0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: duffyd on 11/04/2020 19:10:37HE is the leading figure in history. More people are aware of who he is than any other human being. He's changed more lives than all the people who were alive when Nero ruled temporarily.Not bad for a myth.There's next to no actual physical or documentary evidence he existed.Quote from: duffyd on 11/04/2020 19:15:14Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/04/2020 13:24:29Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08 considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th centuryBy whomLook it up. OK, so you need to find out how the quote function works, and you need to work out who has the burden of proof (Hint: it's you in this case)You base your opinion on what? Nothing. You made the claim he is a myth without documentation or physical evidence. It's your wild conjecture based on nothing but whim. You refuse to identify or define evidence. Evidence is identifiable and definable. You have no foundation to exclude anything. No burden. You question it. Question it all you want.
HE is the leading figure in history. More people are aware of who he is than any other human being. He's changed more lives than all the people who were alive when Nero ruled temporarily.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/04/2020 13:24:29Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08 considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th centuryBy whomLook it up. OK, so you need to find out how the quote function works, and you need to work out who has the burden of proof (Hint: it's you in this case)
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08 considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th centuryBy whomLook it up.
considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century
I spoke to my daughter who is a veterinary doctor in Virginia USA. She started describing neurological symptoms to me that she is having.
Quote from: CliveG on 12/04/2020 07:16:33I spoke to my daughter who is a veterinary doctor in Virginia USA. She started describing neurological symptoms to me that she is having. This thread has wandered way of topic, is promoting false news and turning into a slanging match.Bring it back on topic.
Can science prove that God exists? She is a committed Christian who is very scientific but sees no contradiction in her belief in God and her love of science. Once more it is my belief that all this information, which came from just chatting to various people, is another way that God gives us information that cannot be found any other way.
I understand the pressure the forum may be getting from the Telco industry.
...tell me what restrictions I have to abide by, and I will do so. Apart from some humorous "give and take" I do not think I am "slanging anyone off".
Quote from: alancalverd on 11/04/2020 00:33:35If you believe the bible, you would believe his friends called him "rabbi". No rabbi was ever criticised for being mainstream. But it's pretty clear you haven't read the bible, so I can't criticise you for not understanding it. Stay clear of religion and lead a good life, my friend. Farewell.You better split. You were having your fanny for lunch. Excellent time to take cover, just as you brush off your premise with more generalized bull.
If you believe the bible, you would believe his friends called him "rabbi". No rabbi was ever criticised for being mainstream. But it's pretty clear you haven't read the bible, so I can't criticise you for not understanding it. Stay clear of religion and lead a good life, my friend. Farewell.
Her husband was very ill recently and she told me that if she did not get involved with his care in hospital he would have died because of a lack of standards.
There are many others who recognise that the value of religion is found in its capacity to provide a sense of community
Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 13/04/2020 03:16:43Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.Your post is quite logical and makes sense. But what happens if a God decides to involve a person in a phenomenon without being invoked? Like my knowing a biker would die about 5 minutes. I got the impression that God did that to demonstrate his existence to me. And what about when I was an atheist and experienced psychic phenomena?I suppose it means that you lack the proof that God involved.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 13/04/2020 03:16:43Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.Receive the Holy Spirit in a charismatic church and see what happens.
Quote from: CliveG on 13/04/2020 06:23:47Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 13/04/2020 03:16:43Proving the existence of any god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking any god.Proving the existence of one particular god scientifically should contain a demonstration of an objective phenomenon (or a series of phenomena) which is impossible to explain scientifically without invoking that particular god. Logically, it will also reject the involvement of other gods in those phenomena.Your post is quite logical and makes sense. But what happens if a God decides to involve a person in a phenomenon without being invoked? Like my knowing a biker would die about 5 minutes. I got the impression that God did that to demonstrate his existence to me. And what about when I was an atheist and experienced psychic phenomena?I suppose it means that you lack the proof that God involved.It means that your proof is not scientific.
Quote from: CliveG on 12/04/2020 07:16:33Her husband was very ill recently and she told me that if she did not get involved with his care in hospital he would have died because of a lack of standards.So sorry Clive. Dear God, show your glory in this situation. Comfort the hurting
Remember the movie "The Truman Show". They used technology and spies and manipulation to prevent him from knowing what the truth of his existence was. God is like that, only almost infinitely greater.
God did answer my daughter's prayers when he got lung cancer and they were told he had a less than 10% chance.
But when you go to a doctor and tell them you have neurological problems like pain and memory loss and tingling sensations, you do not expect them to tell you it should not be happening because all the current scientific tests do not indicate any known problem.