspiracy, been manufactured. Go into the field with me and I will show you that they are NOT manufactured. Come one, grasshopper. Be a man. what are you afraid of?

Crinoids Of The Muldraugh Member of The Borden Formation...

Looks like a red herring to me.

Probably because you are too cowardly to actually read it.

[Silver]

So what would be proof? someone smarter than you telling you that there was a God?

Would you be more likely to believe in something if only you saw it or if everyone in the world saw it?

[Esquilax]

Again not the arguement.

I asked would president obama standing before you be proof enough of his existance.

Yes, and as I was explaining, the reason for that is that Obama isn't claiming to be a living suspension of everything we know to be true about physical reality. Now, if Obama came to me and claimed to be a wizard we might be having a different conversation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Asked, and answered already.

All I can decipher from your answer is that you have a problem because it seems to conflict with some part of your faith, to you. That's not a very satisfying answer Drich - I'm sure you can understand?

BCV

Starts with the first word, continues on till the narrative is told.

Until you show the bible supports your first two assertions the conversation is over.

If the narrative sets "days" regardless of what those days may be in "realtime" that sets an upper and a lower bound to dating anything that it invokes. At each point in the narrative where something is "created" it sets limits on what that day must be in "realtime" - for example, if plants are "created" on day x..then day x could not have occurred before there were plants. The same goes with human beings. The moment that human beings appear in the narrative the upper limit is set - nothing in the narrative could be said to have happened before there are human beings.

If you want anyone to take this narrative seriously then perhaps you should do so yourself?

(as was explained to you long ago in your monkeyman joke thread - for example-..your efforts to create an unfalsifiable narrative actually yielded a narrative that was subject to falsification in an even more dramatic way)

[Drich]

So you are saying that titles mean nothing. That a title to a book, or a thread, is not intended to give the reader an idea of what is inside? Isn't that a bit dishonest?

Don't judge a book by it's cover or in this case do not judge a thread by it's title is an axiom that says do not prejudge a given text by it's appearance or title.

The only dishonest here is the intelectual dishonesty one participates in when he trys and force this thread or the subject matter of this thread from the OP's intend course, to one of his own making. (What your trying to do now)

No, actually, and going on the question raised in the OP, the discussion was the center around "A world without god". You choose to make it otherwise.

The OP ask or spins the atheist question "If God is omni max then why do bad things happen to good people.?" I ask in your world what is you explaination? Then I ask why could these same reason apply in a world with God.

Again, you can't judge a book by it cover. Just because you want the topic of conversation to follow a predictiable path so you can answer what you think you know, does not mean I am bound to your understanding of how this thread should flow.

Every intellectual endeavor evokes some sort of emotional response, be it amazement, curiosity, or any of a dozen such responses.

Not what I said. I said if the intelectual validity of the answers your are providing HING (Will not work any other way) on the emotion generated by being in a very specific place, then I call your answers into question.

Look at it this way if i said you had to 'feel' the presents of God and the emotion generated by being in The Holy Land or where ever, If and only IF I take you there and explain/plant these feelings in you, as the ONLY way to know of God.. I would be laugh (and rightly so) off of this board. (Que Rythm or FNM)

The fact that these emotions are evoked does not in any way detract from the importance or validity of the intellectual experience.

If that is the case then why not simply present what you have to say and let it stand or fall based solely on content?

Perhaps if you had intellectual experiences outside your own narrow world view, you'd come to understand this very simple concept.

Oh, lawd he dun found me out.

Because you are clearly attempting to make it appear that all the billions of fossils that have been discovered have, by some deviant conspiracy, been manufactured.

Nope. Not what I said. I said I went to the Smithsonian and they told me 2/3's of their display were fake. I also pointed out that stegasaurs that was being posted as proof there could not be a God, was also fake. I am simply trying to invoke thought. To peel back the smoke and mirrors and get you people to think on your own. You all look like a bunch of Dumb A$$es pointing to these fiberglass momuments as definitive proof, and most of you don't even know what is really out there. Because you blindly swallow everything that comes in the 'education' format as truth. Talking about blind faith.

What is wrong with letting people actual see and know or even rattle some foundations to where people at least google search something they though to be absolute proof?

Go into the field with me and I will show you that they are NOT manufactured. Come one, grasshopper. Be a man. what are you afraid of?

Butt rape by some creepy rock guy.
You know my sister was 9 she was almost talked into a van to help a guy look for his puppy with a similar line.

Probably because you are too cowardly to actually read it.

Uneducated remember? Caint read two guud

---

So what would be proof? someone smarter than you telling you that there was a God?

Would you be more likely to believe in something if only you saw it or if everyone in the world saw it?

The fact that I am defending Christianity should answer that question.

---

Again not the arguement.

I asked would president obama standing before you be proof enough of his existance.

Yes, and as I was explaining, the reason for that is that Obama isn't claiming to be a living suspension of everything we know to be true about physical reality. Now, if Obama came to me and claimed to be a wizard we might be having a different conversation.

I guess it depends on where your from. Because a black President does fit that defination around here.

---

Starts with the first word, continues on till the narrative is told.

"IN" would be the first word. You are telling me you can extroplate a date for the word "IN?" What would that date be?

[Rahul]

Nope. Not what I said. I said I went to the Smithsonian and they told me 2/3's of their display were fake. I also pointed out that stegasaurs that was being posted as proof there could not be a God, was also fake. I am simply trying to invoke thought. To peel back the smoke and mirrors and get you people to think on your own. You all look like a bunch of Dumb A$$es pointing to these fiberglass momuments as definitive proof, and most of you don't even know what is really out there. Because you blindly swallow everything that comes in the 'education' format as truth. Talking about blind faith.

Did the Smithsonian also mention where the real fossils that were used to make those replicas were located?

Say you have a dozen full fossilized Stegasaurus skeletons found. Three thousand museums want one for their permanent display. What do you do?

Butt rape by some creepy rock guy.

Cheese it. He found us out!

You know my sister was 9 she was almost talked into a van to help a guy look for his puppy with a similar line.

How much do you want to bet that he self-identified as a Christian?