Is it more likely that the testimony of an omniscient omnibenevolent God is true, or that some nerds guesswork is true?

Is it more likely that the testimony of an omniscient omnibenevolent God is true, or that some nerds guesswork is true?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    so where's the testimony of this omniscient omnibenevolent god at
    why is it in the holy books of desert tribes from thousands of years ago? why can't it be in the vedas? book of veles? runestones?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if God real why bible old

      • 2 weeks ago
        Radiochan

        so why should I believe it

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean yeah unironically. If god wanted us to know he was real wouldn't he keep us updated?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did he run out of things to say 2000 years ago?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >so-called "God's Perfect Word" (some primitive schizo's fallible "gnosis" opinion derived from "visions" and "things that happened, I swear!" that translated and retranslated)
    Vs
    > Man's Fallible Opinion... made through direct and concrete observation of the world around us, constantly changing and updating from new information gained from more accurate observations making it the closest known thing we have to the source of Truth.
    Gee... I wonder

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Observation is Truth.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. I-fricking-love-scientists don't even see the Empiricism vs Rationalism conflict.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a false dichotomy, you observe with your senses and use logic to arrive at concepts. Trusting either your eyes or your mind while ignoring the other is moronic. You need the eyes to sense data and you need the mind to interpret it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Wisdom given to humble nobodies that coouldnt possibly have come from their own minds vs men engaging in self fellatio.
      Truth is, you do not understand 99% of any scientific theory that you believe to be the truth. You just have faith that those who say its truth are telling the truth.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What does understanding a theory even mean? Does a man who understands Maxwells equations also understand Electromagnetism or does only a man who knows the solution of every EM problem understand the theory of EM?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What do you personally understand?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I understand Maxwell's equations and I know a solution or two.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And how do those equations debunk God?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They don't. I never claimed that.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Truth is, you do not understand 99% of any scientific theory that you believe to be the truth.
        yeah but they offer applications of their theories which make them believable. promises kept most of the time and eventual excuses when they fail. instead of promises that you can only verify after your death.
        >inb4 random exemple of failed or disproved science
        no religion has ever admitted being false.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Book says the sky is red, observation says it is blue.
      >Guess which one gets modified when people try to make them agree".
      I think a nerds guess work is more reliable than a book claiming to speak for God, yes.

      basedence man said so doesn't count as observation btw

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know this is IQfy and it’s filled with degenerate angry young men but I can’t get over how childish it is to lose and argument and then post an MS paint image of a crying cartoon.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Proclaiming your faith in the priests of basedence isn't winning the argument

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you were old enough and weren’t white trash, or hell smart enough to get a scholarship, you could go to a university and actually perform scientific experiments yourself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            hes trolling you moron

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I actually want to wake people up to the fact that “Christians” here are blatantly angry little young men with little knowledge.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry troony but i have anti-mindbreak powers you can't fool me into falling for your shitty bait

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >mindbreak
            You mean learning something new?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >based trad christian
            >uses lingo he got from porn tags on hentai websites

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            'christians' here are all LARPers for the sake of trolling. essentially if they get a reply they feel as if they performed a great deed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In the end the only knowledge boomers and older generations had is how to be braindead, goody do shoes homosexual.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >schizo
      A nuspeak for heretic and possesed.
      >treating official narrative like word of god, blindly and naively beliving everything they say
      How ironic and hypocritical.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >God's oerfect work contains hundreds of contradictions.
    Is God hegelian?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are no contradictions in scripture.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only metaphores didn't know were metaphors until we just knew

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Stop doing drugs.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who visited Jesus' tomb?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          women

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is a woman?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Leviticus laws are still valid for today christians?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Where is it that Legion told people not to go?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My ancestors are smiling at me you godless heathen. Can you say the same? They'd be horrified at the abominable concepts their descendant worships in place of God.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure they would be smart enough to understand they were wrong given a tour of a university science building and its labs.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm genuinely curious, how do people that take the bible word for word justify that it is a good source?
    It's a bunch of stories of oral origin passed down for millennia, collected by various people and the bible you're reading most likely isn't even the original translation.
    Was there actually some divine intervention to make sure that whoever wrote those stories down got it right?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a bunch of stories of oral origin passed down for millennia, collected by various people and the bible you're reading most likely isn't even the original translation.
      This is not correct, the bible was written by the hands of apostles and prophets and the use of completely inappropriate terminology like "original translation" leads me to suspect you are not familiar with the history of the bible, and are speaking from assumption.
      >I'm genuinely curious, how do people that take the bible word for word justify that it is a good source?
      This is an excellent question. This thread has more or less proved my point as the only argument unbelievers had was to attack the authority of scripture, which established that 1. it is not rational to believe in evolutionism, since divine revelation alone would give us sufficient cause to reject it (not to diminish the value of the good work creation scientists have done) and 2. attempts to refute Christianity on the basis of evolutionary theory are inherently circular, since they are contingent on Christianity already being false. But, why do Christians believe the bible in the first place? How do we know it is the word of God?

      (cont.)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No one thinks the Bible was written by any of the Apostles.
        At most you can say that Paul wrote the parts attributed to him, but he wasn't an Apostle.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is manifest that God did not create the world for no purpose, as a child assembles blocks. But as God has maintained a remnant in this world and sustained His people from century to century, He has spoken to them to lead them and commune with them ever since He first graciously revealed Himself to fallen man, saying, "Where are you, Adam?" While false religions were invented apart from Him upon the foolish wisdom of men and the whisperings of demons, the true religion has ever been founded upon the very words of God. While He previously spoke through angels and through the prophets, He has in these latter days spoken to us through His Son. As the clearest revelation came in the person of Jesus Christ in whom the fullness of the divine being dwelled bodily, God has ceased to send further revelation, but has prepared for His Church the written word which is able to abide for millennia, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit directs the people in the new age of the resurrection by this word.

      (cont.)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So instead of spreading his Church through divine intervention, he decides to hand the rulebook to some peasants in the Levant and frick off back to Heaven forever?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Lord did not speak without the intention of being heard but His word contains the means of its own efficacy, bearing certain marks of inspiration which shall be recognized by those whom the Spirit raises to spiritual life. Thus Abraham did not need to question who spoke when he was told "Get thee out of thy country and away from thy kindred". This is not to say the bible is lacking in clear objective proofs of its authorship, but that which makes the difference for the believer is not his ability to reason autonomously but the gracious working of God. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."
      Such is our faith, as it has been passed down from generation to generation from those who witnessed the miracles of God.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >pic
        what kind of strawman is that?
        there's tons of religious scientists, the problem is just with those who let scripture get in the way of their science

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Scientists of centuries ago were religious because they did not have the means to break free from religion which was the status quo and dictated everyone's life at their time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean it doesn't really matter, people can believe whatever they want and there are religious scientists today, that still do great work.
            The important part is, as I said, that they don't go "The bible contradicts this measurement I just made, therefore the measurement must be wrong"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The metaphysical framework of materialism is being assumed under the mainstream evolutionary theory. It's that assumption which leads to the conclusions that they will make. The thing is that they don't generally recognize that they've made these assumptions in advance, even though they are unwarranted one. It's not a question of measurable or observable fact, but of a theory that requires extrapolation and assumptions, such as, importantly, the metaphysically materialist assumption. What they did was they found a narrative that they wanted to support, then found ways to selectively present the data to give the desired narrative. It's no different than with what's going on with global warming or climate change agenda, which is gradually becoming more and more cult-like.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

            No one thinks the Bible was written by any of the Apostles.
            At most you can say that Paul wrote the parts attributed to him, but he wasn't an Apostle.

            Wrong.

            So instead of spreading his Church through divine intervention, he decides to hand the rulebook to some peasants in the Levant and frick off back to Heaven forever?

            Divine intervention is the only way it spreads.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cover contains some Bohr-radii or some shit as motif
    >science is not subject to the process of redaction
    >science is not subject of systematic falsification and cherry picking

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >testimony
    >it's just some nerd's guesswork
    every time.
    god doesn't have a middleman, morons. stop letting yourself get scheisted by clerical morons.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Book says the sky is red, observation says it is blue.
    >Guess which one gets modified when people try to make them agree".
    I think a nerds guess work is more reliable than a book claiming to speak for God, yes.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They got that backwards, scientific books have to be constantly updated over time, while the bible has stayed pretty much the same.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the testimony of an omniscient omnibenevolent God
    >is actually a demented israeli fairy tale

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no conflict between God's perfect word and evolutionary science. There's a conflict between creationists' fallible interpretations of the Bible and evolutionary science. If your interpretation of the Bible conflicts with science, the much more reasonable and pious thing to do is to go back to the drawing board and find a new interpretation, rather than just stamping your feet and stubbornly insisting that you somehow have perfect insight into the meaning of God's word.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There's no conflict between God's perfect word and evolutionary science
      Genesis 1
      >creationists' fallible interpretations
      If one's argument ever to dismiss biblical testimony as "interpretation", you know they are trying to excuse not believing it. It is never faith in scripture which is defended with this dishonest rhetoric, but unbelief and doubt.
      >If your interpretation of the Bible conflicts with science, the much more reasonable and pious thing to do is to go back to the drawing board and find a new interpretation
      Is homosexuality a sin?
      >stamping your feet and stubbornly insisting that you somehow have perfect insight into the meaning of God's word
      This is a strawman argument. If you had a leg to stand on you would not need to assault biblical authority by calling it my "interpretation". The question a true Christian asks when he reads scripture is "what is God trying to communicate?" He seeks to answer this question by treating the word with respect and letting scripture interpret scripture. Once he has the answer he will not recant its teaching on pain of death, for his conscience is held captive by the word of God. The scientist has no authority to abrogate the scripture. This book has supreme authority on everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything.
      I will not recant

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >no atonement and no resurrection is after no deity
        what did the christcuck who drew the original image mean by this?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No deity of Christ.

          I don't see any thing special with resurrection, you can pull it off with powerful enough technology or magic.

          >I don't see any thing special with resurrection, you can pull it off with [stuff that doesn't exist]

          >one cannot, cathegorically, be proven right or wrong
          >the other can and has been
          you won't address this point because it's true

          The bible can't be proven true because it's the basis of being able to prove anything true.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't see any thing special with resurrection, you can pull it off with powerful enough technology or magic.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This book has supreme authority on everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything.
        based and golempilled

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Man’s fallible opinion
    It’s not an opinion. It’s been verified again and again and again.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Evolutionary science doesn't contradict creationism.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Neither gets modified.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the former of course

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >one cannot, cathegorically, be proven right or wrong
    >the other can and has been
    you won't address this point because it's true

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Science is guesswork.
    No tomes drogas. Di no.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Behold I bring the book that contains the truth.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Bible doesn’t fit any of the criteria for testimony.

    We Europeans developed the concept of testimonial truth on the steppe by military reporting, and it’s in our culture and rule of law.

    Jews alternatively developed Abrahamism and rule by command justified by supernatural pilpul, because they couldn’t develop rule of law and never have.

    So you either recognize israeli lies and European history or you don’t.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *