Psychics, magicians, fortune tellers, astrologers and faith healers

[WhyNotAsk]

So according to you, when doctors cant even explain what happened its not evidence. Aha ok
God heals when he sees fit, not when people see it fit. U want to understand something that you cant understand without God.

All it shows is that doctors can be wrong, and some people can recover quicker then others... Evidence would be an amputee getting his limbs back after a prayer or a kid that was fully blind being able to see seconds after a prayer, yet we don't have either of these.

Science learns from their mistakes and make improvements on their previously held ideas, while religion remains believing and trusting despite of the evidence against it and also lacking evidence for it.

Faith is far from being a virtue, it's seems to be state of denial of the physical world. Reality will remain something that is observed differently by every person involved, but there has never been a case where it changed because someone wanted it to be something else.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

So according to you, when doctors cant even explain what happened its not evidence. Aha ok
God heals when he sees fit, not when people see it fit. U want to understand something that you cant understand without God.

You still have not given me a single source for your claims, except your personal experience.

Personal experience claimed as evidence can simply be dismissed by saying my experience shows the opposite of what you experienced making your account void when it comes to proving your view. You could also say the same if I said healing are fake just because I have never seen them. leaving us with back at zero .

Understand you just used a logical fallacy:

anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.
Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

so it was in one day that you have come to believe that God didn’t design the human brain?

I stopped believing in creation myth because it had no evidence to support it, world wide flood never happened, unless God hid all the evidence.

Grand canyon is a prime example of how earth is way more then 6000 years old, showing an old river that winds between the harder rocks towards the softer rock

The real question is...what would prove it to you?

Ponder why faith is necessary and why without faith it is impossible to please God. (scripture)

Faith is literally blind and the religion strives on blind believers who don't question its validity.
That is why I don't see faith as a virtue, but as the best control mechanism out there, a cage for your own mind, making you think you are free when in fact you have restricted yourself. You believe in the concept of sin because the bible says so, not because there is evidence for it, yet when it comes to doing what is right you will probably break the commandments in the bible. Any day because you are better then your God and his laws.

When Fighting Another Man, Chop Off His Wife's Hand If She Grabs Your Genitals... Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (would you do it or are you better then this)

Don't Wear Clothes Made of Both Linen and Wool "
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. " Leviticus 19:19 (Most people do it every day, I guess you don't mind either, for your own convenience)

Women Suspected of Adultery Have to abortion potion - "dirty water"
"If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him ... and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband ... the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water ... this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot." Numbers 5:11-31 ( Why are christians are against abortion if this is even written in your own book, I suspect because you subscribed to a different interpretation of the verse)

 

[JamOn]

I stopped believing in creation myth because it had no evidence to support it, world wide flood never happened, unless God hid all the evidence.

Grand canyon is a prime example of how earth is way more then 6000 years old, showing an old river that winds between the harder rocks towards the softer rock

Ok if creation is a myth, then what is it we are standing on the earth where did it come from and the whole universe did it just pop into existence come about by chance lucky here lucky there.

 

[JamOn]

Hmm linen and wool

in most country it’s illegal to dress up as a police officer

 

[JamOn]

There’s 18 minutes in the morning and evening that’s quite hard to tell time without a mechanical device. the Point when light appears or is disappearing on the horizon without actually seeing the sun rise or set.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

Ok if creation is a myth, then what is it we are standing on the earth where did it come from and the whole universe did it just pop into existence come about by chance lucky here lucky there.

Scientist don't pretend to know, but they theorise that universe probably never had a beginning in traditional sense. When most people hear of the big bang they usually see something exploding and creating everything, while in reality Big Bang is just a term they use to explain the rapid expansion of space time that we keep on hearing about in theory of relativity.

Before the CMB originated, the universe was opaque to light. So, we can never see beyond the CMB, and due to this, we can never see to the instant of the Big Bang. Consequently, there is no direct way of telling whether the expansion was at sometime faster than the speed of light. But there are several indirect pieces of evidence which can tell you about the early universe.

But first, let me tell you as to what would happen if at some instant, the universe did expand faster than the speed of light. In this case, as you have pointed out, the horizon distance will be the point at which the expansion was just at the speed of light; what you have called as the "end of our horizon".

So, if the universe never expanded faster than the speed of light, then we could see to the Big Bang, were it not for the CMB which blocks off light before that epoch. But, if at some point it DID expand faster than the speed of light, we will see to the "end of our horizon".

There are a few problems with standard Big Bang cosmology, which can be solved by "inflation" (an exponential expansion of the universe, which will be faster than the speed of light). The problems with standard cosmology are (a) the flatness problem (b) the horizon problem and (c) the origin of density fluctuations (which grew to galaxies and stars today).

They are a little bit technical, and you can look at books to see a qualitative explanation about these problems. If you are interested in knowing more, then write back, and I can elaborate. Inflationary cosmology solves these problems in the following way: in the early phase of the universe, it went through a phase called inflation, during which period, the universe expanded by a factor of more than 10 to the 50th power in a time-scale of less than 10 to the -30 power seconds. So, there is some evidence that the universe DID undergo a period of expansion faster than the speed of light. But as you can see, the evidence is quite indirect and not something that we can directly see.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

Hmm linen and wool

in most country it’s illegal to dress up as a police officer

Its nothing to do with police, "9 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. "

 

[WhyNotAsk]

There’s 18 minutes in the morning and evening that’s quite hard to tell time without a mechanical device. the Point when light appears or is disappearing on the horizon without actually seeing the sun rise or set.

If you like serve me some evidence for the fact that there was a great flood and we can talk about it.

 

[Dino246]

I stopped believing in creation myth because it had no evidence to support it, world wide flood never happened, unless God hid all the evidence.

Grand canyon is a prime example of how earth is way more then 6000 years old, showing an old river that winds between the harder rocks towards the softer rock


Faith is literally blind and the religion strives on blind believers who don't question its validity.
That is why I don't see faith as a virtue, but as the best control mechanism out there, a cage for your own mind, making you think you are free when in fact you have restricted yourself. You believe in the concept of sin because the bible says so, not because there is evidence for it, yet when it comes to doing what is right you will probably break the commandments in the bible. Any day because you are better then your God and his laws.

When Fighting Another Man, Chop Off His Wife's Hand If She Grabs Your Genitals... Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (would you do it or are you better then this)

Don't Wear Clothes Made of Both Linen and Wool "
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. " Leviticus 19:19 (Most people do it every day, I guess you don't mind either, for your own convenience)

Women Suspected of Adultery Have to abortion potion - "dirty water"
"If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him ... and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband ... the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water ... this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot." Numbers 5:11-31 ( Why are christians are against abortion if this is even written in your own book, I suspect because you subscribed to a different interpretation of the verse)

Your argument of law-obedience is based on ignorance of the Bible. The three examples you cite are from the Law of Moses. Christians are not subject to that Law.

Your argument regarding the flood is also flawed. I suggest you do some more research instead of claiming there is no evidence. The problem is not lack of evidence at all; the problem is that you are interpreting it through a very dirty lens.

When you feel like investigating, watch the YouTube video entitled, "Explosive Geological Evidence For Creation: Mt. St. Helens."

 

[JamOn]

Its nothing to do with police, "9 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. "

1. Pagan priest where known for wearing the two, vegetable and animal combined,
2. wool and linen have opposing characteristics, wool has an absorbing and shrinking nature retains heat while linen is resistant, non shrinkable and is a good conduct of heat. These conflicting tendencies can cause skin issues by hampering the outflow of perspiration from the body. clothes in the old days where a bit more raw than a pair of Levi’s.

 

[JamOn]

If you like serve me some evidence for the fact that there was a great flood and we can talk about it.

it could of been a local event

 

[JamOn]

Scientist don't pretend to know, but they theorise that universe probably never had a beginning in traditional sense. When most people hear of the big bang they usually see something exploding and creating everything, while in reality Big Bang is just a term they use to explain the rapid expansion of space time that we keep on hearing about in theory of relativity.

Before the CMB originated, the universe was opaque to light. So, we can never see beyond the CMB, and due to this, we can never see to the instant of the Big Bang. Consequently, there is no direct way of telling whether the expansion was at sometime faster than the speed of light. But there are several indirect pieces of evidence which can tell you about the early universe.

But first, let me tell you as to what would happen if at some instant, the universe did expand faster than the speed of light. In this case, as you have pointed out, the horizon distance will be the point at which the expansion was just at the speed of light; what you have called as the "end of our horizon".

So, if the universe never expanded faster than the speed of light, then we could see to the Big Bang, were it not for the CMB which blocks off light before that epoch. But, if at some point it DID expand faster than the speed of light, we will see to the "end of our horizon".

There are a few problems with standard Big Bang cosmology, which can be solved by "inflation" (an exponential expansion of the universe, which will be faster than the speed of light). The problems with standard cosmology are (a) the flatness problem (b) the horizon problem and (c) the origin of density fluctuations (which grew to galaxies and stars today).

