Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[SiNcE_1985]

Penrose answered that himself. In order for your 10¹⁰¹²³ thing to be meaningful, Penrose has to be right about a bunch of science that you otherwise deny, but then be wrong about his solution to the problem. That's the exact form of the taxicab fallacy that you're so fond of.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is entropy (fine tuning)...and your presenting a cosmological model, which doesn't place emphasis on either.

[POI]

You: Prayer is a waste of time.

Also you,

Pray: Pray for me.

Just, one contradiction after the other.

No Venom, it's instead just one bad rubberstamp after another. I'm not presenting a contradiction. My every request, (about prayer), in which you decline, repeatedly exposes your blank and faulty claims (about prayer). You can stop this continued exposure, at any time, quite simply, by adhering to my simple request. But we all will continue to read as you instead (dodge, evade, and present excuse after excuse after excuse).

The universe (STEM) began to exist...and everything that begins to exist, has a cause. So, what could give STEM is beginning? About the 40th time I asked this, and you've yet to provide a rational response.

I've answered this many times Venom. The 'STEM' fairy, aka the "MUCF". Unfortunately for you, this response is just as rational as 'god'.

Rinse/repeat: We already both agree that 'true nothingness' was never a thing. Hence, prior to our observable 'universe', what existed prior? I'll patiently await even more apologetic assertion(s).

But anytime you begin to talk condescendingly, or mock Christianity in any antagonizing way, I'll do the same about evolution or any of the other bogus naturalistic theories out there.

LOL! two things:

1) Mocking a claimed living being (which actually would have feelings) <vs> mocking a known non-living being (in 'science' which has no feedings) are certainly not one-in-the-same.
2) The more you mock peer reviewed science, and also how you misrepresent the 'scientific community' -- (as if 'science' is merely concocting ways to avoid the 'G' word), only continues to expose your lack in understanding.

Those odds aren't being met, on just one attempt.

Yes, they are. And further, if a 'god' truly exists, he would not be confined by any perceived 'odds' regardless.

Were the PE equations discussed at Dover trial?

No, this is why I stated, "Couple this with the facts presented with the Dover trial alone".

Humble yourself, and I'll think about it.

I humbly ask that you pray to God, (that you claim answers your prayers), and also the fact that you state you love me, which then means you would want the best for me, and the fact that you would love nothing more than for me to be converted; to ask god, in prayer, to give you the VIN number to one of my cars, and also to ask God to tell you where my daughter works, and then kindly relay this information to me, so that I can no longer think or believe you are merely speaking to yourself in prayer, and instead you can immediately win this debate and also convert me to immediately following Jesus,

Okay Venom, I'm ready at any time.

I'm fine with not appealing to science. If I have God, I don't need science.

Unfortunately, this is not true, as you need "science" to communicate with me in this forum. God alone would instead do absolutely nothing to help you here.

Humble yourself.

Your continued excuses are noted and continue to be recorded for the record books of this exchange.

a) I have my own personal testimony, of which my prayers and my faith have been validated. Unbelievers can't relate...which is why you can't relate and it is all foolishness to you. b) 1 Corin 1:18 explains why it is foolishness to you.

a) I also have my own personal testimony, which completely negates yours. In order to settle these two adverse personal experiences, since you claim god answers your prayer, please simply pray and fulfill my simple red request above.

b) You can (so easily and swiftly) save me from my 'perishing', Venom. Instead, you drone on and on and on, knowing this will do nothing to save me. I gave you very explicit instructions on what would immediately convert me. But you'd rather waste eons of time. It's quite vexing, to say the very least.

I'm not sending prayers up to God, for someone who mocks his Son.

The additional excuse is noted.

Strawman. I never make such assertion.

Great, then if you agree that no action(s) can exist outside of time, then 'god' must logically be ruled out.

I can't. I'm not God.

Yes, you certainly can Venom. God answers your prayers.

Um, no. Paul's epistles predate the Gospels, and Paul already had Jesus risen, appearing, and deified before the Gospels were even circulating. So again, this is early attestation.

Um, yes. It's an unfounded attestation. Meaning, unlike Joseph Smith, who actually produced a contemporary and corroborated attestation of an extraordinary claim -- (in locating magic plates), Paul's 'attestation' is instead unfounded as an 'eyewitness' account to an extraordinary claim.

Sounds like you agree with me.

Please mind to, or attend to, your responses a little more carefully Venom. You stated 40 to 60 decades.

a) No, you said that the Gospels grew in legend...while saying that traditional legends can take up to 50 years to develope. b) And I simply stated that 3-5 years after the events doesn't met your 40-50-years-legend criterion. Thus, the stories about Jesus weren't legendary, as you claimed.

a) The Gospels are a classic result of growing legend, yes, as they started decades later; with each and every version adding more and more magical claims to the previous version.

b) I'm saying we have one early and unfounded/uncorroborated/unsupported claim, in Saul. The rest, in the Gospel accounts, are stories supporting legend, as well as some outright admitting they use Mark as their source - (which means it is not an independent and additional account). So, what else do you got?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #431]

@POI, those 500 eyewitnesses were willing to suffer and die to maintain their testimonies. That's why I believe their testimonies; they are authentic ones. How else can you verify any historical event but through people who experienced it?

You can't be serious here Bruce. The '500' are not even named. Which means you cannot possibly know how any of them really died? Further, if they WERE all tortured for their beliefs, how do you know they did not immediately recant, once captured? You can't. You have been swept up in the apologetic fog, in the unfounded assertions and talking points induced by raw emotion and hope.

By the way, many of them suffered great persecution from three different groups, but they held to their stories that they saw Jesus alive from the dead, even though they had been devastated because of his death.

See above.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #453]

Following is a summary of the research about the disciples' suffering and holding onto their testimonies about Jesus, @POI:

Historical evidence supports the persecution of early disciples of Jesus.
Numerous accounts from early Christian writings and historical texts indicate that the disciples faced significant persecution for their beliefs.

Biblical Accounts

The New Testament, particularly in the books of Luke and Acts, details various instances of persecution against early Christians, including arrests and violence instigated by both Jewish and Roman authorities
.
For example, James the Less was executed for refusing to deny Jesus, illustrating the extreme measures taken against early believers
.
Historical Consensus

Scholars generally agree that the early church faced persecution, particularly in the first three centuries. This persecution was not solely from Roman authorities but also stemmed from conflicts with Jewish communities
.
The writings of early church fathers and historians provide additional context, confirming that the apostles did not recant their faith despite facing death
.
Conclusion
The combination of biblical narratives and historical scholarship provides a robust framework for understanding the persecution faced by the early disciples of Jesus, affirming their commitment to their faith even in the face of severe consequences.

[SiNcE_1985]

No Venom, it's instead just one bad rubberstamp after another. I'm not presenting a contradiction. My every request, (about prayer), in which you decline, repeatedly exposes your blank and faulty claims (about prayer). You can stop this continued exposure, at any time, quite simply, by adhering to my simple request. But we all will continue to read as you instead (dodge, evade, and present excuse after excuse after excuse).

It is literally a contradiction.

It is like saying..

"I don't believe in the First Amendment."

and then saying..

"I have every "right" to speak what's on my mind".

What are we doing here?

That aside, I don't know if you heard, but Christianity is all about faith.

It's a hard bargain to spend a large portion of your life arguing against God's existence and living your life as if he doesn't exist..but then expect him to answer requests on your behalf.

That is a lot of nerve, and AUDACITY.

I'm reserving my prayers to God for the people who are humble, and have FAITH.

Which isn't you.

I've answered this many times Venom. The 'STEM' fairy, aka the "MUCF". Unfortunately for you, this response is just as rational as 'god'.

Um, no. The creation of the universe requires intelligence/personhood.

Just look at the lengths you have to go through just to deny the existence of God.

It is truly remarkable.

You're willing to throw all rationale out the window, just to convince yourself that God doesn't exist.

Yet, you want someone to pray to God, on your behalf.

No. Pray to your MUCF.

Rinse/repeat: We already both agree that 'true nothingness' was never a thing. Hence, prior to our observable 'universe', what existed prior? I'll patiently await even more apologetic assertion(s).

Could whatever gave STEM its beginning, be a product of STEM?

Yes or no. I don't need filibustering or weak sauce diatribes.

Simple yes or no.

Yes, they are.

Nothing burger. Blank assertion. No substance.

