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]

I looked through your last response, and you mentioned nothing about him.

My bad, then.

But due to technical difficulties with the site, I may have provided a different response than that one.

Further, when do I use the biographies of "Alexander the great" as an example of good journalism? The only time I've ever really mentioned AtG, in this forum, is to elaborate in that one needs to take the ancient claims with a grain of salt.

Settle down. I was speaking of historians, in general...not you.

(Rinse/repeat): It is not far-fetched to believe there was once a "great" leader who fought for new territories and later died of fever. However, I reject the additional claim(s) that he was the "son of Zeus" or anything else magical. I too have little problem believing there was once a homeless preacher who was later killed for "treason." However, I also reject the claims that his rotting corpse rose again and went on a 40-day resurrection tour. And here is the part in question. Did he or didn't he 'rise' again'? And here is where we can focus below...

Thats all fine and dandy.

But im speaking specifically on your standard of decades later, which you emphasized, in efforts to discredit the Gospels...because they were written decades later, after the fact.

If you have this thing against supernatural claims, then it doesn't matter when they were written...whether decades later or days later. So pointing it out doesn't move the needle, one way or the other.

Second, all I have to do is point out something else that was written decades later (or in this case, centuries later), of which historians accept as valid, of which I can show the double standard, and inconsistent logic...and/or bias.

And neither of my two rebuttals have anything to do with the specifics about either belief...but rather, just pointing out that the "decades later" objection just won't fly, for both reasons.

You just can't help yourself Venom, by rising/repeating with your canned apologetics for which I've addressed ad nauseam, (and some of these were even addressed in the last response for which you skipped).

Um, no. I'll call those 5 problems, the big 5 (B5).

You can address B5 by actually answering my question of; how are either of the 5 explained, on naturalism?

That has been my question for the past 4-5 pages, and you did not provide an adequate response.

You're response was "Yeah, but God couldn't have done it either".

That's not an adequate response. I'm asking you to explain alleged natural phenomenon, on your worldview of naturalism.

And I've been getting NOTHING but dodging, deflections, and red herrings.

So no, you did not address anything ad nauseam. You've been dodging ad nauseam, though.

Yet again, for the others following along, you came into this thread emphasizing the important of being 1) contemporary and having 2) corroboration. However, when I demonstrate another magical claim, with more of both 1) and 2), you reject it as a lie. All of a sudden, 1) and 2) are no longer important. All of a sudden, it's just a lie.

And my response is/was; it has to be contemporary to Jesus, not contemporary to people living and making claims some 2,000 years after the fact.

If your teachings/beliefs (of Christianity) cannot be traced from the oral or written lineage/traditions, BEGINNING with Jesus...then we (actual Orthodox Christians) can't rock with you.

And Joseph Smith's teachings/beliefs does NOT meet this criterion.

You don't get to come on the scene 2,000 years later and reinvent the wheel.

Thats why we reject Joseph Smith and his teachings.

Now, what part of that you ain't understanding...I don't know.

I would talk about the big 'E' (yet again), as that one is probably the easiest example to expose your blatant handwaving to proven and testable science. But you already admitted that you would just pivot anyways if you then accepted the big 'E'. Further, you clearly are either purposefully misrepresenting what peer review actually is, or you lack basic understanding of its principles. Either way, coupling the misrepresentation of peer review with the fact that you would also just pivot anyways, or move the goalposts to retain belief, would be sheer lunacy on my part to continue (yet again).

Um, I told you; I don't believe everything I'm told.

It works that way with religion, and it works that way with science.

That is what is called being a free, independent thinker. Just because you bow at the feet of scientists and accept every thing they say as the gospel truth, I don't.

I don't do this with scientists in lab coats, and I don't do it with preachers at the pulpit.

Venom: I don't understand how science works. Therefore, invisible, magical, and prayer-answering sky carcass

Ok, then all more reason for you to stop asking me to pray to this invisible, magical, prayer-answering sky carcass...on your behalf.

1) I've already spoke to this... Paul makes the claim(s) and the Gospels are there, much later, to 'back' them up.

Dude, you're making stuff up as you go along.

From the time I had to enlighten you on the fact that Paul's letters predate the Gospel (which is what the average, layman skeptic DOESN'T know), now all of a sudden; the Gospel writers wrote in efforts to corroborate Paul?

Laughable.

(Rinse/repeat) - Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

Um, I responded to this...and I'm not gonna address it again until I get a response to what I said.

After Constantine legalized Christianity, pointing out textual inconsistencies was not okay. As the church merged with imperial power, questioning official scripture became synonymous with heresy, which was increasingly treated as a crime against the state.

Further, I really doubt these folks thought that these books would really be looked at that close, by most, anyways.

Um, no.

The Muratorian Canon was put together in 170 CE. Obviously, the folks who put it together had the books at their disposal, and undoubtedly looked at them closely and still selected those books to be part of the canon.

They had every opportunity to reject either (or both books), but they didn't.

Further still, most were illiterate. Identifying inconsistencies would first require actually reading the damn thing.

Yeah, the Bible is the most copied book, from the 2nd century CE, to now. All of those copies of the Bible from the early middle ages...and no one knew how to read. Laughable.

Second, the church fathers certainly knew how to read, and write...and they still accepted the Biblical canon as reliable, and trustworthy.

Blank assertion/handwave

Um, no. I've spoken at length on that issue, elsewhere. So, you aint pulling some mystery rabbit out of the hat by mentioning it.