They are a little bit technical, and you can look at books to see a qualitative explanation about these problems. If you are interested in knowing more, then write back, and I can elaborate. Inflationary cosmology solves these problems in the following way: in the early phase of the universe, it went through a phase called inflation, during which period, the universe expanded by a factor of more than 10 to the 50th power in a time-scale of less than 10 to the -30 power seconds. So, there is some evidence that the universe DID undergo a period of expansion faster than the speed of light. But as you can see, the evidence is quite indirect and not something that we can directly see.

Yea I’m into stuff like that I’m not a young earth believer

 

[JamOn]

 

[JamOn]

here’s a example of a global flood possible as well, because the total amount of water on the surface of earth is quite small compared to the size of earth, it really is the just a drop of water. scientist say there is a lot of water in the earth more than on the surface. If a ball of water the size of what is on the surface got released to the surface it would flood the whole earth.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

Thanks for that

This is yet another variant of the Theological argument, that tries to prove the existence of god, based on the perceived evidence of a deliberate design in the natural world, it commits a bland a white fallacy, claiming there are only two options for the creation for this universe, either it happened by chance or God did it with out substantiating either claim, and also shifting the burden of proof on to the other person indirectly asking them to provide the 3rd option, it also ignores natural selection which is a non-random natural process where by organisms that are better suited for life survive and have a better chance at reproducing and "bringing forth more after their own kind" the reason why this is important is because it proves that evolution is not a random process which shows that your assumed premise of random chance is invalid.

This argument has yet another issue because it argues from ignorance. "we don't know how life came to be therefor God did it"
Personal incredulity is also quite clearly present here, "Where someone finds something hard to believe therefore asserts it can't be true"

This argument is broken down here if you want to see

The fine tuning argument is very similar to this and you can see it's logical downfalls here

 

[WhyNotAsk]

here’s a example of a global flood possible as well, because the total amount of water on the surface of earth is quite small compared to the size of earth, it really is the just a drop of water. scientist say there is a lot of water in the earth more than on the surface. If a ball of water the size of what is on the surface got released to the surface it would flood the whole earth.
View attachment 205938

https://www.theguardian.com/science...underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface

Yes, there are huge oceans under the surface, But there is no evidence to support the Idea that any of that water ever had risen to surface considering the amount of energy that would be needed to push it upwards. If you believe in the flood hypothesis have a look at the following play list.

 

[JamOn]

Thanks for that

This is yet another variant of the Theological argument, that tries to prove the existence of god, based on the perceived evidence of a deliberate design in the natural world, it commits a bland a white fallacy, claiming there are only two options for the creation for this universe, either it happened by chance or God did it with out substantiating either claim, and also shifting the burden of proof on to the other person indirectly asking them to provide the 3rd option, it also ignores natural selection which is a non-random natural process where by organisms that are better suited for life survive and have a better chance at reproducing and "bringing forth more after their own kind" the reason why this is important is because it proves that evolution is not a random process which shows that your assumed premise of random chance is invalid.

This argument has yet another issue because it argues from ignorance. "we don't know how life came to be therefor God did it"
Personal incredulity is also quite clearly present here, "Where someone finds something hard to believe therefore asserts it can't be true"

This argument is broken down here if you want to see

The fine tuning argument is very similar to this and you can see it's logical downfalls here

the argument i presented is goin deeper to the cell level in which creates what is called micro organisms, any good investigation has to start at the cell level that creates life first before moving on to the organisms.

those videos you posted never mention anything at the cell level of organisms that make up that organism those have to first be before the organism can be in existent.

I didn’t hear any of those people or read in the discription on the their science back ground, it seemed the second video was more rambling than offering a scientific approach.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

the argument i presented is goin deeper to the cell level in which creates what is called micro organisms, any good investigation has to start at the cell level that creates life first before moving on to the organisms.

those videos you posted never mention anything at the cell level of organisms that make up that organism those have to first be before the organism can be in existent.

I didn’t hear any of those people or read in the description on the their science back ground, it seemed the second video was more rambling than offering a scientific approach.

The guy in the second video is the one with an actual scientific background, He was talking about the construction of the theological argument and where it fails.

 

[JamOn]

https://www.theguardian.com/science...underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface

Yes, there are huge oceans under the surface, But there is no evidence to support the Idea that any of that water ever had risen to surface considering the amount of energy that would be needed to push it upwards. If you believe in the flood hypothesis have a look at the following play list.

Well the guy said he took a class i have to question amount of knowledge he actually knows of geology one class doesn’t make him a geologist