The 'existence' of gods

Ken

Posts: 33,790

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:40AM, christine3 wrote:

I never heard of Ron Wyatt, but now I know who he was, and just read some stuff about his claim to find the Arc of the Covenant. It seems his exhilaration got the best of him, in some instances. However, the findings at the Red Sea seem authentic enough to me, the photos, etc.

They were meant to seem authentic enough to you. Ron Wyatt was a notorious fraud.

Ken

Posts: 33,790

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:50AM, christine3 wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:23AM, Ken wrote:
That's a Christian apologetic website.

That doesn't matter to me. I don't look necessarily at who

Who is the first thing you should look at. All Christian apologists are liars.

Why do you wish to hold on to the historicity of the Exodus?

Sigmund

Posts: 1,190

Jul 6, 2012 -- 4:37PM, christine3 wrote:
Jul 6, 2012 -- 3:41PM, Sigmund wrote:
Sigmund: I'm curious. You don't believe there is an "Adam" or Noah's Ark but you are OK with accepting that same book's claim that men lived for 900+ years. Why one thing and not the other?

>>>I answered that question in my last post...it was an afterthought. :)

Actually, no you didn't. You stated why you thought that Noah's Ark was too diffuicult to believe, not why you pick one thing over another. Let me ask it a different way, what is it about the claim that people lived 900+ years that you find credible?

Sigmund: OK, but why would medical science keep it under wraps? It seems like there would be a lot of money to be made and that usually trumps everything else.

>>>Poor people would be out of luck.

Since when did that ever stop anyone? Poor people right now are out of luck when it comes to expensive elective medical treatments.

Sigmund: What I asked was why do YOU think that conciousness alone can affect genes.

>>>Maybe I just have a wild imagination.

Well, I certainly won't argue with you there.

christine3

Posts: 4,574

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Sigmund wrote:

what is it about the claim that people lived 900+ years that you find credible?

Ever heard of epigenetics, our ability to program genes with consciousness alone? Or it may be more believable to you, that environments can turn genes on and off. Either way, what we are born with in our total genetic blueprint is not inalterable.

Sigmund

Posts: 1,190

Ken/wohali/cptsmith

I am not saying that you cannot logically and reasonably dismiss claims that have no evidence. You certainly can, Russell's Teapot being a good example.

What I am saying is that you cannot unequivocally conclude that a claim is wrong just because there is no evidence for it.

Look at it this way, for years there was no evidence that giant squid existed. Therefore is would have been logical and reasonable to conclude that giant squid did not exist. It would have also been wrong.

christine3

Posts: 4,574

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Ken wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:50AM, christine3 wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:23AM, Ken wrote:
That's a Christian apologetic website.

That doesn't matter to me. I don't look necessarily at who

Who is the first thing you should look at. All Christian apologists are liars.

Why do you wish to hold on to the historicity of the Exodus?

I think 'liars' is an awfully strong word. Also, it is impossible that Christian apologetics are wrong 100% of the time. They are biased like everyone else, and quite honestly, so are atheists, some more than others. Some, to a fault. That said, in the end, I make up my own mind.

Why do I hold on? Because I just think it happened after reading a lot of research pro and con. What can I say?

Ken

Posts: 33,790

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:43AM, christine3 wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Ken wrote:
Who is the first thing you should look at. All Christian apologists are liars.

Why do you wish to hold on to the historicity of the Exodus?

I think 'liars' is an awfully strong word.

Yes, it is. It is also accurate. Experience confirms that.

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:43AM, christine3 wrote:
Also, it is impossible that Christian apologetics are wrong 100% of the time.

Why? I'm not aware of any practical or theoretical barriers to their being always wrong.

Sigmund

Posts: 1,190

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:35AM, christine3 wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Sigmund wrote:
what is it about the claim that people lived 900+ years that you find credible?

Ever heard of epigenetics, our ability to program genes with consciousness alone? Or it may be more believable to you, that environments can turn genes on and off. Either way, the genetic blueprint is not inalterable.

Those are two very different claims. When I google "epigenetics" I get mainly science sites and none of the first two pages of results even mention the word consciousness.

When I google "epigentiecs" and "consciousness" I get a lot of woo-woo sites but very little in the way of actual scientific reporting.

And no one has claimed that the genetic blueprint is unalterable. If it was gene therapy would be impossible.

christine3

Posts: 4,574

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:53AM, Ken wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:43AM, christine3 wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Ken wrote:
Who is the first thing you should look at. All Christian apologists are liars.

Why do you wish to hold on to the historicity of the Exodus?

I think 'liars' is an awfully strong word.

Yes, it is. It is also accurate. Experience confirms that.

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:43AM, christine3 wrote:
Also, it is impossible that Christian apologetics are wrong 100% of the time.

Why? I'm not aware of any practical or theoretical barriers to their being always wrong.

If a religious person says the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or that everything is 100% correct in the Bible, I will say THAT'S piffle. Sometimes there is an underlying truth to the history. What's wrong with seeing it that way? It leaves room for error, and also for improvement.

Ken

Posts: 33,790

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:39PM, christine3 wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:53AM, Ken wrote:
Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:43AM, christine3 wrote:
Also, it is impossible that Christian apologetics are wrong 100% of the time.

Why? I'm not aware of any practical or theoretical barriers to their being always wrong.

If a religious person says the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or that everything is 100% correct in the Bible, I will say THAT'S piffle. Sometimes there is an underlying truth to the history.

If there is, I have yet to meet a Christian apologist who is acquainted with it. Christian apologists have no critical sense, no scholarly ability. They are not interested in sorting out fact from fiction in the Bible. They hold that every bit of it is fact, and they will gladly resort to lies and sophistry to persuade others that they're right. I regard them as persons of bad character and I will have nothing to do with them. I will read only mainstream Biblical scholars affiliated with mainstream (preferably secular) scholarly institutions.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot