Is John 14:6 The Most Blatant Example of False Prophecy?

a reply to: Fairlite

Wanna see your intestines divide by zero?

Stop having orgasms. You may become surprised how toxic your guts had gotten, if you’ve have this life long habit.

a reply to: Vermilion

If you can’t prove faith, it is no good.

What I have just shown you is an example of faith, which one can test.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

As one can choose to walk a path or not, I would say that the freedom of choice is still there.

However, an omniscient and omnipotent God absolutely controls the Universe, without question. Imagine the level of care and concern to grant free will under such circumstance.

Any evidence the Universe is controlled by an omnipotent and omniscient God (presumably the God of the Old Testament).

Any evidence it isn't?

We have freedom of choice and it's not absolute or without any limits.

Some people seem to believe anything less than total anarchy is not freedom. Of course there are limits even physics, lack of foresight, and circumstance, limit us greatly.

Can you tell what is wrong with your answer? I am sure you can find it as it's not that difficult.

I asked you if there is any evidence the Universes was created by an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God, as you claimed. Your answer: any evidence it wasn't?

Now change God with an invisible giant space unicorn. Is your answer still the same?

You do understand where the burden of proof is.

I do understand where the burden of proof is.

I was pointing out that both sides cite their absence of proof, as proof. That isn't the way it works.

The burden of proof depends entirely upon the way you ask the question. Because both cases are making claims, one positive, and one negative. They have equal burden of proof.

The truth is, that if you don't have any proof, on either side, you cannot really make a rational determination.

But in my case, I do have circumstantial and subjective proofs, at least. And to me, in my position, that is more than nothing.

For instance, the existence of the universe in the way it is and with the variety and complexity that it has, means that there has to be some sort of ordering and complexifying principal. Why doesn't the universe settle into a singular lowest energy state? Something totally counter to entropy and mathematical islands of stability must be going on? So what is that? How would you describe that? There's not nothing there, there is 'something amazing' there.

No, you know this isn't true.
People who are sceptical and guided by evidence point out the simple fact that there is no evidence for the claims made about the supernatural world and so in the absence of any evidence these claims are dismissed for the time being. If evidence is presented in the future then it needs to be examined to see if it's valid.

People who are guided by evidence are not guided if they don't know of any evidence.

They literally have nothing on which to base their opinion.

You can't seem to see the glaring contradiction of the negative assertion.

Let's not go to cosmology or physics because religious people always get it wrong by asserting supernatural forces as the cause of its existence.

But there's all that observable stuff (the universe) that is there. If we ignore that 'little bit' of circumstantial evidence, well, nothing is left, right?

Same has happened in other threads on the same topic (universe) or topics like evolution. All of these arguments are what we call arguments from ignorance when religionists assert God as the cause because the opposite hasn't been proven and without realising there is no evidence for the existence of this supernatural cause. In real terms all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and there is none that we know of having supernatural causes.

You are the one asserting that there is no evidence, yours is the argument 'because we don't know of'. That isn't what I am arguing.

Science is great for exploring and explaining the natural, and every time we have found something that can be explained, it has a natural explanation, even if it may have been seen as supernatural beforehand.

But we know there are limits to what scientific method can do. Things are unknowable by science. It's right there in Gödel's Incompleteness and in Ramanujan's Infinities that there is more than we can ever know.

In fact, from what we know mathematically to be the case, we can be assured that there are infinities of things that exist which are unknowable, but by comparison what science can know is finite. And so basing a belief on such a tiny subset of data, the bit that science shows, is not reasonable if we have tools to speculate beyond 'scientific' limits.

So, with the foundational reality of of the actual existence of existence, and with the knowledge that randomisation does not lead to higher order, nor does something come from absolute nothing, we can begin to apply our cognitive capabilities to explain that. Admittedly, at times we must take leaps of faith (by which I mean evidence of things unseen) to build models which make a certain rational sense, and which we can, by observation and test, draw conclusions. Something similar happens with scientific method, too.

So, to state that all of reality, with its variety, complexity, and a stack of other attributes unexplainable by science yet clearly existent, came into being for no reason, out of absolutely nothing, in finite time, and to no purpose - that is the LEAST likely of all probable models of which we might conceive.

Here's something you can try. In the quiet of your mind, ask (and with some degree of expectation) God to reveal themself to you. If you get something real going on, then you can, through personal enquiry and study of all sorts of religious works, collate different attempts to do the same with your own.

But just start with the request, made through a leap of faith. See what happens.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: whyamIhere
There are many Gods.

The God of the Bible is the most high.

The reason is he can raise things from the dead.

The rest look like clowns next to him.

Why do American kids learn Greek mythology.

It makes me wonder.

I find it odd how Jesus pronounced in Spanish sounds like Hesus, or he’s Zeus, or possibly of Zeus.

Or that 'god' spelled backwards is 'dog'!

Well, perhaps playing with phonemes like that is a bit silly for extracting meaningful understanding!

The true etymology of the name would originate from 'Yeshua', a transliteration of 'Joshua' and nothing like 'Zeus'.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: Vermilion

If you can’t prove faith, it is no good.

What I have just shown you is an example of faith, which one can test.

All you’ve shown us here is chaotic gibberish, and thank God we’re not dumber for it.

Acts 20:30 And from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

a reply to: Vermilion

You’re welcome. If you don’t want to try and cure your old age, then that is your problem not mine. I told you how, but I can’t force you beyond expressing my level of certainty.

Maybe you’re still young…

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

What are you even talking about!?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

As one can choose to walk a path or not, I would say that the freedom of choice is still there.

However, an omniscient and omnipotent God absolutely controls the Universe, without question. Imagine the level of care and concern to grant free will under such circumstance.

Any evidence the Universe is controlled by an omnipotent and omniscient God (presumably the God of the Old Testament).

Any evidence it isn't?

We have freedom of choice and it's not absolute or without any limits.

Some people seem to believe anything less than total anarchy is not freedom. Of course there are limits even physics, lack of foresight, and circumstance, limit us greatly.

Can you tell what is wrong with your answer? I am sure you can find it as it's not that difficult.

I asked you if there is any evidence the Universes was created by an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God, as you claimed. Your answer: any evidence it wasn't?

Now change God with an invisible giant space unicorn. Is your answer still the same?

You do understand where the burden of proof is.

I do understand where the burden of proof is.

I was pointing out that both sides cite their absence of proof, as proof. That isn't the way it works.

The burden of proof depends entirely upon the way you ask the question. Because both cases are making claims, one positive, and one negative. They have equal burden of proof.

The truth is, that if you don't have any proof, on either side, you cannot really make a rational determination.

But in my case, I do have circumstantial and subjective proofs, at least. And to me, in my position, that is more than nothing.

For instance, the existence of the universe in the way it is and with the variety and complexity that it has, means that there has to be some sort of ordering and complexifying principal. Why doesn't the universe settle into a singular lowest energy state? Something totally counter to entropy and mathematical islands of stability must be going on? So what is that? How would you describe that? There's not nothing there, there is 'something amazing' there.

No, you know this isn't true.
People who are sceptical and guided by evidence point out the simple fact that there is no evidence for the claims made about the supernatural world and so in the absence of any evidence these claims are dismissed for the time being. If evidence is presented in the future then it needs to be examined to see if it's valid.

People who are guided by evidence are not guided if they don't know of any evidence.

They literally have nothing on which to base their opinion.

You can't seem to see the glaring contradiction of the negative assertion.

Let's not go to cosmology or physics because religious people always get it wrong by asserting supernatural forces as the cause of its existence.

But there's all that observable stuff (the universe) that is there. If we ignore that 'little bit' of circumstantial evidence, well, nothing is left, right?

Same has happened in other threads on the same topic (universe) or topics like evolution. All of these arguments are what we call arguments from ignorance when religionists assert God as the cause because the opposite hasn't been proven and without realising there is no evidence for the existence of this supernatural cause. In real terms all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and there is none that we know of having supernatural causes.

You are the one asserting that there is no evidence, yours is the argument 'because we don't know of'. That isn't what I am arguing.

Science is great for exploring and explaining the natural, and every time we have found something that can be explained, it has a natural explanation, even if it may have been seen as supernatural beforehand.

But we know there are limits to what scientific method can do. Things are unknowable by science. It's right there in Gödel's Incompleteness and in Ramanujan's Infinities that there is more than we can ever know.

In fact, from what we know mathematically to be the case, we can be assured that there are infinities of things that exist which are unknowable, but by comparison what science can know is finite. And so basing a belief on such a tiny subset of data, the bit that science shows, is not reasonable if we have tools to speculate beyond 'scientific' limits.

So, with the foundational reality of of the actual existence of existence, and with the knowledge that randomisation does not lead to higher order, nor does something come from absolute nothing, we can begin to apply our cognitive capabilities to explain that. Admittedly, at times we must take leaps of faith (by which I mean evidence of things unseen) to build models which make a certain rational sense, and which we can, by observation and test, draw conclusions. Something similar happens with scientific method, too.

So, to state that all of reality, with its variety, complexity, and a stack of other attributes unexplainable by science yet clearly existent, came into being for no reason, out of absolutely nothing, in finite time, and to no purpose - that is the LEAST likely of all probable models of which we might conceive.

Here's something you can try. In the quiet of your mind, ask (and with some degree of expectation) God to reveal themself to you. If you get something real going on, then you can, through personal enquiry and study of all sorts of religious works, collate different attempts to do the same with your own.

But just start with the request, made through a leap of faith. See what happens.

The difference between science and religion is that one is guided by evidence and ready to change its mind when new evidence is presented and the other is guided by dogma that never changes because it's what it is: dogma.

Is not a serious argument to argue we don't have evidence the universe wasn't created by a supernatural force. You may change this God of yours with the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible space unicorn and it doesn't make any difference. You want me or other posters to prove a negative?? It doesn't work this way I am afraid. The burden of proof is on those who make claims of the supernatural.

And I don't know if you have the habit to disregard science, facts, and evidence based conclusions, but like I said earlier and in other threads referring to a number of creationists, all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and there is not a single one having supernatural causes.

The something from nothing is a clear misunderstanding of many people who don't bother to read the basics in cosmology. And the fact that currently science is looking to find the causes of the bog bang doesn't need to give hope to supernatural claims. But the religion of gaps is doing it again and again just like in the numerous times during the past (unsuccessfully of course)

a reply to: Fairlite

How to cure IBS, caused by toxic gut bacteria, invited by habitual orgasms.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain

originally posted by: chr0naut
Any evidence it isn't?

Prove a negative? Is that how it works?

So, I should be able to say, chr0naut is a child abuser and murderer. So you get arrested and charged for murder and and it's not up to me to prove it's true. It's up to YOu to prove it isn't. Does that seem reasonable? Rational? Logical? Normal?

Yeh, me neither.

Exactly what I said.
Religious people often ask you on these threads to prove a negative and this is worrying.

But your case is that there is nothing there. My case is that there is something there.

It is your case that is a negative.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

The difference between science and religion is that one is guided by evidence and ready to change its mind when new evidence is presented and the other is guided by dogma that never changes because it's what it is: dogma.

Your definition of religion is wrong. Evidence and change of mind are at the heart of of religious thought.

Science is guided by evidence, but you have been arguing that there was no evidence of the supernatural. No evidence is no evidence, it isn't a 'type' of evidence.

Is not a serious argument to argue we don't have evidence the universe wasn't created by a supernatural force.

Then why are you arguing that; "we don't have evidence the universe wasn't created by a supernatural force"? That has been precisely your argument.

You may change this God of yours with the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible space unicorn and it doesn't make any difference.

No, I'm not going to try and make the argument reductio in absurdum. That is what you are trying to do. It's a logical fallacy.

You want me or other posters to prove a negative?? It doesn't work this way I am afraid. The burden of proof is on those who make claims of the supernatural.

The burden of proof is equally on those who make claims that there is no supernatural. Each case has identical burden of proof.

Evidence stands to prove them - but an absence of evidence cannot.

Science IS based upon evidence, evidence which you say we don't have, so that your stated opinion clearly has nothing to do with science - at all.

And I don't know if you have the habit to disregard science, facts, and evidence based conclusions, but like I said earlier and in other threads referring to a number of creationists, all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and there is not a single one having supernatural causes.

The Second World War was caused by the propensity in human society towards military conflict. It was also caused by the expansionist rise of the Nazi regime. It was also caused by the ecopolitical pressures brought about due to reparations for the first World War.

In the real world, things often have multiple causes. The suggestion that one cause precludes all others is a nonsense. A false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

The something from nothing is a clear misunderstanding of many people who don't bother to read the basics in cosmology. And the fact that currently science is looking to find the causes of the bog bang doesn't need to give hope to supernatural claims. But the religion of gaps is doing it again and again just like in the numerous times during the past (unsuccessfully of course)

The gaps aren't in religion.

Religions usually claim quite complete and well-integrated set of paradigms.

The gaps are in scientific knowledge. You cannot say that a gap in knowledge, i.e: ignorance, proves or disproves a conjecture.

The religions also almost always pre-exist the scientific knowledge, by centuries, if not millennia. They clearly and obviously aren't attempts to 'fill holes' in naturalistic theory.

And even if science had complete knowledge of everything natural, it still would not preclude things supernatural. The supernatural and natural are conceived of as co-existing. Insistence that the existence of one overrides the existence of other is borne of ignorance.

Your entire thesis is based upon the irrational belief that one thing negates all others, on a false dichotomy.

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

Why? Do you have IBS? I don't.

a reply to: Fairlite

Not anymore.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Your definition of religion is wrong. Evidence and change of mind are at the heart of of religious thought.

Are yo serious? HOw does evidence play into the core of religion? To have religious faith is to have belief WITHOUT evidence - that's the fundamental pillar.

If you had evidence God existed then you wouldn't have 'faith'. You'd have...well, evidence. And you do not.

What if tomorrow we developed a time machine that that allowed us to go back or see back in time and we witnessed that there was no person named Jesus. Or if there was, he was just a normal guy but with great ideas. Nothing supernatural, devine, or god-like about him. That would catagorically prove he wasn't who your faith makes him out to be.

So, if you had that evidence, would you accept it? Probably not.

Religion isnt science. It isn't about observations and then looking for empirical means and methods in order to explain those observations. You believe because you want to, regardless of the lack of evidence or even evidence against it.

And back to your point about proving a negative, which you never answered my original post about how you'd deal with being falsely arrested...

chr0naut: There is a God and I know there is one.
NoOneButMeAgain: Can you prove it?
chr0naut: No.
NoOneButMeAgain: Then I don't believe you.

Why should I have to prove that you have no evidence? Surely a logical mind would see that it's YOU who needs to prove your claim? Otherwise:

NoOneButMeAgain: Police Police! chr0naut murdered babies!
Police: Can you prove it?
NoOneButMeAgain: That's not my problem - chr0naut has to prove he didn't
Police: By God you're right. chr0naut, come with us, you're going to jail.

That doesn't seem rational to me. Does it seem rational to you?

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain

originally posted by: chr0naut
Your definition of religion is wrong. Evidence and change of mind are at the heart of of religious thought.

Are yo serious? HOw does evidence play into the core of religion? To have religious faith is to have belief WITHOUT evidence - that's the fundamental pillar.

Religious accounts are full of someone having a vision, or, more usually, coming to some sort of 'world shaking' understanding or epiphany, and then drastically changing their life and attitudes = personal evidence and change.

If you had evidence God existed then you wouldn't have 'faith'. You'd have...well, evidence. And you do not.

I have a lot of faith in things that are evidenced to me. Having faith does not preclude evidence, nor does it preclude doubts that motivate us to seek out the truths:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." - the words of Jesus from Matthew 7:7-8.

What if tomorrow we developed a time machine that that allowed us to go back or see back in time and we witnessed that there was no person named Jesus. Or if there was, he was just a normal guy but with great ideas. Nothing supernatural, devine, or god-like about him. That would catagorically prove he wasn't who your faith makes him out to be.

So, if you had that evidence, would you accept it? Probably not.

I would accept it.

But Jesus was a historical person, and He triggered a total revolution in religious thought that spread through the world within years of his life. Hundreds of people were prepared to die (and did so) for their faith in Him and numerous people at the same time were trying to imprison, maim, or kill those people to try to wipe out the message (which was exceptionally law abiding and benign. That's another circumstantial evidence from history. Why should a pacifist, law abiding group be so hatefully and heavily persecuted, in a world of multiple pantheons, with all sorts of weird religious beliefs everywhere? Something weird going on there!).

Religion isn't science. It isn't about observations and then looking for empirical means and methods in order to explain those observations. You believe because you want to, regardless of the lack of evidence or even evidence against it.

Many millions of people have found religious things so profound that it changes them, and changes their lives. They spend ages, writing books and talking to others trying to explain things that often there is no comparable analogue of in our limited definitions, memes and paradigms.

It's not some stunted system of control nor limitation of thought, nor limitation of expression, that you seem to think it is.

And back to your point about proving a negative, which you never answered my original post about how you'd deal with being falsely arrested...

Of course I'd feel devastated. And of course I would collaborate to defend myself and try and prove my innocence. And the fact that I would try and present all evidence that exonerates me, also indicates that you would have lied and perjured yourself.

And this next little bit of your prose, where you try and allude that I have said things that I haven't, is no less an in your face lie than committing perjury in the previous example. Because the things you are alleging to quote, I never said:

chr0naut: There is a God and I know there is one.
NoOneButMeAgain: Can you prove it?
chr0naut: No.
NoOneButMeAgain: Then I don't believe you.

This is more like how I would have responded:

chr0naut: I am satisfied that there is a God, many things in my life are testament to that.
NoOneButMeAgain: Can you prove it?
chr0naut: Yes, I am satisfied that I have sufficient evidences. I can prove it to you, too, but you have denied the evidences that I have already spoken of, so it's not going to be easy.
NoOneButMeAgain: Then I don't believe you.
chr0naut: Yes, 'the unbelief is strong in this one'. LOL.

Why should I have to prove that you have no evidence?

I have evidence. You are asking the wrong question.

Surely a logical mind would see that it's YOU who needs to prove your claim? Otherwise:

NoOneButMeAgain: Police Police! chr0naut murdered babies!
Police: Can you prove it?
NoOneButMeAgain: That's not my problem - chr0naut has to prove he didn't

chronaut: The allegation is a lie. What are the names of these babies? Do you have any evidence that there are such crimes, and do you have any hard evidence evidence that places me at those alleged crime scenes at the alleged times the crimes were committed? Because an arrest without any evidence will fail in court and I will then have the prerogative of prosecuting the police force for committing an unlawful arrest.
Police: By God you're right. chr0naut, you may want to come with us and you can make a statement against NoOneButMeAgain's allegations.

I hope that answered those particular questions that you asked.

originally posted by: chr0naut
This is more like how I would have responded:

chr0naut: I am satisfied that there is a God, many things in my life are testament to that.
NoOneButMeAgain: Can you prove it?
chr0naut: Yes, I am satisfied that I have sufficient evidences. I can prove it to you, too, but you have denied the evidences that I have already spoken of, so it's not going to be easy.

That's a very woolly answer to evidence. If you're talking about subjective, personal, internal evidence, then that isn't acceptable, because your evidence has to be demonstrable, objective and falsifiable. Well, **if** you want your case to be accepted as true.

Again, we're under the context of you trying to convince me that God is real. If you're not, well, none of it applies

chronaut: The allegation is a lie. What are the names of these babies? Do you have any evidence that there are such crimes, and do you have any hard evidence evidence that places me at those alleged crime scenes at the alleged times the crimes were committed? Because an arrest without any evidence will fail in court and I will then have the prerogative of prosecuting the police force for committing an unlawful arrest.

Police: No we don't have any names, times, places, or witnesses. But NoOneButMeAgain has made a claim and has unshakeable faith that you are guilty. His evidence is written in a book, which is the word of his God, which is unerring. His faith doesn't require evidence because it is divinely influenced and internalised to him only. By God you're you're coming with us, chr0naut, and you may want to pack your brown trousers.

Funny how human courts of law (in the civilised western world) require evidence to prove one's guilt, not one's innocence, yet arguments to religious faith do not and are somehow considered sacrosanct.

Oh, The brown trousers were for levity.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
If you can’t prove faith, it is no good.

WHAT are you talking about?
Faith is belief in something even when there is no proof to back it up.
That's the point of calling it faith.

a reply to: FlyersFan

There is no good that can come from having faith in something which will never be proven, IMO. Life after death is an example.

But here I’m trying to show how I think it can be good to have faith in something, then setting out to prove it, and then doing so.

There is actual good if you understood what you had no faith in now. I do believe. If you won't believe in something, you will fall for anything. Having faith and following up on the New Testament that lost the "Laws" for just two really Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. We are to be praying that we will be forgiven by God just as we demonstrated our love for our neighbors and forgave those who sinned against us.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: FlyersFan

There is no good that can come from having faith in something which will never be proven, IMO. Life after death is an example.

But here I’m trying to show how I think it can be good to have faith in something, then setting out to prove it, and then doing so.

a reply to: Justoneman

Like I said, it can be good to believe. Trust, but verify.

But if you can’t verify, after so much time has passed, then it’s time to find a new faith to test, IMO.

After a certain time has passed, continuing to believe in an unprovable faith becomes a malignant tumor, IMO.