And further, if a 'god' truly exists, he would not be confined by any perceived 'odds' regardless.

And who said God was confined?

No, this is why I stated, "Couple this with the facts presented with the Dover trial alone".

It wasn't discussed, so you can't say it was covered at the trial.

I humbly ask that you pray to God, (that you claim answers your prayers), and also the fact that you state you love me, which then means you would want the best for me, and the fact that you would love nothing more than for me to be converted; to ask god, in prayer, to give you the VIN number to one of my cars, and also to ask God to tell you where my daughter works, and then kindly relay this information to me, so that I can no longer think or believe you are merely speaking to yourself in prayer, and instead you can immediately win this debate and also convert me to immediately following Jesus,

Okay Venom, I'm ready at any time.

This request isn't made in good faith.

Your basically putting God to the test... basically, forcing God's hand.

"God, if you exist, have a horse pop into my living room..right now!!!"

Who are you? Do you know who you're talking to?

No, that's not how it works...and we are forbidden from doing that (Deut 6:16 / Luke 4:12).

You must think you're talking to someone on the street or something.

Humble yourself.

Unfortunately, this is not true, as you need "science" to communicate with me in this forum. God alone would instead do absolutely nothing to help you here.

I need God to exist, in order to communicate with you in this forum.

a) I also have my own personal testimony, which completely negates yours. In order to settle these two adverse personal experiences, since you claim god answers your prayer, please simply pray and fulfill my simple red request above.

Well, your living by your testimony, and I'm living by mines.

b) You can (so easily and swiftly) save me from my 'perishing', Venom. Instead, you drone on and on and on, knowing this will do nothing to save me. I gave you very explicit instructions on what would immediately convert me. But you'd rather waste eons of time. It's quite vexing, to say the very least.

Humble yourself, unbeliever.

Great, then if you agree that no action(s) can exist outside of time, then 'god' must logically be ruled out.

Wowwww. Ive never thought of that one!!

That's a great point!! Why didn't I ever think of that?

You're so wise!!!

I'm being sarcastic, btw.

Um, yes. It's an unfounded attestation. Meaning, unlike Joseph Smith, who actually produced a contemporary and corroborated attestation of an extraordinary claim -- (in locating magic plates), Paul's 'attestation' is instead unfounded as an 'eyewitness' account to an extraordinary claim.

The point is; the account(s) aren't legendary, as you stated.

Please mind to, or attend to, your responses a little more carefully Venom. You stated 40 to 60 decades.

And what did you say?

a) The Gospels are a classic result of growing legend, yes, as they started decades later; with each and every version adding more and more magical claims to the previous version.

b) I'm saying we have one early and unfounded/uncorroborated/unsupported claim, in Saul. The rest, in the Gospel accounts, are stories supporting legend, as well as some outright admitting they use Mark as their source - (which means it is not an independent and additional account). So, what else do you got?

Um, no...again, Paul's letters and his conversion to Christianity predates the Gospels.

You can't logically say that the Gospels grew in legend, when we have an earlier, independent source from a contemporary source (Paul) which pioneered what the later sources would ultimately say.

You cant logically make that assertion.

[POI]

You skipped a key point made. I will elaborate... Theists seem to underestimate god by quite a lot. God can do anything, and yet the assertions of apologists make it seem as if god is bound by "naturalism", as the components need to be arranged just-so for life. Doesn't god defy 'science'? If so, then mentioning how things must be arranged, to accomplish his intended task, is illogical, as he is then instead bound by "naturalism"?

It is literally a contradiction. It is like saying.. "I don't believe in the First Amendment." and then saying.. "I have every "right" to speak what's on my mind". What are we doing here? That aside, I don't know if you heard, but Christianity is all about faith.

No Venom, it's not like "saying" that at all. You state prayer works. I'm asking you to pray, while thinking you are instead talking to yourself ---- and I keep spoon feeding you the recipe to EASILY prove me wrong, and you refuse, and instead produce countless avoidance(s) and excuse(s). At this point, it's becoming quite entertaining to see you dodge and retreat, because deep down, you too know prayer works at the rate of random chance.

It's a hard bargain to spend a large portion of your life arguing against God's existence and living your life as if he doesn't exist..but then expect him to answer requests on your behalf.

That is a lot of nerve, and AUDACITY.

LOL! All I can do here is chuckle Venom. I'm nominating you for the (best thespian award) for 2026.

I'm reserving my prayers to God for the people who are humble, and have FAITH. Which isn't you.

Yet another dodge.

Um, no. The creation of the universe requires intelligence/personhood.

You've asserted actions here. How do action(s) take place outside of time?

You're willing to throw all rationale out the window, just to convince yourself that God doesn't exist. Yet, you want someone to pray to God, on your behalf. No. Pray to your MUCF.

Baseless rant....

Could whatever gave STEM its beginning, be a product of STEM? Yes or no. I don't need filibustering or weak sauce diatribes. Simple yes or no.

To answer your MALFORMED question, the answer would be 'no.' However, if space, time, matter, and energy had a true beginning, the concept of "before" becomes meaningless. Because time itself emerged with the universe, asking what happened prior is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. Since human intuition breaks down at the beginning, modern physics offers several mathematical frameworks for what could have preceded our current universe. And of course, this bleeds into the other topic just created, where you think 'science' has invented a bunch of "G" word avoidance topics. Weeeee!

It wasn't discussed, so you can't say it was covered at the trial.

I'm telling you that it wasn't discussed at the trial. And if you actually followed it, you wouldn't be asking.

This request isn't made in good faith. Your basically putting God to the test... basically, forcing God's hand. "God, if you exist, have a horse pop into my living room..right now!!!" Who are you? Do you know who you're talking to? No, that's not how it works...and we are forbidden from doing that (Deut 6:16 / Luke 4:12). You must think you're talking to someone on the street or something. Humble yourself.

More dodging, more excuses. That's all. Your responses reminds me of the Mormons. If revelation isn't manifested or achieved, when reading the Book of Mormon, this is solely because such an individual lacks humility or faith. Different flavor, same BS.

1) I need God to exist, 2) in order to communicate with you in this forum.

1) Unfalsifiable statement... with an ever-shrinking (number and size) of gaps for which this 'god' could be lurking.
2) Without "science", you definitely empirically would have never been in contact with me. And if you remove the 'science' now, no amount of prayer in the world will allow for this exchange to continue.

Well, your living by your testimony, and I'm living by mines.

More dodging, more avoidance; as your testimony can be swiftly confirmed to me by performing the task in red, rather than issuing excuses.

Humble yourself, unbeliever.

Dodge #100 and counting....

The point is; the account(s) aren't legendary, as you stated.

I've already acknowledged one erroneous and unsubstantiated claim, in Saul, and the rest are exactly what legions are made upon. Thus, aside from this one unfounded and uncorroborated claim, do you actually have anything else to support the claim that a (3-day-old-rotting-corpse floated around and went on a 40-day resurrection tour)?

Um, no...again, Paul's letters and his conversion to Christianity predates the Gospels.

Irrelevant. He wasn't part of the tour. Jesus apparently 'zapped' him into conversion later. And then he wrote letters making claims which were never corroborated by the actual individuals said to have been there. This is exactly why I mention Joseph Smith. His claims to witnesses instead swiftly corroborated his outrageous claims. With the Gospels, these are written anonymously, decades later. But none of this matters, as you would not believe in the Book of Mormon, and the claim(s) to these founded magic plates, no matter how much it was corroborated or deemed contemporary. And I've already expressed why ad nauseum.

You can't logically say that the Gospels grew in legend, when we have an earlier, independent source from a contemporary source (Paul) which pioneered what the later sources would ultimately say.

You cant logically make that assertion.

Oh, I most certainly can, and I did, and I also do. If Paul started the religion, the later anonymous Gospels could very well have been written to support the earlier claims of Saul, as Saul likely was the founder of this 'religion.' And they did a horrible job in doing so -- with the "Markan Paulinism" camp and all. And then you also have Luke and Acts, who are apparently written by the same author. This two-part volume is widely viewed, by scholars, as the most direct attempt to support Saul. Etc etc etc...........

Sure, many later followed, especially after Constantine 'ordained' it centuries later, but yea, the number of believers is not what measures or meters truth. Otherwise, Islam will soon be 'truer'.

[SiNcE_1985]

You skipped a key point made. I will elaborate... Theists seem to underestimate god by quite a lot. God can do anything, and yet the assertions of apologists make it seem as if god is bound by "naturalism", as the components need to be arranged just-so for life. Doesn't god defy 'science'? If so, then mentioning how things must be arranged, to accomplish his intended task, is illogical, as he is then instead bound by "naturalism"?

A couple things to point out here...

1. No, I didn't skip this key point. I addressed it, days ago.

You had brought up this point via Carroll, in the Craig debate...and I offered the same response that Craig offered (in his rebuttal).

Carroll challenged the fine-tuning argument by asking "Why does God have to fine-tuned anything, if he is an omnipotent being" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was essentially his point).

Craig responded by stating that the reason the universe is fine-tuned, is so that the world can be discoverable to us.

The water cycle, electricity, laws of motion, etc...is all part of the human learning experience...and the only way for these things to be discovered and learnable, is for parameters to be set in place in order to be discovered.

2. This is a rather silly objection, considering, on Christian theism, God is the creator of the universe (STEM) and would obviously not be bound by the nature he created...and he also performs miracles within nature, which also defies nature.

If you have the power to create nature (STEM) from nothing, you PROBABLY ain't bound by it.

Just sayin.

No Venom, it's not like "saying" that at all. You state prayer works. I'm asking you to pray, while thinking you are instead talking to yourself ---- and I keep spoon feeding you the recipe to EASILY prove me wrong, and you refuse, and instead produce countless avoidance(s) and excuse(s). At this point, it's becoming quite entertaining to see you dodge and retreat, because deep down, you too know prayer works at the rate of random chance.

Muslims believe in prayer, too.

I'm not Muslim, and I'm not asking Muslims to pray on my behalf.

Catch my drift?

I'll make it easy for you, so that you can stop asking.

If I pray for you, and you don't get a favorable response, I can always say "That's because God answered no".

If that happens, you'll say "He didn't say yes, because he doesn't exist".

And then we're back to square one.

So, just drop it, bro.

If you don't believe in God, then let it go.

You've asserted actions here. How do action(s) take place outside of time?

I never said it did.

You keep making these false insinuations about my stance on this issue, when I haven't addressed it yet (in this conversation).

My focus is on your naturalism. We will address my position on this issue once I am satisfied that you can offer, at the very least, a coherent response to my objections.

Baseless rant....

Far from baseless.

You offered a counter cause to what I offered..and I'm simply telling you to pray to that, instead of worrying yourself about whether your prayers get answered from my cause.

Reminds me of folks, who go out to dinner with you.

You all order your food, and when the food comes, the person spends their time focusing and trying to pick off your plate, instead of focusing on their own plate.

Why are you worried about what's going on over here? Eat your own food!!

To answer your MALFORMED question, the answer would be 'no.'

Ok, so if that is the case, even your MUCF must have existed outside (and not a product)of STEM.

And it could not have been mindless.

However, if space, time, matter, and energy had a true beginning, the concept of "before" becomes meaningless.

I agree. I just want to establish that the cause of STEM could not be within STEM.

So, nothing of physical (matter) nature, could be the cause, correct?

Because time itself emerged with the universe, asking what happened prior is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. Since human intuition breaks down at the beginning, modern physics offers several mathematical frameworks for what could have preceded our current universe.

I actually agree. The problem is, it still needs to be explained as to why/how.

We've reached the limitations of science here, and the issue is; naturalists dont like the implications of a boundary to science/nature...meanwhile, theists are like, "well, next man up"....God.

And of course, this bleeds into the other topic just created, where you think 'science' has invented a bunch of "G" word avoidance topics. Weeeee!

It's the unfortunate reality of the situation.

I'm telling you that it wasn't discussed at the trial. And if you actually followed it, you wouldn't be asking.

Then your mention of the trial, in this context, is completely irrelevant ..and a waste of time.

More dodging, more excuses. That's all. Your responses reminds me of the Mormons. If revelation isn't manifested or achieved, when reading the Book of Mormon, this is solely because such an individual lacks humility or faith. Different flavor, same BS.

All the more reason for you to not believe, isn't it?

That aside, it isn't as if we are just sayin stuff...it is a fundamental part of the belief system.

In our holy/sacred texts (Bible), when people have faith, good things tend to happen...and when they don't, they get less than desirable results...that is usually how it goes.

If you don't like it, then simply stay away.

It ain't t for you.

1) Unfalsifiable statement... with an ever-shrinking (number and size) of gaps for which this 'god' could be lurking.
2) Without "science", you definitely empirically would have never been in contact with me. And if you remove the 'science' now, no amount of prayer in the world will allow for this exchange to continue.

Sure, whatever you say.

More dodging, more avoidance; as your testimony can be swiftly confirmed to me by performing the task in red, rather than issuing excuses.

We operate with faith over here, amigo.

If that's not part of your program, then let it go.

I've already acknowledged one erroneous and unsubstantiated claim, in Saul , and the rest are exactly what legions are made upon.

Your attempt to discredit Paul, comes flat.

Paul was a direct contemporary of Peter, James, and the apostles...and met directly with Peter and James.

So with Paul, we have direct testimony from someone who was there during the times of the early Christian movement and knew exactly what the word on the street was about Jesus...and he was spreading that word about Jesus, before the biographies of Jesus were written, and circulating.

Legends aren't made that early, sir.

Thus, aside from this one unfounded and uncorroborated claim, do you actually have anything else to support the claim that a (3-day-old-rotting-corpse floated around and went on a 40-day resurrection tour)?

Paul
Gospels
Tacitus
Josephus

All of whom lived or wrote during the first century CE.

Irrelevant. He wasn't part of the tour. Jesus apparently 'zapped' him into conversion later.

Yeah, and the zapping occured 3-5 years after the crucifixion.

That's the point.

The belief of who Jesus was/did, wasnt developed over time, it was there from jump street.

And then he wrote letters making claims which were never corroborated by the actual individuals said to have been there.

This is exactly why I mention Joseph Smith.

Yeah, and that's exactly why, when you used this hearsay objection the last time, I used the analogy of your mother (or anyone you trust) who provided you hearsay, you would undoubtedly trust them.

If you are that much against hearsay, then you wouldn't accept hearsay from ANYONE.

Don't become all super-skeptical when it comes to the Bible, but gladly take off the skeptical cape when it comes to anything else.

It is called "inconsistent reasoning"...and the taxicab fallacy.

is claims to witnesses instead swiftly corroborated his outrageous claims. With the Gospels, these are written anonymously, decades later.

It was written decades later.

Obviously, the belief itself was held immediately after the events.

You seem to not be able to distinguish the two.

But none of this matters, as you would not believe in the Book of Mormon, and the claim(s) to these founded magic plates, no matter how much it was corroborated or deemed contemporary. And I've already expressed why ad nauseum.

Um, no. Because unlike the decades later thing you mentioned above, Joseph Smith's stuff came CENTURIES later.

So, if I shouldn't believe stuff written decades later, then I shouldn't believe stuff written centuries later.

According to your nonsense logic.

Oh, I most certainly can, and I did, and I also do. If Paul started the religion, the later anonymous Gospels could very well have been written to support the earlier claims of Saul, as Saul likely was the founder of this 'religion.'

See now, you are just saying shit.

Now of a sudden, Paul started Christianity??

He started Christianity, when he clearly stated that Christianity preceded his own conversion.

Makes no sense,

And they did a horrible job in doing so -- with the "Markan Paulinism" camp and all. And then you also have Luke and Acts, who are apparently written by the same author. This two-part volume is widely viewed, by scholars, as the most direct attempt to support Saul. Etc etc etc...........

So, two people of a shared belief...both of whom writes about a belief they share in common...all of a sudden, this is a crime against humanity, huh?

And you want someone to pray for you...with this nonsense?

Sure, many later followed, especially after Constantine 'ordained' it centuries later, but yea, the number of believers is not what measures or meters truth. Otherwise, Islam will soon be 'truer'.

Christianity was already poppin long before Constantine.

Ask Roman emperor, Nero.

[Difflugia]

Penrose answered that himself. In order for your 10¹⁰¹²³ thing to be meaningful, Penrose has to be right about a bunch of science that you otherwise deny, but then be wrong about his solution to the problem. That's the exact form of the taxicab fallacy that you're so fond of.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything I'm talking about.

Color me surprised.

What I'm talking about is entropy (fine tuning)...

I know the distinction has been lost on you in the past, but a low entropy cosmological starting point and fine tuning are different discussions.

and your presenting a cosmological model, which doesn't place emphasis on either.

Tell me you haven't read Penrose without telling me you haven't read Penrose.

[POI]

Carroll challenged the fine-tuning argument by asking "Why does God have to fine-tuned anything, if he is an omnipotent being" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was essentially his point).

Craig responded by stating that the reason the universe is fine-tuned, is so that the world can be discoverable to us.

The water cycle, electricity, laws of motion, etc...is all part of the human learning experience...and the only way for these things to be discovered and learnable, is for parameters to be set in place in order to be discovered.

This is a bad argument because it relies on human-centric bias, makes unsubstantiated probability claims, and contradicts the physical reality of the vast and mostly hostile universe we actually inhabit. The concrete analogy alone addresses much of this, for which you had little to no real response to...

You are also guilty of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. This argument assumes the universe was built to fit humanity, whereas humanity simply evolved to fit the universe. If the universe were different, we wouldn't be here to observe it, making our "discoverable" surroundings seem special when they are simply a prerequisite for our existence.

And what about the "wastefulness" problem? Claiming the universe was finely tuned for humans ignores the reality of cosmology. Roughly 99.999% of the universe is an endless, dark, and lethal vacuum. If the goal was to provide a comfortable, discoverable environment for humans, it is an incredibly inefficient and hostile design. Not to mention how most of our 'created' planet is also inhabitable to humans.

And then there's the (unverifiable probabilities) observation. Arguments about the universe's "improbability" rely on subjective guesses about fundamental physics. Because we have no other universes to compare ours to, we cannot assign mathematical odds (or a probability) to the laws of nature, making the "fine-tuning" math highly speculative.

And then there's also the (alternative scientific explanations). Physicists propose naturalistic explanations for this order, such as the multiverse theory. If there are countless universes with varying physical laws, our universe's life-permitting properties become a statistical inevitability rather than a purposeful design. But of course, here is where you claim that the 'multiverse theory' was brought up solely to 'counter' deism/theism.

2. This is a rather silly objection, considering, on Christian theism, God is the creator of the universe (STEM) and would obviously not be bound by the nature he created...and he also performs miracles within nature, which also defies nature. If you have the power to create nature (STEM) from nothing, you PROBABLY ain't bound by it. Just sayin.

What demonstrates silly is to so blatantly shoot yourself in your own foot. Action(s) requires time. Your posed objection/question is nonsensical.

Muslims believe in prayer, too. I'm not Muslim, and I'm not asking Muslims to pray on my behalf. Catch my drift?

Clear distinctions here Venom:

a) You, and the Muslim, both believe some invisible agency is addressing prayer. I don't.
b) You, and the Muslim, both believe that all prayers are heard, and only some are answered to the prayer-maker's liking, where-as I believe, you both are just talking to yourself.
c) You would likely think that the Muslim is just praying to the wrong version of an existing god, where I instead think both the Muslims and the Christians are talking to themselves.
d) If I opted to engage in a 'Debating Islam" forum arena, I'd surely be asking them to pray for me and receiving lame excuses too.

Catch my drift?

I'll make it easy for you, so that you can stop asking. If I pray for you, and you don't get a favorable response, I can always say "That's because God answered no". If that happens, you'll say "He didn't say yes, because he doesn't exist". And then we're back to square one. So, just drop it, bro. If you don't believe in God, then let it go.

LOL! Nope. You already know the outcome, because it exposes the absurdity in your belief so easily. No Venom, this is a handwaving excuse designed so that you can continue in your blank assertions. All I ask is for you to tell me:

1. my car's VIN number
2. my daughter's place of employment

And voila, you will WIN!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, I will just keep exposing all your nonsense.

So, nothing of physical (matter) nature, could be the cause, correct?

Yet again, action(s) necessitate time.

All the more reason for you to not believe, isn't it? That aside, it isn't as if we are just sayin stuff...it is a fundamental part of the belief system.

My point here is that anyone who states they're prayers were not answered, in which the book asserts will happen, is gaslit or receives post hoc answers provided by apologetic cope.

In our holy/sacred texts (Bible), when people have faith, good things tend to happen...and when they don't, they get less than desirable results...that is usually how it goes. If you don't like it, then simply stay away. It ain't t for you.

I think I might make a new thread about this claim

Sure, whatever you say.

I'll accept the dodgy handwave here.

We operate with faith over here, amigo. If that's not part of your program, then let it go.

More dodging, blank assertions, more excuses...

Your attempt to discredit Paul, comes flat. Paul was a direct contemporary of Peter, James, and the apostles...and met directly with Peter and James.So with Paul, we have direct testimony from someone who was there during the times of the early Christian movement and knew exactly what the word on the street was about Jesus...and he was spreading that word about Jesus, before the biographies of Jesus were written, and circulating.

Paul was not part of the resurrection tour. He claims he met with people who were direct observers. However, these folks do not corroborate Paul's claim that he met with them. Unlike Joseph Smith and the located "magic plates"....

Instead, Paul claims to have been 'zapped' a few years later. Anyone can claim this, at any time, and then write about it.

1) Paul
2) Gospels
3) Tacitus
4) Josephus

All of whom lived or wrote during the first century CE.

1) explained above
2) classical description of how legends arise
3) later historian writing about what others believed - (wild tales)
4) 'golden paragraph' - aka forgery

Yeah, and the zapping occured 3-5 years after the crucifixion. That's the point. The belief of who Jesus was/did, wasnt developed over time, it was there from jump street.

Paul’s epistles didn't begin to gain much traction and canonical credence until the late 1st to mid-2nd century. While Paul wrote his letters between roughly 50 and 65 CE, they initially circulated only as regional correspondence among specific congregations. The later Gospels, along with Roman rule, are what gave this particular (resurrection) story traction above other claims to resurrection(s) stories placed out into the ether.

Yeah, and that's exactly why, when you used this hearsay objection the last time, I used the analogy of your mother (or anyone you trust) who provided you hearsay, you would undoubtedly trust them. If you are that much against hearsay, then you wouldn't accept hearsay from ANYONE. Don't become all super-skeptical when it comes to the Bible, but gladly take off the skeptical cape when it comes to anything else. It is called "inconsistent reasoning"...and the taxicab fallacy.

More poor rubberstamping Venom.... If I recall correctly, my initial objection was to another interlocutor, who stated we have 100's of eyewitnesses. Well, we don't. We only have hearsay. And I've already spoken to this, in that I doubt ANY (super)natural claims, whether they come from a claimed direct eyewitness account, or from hearsay.

Um, no. Because unlike the decades later thing you mentioned above, Joseph Smith's stuff came CENTURIES later. So, if I shouldn't believe stuff written decades later, then I shouldn't believe stuff written centuries later. According to your nonsense logic.

You keep missing my point here. You concern yourself with supernatural claims being contemporary. Well. finding magical plates also involves the supernatural. And we also have contemporary corroboration. But this matters not, because your indoctrinated belief system tells you to reject this claim as a lie while assuming your indoctrinated belief system is not. Being both contemporary and corroborated is not what drives your belief in this crazy claim. The other aforementioned factors are what drive your acceptance to this one, while rejecting the other. Hence, you are the head driver in the taxi cab.

See now, you are just saying shit. Now of a sudden, Paul started Christianity?? He started Christianity, when he clearly stated that Christianity preceded his own conversion. Makes no sense,

Paul wrote close to half of what exists in the NT. And without Paul, you also have no claims to 'contemporary attestation'.

So, two people of a shared belief...both of whom writes about a belief they share in common...all of a sudden, this is a crime against humanity, huh?

"Luke" is wacked, and you know it.

And you want someone to pray for you...with this nonsense?

Like I've said, over and over and over again, we can skip all this nonsense, Just tell me my VIN number and where my daughter works, and I will be on team Jesus immediately!

[SiNcE_1985]

I know the distinction has been lost on you in the past, but a low entropy cosmological starting point and fine tuning are different discussions

Fine-tuning and low entropy are the same thing.

It takes extremely low entropy to be fine-tuned.

Tell me you haven't read Penrose without telling me you haven't read Penrose.

No, I have not read Penrose.

All I know is, his equations validate key premises in theistic arguments.

That's all I need from him.