Did God(s) Create Humans or Did Humans Create God(s)?

MayCaesar

ibadullah said:

@MayCaesar
The guy you replied to meant that if a no npc in a game can be the creator of the game, then why would anyone in the universe be creator of the universe? The game developer made the game, the universe developer or God made the universe. The game dev is not in the game and not obliged by any rule of the game nor is God obliged by any rule of the universe. Since time is a rule of the universe, God isn't effected by time and is immortal. let me give you another example. You needed your parents to be born, your existence depends on your parents, and their existence depends on your grandparents, and theirs on your great grandparents and so on. This Cycle goes on forever and like this we would never exist, unless there was something that was uncreated, the thing whose existence is not dependent on anything or anyone else, something that has been around since the universe was created. What was the thing present before the creation of the universe? The creator of the universe, God, who we just learned is immortal, uncreated and uneffected by the laws of the universe. BTW, in 10 min it will be 3am. If I made any error or there is some problem in logic or anything, just point it out. I'll reply to it to explain better after getting some sleep.

Edit: I'm new to debateisland.com and didn't know that if you do an edit to fix spelling and grammar errors then all reactions will disappear someone reacted that my argument was persuading, but its too late.

I see at least two flaws in your reasoning.

One is that, while the game developer is not a part of the game, the game still has its rules that the game developer has to abide by. The developer can alter the code, can intervene and do something to the world or to the characters - but all of that must happen within the scope of the world he created, or, larger, within the scope of the programming framework he is using. If he wants to breaks the laws of that framework, he has to destroy the world and create a new one. This is in contrast to god that, allegedly, is omnipotent, that is can do anything to the Universe regardless of any laws. The analogy with the game developer has limited applicability.
Your argument is more in line with the simulation theory. Which, unlike theism, I find to be, at least, theoretically possibly being true. There are other issues with it such as the question of testability, but that is a topic for another discussion.

Another is the idea that the cycle you mentioned must go back infinitely in time. That is not the case: it may have to go infinitely as far as the logical chain goes, but the time stamps of each step of the chain do not have to be uniform. You encounter this often in mathematical analysis when dealing with infinite sequences having finite limits. Consider the series 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, ... The sequence members grow infinitely in that, no matter which you pick, the next one will be bigger than it - yet no member will ever reach or exceed 1.
Similarly, your cycle does not have to go beyond the time point that can be loosely defined as the beginning of time in this Universe (that is a poor explanation of what actually happens at the earliest stages of the Universe, but it will do for the sake of this conversation). Take this chain: my father, his father, his father, his father... Taking this millions years back, we stop talking about humans and start talking about much more primitive mammals. Take it hundreds millions years ago, and we talk about crustaceans. Take it hundreds more millions years ago, and we talk about bacteria. At some point we will be talking about things like exploding stars, and at that point talking about the continuity of the genealogical tree makes very little sense. If you do want to continue the causal chain even further, eventually you will reach the state of the Universe in which (according to the modern theories) time itself starts loosing meaning.

Causality is a human-made framework helping us predict the future. It is well applicable when talking about simple phenomena and everyday choices, but there are states of spacetime and matter where it breaks down. One of the best things one can learn from any serious scientific field is that human intuition has a very limited domain of applicability, and trying to understand how the Universe came by through it is a futile endeavor.

In line with this, if there was some creature that created this Universe and was not a subject to the time constraints, then this creature would be utterly incomprehensible to us, much as our world is incomprehensible to Pacman in a DOS Pacman game from the 80-s. Virtually any claim one could make about such a creature would be automatically false. If anything, if that was the case and theists were completely honest, they would say, "I do not know anything about god, including whether it exists". Which is a position not that dissimilar from atheism.
Which makes me notice another error in your argument: if god is not a subject to the time constraints, then nor does it fall under the cause-effect framework (which intrinsically includes temporal distance between the two), therefore derivation of it through logical regress is a logical contradiction.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Just_sayin, now you are up to FIVE RUNAWAYS from your JEWISH bible regarding the FACT that you cannot discuss your god's creation as embarrassingly shown in the links below, other than to RUN AWAY from them and HIDE in front of the membership!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177355/#Comment_177355

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177395/#Comment_177395

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177420/#Comment_177420

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177674/#Comment_177674

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177810/#Comment_177810

WOW, just_sayin, are you going for the record in running away from your JUDEO-Christian Bible relative to your god Jesus in his creations? Huh?

In my easily BIBLE SLAPPING YOU SILLY®️in front of the membership, is that the reason why you can't respond to biblical axioms about Jesus' creations? Or, are you just too bible stu-pid to begin with where you didn't even know the passages that I am giving you existed in the first place, then in making you the pseudo-christian FOOL in the 21st century? LOL!

MEMBERSHIP: How soon do you think that "just_sayin" will be joining the ever so bible dumbfounded RickeyHoltsclaw in vacating this Religion Forum because they have easily been make the pseudo-christian fools by many?

HEADS UP JUST_SAYIN: Don't you ever propose to an Atheist that they are to explain evolution in the manner that you have done, when YOU can't even explain your gods comical creation in Genesis, and in other parts of your primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible, where you have had to RUNAWAY FIVE TIMES from it to the topic at hand, you hypocritical pseudo-christian! LOL!

RUN JUST_SAYIN, RUN, HURRY!!! ........... KEEP RUNNING FROM YOUR BIBLE'S CREATION STORIES THAT YOU CANNOT REFUTE!!!!

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

TO THE MEMBERSHIP AGAIN:

Has anyone seen the total BIBLE FOOL "just_sayin" hiding in other areas of DebateIsland because of him RUNNING AWAY from my post to him shown above, and in the link below, whereas it is now TWO WEEKS OLD and he is still can't respond to it is embarrassing on his part! LOL!
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177920/#Comment_177920

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

TO THE MEMBERSHIP AGAIN:

Has anyone seen the total BIBLE FOOL "just_sayin" hiding in other areas of DebateIsland because of him RUNNING AWAY from my post to him shown above, and in the link below, whereas it is now TWO WEEKS OLD and he is still can't respond to it is embarrassing on his part! LOL!
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177920/#Comment_177920

I don't typically respond to you because you come off as mentally unstable. Your comments show you don't have a lot of biblical knowledge: For example

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177355/#Comment_177355

You ranted like a lunatic about belly buttons. I'm not aware of the Bible mentioning if Adam and Eve had belly buttons are not. You seem to think that belly buttons are proof that there was no first man or woman. A logical person is scratching their head to understand why you would think such a thing based on the fact the Bible didn't mention belly buttons.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177395/#Comment_177395

Your craziness went to another level when you claimed God has a penis and takes craps. You cited:

Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us AND RESEMBLE US.” (Genesis 1:26). GET IT? LOL!

While God could manifest before people in human form, the Bible, from Genesis on, makes it clear that God is a spirit. The passage you mention is traditionally understood that man has an eternal spirit. The Bible teaches man was made in God's image (imago dei), not that God was made in man's image as you claim.

One would have to be biblically ignorant or just mentally unstable to make the next claim you made:

Jesus as God set Adam up to have sex with animals FIRST for procreation!!!: “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20)

The story of Eve's creation is cut off in your quote. She is formed from Adam's rib, not Adam having animal sex.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177420/#Comment_177420

You claimed that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously.

In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:25-27)

Genesis 1:25-27 is an introductory summary statement, found commonly in Ancient Near Eastern stories, not a separate story. One would have to intentionally misread the Bible to conclude that.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177674/#Comment_177674

You claimed the Bible teaches that mythical creatures like Satyrs exist. Not really, The word in Isaiah saiyr means hairy goat. ANE may not have had the same meaning of the word as Greek culture. But in this case I think it did. If you read the passage it is a prophecy about the coming destruction of Babylon. The Living Bible translates the word this way:

The wild animals of the desert will make it (ancient Babylon) their home. The houses will be haunted by howling creatures. Ostriches will live there, and the DEMONS (saiyr) will come there to dance (Isaiah 13:21, TLB).
The wild animals of the desert will mingle there with wolves and hyenas . . There the NIGHT-MONSTERS will scream at each other, and the DEMONS will come . . . (34:14, TLB).

The passages aren't to be understood literally but are alliterative and describe Babylon's sinful state.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177810/#Comment_177810

You mention that Adam and Eve had 3 sons, so they couldn't have been the first man and woman. I don't know if I subscribe to a short earth view of Genesis, but just because only the sons are mentioned, doesn't mean there were no daughters. Tradition says Adam had 12 sons and 12 daughters.

I at first thought that you were just extremely mad at God and blaming him for something that happened in your life, but it is obvious that instability is driving some of your posts.

If you choose to reject the Bible, at least do so based on what it actually says, not on fabricated stuff that it doesn't claim.

ZeusAres42

Whether a creator created us or not is unbeknown to us. One thing is for sure though: that the God or gods we talk of today are human concepts.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ; If you have to ask, you are spiritually dead and lost.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

Whether a creator created us or not is unbeknown to us. One thing is for sure though: that the God or gods we talk of today are human concepts.

Of course you're right, they are. Listen to this description from the bible...

Revelation 21:21: And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

Why make a pitch about human treasures, aimed at appealing to humans on earth about heaven? Unless the concept behind it is human?

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

Whether a creator created us or not is unbeknown to us. One thing is for sure though: that the God or gods we talk of today are human concepts.

Even if you did not subscribe to the special revelation in the Bible, prophecies, or numerous examples of miracle, I believe that you can know something of God from the evidence of the universe itself. We know that the universe had a beginning. From this we can deduce that the cause of that must be powerful enough to create a universe from nothing. I can pack a tight suitcase, but I can't pack a whole universe in zero space. The creator of space-time would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial since He/she/it must exist prior to space, time, and matter coming into existence. The fine tuned nature of all of the fundamental forces of our universe and the fact that even the simplest known life forms have complex code in them, suggests the creator must be intelligent and capable of very precise calculations. So, just from the universe's existence itself we can deduce that the creator is all-powerful, creative, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, intelligent, and can will a finely tuned universe into existence.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Even if you did not subscribe to the special revelation in the Bible, prophecies, or numerous examples of miracle, I believe that you can know something of God from the evidence of the universe itself.

The only thing we know of the universe Is that we do not comprehend it fully.

We know that the universe had a beginning.

How do you define beginning? God did it? We don't know that. You believe that.

From this we can deduce that the cause of that must be powerful enough to create a universe from nothing.

Who says there was nothing?

I can pack a tight suitcase, but I can't pack a whole universe in zero space. The creator of space-time would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial since He/she/it must exist prior to space, time, and matter coming into existence. The fine tuned nature of all of the fundamental forces of our universe and the fact that even the simplest known life forms have complex code in them, suggests the creator must be intelligent and capable of very precise calculations. So, just from the universe's existence itself we can deduce that the creator is all-powerful, creative, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, intelligent, and can will a finely tuned universe into existence.

Why the deceptive tactic of "he/she/it"? You're god is the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, correct?

There is no fine tuned universe. Most of what goes on in it has nothing to do with human concepts.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Even if you did not subscribe to the special revelation in the Bible, prophecies, or numerous examples of miracle, I believe that you can know something of God from the evidence of the universe itself.

The only thing we know of the universe Is that we do not comprehend it fully.

We know that the universe had a beginning.

How do you define beginning? God did it? We don't know that. You believe that.

From this we can deduce that the cause of that must be powerful enough to create a universe from nothing.

Who says there was nothing?

I can pack a tight suitcase, but I can't pack a whole universe in zero space. The creator of space-time would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial since He/she/it must exist prior to space, time, and matter coming into existence. The fine tuned nature of all of the fundamental forces of our universe and the fact that even the simplest known life forms have complex code in them, suggests the creator must be intelligent and capable of very precise calculations. So, just from the universe's existence itself we can deduce that the creator is all-powerful, creative, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, intelligent, and can will a finely tuned universe into existence.

Why the deceptive tactic of "he/she/it"? You're god is the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, correct?

There is no fine tuned universe. Most of what goes on in it has nothing to do with human concepts.

The only thing we know of the universe Is that we do not comprehend it fully.

That's a false and anti-science claim. I would say the consensus is that our universe did have a beginning (10^–43 seconds after the Big Bang) where it was no bigger than a fraction of a millimeter in diameter. We know that there is not enough space-time in our universe for it to be a cyclical contracting and expanding universe. And we know our universe is expanding still. Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the initial low entropy of the universe as being 1 in 10^10^123. To put the astronomical odds of that 'coincidence' keep in mind that there are an estimated 10^80 particles in the universe. All of the fundamental forces of the universe are very finely tuned so that even small variances in their values would result in no universe at all.

Why the deceptive tactic of "he/she/it"? You're god is the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, correct?

There is no deceptive talk. While I believe in the Abrahamic God, the point I made was not about special revelation sources like the Bible, but what we can know generally of God from the universe itself. From this general revelation you can not deduce if God is a he, she, or it. Just that there is a God.

There is no fine tuned universe. Most of what goes on in it has nothing to do with human concepts.

You are just wrong on this, and even atheistic Nobel Prize winners such as Roger Penrose, and Stephen Hawking, have acknowledged that our universe is very finely tuned to permit life, well, actually, just to not have instantly imploded at all. Let me give you a few examples:

Cosmological constant - To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10^120 If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.

Gravity -  If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 10^34 of the range of force strengths (the equivalent of moving less than one inch on the universe-long ruler), the universe couldn’t have life sustaining planets.

Electromagnetic force constant (small scale attractive and repulsive force, holds atoms electrons and atomic nuclei together) — If it were much stronger or weaker, we wouldn’t have stable chemical bonds. Just 1 part in 10^37 would mean we couldn't exist.

Mass density of universe: Just a change in 1 part in 10^59 would result in no universe at all.

Expansion rate of universe: If the initial expansion rate of the universe varied by 1 part in 10^55 the universe would not exist.

Even John Barrow and Frank Tipler, who popularized the Anthropic Principle acknowledge that the universe is finely tuned. Don't be a science denier.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

That's a false and anti-science claim. I would say the consensus is that our universe did have a beginning (10^–43 seconds after the Big Bang) where it was no bigger than a fraction of a millimeter in diameter. We know that there is not enough space-time in our universe for it to be a cyclical contracting and expanding universe. And we know our universe is expanding still. Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the initial low entropy of the universe as being 1 in 10^10^123. To put the astronomical odds of that 'coincidence' keep in mind that there are an estimated 10^80 particles in the universe. All of the fundamental forces of the universe are very finely tuned so that even small variances in their values would result in no universe at all.

Nothing false or anti science about what I said. State your facts demonstrating 'full comprehension' of the entire cosmos's existence throughout all time and as it was before we knew what little we do now or how we see it now.

There is no deceptive talk. While I believe in the Abrahamic God, the point I made was not about special revelation sources like the Bible, but what we can know generally of God from the universe itself. From this general revelation you can not deduce if God is a he, she, or it. Just that there is a God.

Come on, you do not argue thor or allah designed the universe. I see no sign of any god nor do I see science discovering god or any possible effects of god. They have discovered the effects of dark energy though.

You are just wrong on this, and even atheistic Nobel Prize winners such as Roger Penrose, and Stephen Hawking, have acknowledged that our universe is very finely tuned to permit life, well, actually, just to not have instantly imploded at all. Let me give you a few examples:

We've been through this. Any science expert worth their salt will say I don't know. And Penrose is no different. When talking about the precision constant that allows for life in the universe he says he doesn't know. He has mentioned 'commonsense' observations in the context of how things appear, coincidental at times. But he being secure in his fields of expertise knows 'common sense' has been proven wrong in science routinely. His point was to expect the unexpected especially in dealing with something we know so little about. I think he's even mused about a 'Dragon's egg' that suggest sentient life came from a neutron star. Odd you don't cling to that as cause for your appeals to authority.

Cosmological constant - To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10^120 If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.

Gravity -  If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 10^34 of the range of force strengths (the equivalent of moving less than one inch on the universe-long ruler), the universe couldn’t have life sustaining planets.

Electromagnetic force constant (small scale attractive and repulsive force, holds atoms electrons and atomic nuclei together) — If it were much stronger or weaker, we wouldn’t have stable chemical bonds. Just 1 part in 10^37 would mean we couldn't exist.

Mass density of universe: Just a change in 1 part in 10^59 would result in no universe at all.

Expansion rate of universe: If the initial expansion rate of the universe varied by 1 part in 10^55 the universe would not exist.

Even John Barrow and Frank Tipler, who popularized the Anthropic Principle acknowledge that the universe is finely tuned. Don't be a science denier.

Yes we all know. If the moon were further, if Neptune didn't exist, if the Earth were closer to the sun....and on and on. So at this moment in astrological time it all appears to be finely tuned for life and scientists do say things like that at times. Then they also go on to say things like 'but it hasn't always been tuned for life.' And other things like 'if an intelligence did create this little section, minute section, for life and not all the rest we will never see, why'? 'Why create the rest of it if the focus was on life'? 'If the focus was on life why are we not seeing evidence of possible life more readily then we do'? Point being science poses thoughts and questions generally seeking to find answers, not to assert claims without evidence.

At the end of the day it is you who deny science. There is no empirical evidence of your god you believe in. But you seem prepared to believe all the evidence science has to offer, doesn't point to thor. Or any other god. You do believe those gods were made of human imagination, correct?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

The video taken below of a lightning storm is a "once in a life time shot" because it appears to be giving a sign to the inhabitants of the camp ground below. Well of course it's not but one may see it as 'designed' to send a message. "Evidence" of a higher intelligence. I see it as lightening that by coincidence temporarily 'created' a spectacle resembling the human concept of a heart shaped symbol.

Honestly, what do you see?...

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Just_Sayin, if you want to be more bible STU_PID than RickeyHoltsclas, just say so!!

I am going to break up your bible ignorant post to me in sections so as not to overbear your complete BIBLE INEPTNESS all at once regarding your JUDEO-Christian Bible, where you can thank me later, BIBLE FOOL!

YOUR ONCE AGAIN LACKING ANY MENTAL ACUITY WHATSOEVER QUOTE: "You ranted like a lunatic about belly buttons. I'm not aware of the Bible mentioning if Adam and Eve had belly buttons are not. You seem to think that belly buttons are proof that there was no first man or woman. A logical person is scratching their head to understand why you would think such a thing based on the fact the Bible didn't mention belly buttons.” https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178880/#Comment_178880

When I mentioned "belly buttons" it was in relation to your serial killer JESUS AS GOD, who made Adam from dirt (Genesis 2:7), and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:21), GET IT BIBLE ? For simpler terms for you to "maybe" understand, why does Adam and Eve have belly buttons in the image that I have shown below, like I had shown before, when they were made from dirt and a rib to begin with! GET IT?

Where Adam and Eve WERE NOT BORN from a woman that would include an umbilical chord belly button like shown in the image below?! Yet, dumbfounded pseudo-christians like YOU praise photos like shown below as being godly inspired, and hang them in their homes where biblically as shown, IT IS NOT FACTUAL! UNDERSTAND THIS NOTION YET? HUH? MAYBE JUST A LITTLE BIT? LOL!

IS THERE ANY GRADE-SCHOOL CHILD THAN CAN HELP THE BIBLE INEPT .... "JUST_SAYIN" .... WITH THIS VERY SIMPLE LOGICAL DEDUCTION ....... ANY CHILD WILL DO!

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Continuing with your outright bible ineptness!

YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE WHERE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH IN WHAT GOD SAID: “Your craziness went to another level when you claimed God has a penis and takes craps. You cited: Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us AND RESEMBLE US.” (Genesis 1:26). https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178905/#Comment_178905

Just_Sayin, what part of “WE” in the plural form, and the term, “they will be like us AND RESEMBLE US” in this bible verse structure don’t you understand?! Therefore, the subject and predicate make up the Genesis 1:26 verse, where explicitly it precludes that humans look exactly like your serial killer Jesus as "Gods in plural form," therefore your god has a penis and takes a crap like his JEWISH creation because the pseudo-christian like YOU is like your god that you RESEMBLE! GET IT BIBLE FOOL?

RESEMBLE: have qualities or features, especially those of appearance, in common with (someone or something); look or seem like.

Furhermore, explain when god says “WE” in the plural form, is there more than one god in the creation narratives?

BEGIN:

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Continuing with your outright bible ineptness!

ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR BIBLE DUMB QUOTES: “While God could manifest before people in human form, the Bible, from Genesis on, makes it clear that God is a spirit. The passage you mention is traditionally understood that man has an eternal spirit. The Bible teaches man was made in God's image (imago dei), not that God was made in man's image as you claim.” https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178880/#Comment_178880

NO BIBLE ! From Genesis and forward, your serial killer god made many "Physical Appearances" within your primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible, where you are to take note that JESUS AS GOD, walked amongst his JEWISH Creation until his death, where at one point god showed his to Moses in the following passage, LOL!:

“There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you WITH MY HAND until I have passed by. Then I will REMOVE MY HAND and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.” (Exodus 21;23)

Your brutal and bloody serial killer god made man in his image of resemblance, read this link once again Bible FOOL!: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178994/#Comment_178994

YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCRIPTURES AGAIN QUOTE: "While God could manifest before people in human form, the Bible, from Genesis on, makes it clear that God is a spirit."

JESUS IS GOD BIBLE FOO:L (2 Peter 1:1, 1 Timothy 4:10, Colossians 2:9), and he allegedly walked the earth in human form and was NOT A SPIRIT when doing so! How far will you let your BIBLE STUPIDITY GO in front of the membership? LOL!

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Continuing with your outright bible ineptness!

ANOTHER QUOTE OF YOURS WHERE YOU DO NOT DO THE SIMPLE MATH: "One would have to be biblically ignorant or just mentally unstable to make the next claim you made:

Jesus as God set Adam up to have sex with animals FIRST for procreation!!!: “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20) https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178905/#Comment_178905

OMG, in you being a pseudo-christian at best, has deluded your mental state in not being able to do the simple math to my biblically vouchsafed notion shown above! LOL!

1. In Genesis 2:19-20, Jesus as god created ANIMALS FIRST to be a hellpmate for Adam, STOP!

2. Then when your Jesus as god realized the mistake he made because both Adam and the animals, male and FEMALE, were created with SEXUAL ORGANS for procreation! STOP!

3. This precludes that god expected Adam to have sex with the animals at the onset to populate the world! GET IT? STOP!

4. Then, and only then, did your god realize that he needs to make a woman equal to Adam’s human form, like he did for the animals in having to CREATE FEMALES for the MALE animal population for procreation! STOP!

5. Therefore, your DUMBFOUNDED god made Eve from Adam’s rib to cover his laughable mistake shown above, so Adam and Eve could procreate the JEWISH creation! STOP!

Just_sayin, you are as dumbfounded as your god in the 2 CONTRADICTING Creation Stories in Genesis when he made animals FIRST for Adam as a helpmate, BUT, Adam had a Male anatomy of a PENIS for procreation! GET IT YET? HUH?

IS THERE A GRADE-SCHOOL CHILD THAT CAN HELP ...."JUST_SAYIN" .... WITH THIS BIBLICAL EXAMPLE THAT HIS GOD MESSED UP BY CREATING ANIMALS FIRST FOR A HELP MATE FOR ADAM, WHEN ADAM WAS CREATED WITH A PENIS FOR PROCREATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, THUS IMPLYING THAT HE WAS TO PROCREATE WITH THE ANIMALS FIRST AS GENESIS 2:19-20 PRECLUDES! ............ THAT IS, UNTIL THE DUMB GOD REALIZED HIS LAUGHABLE MISTAKE AND THEN CREATED THE HUMAN NAMED EVE FOR THE JEWISH CREATION TO POPULATE THE WORLD? PRICELESS BIBLE COMEDY AT ITS BEST! ROFLOL!

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Continuing with your outright bible ineptness!

YOUR EVER SO WANTING QUOTE THAT DISENGAGES THE ACTUAL PASSAGE MEANING TO THE READER: “You claimed that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously. Genesis 1:25-27 is an introductory summary statement, found commonly in Ancient Near Eastern stories, not a separate story. One would have to intentionally misread the Bible to conclude that.” https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178905/#Comment_178905

My bible verse in question: “In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:25-27)

NO BIBLE FOOL, the written word in Genesis 1:25-27 stands to anyone that is reading it VERBATIM AND LITERALLY, where it is plainly shown that your serial killer god did create Adam and Eve at the same time that comically CONTRADICTS god when he forgot to mention that he created Adam FIRST, then the ANIMALS *cough,* and then EVE in the completely different SECOND Creation story in Genesis 2! GET IT?

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Continuing with your outright bible ineptness!

YOUR PATHETIC QUOTE WHERE YOU ARE NOT EVEN SURE OF YOUR RESPONSE! LOL!: “You claimed the Bible teaches that mythical creatures like Satyrs exist. Not really, The word in Isaiah saiyr means hairy goat. ANE may not have had the same meaning of the word as Greek culture. But in this case I think it did. If you read the passage it is a prophecy about the coming destruction of Babylon. The Living Bible translates the word this way:”
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178905/#Comment_178905

Barring your misspellings in bold type, and where you “think” that Satyrs means “hairy goat” does not preclude the true definition of Satyrs to begin with as shown biblically! Understood BIBLE FOOL?

SATYR: is an animal that is half goat, and half man!

HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE OF MINE RELATIVE TO SAYYRS AND THEIR TRUE DEFINITION: 1. SATYRS: “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there.” (Isaiah 13:21) For the ignorant pseudo-christian, a Satyr is an animal that is half goat, and half man!

YOUR QUOTE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS!!!: “The passages aren't to be understood literally but are alliterative and describe Babylon's sinful state.”

Where do YOU get the authority to state that only disturbing passages as shown in using Satyrs true definition are not to be taken LITERALLY?

So, under your erronious statement, then the pseudo-christian like YOU is not to take the following biblical statements as LITERAL AS WELL!

1. Jesus’ assention skyward in Acts 1:9 is not to be taken literally?

2. Jesus walking on water is not to be taken literally in Matthew 14:25-27?

3. Jesus in casting out demons in Mark 1:34 is not to be taken literally?

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE THE BIBLE DUMMY ...."JUST_SAYIN".... THAT IS AS BIBLICALLY DUMB AS "RICKEYHOLTSCLAW," WILL BE .....?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Your opponent has erected a wall against logical criticisms of his (mis)understanding of the underlying science. Here is what the "fine tuning" argument (the scientific one, not the religious nonsense masking as one) really is about.

Basically, we find that a number of properties of the Universe are strongly interlinking, in the sense that slightly changing one would require all other properties to change slightly as well, otherwise the whole construct breaks down. For instance, if the fine structure constant changed from ~1/137 to ~1/138, all other constants staying the same, then the Universe would change in very dramatic ways. However, if it changed to ~1/138 and other constants changed correspondingly, then everything would largely stay the same. It would come down to simple recalibration of values. It would be akin to replacing meters with inches and recalculating all other conversion ratios.

The meaning of this observation is that the Universe is a subject to the "butterfly effect": small changes in initial conditions lead to dramatic changes in the long-term behavior of the system. It is reasonable to expect that with slightly different initial conditions life as we know it today would be absolutely impossible. Our world as we see it today, indeed, appears to be "finely tuned" in this sense.

What it does not imply is that life would be impossible in principle with a different set of initial conditions, or that the Universe somehow would not be viable. Everything would be different, but within that different framework complex structures would arise, including self-replicating ones constituting life. There would be no humans on birds - but then even in our own Universe, chances are, life is abundant, but, for the most part, looks nothing like life on Earth.

The fallacy some religious folks commit when talking about these things is that it somehow implies that our Universe is special. It is not. I think I mentioned this example before: if you take a penny, throw it 1000 times in a row and record H for each head and T for each T, then the sequence that you get has the probability of occurring of exactly 2^(-1000), which is an unbelievably low number: if you write 1 in the numerator, the denominator will have over 330 zeroes in it, the number bigger than the number of all particles in the universe taken to the 4th power. Is it special though? Not really: it is as "special" as 2^1000-1 other possible sequences.
It would be special if you got the same sequence twice in a row... But that is a completely different situation. As far as I know, no one "rolled the Universe" twice and got the same outcome.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE WHERE YOU JUST DON’T GET IT BIBLE FOOL!: “You mention that Adam and Eve had 3 sons, so they couldn't have been the first man and woman. I don't know if I subscribe to a short earth view of Genesis, but just because only the sons are mentioned, doesn't mean there were no daughters. Tradition says Adam had 12 sons and 12 daughters.”

OMG, Irrelative to Adam and Eve having 3 sons, Adam and Eve were the first “alleged man and woman to inhabit earth to procreate the JEWISH people,” GET IT?!

THINK, if Adam fathered 3 sons and had more children including daughters like you said, then how did Jesus' JEWISH population grow over time?

YES, Adam and Eve’s family of children along with their parents were procreating amongst themselves through UNGODLY INCEST with each other to populate the world, which blatantly goes against Jesus as Gods word herewith:

“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. …” ( Leviticus 18:6-18)

JUST_SAYIN, GET THE BLATANT CONUMDRUM SHOWN ABOVE, BIBLE FOOL? HUH?

1. How do you feel that your god had the foundation of his creation done through INCEST OF FAMILY MEMBERS that he despised in the first place in Leviticus 18:6-18?

EXPLAIN:

2,. Then if this ungodly notion shown above wasn’t sickening enough, your serial killer Jesus as god murdered his entire JEWISH CREATION in his Great Flood scenario (Genesis 6:5-8) to start over again with Noah and his family doing the same gawd damned thing in repopulating the world with yet MORE INCESTUAL PROCREATION amongst family members! How do you logically feel about this biblical FACT?

EXPLAIN:

3. How sickening and ungodly can your JEWISH GOD JESUS get in his procreation of the world THROUGH INCEST OF FAMILY MEMBERS AD INFINITUM?!

EXPLAIN:

4. Furthermore, do your homework; give the membership your citations of peered reviewed knowledge that supports your specific claim that; “Tradition says Adam had 12 sons and 12 daughters as you proffered in your dumbfounded quote above!

BEGIN:

Just_Sayin, your outright Bible DUMBNESS has no bounds as shown, and you do not have the sense to feel totally embarrassed over this FACT! Priceless!

.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Thank you. No matter what you tell him logically, he thinks the default answer is a designer. But not just any designer, it only points to the one he worships. That's the part he'd hit you with if he were ever able to convince you or I a creator who operates out of observable reality intentionally designed all of the universe to put life on Earth.

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder

FACTDENIER, once again, like many times before to help you out, copy and paste the following links relative to me BIBLE SLAPPING SILLY®️ the outright BIBLE FOOL "just_sayin" upon said topics shown for you to use in the future if they are discussed, and in this way, then you won’t be so bible inept on said topics to begin with! Once again, you can thank me later.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178993/#Comment_178993

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178994/#Comment_178994

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178995/#Comment_178995

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178997/#Comment_178997

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178998/#Comment_178998

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178999/#Comment_178999

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179002/#Comment_179002

.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

It is pretty interesting how we are limited by our preconceptions: if we are used to thinking that something is true, then pretty much any evidence against it being true we still will interpret as evidence in favor of it being true, because our entire mental framework is shaped by it.

This is why it is important to ask oneself tricky questions. "What if X was wrong? What would follow?" No matter how hard you believe that X is true, you have to think outside the box and consider the alternative Universe in which X is false - and honestly think about what would be different.

I personally do that all the time. I ask myself very weird questions such as, "What if the Moon was a giant head of cheese?" It does not matter how preposterous the possibility is: it still gets me to arrive at some insights that might be useful later. And what do you know, sometimes it turns out to be highly relevant. Back in my early 20-s, when I thought a lot about objectivity and subjectivity, I entertained the possibility that "false" and "truth" were inherently subjective categories, that they were just social constructs - and, what do you know, one of the popular ideologies on the West today posits just that! Had I not thought about it hard back then, it would be very hard for me to understand what these people are talking about. They are wrong, but it is better to understand why exactly they are wrong, so that you are prepared to face their arguments head-on and remain impenetrable to their propaganda.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yes everything must be in some way reconcilable to preconceived beliefs. And like you alluded, people can just about rationalize anything to make it happen.

I wanted to think you for your previous response when you provided the information. Honestly when it comes to advanced quotations my eyes glaze over LOL. But you made it understandable. What I find fascinating are the facts behind them. Like if we could travel faster then the speed of light would it slow the aging process down enough to become the well of immortality? You know cause you'd age a few minutes while us on earth perished years and years ago.?

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

.
JUST-SAYIN, THE RUNAWAY FROM JESUS' TRUE WORDS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES, AGAIN!

As usual, in front of the membership, you have RAN AWAY AGAIN from my easy refutations to your outright Bible STU-PIDITY as embarrassingly shown with my posts to you below:

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178993/#Comment_178993

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178994/#Comment_178994

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178995/#Comment_178995

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178997/#Comment_178997

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178998/#Comment_178998

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178999/#Comment_178999

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179002/#Comment_179002

When will you ever learn, that you cannot in any way call yourself a Christian in being so GAWD DAMED BIBLE INEPT? Huh? This Jesus' inspired verse relating to YOU is so appropriate herewith: "Always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)

You would think by now, that you either would leave this esteemed Religion Forum to save yourself any further embarrassment in not knowing the scriptures, or at least, take some time off from this forum, then change your moniker, so you won't be so embarrassed again in returning! LOL!

NEXT BIBLE FOOL RUNAWAY LIKE ...."JUST-SAYIN".... THAT "THINKS" THEY KNOW THE BIBLE, WHEN THEY DO NOT, WILL BE .....?

.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Why police forced UCLA protesters out of encampments

In this Debate

Did God(s) Create Humans or Did Humans Create God(s)?

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch