-->
@FLRW
What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.
lesions or dodging. Either or.
I'm not sure "exile" is the proper word. He fled voluntarily.
He mentioned the act's being done in a public and visible place. I assumed that this is becuase he wanted there to be corroboration.
The text is anonymous (at least Exodus is...Deuteronomy sort of has a claimed author). And thank you -- I meant "contemporaneous."
Nope. But at least one would be visible by others besides the person involved.
The same way I know that Harry Potter ran through the column top get to Platform 9 and 3/4. A writer made a claim in print.
I absolutely would,...
...but because I'm not looking for proof...
...and I know that any claim of proof is doomed, including equally claims using the bible and using a TV show.
He could not return. Exile seems proper.
Seems to me then that if you were correct about his intent, he would have asked for a personal audience.
And? Or do you habitually disbelieve all authors? Or do you cherry pick which ones you will believe?
I believe that...
Sure he could return -- no one forced him to leave...
..and, in fact, he does return.
I assumed (possibly wrongly) that he was trying to find a way to have more widespread corroboration.
If he had a personal audience in private then his reportage would be uncorroborated and as trustworthy as Moses'.
I have a natural leaning away from blanket belief of an author, yes.
If an author claims that what he writes is non-fiction, then I might have a less jaundiced eye, but the biblical text has no clear author nor claim to literal accuracy.
No, it is not a quote from some web site. You can search and see that there is nothing to match it. I am one of the first
to prose this and I base it on the research paper, Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, and the Human Prefrontal Cortex,
which I have talked about before. I believe in the next 100 years there will be a massive shift to Humanism and an abandonment of Religion.
Being contrary for the sake of being contrary is not profitable Rosends. Make better use of your time.
Moses is corroborated by billions and trusted by as many. But we will mark you as skeptical.
History must be touch and go for you.
Sure it does, your bias does not change reality. None-the-less, I don't really care what you do or don't believe. But thanks for sharing your doubt.
Quote me, don't put words i n my mouth and then get bent when I point out your error.
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
I did explain what I said. I cannot explain what you said. If you cannot explain what you said then you have a problem don't you?
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does not flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! Amazing. Do you ever lose any arguments?
If you wish to conflate the two,...
No, his experience is not corroborated by anyone, either as witnesses or those who can offer material support. It is believed by many. Belief is not corroboration.
it is a very complex subject, yes.
Your calling something bias doesn't change the reality of the writing process, but since I am not affected by your labels, I thank you for your unsolicited input, though I think you could find something better to do with your time.
You’re not pointing out any errors.
If you agreed that you liked torturing animals, and then I told you that’s sadistic. You would then turn around and say ‘I didn’t say it’s sadistic.’
That’s the level at which this is applicable. It’s moronic.
I like refining words just like anyone. They still mean the same thing.
We’re talking about simple phrases, not multi-page essays.
”everywhere, including time” and “throughout time” are substantively the same thing when it comes to time.
Do I really have to break it down for you? “Everywhere” and “throughout” are close synonyms which essentially mean widespread.
Both phrases referred to time. Either you’re stupid or you don’t know how to concede arguments.
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time).
By the way, God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede. You have no arguments against that. All you have are pivots.
You do go back on your words. You are a bad faith actor.
What does the bible say about testing God? You were invoking the bible a while back.
Asking atheists what would get them to believe in God, is pretty stupid if you like referring to the bible.
I can easily substantively reply to everything you say,....I’m probably not going to comment on everything you type next for practicality sakes....
...though you don’t give me the same courtesy.
Attributing to me, something I didn't say, is either an error or a lie.
I was being generous to you
False analogy.
Be safe and honest by just quoting me, not using your paraphrase to interpret me.
There was no reason for me to call you moronic, everyone could see that you were.
I never insult anyone without provocation
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
Refine your own words.
I say what I mean and mean what I say.
I simply will not be drawn into having to explain your words.
Keep bellyaching, that will not change.
Then there was even less justification for you to change it, no?
Untrue. Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.
What are you fighting for?
To be able to chose words for me?
That will never happen.
Your paraphrase changes my meaning, as evidenced by your erroneous conclusion.
Use my words
Two things are not synonymous simply because they refer to the same thing.
You may beg for me to "concede", but you will win concessions through honest logical arguments, not simple insistence that you get to interpret my comments.
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Because the "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you say is synonymous to "everywhere in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think
We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time.
We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone!
Amazing.
Do you ever lose any arguments?
Your comment to FLRW was future tense about something I had not yet done. If my "faith" is bad, it's because I have none for your prophetic powers
I did not bring up testing, and it has no pertinence here.
You thought it was something I might do, fine, but then you went on to convict me on your prophesy alone as if I was already guilty.
The question has nothing to do with the bible.
It is atheists always coming to a religion board to tell us they find no valid evidence for God. Asking atheists what evidence they would consider valid is a reasonable question.
You just changed the words again. I never ask militant atheists what would get them to believe in God, because I know nothing will. My question is, "what evidence atheists would consider valid?
" Satan "believes" in God.
Do you detect a contradiction?
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Why don’t you just directly argue against it instead of just taking such a weak stance.
I didn’t say you called me moronic.
Can you please quote me instead of just using your “paraphrase to interpret me.”
Me neither.
Like when you call a human by name? Yeah, people specify meanings with words which have common understandings.
That’s what I did. Did I misquote you anywhere?
That’s nice. Same here.
You don’t have to because I explained them for you.
Is that a threat?
Justification? They mean the same thing.
“Throughout time” is just cleaner to understand than “everywhere, including time”
By the way “time” is the key word when it comes to “precede.”
God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede.
You should be asking yourself that question. You keep on pivoting to arguments which have already have been resolved.
I am not wanting to choose any words for you.
You’re the one that has an issue with the words I’m using (which have a common meaning by the way).
Ummmm okay.
You meaning of what?
Your only word that’s relevant to the main conversation is “correct.”
If you do a quick search, it will show that you’re wrong.
Which comments?
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Comment #155
In context I was talking about God. The resembles little of what I said. You’re just mashing words together.
You can be a theologian and hijack science lingo from actual geniuses. Delve into some quantum mechanics.
You’re the one that hasn’t conceded the word “precede.”
Well are you going to give any arguments in that regard?
Not many.
Perhaps praying will help you calm down.
How doesn’t it have pertinence?
Guilty of changing your position when you come to the conclusion God’s unfalsifiable just like that dragon in the garage?
Though it will lead you to the bible.
The more knowledge humans gain, the less God/gods are involved in our physical lives. God is now an abstract being that would make no sense to a farmer 2000 years ago.
For God to convince me to believe in him.
Satan was part of God’s plan. You agreed God’s omniscient, correct?
That means God knows everything. Are you going to try to nerf that as well?
No. Easy work can become tedious if there’s enough of it.
Same here. :)
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
"Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
And in my judgement, toasting you is a good, and highly enjoyable, use of my time.
I'm not sure what you think "burning" someone is. Based in how I used it growing up, it certainly isn't what you are doing. But since you play fast and loose with language (like conflating "exile" and "voluntary exile") then you will use it however you want.
In terms of corroboration, you are now claiming that someone who supposedly lived well after an event can corroborate that event because you equate him with the phrase "I am"
(which, by the way, is not an actual statement God made).
That is a statement of belief from within your context of belief. You insist that that makes it some sort of fact, but it doesn't. You cannot corroborate an event that happened 1000 years ago.
No, "complex" meaning that I recognize inherent human bias in presenting a perception of fact.
OK, in the same way, I enjoy pointing out your errors. Cheers!
Can you please reply to everything and I’ll reply back.
Nope. I will reply to questions and comments that are pertinent. I will not respond to every off the cuff silly little anti-theist pivot that crosses your mind.I've learned that atheists will ooze to another topic the moment you beat them if you allow it. I am no longer a noob.
It is more proper to call God pre-eternal. The Ultimate Reality is what gives existence to time, and anything that exists.
It isn't in a tenporal sense that God precedes time. It is that apart from The Truth, there is no time. The Truth is not contingent on time.
Saying “ultimate reality gives existence to time, and anything that exists,” is the same as saying the dragon in my garage is ultimate reality.
“Precede” is irrelevant if there’s no temporal sense. What is “Truth” contingent on if not spacetime (what constitutes our existence)?
No it isn't, and this is a nonsensical argument.Ultimate Reality means that which truly exists, reality in the truest sense of the word. If you deny ultimate reality, you are professing nihilism. In professing nihilism, you remove any ground you could stand on.If there is no Ultimate Reality, then time doesn't exist. In fact, nothing exists.
The Truth is The Singularity without contingency. It is Uncreated. Everything that isn't divine is creation, having contingency. The Ultimate Reality is not a contingent existence. The Ultimate Reality is God.
Lol. If a person was afraid of being found out a murderer, and left under that fear, it wasn't really voluntary. Plus your question had nothing to do with exile, so I said "... after his exile" there was no reason for me to specify the type of exile, and you think so shows you are anal.
Do you have any witnesses and any corroboration?
I didn't say I corroborated anything.
Except in yourself. Typical.
If God simultaneously exists throughout time, he does not precede anything. Past, present and future all exist equally. For something to precede, it requires time by definition.
You would like to change the definition of precede, correct?