- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Adam: I am on neutral ground and without any bias on the ancient texts…
If that were true, you wouldn’t refer to the ancient people as “primitive” – as if you know for a fact that we are more intelligent today, rather than slowly becoming less and less intelligent. That right there shows a major bias.
But all in all, you have certainly taken a mostly neutral stance on this debate, pointing out only what the ancient texts actually say. The time may come when I request your services as a neutral moderator on this thread to help work through the many diversion tactics and rescue devices Proclaimer deploys in an attempt to avoid actually answering questions.
That being said, threads on the “Hot Seat” part of the forum are private threads. This one is only for me and Proclaimer. I’ll hit you up if it gets to the point we need a mod.
@Admin @t8As you know, the Hot Seat contains INVITATION ONLY threads…
Please delete posts 930311, 930313, 930314, 930397, 930412, 930415, 930416, 930418, and this post that I’m making right now, as they are posts from (or responses to) people who are not invited to this thread… or otherwise have no business in our private debate.
Please also refresh your memory on the rules and reason for the Hot Seat Forum that you created…
So please remember your own rules, and please remove the aforementioned posts that have no place on this thread. I’d like to keep it clean and organized if you don’t mind. Thanks.
What does the Bible say about that subject?
Lol. That is your way of admitting defeat while trying to save face.
My next question is about your own science and arguments as to why there is a dome, being that air pressure requires it lest the atmosphere is sucked into space.
So why do your arguments not apply to water? The reason is you know that the sea is not held in by a special dome at the surface because we would clearly see it and it’s not there.
Question: Why does the atmosphere require a dome, but the sea does not?
Please delete posts 930311, 930313, 930314, 930397, 930412, 930415, 930416, 930418, and this post that I’m making right now, as they are posts from (or responses to) people who are not invited to this thread… or otherwise have no business in our private debate.
Please also refresh your memory on the rules and reason for the Hot Seat Forum that you created…
The rules state that you state the rules in the first post. Since that wasn’t followed, I guess others just assumed that they could post like other topics.
I don’t like deleting posts, but what I could do is clone this topic, then delete posts on both topics so we have this topic with just you and me, and the other topic where anyone can comment on this topic.
So please remember your own rules
Yes, and this goes for you.
I love the Hot Seat. It is designed to get an answer and stop people just ignoring good arguments. I intend to hold you to that standard and I intend to keep that standard myself.
Proclaimer: The rules state that you state the rules in the first post. Since that wasn’t followed, I guess others just assumed that they could post like other topics.
Fair enough. Go ahead and leave the posts then. I will use them to my advantage.
Proclaimer: I love the Hot Seat. It is designed to get an answer and stop people just ignoring good arguments. I intend to hold you to that standard and I intend to keep that standard myself.
Good. You can start keeping that standard by addressing the last post of page 1. Thanks.
Gene: Mike……before you start, why not EXPLAIN what the word “SCIENTISM” means, I have never heard of the word before you mentioned it here.
Hi Gene,
Science is observation, investigation and collection of data. Science doesn’t draw any conclusions about anything. It is only the data.
The religion of Scientism is an unquestioning, faith-based belief in the INTERPRETATIONS by flawed human beings OF the aforementioned data.
For example, science is the observation that there are lights in the night sky. Scientism is the unquestioning, faith-based belief in the INTEPRETATION by flawed men that these lights are huge, fiery gas balls trillions of miles away.
Proclaimer: Truth seekers are always open minded and they listen to opposing views until they debunk those views. Whereas, you blindly reject views with no investigation. You make sweeping statements that condemn, but give no proof of why you came to that conclusion.
Adam: Hi Proclaimer, in fact it’s the other way round…
Thank you for that astute observation, Adam. It is indeed the other way around. And if Proclaimer follows the rules of the Hot Seat, he will be exposed soon enough as the one who actually does what he accuses others of doing (projection).
Proclaimer: My next question is about your own science and arguments as to why there is a dome, being that air pressure requires it lest the atmosphere is sucked into space.
The Bible is silent on air pressure, and a so-called atmosphere getting sucked into a so-called outer space. The Bible says that the firmament is the heaven that God created on the second day, that it is hard like polished brass, that there is water above it, that the sun, moon, and stars run God-appointed circuits within it over the face of the earth, and that it is stretched out over the earth like a domed/vaulted tent.
Proclaimer: Why does the atmosphere require a dome, but the sea does not?
The Bible doesn’t say anything one way or the other about this, and it is therefore not within the scope of this thread. This is not the “Flat Earth” thread, Proclaimer. This is not a “How does Mike explain this Scientism claim or that Scientism claim” thread. This thread is for the sole purpose of forcing you to directly answer many questions that you’ve been avoiding for months concerning the many blatant discrepancies between the Biblical description of our world and the Scientism description of our world.
In the future, you will get the same response I used already for questions like this: What does the Bible say about that subject?
If you are able to show me scripture that speaks to the subject, I will be able to answer the question accordingly. If you cannot, then your question does not fall within the scope of “The Bible vs Scientism: Which To Believe?”
But this one and only time, I will answer your off-topic question. I will not answer any follow-ups to it in this thread.
Proclaimer: Why does the atmosphere require a dome, but the sea does not?
The sea is comprised of water. Water is heavier than the air that covers the seas. You can find photos of many different density columns online, and learn that more dense things go the bottom of the column, while less dense things are higher up in the column. Water is more dense than air, and so a density column made only of water and air would have water at the bottom and air at the top. (Why the clouds can store billions of tons of water just floating above the much less dense air without that water immediately falling to the ground is a question you might look into on your own time – but it is not within the scope of this thread.)
Secondly, the sea DOES escape into the less dense air. It’s called evaporation.
And finally, if you picked up the sea and placed it directly adjacent to the most powerful vacuum ever imagined by man (ie: “outer space”), then the sea would instantly boil into gasses, and those gasses would immediately equalize with the much lower pressure beside it – just like the pressurized air in a balloon does when the container is breached or removed.
Listen carefully Proclaimer… I gave a cursory but sufficient answer to a question that is off-topic in this thread. I will NOT entertain any follow-ups on it in this thread. Please honor the intent of this thread by making sure your following questions are related to things that are taught about in scripture.
That being said, I await your direct and honest response to the last post on page 1.
Hi Proclaimer, in fact it’s the other way round the logic. I am on neutral ground and without any bias on the ancient texts than most of the religious people. And I make statements based on certain evidences from the historical documents than the biased religious conceptions.
Not so gadam. If a bible verse can be interpreted say 3 different ways, you ignore the ways that fit with observation or compatibility with other scriptures. You have an agenda to debunk the bible, so of course it is logical that you are anything but neutral.
You may say I am the opposite and not neutral and that is true too. But I am honest about that. I believe the Bible is true because I have experienced heaven and hell and have had a holy being speak to me directly and show me my future. So I am obliged to believe the other stuff that I have no direct proof for. For example, I have no direct proof or revelation of the flood and the existence of Noah. So I look at historical records and see that there is a collective memory of a cataclysm in the past. So I tend to believe in the existence of Noah despite having zero proof of his existence. This is why I tend to take the interpretation of Genesis that fits with observation. You can call that bias and it is, but it is like that for good reason. I have personal evidence of the overall narrative, so I tend to believe the parts of that narrative that I have no proof for as a result. So if we observe a globe earth going around the sun, then knowing this to be true, I read Genesis to see if it contradicts it. And it doesn’t. It contradicts if you throw away the first verse, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth”. And this is what you and Mike do.
I think you just do not want to believe so you disregard all interpretations that fit with observation. This is why you have teamed up with Mike. You are taking advantage of his naivety because he is useful to you. He provides the arguments you need to debunk the bible. And he thinks you are useful to him because you support him. Lol. A match made in heaven. Funny as. When Mike finds out that you have been two timing him, he is going to be pissed.
Not so gadam. If a bible verse can be interpreted say 3 different ways, you ignore the ways that fit with observation or compatibility with other scriptures. You have an agenda to debunk the bible, so of course it is logical that you are anything but neutral.
You may say I am the opposite and not neutral and that is true too. But I am honest about that. I believe the Bible is true because I have experienced heaven and hell and have had a holy being speak to me directly and show me my future. So I am obliged to believe the other stuff that I have no direct proof for. For example, I have no direct proof or revelation of the flood and the existence of Noah. So I look at historical records and see that there is a collective memory of a cataclysm in the past. So I tend to believe in the existence of Noah despite having zero proof of his existence. This is why I tend to take the interpretation of Genesis that fits with observation. You can call that bias and it is, but it is like that for good reason. I have personal evidence of the overall narrative, so I tend to believe the parts of that narrative that I have no proof for as a result.
Hi Proclaimer, thanks for your patience in replying my post. Yes each one of us is having some personal experiences in spirituality similar to what you had experienced regarding the so called heaven and hell. In fact those are all purely based on personal understanding of the spirituality and religious environment in our lives. But they can not be proved in the public debates as they are individual in nature. I too had number of spiritual experiences in my Christian life since my school days like healing of the sick and casting the evil spirits but sadly I can not prove them in the public.
I studied much on Christian doctrines like Trinity and preexistence of Jesus through Heavennet and other Christian websites. But I found these are all unwanted dogmas when compared to the Hebrew religion. I even studied much on Hebrew Bible and its religion with the help of historical criticism and found lot of developments that occurred even in the so called Jewish religion from its original Canaanite Polytheism to Post-Exilic Monotheism. This can be found in the few traces in the Hebrew Bible which were left out by the red-activists and editorial scribes. They can be found in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms and other earlier books. I now wonder is there any real heaven above and hell below as claimed by those NT writers in particular. The so called three-decked universe mentioned in the NT is too mythological when we look at post-modern scientific discoveries of our day.
This is the reason why I am continuously investigating the ancient religious texts and on the religious developments in Judaism and Christianity including their so called doctrine of Eschatology.
Proclaimer, your rules state that you are not allowed to post on the site until you answer the hot seat questions. But you are posting all over the place without once directly answering any of the questions I’ve asked on the hot seat thread. You refused to answer if there is any reason to assume that any of the sun – Earth day/night cycles were more than 24 hours during the creation period. Then you refused to answer whether any of the day/night cycles before the appearance of the Sun we’re more than 24 hours. You deflected from the question by scoffing at the idea that there were day/night cycles before the sun. So I showed you scripture that directly says there were day/night cycles before the sun, and asked you direct questions about those scriptures. According to your rules, the last post on page one of this thread needs to be directly answered before you post anything else on any other thread. Why are you not following your own rules?
Proclaimer, I’m still waiting for an answer to the last post on page one. It’s been six days – and you’ve posted on other threads almost every one of those days. Why can’t you answer a simple question that is based on scriptures that I even included in the post to give you the answer?
PROCLAIMER, DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND THAT BIG BANG, DEEP TIME UNIFORMITARIANISM, AND COMMON DESCENT EVOLUTION ARE NOT EVEN A PART OF SCIENCE, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, AND REPEATABLE?
No.
I understand your definition, but it is incorrect.
Science means knowledge. But it is more accurately defined as the pursuit and application of knowledge. Science is not the truth itself, but often it discovers or arrives at the truth through investigation, testing, and successful predictions. I would also argue that knowledge can be gained by revelation. But at that point, it is yet to be proven. Many scientists had a bright idea and then applied the scientific method to prove or disprove it.
The first step in the scientific method is asking a question, The process goes something like this:
- Start with an idea or a question.
- Perform research.
- Establish your hypothesis.
- Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment.
- Make an observation.
- Analyze the results and draw a conclusion.
- Present the findings.
Of course, such a process can still lead to theories that are not true. But the process itself decreases the chances of that. And the more it is tested, the more chance it is correct if the tests do not disprove it. But it should also be understood that truth and knowledge can be established outside of the scientific method. Remember that this method had its beginnings with Sir Isaac Newton. And science existed before him.
So let’s look at the Big Bang. It is true that we cannot view the Big Bang directly or indirectly as we do not have instruments that can detect absolute proof of this. However, with the map of the background radiation coupled with the evidence for an expanding universe, you only need to play the movie backwards to see that everything started at the same point. Further, the universes expansion is speeding up. So the further an object is away from us, the faster it is travelling. So things are not moving apart at the same rate meaning the expansion is not a uniform speed. The alternative is that the universe started at a bigger size from nothing. Or that the universe always existed, thus does not have a beginning and by extension of that, no need for God according to Atheists, because it wasn’t created. The other two options have no supporting evidence. Finally, the universe having a beginning helped the argument for a God substantially. so you should be at least a bit friendly toward science.
To arrive at the truth, you can observe it. test it, predict it time and time again, and also using a process of elimination. The latter is how we scientifically prove the existence of God.
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, AND REPEATABLE?
Then God is unscientific. But he is observable through the things he has made. So I cannot see him, but I know he is there. This type of observation is how we arrive at the Big Bang. It doesn’t mean it is correct, but that there is a lot of evidence pointing to this hypothesis.
If I saw a perfect circle of apples under an apple tree, I can perceive that a person placed the apples in a perfect circle and they were not the result of random apples falling from that tree. So I didn’t observe it directly, but statistically, it was designed by a person or persons. Many things are observed in this way Mike. It doesn’t make it right, but if there is further evidence like footprints in the mud and perhaps some rubbish under the tree, that would further strengthen the hypothesis of how this circle of apples got there. The Big Bang is like that. There are multiple pieces of evidence for it.
Despite that. Science is not done on this subject. It is still being tested and with large investments in instruments like Hubble and James Webb, we will increase the tests to see if the universe is expanding and had a beginning.
DO YOU FURTHER UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE IS THE COLLECTION OF DATA – WHICH MAKES NO CONCLUSIONS – WHILE SCIENTISM IS A FAITH-BASED BELIEF IN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THOSE DATA BY FLAWED HUMAN BEINGS
I do not agree with your definition. Science is the application and process of gaining knowledge, particular natural knowledge. Scientism is believing that science is the only way we can gain knowledge. Some definitions simply say that it is an excessive trust in science. For me, science is the study of natural phenomena. But I have faith that there is more to reality and existence than the physical realm. I believe in God and the spiritual realm. Science isn’t really designed for non-physical realities.
AND FINALLY, HAVE YOU NOW COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT BY REJECTING A BLIND, UNQUESTIONING, FAITH-BASED BELIEF IN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF FLAWED MEN, I DON’T DENY SCIENCE ITSELF, BUT RATHER THE RELIGION OF SCIENTISM?
I disagree with your statement. You most certainly deny science. Even the most predictable and repeatable of observations are denied by you.
Here is a good video about science and how we came to understand the speed of light or the fastest speed anything physical can travel.
The thing is, if you test something multiple ways and it always comes out as true, then that goes a long way to prove a truth about the physical universe. If under some conditions the answer is different, then either the theory is wrong or it needs to be tweaked.
Anyhow. I think this video presents this subject as simply as possible. See if you can follow along.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