It just aint worth getting into, now.

Makes perfect sense... I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is, since you state Jesus not only answers prayer, but your answer(s). Further, you want me converted. Further still, Jesus wants me to believe and worship him. We could have been done weeks ago Venom. But you refuse, and we all continue to know why.

And im asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

If your money is on atheism/naturalism...then keep your money there. Don't concern yourself with questions concerning a religion that you don't believe in. Its cool, if you have questions here and there...but to dedicate a lifetime towards a religion that you don't believe in, is crazy work.

We arent asking you to pray with us, because you dont believe in prayer, right?

But here you are, asking us to pray for you, when you DON'T believe in prayer.

Thats wild.

Leave...Christianity....ALONE.

[POI]

My bad, then. But due to technical difficulties with the site, I may have provided a different response than that one.

No worries. Yes, the site does present with some issues. But I guess we cannot complain since it is free to us.

Settle down. I was speaking of historians, in general...not you.

Most historians, based upon 'historicity' agree that a dude named Jesus likely walked the earth, was a homeless preacher, and was later killed for treason. Just like historians, based upon 'historicity' agree that a dude named Alexander likely fought over new territory and later died of fever. It's when the claims to magic comes in where historians need a bit more, (on both storylines). And in using the historical method, the claims to magic fall short, for both dudes.

Thats all fine and dandy. But im speaking specifically on your standard of decades later, which you emphasized, in efforts to discredit the Gospels...because they were written decades later, after the fact. If you have this thing against supernatural claims, then it doesn't matter when they were written...whether decades later or days later. So pointing it out doesn't move the needle, one way or the other.

I more-so scrutinize all claims to magic and/or (super)natural more-so to the claims of the mundane. Mundaine claims, like dudes winning new territories (i.e. AtG) and/or preaching (Jesus) -- I'll just accept without much pushback.

Second, all I have to do is point out something else that was written decades later (or in this case, centuries later), of which historians accept as valid, of which I can show the double standard, and inconsistent logic...and/or bias.

Again, please do not lump me in with others. I'm not even questioning the mundane. But I do become much more skeptical to all claims which include (magic/extraordinary/other).

Um, no. I'll call those 5 problems, the big 5 (B5). You can address B5 by actually answering my question of; how are either of the 5 explained, on naturalism? That has been my question for the past 4-5 pages, and you did not provide an adequate response.

And I've told you, for the past 4-5 pages, that you are a science peer review denier. I also told you that you completely skipped a response which also continues to address some of your 'concerns.'

You're response was "Yeah, but God couldn't have done it either". That's not an adequate response.

I'm sorry that, in your opinion, my response is not "adequate." Hower, you are going to have to accept reality. If you wish to live by the sword, you must also die by the sword. Meaning, I've provided a rule out. God is ruled out, as action(s) require time. Please blindly assert some other fill-in.

I'm asking you to explain alleged natural phenomenon, on your worldview of naturalism. And I've been getting NOTHING but dodging, deflections, and red herrings. So no, you did not address anything ad nauseam. You've been dodging ad nauseam, though.

Now you are just being disingenuous. The Dover trial, along with the concrete slab analogy deals with (2 of the 5) categories you offer. Your excessive handwaving is all that has been demonstrating here. Way-back-when, I also provided a 4-minute video clearly explaining macroevolution, (by a theist mind you), as typing it out would have been QUITE the text-wall that no one would have read. And.... you guessed it, another giant handwave by you is all. Again, one can lead the horse to water....

And my response is/was; it has to be contemporary to Jesus, not contemporary to people living and making claims some 2,000 years after the fact. If your teachings/beliefs (of Christianity) cannot be traced from the oral or written lineage/traditions, BEGINNING with Jesus...then we (actual Orthodox Christians) can't rock with you. And Joseph Smith's teachings/beliefs does NOT meet this criterion. You don't get to come on the scene 2,000 years later and reinvent the wheel. Thats why we reject Joseph Smith and his teachings. Now, what part of that you ain't understanding...I don't know.

My patience continues to be tested.... This tells me you still do not get it Venom. Yet again, Mr. Smith's claims (to finding magical plates) present with more 1) "contemporary-ness" and more 2) 'corroboration-ness' than the claims to folks sighting a magical Jesus. Which is why you must instead pivot and call it a lie. Which means 1) and 2) are not really why you believe these claims at all. If 1) and 2) are the rubric or basis for why you believe in magic, then you should believe that Joseph located magical plates even more-so than you believe in a magical Jesus.

Um, I told you; I don't believe everything I'm told. It works that way with religion, and it works that way with science. That is what is called being a free, independent thinker. Just because you bow at the feet of scientists and accept every thing they say as the gospel truth, I don't. I don't do this with scientists in lab coats, and I don't do it with preachers at the pulpit.

Straw manning peer reviewed science either a) purposefully or b) due to lack in knowledge of how peer review works, isn't helping your position one bit.

Ok, then all more reason for you to stop asking me to pray to this invisible, magical, prayer-answering sky carcass...on your behalf.

Nope. I'm asking you to prove me wrong. I'm asking you to convert me, which is what you desperately want. And you apparently are given the gift to do so quite easily. Your avoidance here continues to speak volumes.

Dude, you're making stuff up as you go along. From the time I had to enlighten you on the fact that Paul's letters predate the Gospel (which is what the average, layman skeptic DOESN'T know), now all of a sudden; the Gospel writers wrote in efforts to corroborate Paul? Laughable.

Dude, I acknowledged this from the jump, and you have been stuck in neutral ever since... Paul makes a claim, sure... Now what? Well, we have the Gospels, which try to 'legitimize' Paul. And when we get to Luke, we can clearly see even more manipulation.

Um, I responded to this...and I'm not gonna address it again until I get a response to what I said.

3rd attempt in getting an answer:

(Rinse/repeat) - Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

The Muratorian Canon was put together in 170 CE. Obviously, the folks who put it together had the books at their disposal, and undoubtedly looked at them closely and still selected those books to be part of the canon. They had every opportunity to reject either (or both books), but they didn't.

The Muratorian Canon was part of the early believing church Venom. I'm talking about skeptics. Skeptics had to remain silent. Believers, as we know here, all still believe, even though none of you fellas can hardly agree upon much -- which is why we have countless sects under the same giant umbrella. You guys have made mental gymnastics an art form.

And the "Muratorian Canon" missed a lot, (starting with the observation I listed above), for which you skipped 3 times and counting. If you reject all books, you have nothing at all. Many Gospel 'versions' were floating around, and I guess they chose the least crappiest ones they could find, as the alternative was even worse -- in having nothing to support Paul at all.

Yeah, the Bible is the most copied book, from the 2nd century CE, to now. All of those copies of the Bible from the early middle ages...and no one knew how to read. Laughable.

This is irrelevant, as most could not read it, no matter how many copies were produced. Remember, one of the quickest ways to skepticism is to actual read the dang thing. Ironically, most believers do not even know their own book that well. And the ones that do are forced into apologetics.

Um, no. I've spoken at length on that issue, elsewhere. So, you aint pulling some mystery rabbit out of the hat by mentioning it. It just aint worth getting into, now.

I'm not saying you have not typed 'words.'

And im asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

If your money is on atheism/naturalism...then keep your money there. Don't concern yourself with questions concerning a religion that you don't believe in. Its cool, if you have questions here and there...but to dedicate a lifetime towards a religion that you don't believe in, is crazy work. We arent asking you to pray with us, because you dont believe in prayer, right? But here you are, asking us to pray for you, when you DON'T believe in prayer. Thats wild. Leave...Christianity....ALONE.

More avoidance. Please perform this 10-second task and convert a skeptic today.

[SiNcE_1985]

Most historians, based upon 'historicity' agree that a dude named Jesus likely walked the earth, was a homeless preacher, and was later killed for treason. Just like historians, based upon 'historicity' agree that a dude named Alexander likely fought over new territory and later died of fever. It's when the claims to magic comes in where historians need a bit more, (on both storylines). And in using the historical method, the claims to magic fall short, for both dudes.

Opinions.

I more-so scrutinize all claims to magic and/or (super)natural more-so to the claims of the mundane. Mundaine claims, like dudes winning new territories (i.e. AtG) and/or preaching (Jesus) -- I'll just accept without much pushback.

Yeah, and that's my point...the B5, are ultimately claims from naturalists (when you take away the fluff and feathers).

And these claims, are not mundane.

They are extraordinary.

Claim 1: (From Christians) A man died and rose from the dead and began to talk.

Extraordinary claim^.

Claim 2: (From Naturalists) Inanimate matter came to life, and began to talk.

Extraordinary claim^.

One extreme, to another.

I don't see how your claim has any more virtue or credibility, than mine.

So, you guys (naturalists) need to simply humble yourselves, during these discussions...as if your position/claims have more clout than ours.

Again, please do not lump me in with others. I'm not even questioning the mundane. But I do become much more skeptical to all claims which include (magic/extraordinary/other).

I get it.

But your claims don't even involve magic (according to you guys), and you STILL can't explain it.

Not only can't you explain it, but it is naturally impossible to explain it.

It is basically; circular reasoning....and you guys are unwilling to accept nor admit it.

And I've told you, for the past 4-5 pages, that you are a science peer review denier. I also told you that you completely skipped a response which also continues to address some of your 'concerns.'

I deemed your responses as inadequate.

You offering any ole rinky-dinky response, is a response, but it is inadequate.

If I ask you what is 2+2, and your response is..

"The Cat in the Hat".

You responded, but the response isn't adequate.

And that's what you've been providing.

I'm sorry that, in your opinion, my response is not "adequate." Hower, you are going to have to accept reality. If you wish to live by the sword, you must also die by the sword. Meaning, I've provided a rule out. God is ruled out, as action(s) require time. Please blindly assert some other fill-in.

Well, again; we are discussing naturalism now.

You're deflecting from the subject.

Now you are just being disingenuous. The Dover trial, along with the concrete slab analogy deals with (2 of the 5) categories you offer. Your excessive handwaving is all that has been demonstrating here. Way-back-when, I also provided a 4-minute video clearly explaining macroevolution, (by a theist mind you), as typing it out would have been QUITE the text-wall that no one would have read. And.... you guessed it, another giant handwave by you is all. Again, one can lead the horse to water....

I'm not interested in 4-minute splaining.

Unless you're gonna show me 4-minutes of macroevolution in action (reptile to bird), then I don't need to see it.

Nor do I care about a trial that doesn't cover what I'm talking about, which is PE odds being defied by mindless and blind processes.

My patience continues to be tested.... This tells me you still do not get it Venom. Yet again, Mr. Smith's claims (to finding magical plates) present with more 1) "contemporary-ness" and more 2) 'corroboration-ness' than the claims to folks sighting a magical Jesus. Which is why you must instead pivot and call it a lie. Which means 1) and 2) are not really why you believe these claims at all. If 1) and 2) are the rubric or basis for why you believe in magic, then you should believe that Joseph located magical plates even more-so than you believe in a magical Jesus.

I really can't explain it any more clearer, than I already did.

You don't get it. Moving along.

Nope. I'm asking you to prove me wrong. I'm asking you to convert me, which is what you desperately want. And you apparently are given the gift to do so quite easily. Your avoidance here continues to speak volumes.

You've been proven wrong countless times...even the times you were clearly wrong, you won't admit it.

You lack accountability, and humbleness...and neither are good recipes for prayer dishes.

So, let it go.

Dude, I acknowledged this from the jump, and you have been stuck in neutral ever since... Paul makes a claim, sure... Now what? Well, we have the Gospels, which try to 'legitimize' Paul. And when we get to Luke, we can clearly see even more manipulation.

Just more falsehoods, spewing from your fingertips.

Ridiculous. SMH.

3rd attempt in getting an answer:

(Rinse/repeat) - Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

I could give an answer on why that was the case..but that is another conversation, for another day.

I'm still waiting on how Luke fix/corrected Mark, which you DIDN'T explain.

All you have is an author expanding on an already preexisting story.

The Muratorian Canon was part of the early believing church Venom. I'm talking about skeptics. Skeptics had to remain silent.

Um, no.

You said that all of the silent stuff happened after Constantine (3rd century), and after Christianity became cool to rock.

But the Muratorian Canon was compiled before that, though...over a century before that.

So, your claim/theory is in invalid in light of actual history.

So, you can put that one to bed.

Believers, as we know here, all still believe, even though none of you fellas can hardly agree upon much -- which is why we have countless sects under the same giant umbrella. You guys have made mental gymnastics an art form.

Yeah, all "in house" stuff. Something you don't have to worry about, or concern yourself with.

And the "Muratorian Canon" missed a lot, (starting with the observation I listed above), for which you skipped 3 times and counting. If you reject all books, you have nothing at all. Many Gospel 'versions' were floating around, and I guess they chose the least crappiest ones they could find, as the alternative was even worse -- in having nothing to support Paul at all.

Yeah, many Gospels were floating around...and notice the ones that were selected to be part of the canon (NT) were all said to have been written within the first century CE.

Can't have people writing hundreds or centuries later (Joseph Smith), claiming to have something to say by introducing doctrines and books to the mix, when it goes against what people in the first century were saying.

It was a selective process...good stuff in; bs out.

This is irrelevant, as most could not read it, no matter how many copies were produced. Remember, one of the quickest ways to skepticism is to actual read the dang thing. Ironically, most believers do not even know their own book that well. And the ones that do are forced into apologetics.

Sooo, you make copies upon copies of books, to/for people who doesn't know how to read??

Make it make sense.

Oh, I get it...is it like painting beautiful art work to/for people who are blind?

Makes no sense.

I'm not saying you have not typed 'words.'

Well, save me the time by going back to my typed words..and read my response.

More avoidance. Please perform this 10-second task and convert a skeptic today.

"Convert a skeptic today". LOL

[POI]

Yeah, and that's my point...the B5, are ultimately claims from naturalists (when you take away the fluff and feathers). And these claims, are not mundane. They are extraordinary.

Then you obviously have not taken a biology course, or you did, and slept through half of it. The big 'E' is just as supported as any other topic regarding scientific theory.

Claim 1: (From Christians) A man died and rose from the dead and began to talk. Extraordinary claim^.

Yep, very.

Claim 2: (From Naturalists) Inanimate matter came to life, and began to talk. Extraordinary claim^. One extreme, to another.

I don't know that 'naturalism', in some form or another, has never not existed? And since 'naturalism' also requires time, asking what existed before time is considered nonsensical (in modern physics) because the concept of "before" inherently requires a timeline. We've been over this ad nauseum now.

I get it. But your claims don't even involve magic (according to you guys), and you STILL can't explain it. Not only can't you explain it, but it is naturally impossible to explain it.

Yet again, the Dover trial debunks the theistic claims to IC without referring to any magic. I sent you a very brief video explanation regarding macroevolution as well, which has nothing to do with magic, for which you completely handwaved. You also assert that this arena was designed with humans in mind, which would be about as nonsensical as a weed claiming that the trillions of yards of concrete poured was designed for the weed. Both the universe and our planet are counterintuitive to our existence.

I deemed your responses as inadequate. You offering any ole rinky-dinky response, is a response, but it is inadequate.

When you are a "handwaver" and also a peer reviewed science denier, I would expect nothing less.

I'm not interested in 4-minute splaining.

I'm not going to type a vast text wall. The video explains. I offered it, you refused to actually process it, and we all know WHY.

Unless you're gonna show me 4-minutes of macroevolution in action (reptile to bird), then I don't need to see it.

The fact that you state this is exactly why you have such a long way to go, and anyone in the field of biology would just shake their head in amazement, as you present with the Dunning Kruger effect here in its fullest

I really can't explain it any more clearer, than I already did. You don't get it. Moving along.

You don't need to. You reject the claim to the "magic plates" because the claim to more prophets does not fit into your indoctrinated narrative, that the claim had to come swiftly. You reject later continued revelation because this was your indoctrinated recipe. You believe Jesus was the last. Muslims don't. And Mormons don't. I'm simply pointing out that the 'magic plates' possess more of 1) and 2) than claims to a 'magic Jesus'. So please stop with the claims to 1) and 2) when they are not even why you believe the claims yourself. Otherwise, I will again bring up Mr. Smith to expose your lack in logic here.

You've been proven wrong countless times...even the times you were clearly wrong, you won't admit it. You lack accountability, and humbleness...and neither are good recipes for prayer dishes. So, let it go.

More huffing and puffing, more avoidance, and more self-deception is all that is demonstrated here. Yet again... You love me, You want me converted. You claim to have the tools. Jesus claims to also want me in his camp. You have a live one here. Just pull the trigger. I could not draw you an easier road map to conversion and success. VIN number, and I'm immediately team-Jesus! Let's gooooooo!

Just more falsehoods, spewing from your fingertips. Ridiculous. SMH.

More avoidance, because my position about how the Gospels are wacked and were created to 'substantiate' (Pau and co.) does not fall into your canned apologetic narrative(s). I've been arguing this for years, namely with RealWorldJack. And he bails out too.

I could give an answer on why that was the case..but that is another conversation, for another day.

LOL!!!! As with the demonstration of prayer; if you could, you would.

I'm still waiting on how Luke fix/corrected Mark, which you DIDN'T explain. All you have is an author expanding on an already preexisting story.

You are already smack dab in the middle of that. Luke shifts the sighting(s) to Jerusalem. It's not that Mark starts a story that Luke later finishes. No. This is the most important set of details. If Mark thought Jesus was going to present himself in Jerusalem, he would have said so. Luke is there to lend more 'credence' to Paul, gain favor with the Romans, make Jesus looks better, and open up the religion to all - by placing the sightings in Jerusalem.

4th attempt:

Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

Um, no. You said that all of the silent stuff happened after Constantine (3rd century), and after Christianity became cool to rock. But the Muratorian Canon was compiled before that, though...over a century before that. So, your claim/theory is in invalid in light of actual history. So, you can put that one to bed.

It wasn't an official cannon until the 4th century. Before then, it wasn't really much of a thing to contest by skeptics. Just like I would not give it any time if it was just a splinter cell religion, (like Scientology is today for instance). As I stated prior, if Paul had not come around, it would likely remain a splinter cell collection of beliefs, by a small batch of Jews. -- like many of the other ancient religious beliefs you've either heard about, in passing, or not. The Romans boosted this one up, big time, especially after Constantine. And once it was given serious legs, scoffers were to remain silent for centuries.

Sooo, you make copies upon copies of books, to/for people who doesn't know how to read??

The early copies were written by hand, for the privileged literate, which were few. The later (copies upon copies upon copies mantra you apologists go on about) is a more recent thing -- after the printing press became a thing.... By this time, centuries of heavy indoctrination had taken form. You are a prime example. By this time, apologetics is also in place to 'protect' the nonsense, and I'm here to bring some of these topics to light. Yes, I'm a THORN in your side Venom.

"Convert a skeptic today". LOL

More avoidance.

[SiNcE_1985]

Then you obviously have not taken a biology course, or you did, and slept through half of it.

Then you obviously haven't been to church, or you did, and slept through half the service.

The big 'E' is just as supported as any other topic regarding scientific theory.

It is about as supported as a 600lb fat man, riding on a Big Wheel.

I don't know that 'naturalism', in some form or another, has never not existed? And since 'naturalism' also requires time, asking what existed before time is considered nonsensical (in modern physics) because the concept of "before" inherently requires a timeline. We've been over this ad nauseum now.

What could give STEM its existence?

A MUCF, right?

So, this MUCF was not a product of STEM, correct?

Yes or no.

Yet again, the Dover trial debunks the theistic claims to IC without referring to any magic.

The B5.

No one present at the Dover trial, who argued for naturalism, can explain B5, on naturalism.

I sent you a very brief video explanation regarding macroevolution as well, which has nothing to do with magic, for which you completely handwaved. You also assert that this arena was designed with humans in mind, which would be about as nonsensical as a weed claiming that the trillions of yards of concrete poured was designed for the weed. Both the universe and our planet are counterintuitive to our existence.

Yeah, and I can send you a video debunking macroevolution.

So what?

Stop appealing to videos, and learn to present/defend your own worldview, on your own merits.

I'm not going to type a vast text wall. The video explains. I offered it, you refused to actually process it, and we all know WHY.

It's called condensing...and/or "summarize".

Have you heard of either?

The fact that you state this is exactly why you have such a long way to go, and anyone in the field of biology would just shake their head in amazement, as you present with the Dunning Kruger effect here in its fullest

Jesus is the only way to go. I can care less about biologists shaking their head.

Salvation ain't through biology.

You don't need to. You reject the claim to the "magic plates" because the claim to more prophets does not fit into your indoctrinated narrative, that the claim had to come swiftly. You reject later continued revelation because this was your indoctrinated recipe. You believe Jesus was the last. Muslims don't. And Mormons don't. I'm simply pointing out that the 'magic plates' possess more of 1) and 2) than claims to a 'magic Jesus'. So please stop with the claims to 1) and 2) when they are not even why you believe the claims yourself. Otherwise, I will again bring up Mr. Smith to expose your lack in logic here.

Do what you do.

I said what I said.

More avoidance, because my position about how the Gospels are wacked and were created to 'substantiate' (Pau and co.) does not fall into your canned apologetic narrative(s). I've been arguing this for years, namely with RealWorldJack. And he bails out too.

The Gospels were created to substantiate Paul? LMAO.

No, see, what happened was; again, once I informed you on how Paul's epistles predates the Gospels...you were no longer able continue with the false narrative of the legend growing over time, since Paul is evident that those beliefs were held early on.

So to pivot, you have no choice but to claim that the Gospels were made to substantiate Paul..which is a few no scholar holds.

Just a lay-theory...making it up as you go along.

LOL!!!! As with the demonstration of prayer; if you could, you would.

Correction: if I wanted to, I would.

You are already smack dab in the middle of that. Luke shifts the sighting(s) to Jerusalem. It's not that Mark starts a story that Luke later finishes. No. This is the most important set of details. If Mark thought Jesus was going to present himself in Jerusalem, he would have said so. Luke is there to lend more 'credence' to Paul, gain favor with the Romans, make Jesus looks better, and open up the religion to all - by placing the sightings in Jerusalem.

One topic at a time. Please don't make a thread about it. I know you're itching to do so.

Please don't. Not yet.

4th attempt:

Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

Believers believed in the appearances, before Mark was written, though.

So, the very important detail that was missing in Mark, was already being believed, according to Paul.

So, your point is moot, irrelevant, and baseless.

It wasn't an official cannon until the 4th century. Before then, it wasn't really much of a thing to contest by skeptics. Just like I would not give it any time if it was just a splinter cell religion, (like Scientology is today for instance).

Um, no. The Muratorian consisted of the Gospels...and that was compiled in 170CE...a long time before the canon we know today.

So, why wasn't anything contested during those early times?

Because, it wasn't an issue.

As I stated prior, if Paul had not come around, it would likely remain a splinter cell collection of beliefs, by a small batch of Jews. -- like many of the other ancient religious beliefs you've either heard about, in passing, or not.

As I stated prior, if Jesus had not come around, there would be no Christianity for Paul to convert to.

The Romans boosted this one up, big time, especially after Constantine. And once it was given serious legs, scoffers were to remain silent for centuries.

Genetic Fallacy.

None of that has nothing to do with anything.

The early copies were written by hand, for the privileged literate, which were few. The later (copies upon copies upon copies mantra you apologists go on about) is a more recent thing

Um, no. It was more than a few. It was literally thousands of fragments and manuscripts, from the Middle Ages.

The early church fathers were even quoting from some of the New Testament...and Paul quotes from Jesus (last supper), before the narratives of what Jesus said was even written.

And you say, disparingily, about how apologists go on about copies upon copies...yeah, we do, because we like to emphasize how much effort was taken to PRESERVE the texts...the more copies you have of the originals, the less distortion of the message.

-- after the printing press became a thing.... By this time, centuries of heavy indoctrination had taken form. You are a prime example.

Yeah, just like you are a prime example of school indoctrination...being told that your great-great-great grandpa, was an ape.

And you believe it.

So, continue believing you are the descendent of apes...and I'll continue believing that I am made in the image of the Living God.

I'll gladly stay where I am in my beliefs...and I invite you to do the same

By this time, apologetics is also in place to 'protect' the nonsense, and I'm here to bring some of these topics to light. Yes, I'm a THORN in your side Venom.

LOL whatever is gonna help you sleep good tonight.

[POI]

Just a lot of merry-go-roundness, with you and your blatant representation of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. Now to address some stuff a little less played out....

The Gospels were created to substantiate Paul? LMAO. No, see, what happened was; again, once I informed you on how Paul's epistles predates the Gospels...

Talk about LMAO.... I think you need to re-read my prior responses. Of course they predate the Gospels. This is exactly why I would use the term (Paul & co.), eons ago, when exchanging with RealWorldJack. Paul makes the initial uncorroborated claims to the supernatural. They gain some traction. The Gospels are there to 'corroborate' these supernatural claims. This is quite evident when reading Luke's "account". And I have already explained why.

you were no longer able continue with the false narrative of the legend growing over time, since Paul is evident that those beliefs were held early on.

Wrong again. The Legend indeed grew over time. Yet again, when reading earlier Mark, to later Mark, to Luke, to Matthew, to John, the legendary tales, of the supernatural, grow immensely.

So to pivot, you have no choice but to claim that the Gospels were made to substantiate Paul..which is a few no scholar holds. Just a lay-theory...making it up as you go along.

LOL! Oh, so now you care what majority scholarship thinks? Make up your mind Venom.

Correction: if I wanted to, I would.

Actual correction: You would want to, because you want nothing more than to convert me, but you know prayer is actually pointless.

Believers believed in the appearances, before Mark was written, though. So, the very important detail that was missing in Mark, was already being believed, according to Paul. So, your point is moot, irrelevant, and baseless.

Here is exactly what you requested:

"SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 4:34 am
Second, in order to prove that Luke corrected or fixed anything in Mark...you would have identify the error(s) in Mark that needed to be fixed. Which, you can't. "

I've objectively demonstrated how Luke attempted to (correct or fix) Mark. And now you want to run!

5th attempt:

Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

Um, no. The Muratorian consisted of the Gospels...and that was compiled in 170CE...a long time before the canon we know today. So, why wasn't anything contested during those early times?

Yet again, for the same reason I would never contest it. It wasn't really much of a thing until Constatine made it 'official'. Which is the reason you do not see me sweating the Scientologists. And once this happened, and focus came to it, anyone who questioned it, out in public, would/could likely be punished.

As I stated prior, if Jesus had not come around, there would be no Christianity for Paul to convert to.

This response lends nothing to my point in that without Paul, you likely would not be a believer. And I already explained why ad nauseum....

Genetic Fallacy. None of that has nothing to do with anything.

The poor rubberstamping never stops with you... No one had an 'issue' because they might get in trouble.

And you say, disparingily, about how apologists go on about copies upon copies...yeah, we do, because we like to emphasize how much effort was taken to PRESERVE the texts...the more copies you have of the originals, the less distortion of the message.

I almost wet myself, as you placed 'preserve' in large caps. However, in "steelmanning" your argument, EVEN IF all copies were actually well-preserved, (from the first to the present), with little or no changes, it still all hinges upon the veracity of the actual supernatural claim(s). A well-preserved falsehood still means nothing.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #476]

@POI, I'm curious. What I'm eager to know is why you must rule out the possibility of the miraculous happening in history like the miracles that defy the laws of the universe described in the Bible.

Because any/all claims to the "miraculous" have not met their burden of proof.

I believe in the all-powerful Creator of that same universe, who certainly has the power to create miracles in the universe that he has made.

That sounds swell and all, but your believed-upon deity also claims to answer prayer. Actual answered prayer would kill two birds with one stone (for me). By demonstrating that this invisible force fulfilled an actual prayer request, would instantly remove me from skepticism status, and directly pass-go from me not only becoming a deist, but also being a theist within the Christian community (of some flavor). And yet, the Christian god does not seem to actually answer prayer. Sure, millions claim that 'He' has, but.... This is why I've been on the merry-go-round with SiNcE_1985 for weeks now....

I've told him, over and over and over again, that we can skip all these apologetic shenanigans in which he would like to place forward instead of actually addressing the OP topic, and I would be immediately converted -- if he was to accomplish one very simple request. Though it seems 'juvenile', it actually cuts to the core quite precisely... He asserts that god answers his prayer. When I was a believer, I asked god to answer my prayer(s) for decades, but always felt as if I really was not getting a true response. To steelman 1985's position, let's just assume that, according to the OP, in which SiNcE_195 wants to avoid, the conclusion is really B), C), or D). Okay, he claims god answers his prayer. Hence, I keep asking him, as I've asked countless others, to have them pray for me. But the result is always the same. I get excuses, avoidance, are told my request is ridiculous, I prayed and the answer was 'no', or they say they will pray -- but nothing ever actually happens. Thus, as I stated prior, until I experience the miraculous, the 'miraculous' has not met its burden of proof.

[Difflugia]

Exactly. Now, which "constants of nature" govern the entropic state of the universe prior to universal inflation?

You wouldn't have the nerve to ask that question, if you knew about the initial conditions of the early universe.

Whatever that means.

When I brought up that point earlier, you agreed.

Is this comment the "agreement" that you're talking about? When you were trying to use entropy to deflect from discussing a mythical Jesus?

Sounds like someone doesn't know what is going on, and is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

QFT

What Penrose really did in The Emperor's New Mind, at least in relation to the number you're fond of, is argue that given a random initial state of the universe and all of its matter, the number of states with low enough entropy to be our universe are vastly outnumbered by higher entropy states. What Penrose did in Cycles of Time is propose a way that expanding universes like ours eventually evolve the conditions necessary for another low entropy starting point for the next universe. That means that one of the premises of his earlier claim was wrong; the initial low entropy state leading to a universe like ours isn't random, so it isn't competing with 10¹⁰¹²³ incompatible entropy states. In fact inevitable, so your 10¹⁰¹²³ is now a 1¹¹. That has nothing to do with any of your PC or whatever, including even the cosmological constant. See, according to the fine tuning argument, the cosmological constant must be "nonzero but profoundly small in value," regardless of whether it's positive or negative. Penrose' cosmology requires is that the cosmological constant is positive, regardless of how large or small it is. They're unrelated conditions, because they're unrelated arguments!

Sorry, Charlie.

I showed the fine-tuning wiki-article, and it said exactly what I've been saying.

How about instead, we look at what Penrose actually wrote in Cycles of Time.

As he lays out his case, he begtins with the ratio of high entropy to low entropy states that you're so enamored of (p. 127):

If a total mass consisting of that lying within our present observable universe (that lying within our present particle horizon; see §2.5) were to form a black hole, this would attain an entropy of roughly 10¹²⁴ , and we may consider this to provide a rough lower limit to entropy that would be achievable by our collapsing universe model involving the same amount of material. The phase-space volume corresponding to this would then be something like

10¹⁰¹²⁴

(because of the logarithm in Boltzmann’s entropy formula, given in §1.3), whereas the region of phase space corresponding to the state of the actual observed universe at the time of decoupling, for the same body of matter, namely that in the observed CMB, had a volume no greater than about

10¹⁰⁸⁹

The probability of finding ourselves in a universe of such a degree of specialness, if it had come about just by chance, has the utterly absurdly tiny value of around 1/10¹⁰¹²⁴ irrespective of inflation. This is the kind of figure that needs some completely different kind of theoretical explanation!

So, he's basically recapping his overall claim about why the Big Bang is special, reinforcing that it's incredibly improbable that it came about by chance (he explains in a footnote that he increased the estimate by an order of magnitude after publishing it earlier). This is the gap into which apologists want to squeeze God. Unfortunately for them, this is his way of introducing the "completely different kind of theoretical explanation." He goes through a bit of math involving a value C called the "Weyl conformal tensor." If you're interested in the math, that's what pages 127-135 describe, but here's the punchline of that section (p. 135):

Let us now come to the condition that we require, in order to characterize the very special nature of the Big Bang. Basically, we require a statement that gravitational degrees of freedom were unexcited at the Big Bang, which means saying something like ‘the Weyl curvature C vanished there’.

The next section is his mathematical explanation of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. He concludes §3.5 with this (p. 205):

In CCC we find that C = 0 at the Big Bang (whence infinite radii of Weyl curvature), so we are justified in thinking that essentially classical considerations should suffice. Thus, the detailed nature of the big bang of each aeon is completely determined by what happened in the remote future of the prior aeon, and this should lead to observational consequences, some being considered in §3.6. Here, classical equations continue the evolution of the massless fields that were present in the very remote future of the immediately preceding aeon into the big bang of the next.

Section 3.6 is his explanation of predictions made by his conformal cyclic cosmology and how we might go about detecting what conditions existed in the aeon preceding our own by examining features of our own universe. The crux, however, is that rather than requiring an extraordinarily improbable configuration of matter in the universe, the conditions leading to a Big Bang are inevitable and cyclical.

According to Penrose's equations,

there was a 1 chance in 10^10^123 for our universe to be life-permitting, as opposed to life-prohibiting.

Which means that the odds were astronomically stacked against us ..but somehow, by some miracle, those astronomical odds were defied.

It seems that Penrose himself closed your gap without needing a miracle at all. The odds went from astronomical to inevitable.

So, all of that nonsense you're saying, I ain't hearing it.

Sounds like Morton's Demon.

You're gaslighting...

I'm pretty sure that expecting you to know your own sources and understand your own argument isn't gaslighting.

causing inaccurate confusion..and if I have to do some digging by pulling up an old Penrose interview of him discussing this stuff, I will.

Or, you know, just read what he wrote.

But then, I'll have to put you on ignore..

Oh, no!

because my tolerance for dishonesty/lying is low...

and I don't like engaging with that kind of negative energy.

Rock on with Hovind!

[POI]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #488]

I'm still racking my brain in wonderment DIfflugia. I present what I present in the OP, and somehow, we're instead submersed in teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, etc? Starting from the OP, and beyond, I'm not asking for anything scientific here. I'm instead asking 'god' to answer prayer. It's rather simple, and yet, all that is displayed is a continuous borage of Venom's Dunning-Krugger effects in perpetual action, as well as Venom's deliberate avoidance to my simple request. O well....

[SiNcE_1985]

Talk about LMAO.... I think you need to re-read my prior responses. Of course they predate the Gospels. This is exactly why I would use the term (Paul & co.), eons ago, when exchanging with RealWorldJack. Paul makes the initial uncorroborated claims to the supernatural. They gain some traction. The Gospels are there to 'corroborate' these supernatural claims. This is quite evident when reading Luke's "account". And I have already explained why.

Again, you are presenting it as if Paul created X, and the Gospels were created to corroborate X.

As if the Gospels were a byproduct of Paul's creation...when Paul said himself, that he was a product of a pre-existing creation.

You are just factually wrong here...and you are sitting here defending a demonstrably false position...which is wild.

You are simply, wrong.

Wrong again. The Legend indeed grew over time. Yet again, when reading earlier Mark, to later Mark, to Luke, to Matthew, to John, the legendary tales, of the supernatural, grow immensely.

The belief was held before the Gospels were written.

You are WRONG.

LOL! Oh, so now you care what majority scholarship thinks? Make up your mind Venom.

Yeah, and I'm basing this position from what scholars, on both sides of the coin (belief/unbelief), agree on.

When the evidence is so strong, that folks on both sides of the spectrum agree on it..that should tell you something about the evidence.

All scholars agree that Paul's conversion, and his epistles, predate the Gospels....so how can the story grow into a legend of Jesus resurrecting and appearing, when that is what the story has always been from day one.

Makes no sense.

Your argument simply falls flat. So just simply put it to bed...and leave Christianity alone.

Actual correction: You would want to, because you want nothing more than to convert me, but you know prayer is actually pointless.

Ok...it is pointless.

Moving along.

I've objectively demonstrated how Luke attempted to (correct or fix) Mark. And now you want to run!

Why would I need to run? I'm winning.

Makes no sense.

5th attempt:

Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

Ok. Just add this to the growing list of reasons, as to why you're not a believer.

Care to leave Christianity alone now?

Yet again, for the same reason I would never contest it. It wasn't really much of a thing until Constatine made it 'official'.

It wasn't much of a thing, yet they took the time to select the books, compile them, and make copies to/for the masses.

Makes no sense.

Which is the reason you do not see me sweating the Scientologists. And once this happened, and focus came to it, anyone who questioned it, out in public, would/could likely be punished.

Genetic Fallacy.

This response lends nothing to my point in that without Paul, you likely would not be a believer. And I already explained why ad nauseum....

Genetic Fallacy. And false, at that.

The poor rubberstamping never stops with you... No one had an 'issue' because they might get in trouble.

Genetic Fallacy.

I almost wet myself, as you placed 'preserve' in large caps.

It's called emphasis.

However, in "steelmanning" your argument, EVEN IF all copies were actually well-preserved, (from the first to the present), with little or no changes, it still all hinges upon the veracity of the actual supernatural claim(s). A well-preserved falsehood still means nothing.

I agree, actually.