The examples you brought up here are all just chance. Of course I dont know if I wake up tomorrow or if I survive the day, if my food is contaminated, but i take the chance, what else should I do? What would you think I would do about it?
Going with the most likely outcome based on statistical evidence is the way to go here, not faith. Thats why for example the theory of relativity is what I go with. Not because I put "my faith" in it, but because it held up when it got tested and it matches with every single test ever made so far. I am not saying it is the truth, all I say is I go with it cause its the best we got, you know?

Also going back to your examples, I try to alter the outcome by being cautious. I drive sober and with fastened seat belt, I sleep inside in a good bad with a locked door, I cook my food before I eat it and so on.

Because of all circumstances, chances are statistically pretty high to wake up tomorrow, same goes for your other examples. Thats not putting faith in the outcome. I am of course still well aware that it could go wrong and I could die today. There is thousands of examples for that every single day. It happens all the time and I know that it happens.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Mar 8 2023 02:31am

Day 15: The Forsaken

Psalm 22 is the first in a cluster of psalms that describe the suffering of someone which seems to echo the accounts in Isaiah of the suffering servant of the Lord. The first line of this psalm is likely to be familiar to us because Jesus cried out these exact words when he was being crucified on the cross. Yet this psalm was written by David, many generations before that. Whatever suffering of his own that David was recounting, he was also prophetically describing the redemptive suffering of Christ on the cross thousands of years later.

Jesus would have read this psalm many times in his life during worship at the temple. He no doubt had it memorized, for it to come so readily to his mind when he was on the cross.

Knowing what he was going to face, Jesus could have spent his life in fear or dread. Instead, he, like David before him, clung on to what he knew was true: God is holy, God is his God, and God has been trustworthy throughout his life. And then, based on these truths, David appeals to God to stay close to him. Jesus knew, through, that the greatest suffering he would face would be abandonment by God, so that God would never abandon his people.

The psalm ends with praise and a note of triumph at the end: "for he has done it." Jesus stayed to the end, bore our sins, and purchased our reconciliation with God. The messianic nature of the psalm becomes clear as David declares that past generations that have died as well as future generations not yet born will all come to know that his God is a God who delivers his people from suffering. After all because Jesus really was completely forsaken by God (for us!), we can be confident that we never will be abandoned, even if, in our suffering, God seems far away or silent when we call out.

Psalms 22:1-11

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.

Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb you have been my God.
Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help.

Psalms 22:29-31

All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
even the one who could not keep himself alive.
Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
that he has done it.

Stay tuned for day 16 of 40.

addressing the bolded part
because you asked this "Which assumptions? And what did I claim to be right that could be proven to be false? Please clarify that a little bit." that you cant seem to follow your own dialog? are you that forgetful or is it a debate tactic?

atheist/antitheist are totally two different creatures. you dont care because your not a science guy. your a, find the easy way out guy.

cause your smarter than dawkins?

actually the one way speed of light is impossible to measure and it doesnt intrigue you one little bit but you want to claim your a science guy.....
the ony way light vid. very few people know about that and the possible complications that can come from it (seems unlikley but the itch is there, that is if a person is honest). the gate keepers of knowledge are not a forthright people.





then you are not here for argument but just to be argumentative, in ignorance




the definition of supernatural that you ignore so you can hold your paradigm together.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: supernatural

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

(there isnt a scientific explanation for abiogenesis its just assumed to have happened ......somehow, makes atheists/antitheist look silly. even hard core antitheist dawkins knows this and why he is willing to consider a creator. the reason you say "no evidence" is obvious you dont know what evidence is)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now lets talk about a past topic, the universe.
in case you forgot......this is a comment you made Quote#3790 from page 379
Also: The observable universe is finite cause it hasn't existed forever. It extends 46 billion light years in every direction from us, thats as far as we can look into it. While our universe is just 13.8 billion years old, the observable universe reaches further since the universe is in fact expanding. The observable universe is centred on us obviously because that is from where we watch. Other than that, we dont know - which is totally fine.

yes they claim they can see the edge of the universe. if you believe this you accept it on faith/trust. for now we will accept it for the sake of argument.
that you can see the edge of the universe in all directions and the distance of the edge shows we are not on the edge of the universe it self. that would put us at or near the center of the universe.
the center of the universe would be in the center of the gravity well. it is known that gravity slows down time. (I could get the data for you but you dont look at any of it) so that being the case the center of the universe being in the center of the gravity well would be younger (because time moves slower) than the edge of the universe.
.........the universe is different ages all at the same 'time

This post was edited by TiStuff on Mar 8 2023 05:27am

Okay that was a long post my friend so give me some time to consider every bit :-) My phone cant seperate your quotes comfortably, so please forgive me that. I try to make it good to read anyways. I go from start to bottom:

1) There is no debate tactic involved no. I said assumptions are part of science, sure - but assumptions are never made to prove something they can be part of trial and error science, thats all.
But were did I myself make assumptions that contradict anything I said before? I dont know what you specifically mean. Thats what I meant.

2) Atheist and Antitheist arent scientific terms, both have nothing to do with science and are interpreted in many different ways. Both are essentially opposed to a god believe, thats why I dont care about details here.
Atheists themselves have so many different takes on the topic. Some call themselves Atheists while claiming to know god doesnt exist - which isnt my view. Others have very different reasons for their view than I have and some just dont care. They have no opinion on the god topic at all. Atheism isnt that one thing you can point to, you know?

3) Again, I dont know or care if I am smarter than Dawkins. Why would that be a question I think about?

4) Actually there are methods to measure the One Way Speed of Light, but you are right if you put them in the realm of theory, they are mathematical. But why is that of importance?
I mean, we cant be 100% certain that light travels with the same speed back and forth, but we know how long it takes light to travel to a target and back again, which makes an easy calculation. Its not true that only very few people know about it, everybody who has interest in that field of science knows that.
By the way CERN in Switzerland came pretty close to mechanically measure the One Way Speed of Light, they might be able to in the next few years, who knows.

5) I never ignored the definition of the supernatural you posted, but you dont understand it, I told you that before. You would have to COUNT OUT natural explanations before you can call something supernatural. If we cant say for sure that something cant be explained by science in the future you can call it supernatural. That is the reason why every scientist in the world will tell you that he cannot give you a single example for a supernatural event.

6)Abiogenesis is a theory, not a fact. If it happened, its very likely that it was in fact natural and not supernatural. I dont know why that would make atheists look silly. What does Abiogenesis have to do with the existence of god?

7) "They" do not claim to see the edge of the universe. The observable universe is finite FOR US and limited to our own devices. Thats what that means. We cannot look any further, because we cant do it technically. That observable universe of course gets bigger the better the telescopes get, but its just what we can see. Its not the "edge of the universe". We are at the center of the observable universere ONLY from our point of view. Isnt that logic for you? Because we can only look so far in all directions...If you look in all directions from were you stand right now, you are also in the center of the field of view. Hope you got this.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Mar 8 2023 05:51am

I sense that you confined the word “faith” into singular usage of the religious sense, which is causing misunderstanding; either intentionally or unintentionally. Instead of the word faith, I’ll use another word. Reasonable logic and hindsight evidence.

Using the examples again, you could meticulously inspect all food you eat with copious amounts of poison testers, but you don’t. You accept it with reasonable logic and hindsight evidence. It would be silly to inspect each bite of food, each second of chewing, and each meal consumed. Though you take reasonable methods of preparing, cooking, and consumption.

You don’t have 100% certainty of its safety, in fact I’ve eaten some bad things in restaurants before which have given me a tummy ache. However, we still take that “reasonable logical and hindsight evidence” as a determining choice. The choice becomes: this food is probably safe and I have no problems eating it.

If I may draw similarities to why I believe there is a supernatural: I believe that there is enough logical reasoning in three areas. One, the existence of this universe started near 14 billion years ago. That means that this universe had a start in the history of time. In fact, time was created at this big cosmic event. Prior to the universe’s existence, there was no time. Hold that thought for a moment, a timeless state.

Prior to the universe existence, there was no matter either. The universe brought matter into existence. This can all be read and researched upon by CERN and physics professors as they write on their findings with particle colliders.

The beginning of the universe (the Big Bang) indicates for us that there once was a moment where there was no time and no matter, and immediately the Big Bang took place, and suddenly there IS time and there IS matter.

What logically is prior to those two naturalistic categories? I am not sure, but it’s reasonable to say it’s something supernatural. Something that transcends nature. That is, whatever was “before” the Big Bang.

In addition to the cosmic understanding, there is the historical reasoning. Ever since the start of humanity, people have been acutely sensitive to the supernatural. I don’t mean I believe everything of every religion, I take in high consideration that throughout every generation of humanity, there has been an understanding to the supernatural. This is something that needs to be considered, especially when some cultures of people were quite highly advanced.

To this day, we don’t know how the pyramids were built, we don’t know how some ancient structures were designed, we don’t know how a certain civilization was able to do the amazing feats they have accomplished. It proves to me they weren’t dumb or uncivilized. They were smart, wise and very studied. Yet they did not reject the supernatural, they embraced it. This adds to my reasonable logic and hindsight evidence for my belief in the supernatural.

Lastly, the scriptures that I deem truly biblical, in other words “the words of God”, they have been passed down from generation to generation, and through a science of textual criticism, there is an absurd level of accuracy among them. The Bible as we have it today is near identical to the Masoretic text which is dated to 1000 CE , which then is compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated to the time of Christ (that is another 1000 years) and the text are all in alignment.

This is consideration of the work called textual criticism, done by both theists and atheists in the field of ancient texts.

Basically, by looking at “reasonable logic and hindsight bias” that governs other parts of life (like eating, driving, or knowing if I’ll wake up tomorrow), there is the same level of decision making going into the topic of the supernatural. Need not to separate the word “faith” into its own category, or else you miss the entire point altogether.

Hope some of this made sense. Peace brother.

I will answer you in details I had only time for the start of your post, but let me say this right now: Car accidents, poisonings and not waking up are things that we know happened a lot and still happen.

Let me say this first of all: I like these kind of conversations and I appreciate you as a debate partner who is - in my opinion - as reasonable as possible regarding your believes. So thx for the polite and fruitful conversation.

Let me adress one point after the other like I did it previously when I answered TiStuff.

1) Maybe it sounded like I would think faith is exclusively attached to religion. Thats not the case. I just prefer to use other words when I talk about myself since I feel "faith" is hardly used outside if religion and doesnt feel quite right to me, but yeah, I know what it means and I know it is not just used in connection with religion.
Faith is kind of a too "strong" word for believing something when using it conventionally, if that makes any sense? (Kind of hard for me to talk about complex stuff like that in english, but I try). But thats just an opinion of mine, not more.

2) The examples you talked about earlier are not equivalent to the religious faith. It seems like that is not really clear for you? Let me clarify this:

You believe in god. An entity of which we do not know if it exists or not. There are multiple reasons why you believe it and you mentioned three of those.

I wanna get to those three reasons in a bit, but let me first clarify the difference between this and the three examples you brought up previously.

I know that I might die from food contamination. For example BSE or many other illnesses. They can be deadly. I know. As you already said, I dont test out everything I eat. But I am not putting faith in it, I am just accepting the risk of dying or getting sick from the food I eat. Not accepting it at all cost of course thats why I use a fridge and cook my meat. But in the end I accept the risk because I dont have time to test out everything I eat. Its not fun and it costs so much time that its better to risk it.
I am not totally convinced that I will never die of food poisoning or in a car crash or plane crash but I accept it as a risk in life. Its a very real risk and it kills people. Every single day.

So the risk I accept is real and I am well aware of it.

You on the other hand do not just accept real odds to continue live a normal life, no - You believe in the supernatural without knowing if its existence is even a real possibilty. You just believe it because it makes sense to you. You cant confirm it exists, it just makes sense to you for various reasons.

How is it the same to accept the odds to survive certain situations and to believe in god? I mean, I see how you'd like to see it but thats not a reality.

3) Okay now lets talk about the three main reasons why you believe in the supernatural.

a. You asked what was "prior" to the naturalistic events you talked about while also knowing that there was no before.
I hope thats enough for this point? God by the way has the same "skills" to his name. He has always been. The difference is, you accept it in his case, because you can think of it as supernatural. You explain something with something just as unexplainable. Our brains cant comprehend a reality without time, I understand that. But we are limited, we cant understand it all. We probably never will.

b. Of course ancient cultures believed in god(s), even more so than we today. They couldnt explain things the way we can today. The Greeks thought Zeus makes thunderstorms, The Northmen thought Thor makes Thunderstorms. Gods were responsable for absolutely everything, because there was no other explanation - until we found out eventually. The same things happen today in this very discussion. We dont know how Pyramids were built? Must have been supernatural intervention.
People always filled their knowledge gaps with gods, its the easy way and its a comfortable way. Humans wanna have control about everything, they wanna know everything and understand everything and if they dont understand something they take the easy way and invent gods. Thats how it always was. Filling gaps is the one thing, not accepting non-existence after death is the second big thing. We cant wrap our heads around not existing, so god helps once again and grants us eternal life. How convinient.

c. Does it really matter how accurate the bible is in some of its content? Is this really proving anything? I dont know how this is evidence or something cllse to evidence for god? Could you give me an example for this "absurd level of accuracy" please?

Reason and logic can never lead to the supernatural. We do not even know how the supernatural would look like or feel or whatever as it has never been demonstrated. How should logic lead to supernaturalism?

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Mar 8 2023 02:02pm

There is no explanation, youre programmed to not believe just like they are programmed to believe. Youre a low IQ shilling that is wasting this threads time. Pard for the course.

This post was edited by lodd222 on Mar 8 2023 02:09pm

Is not believing a claim, because it lacks efficient evidence not an explanation? I dont care what you believe or dont believe but if you yourself dont want to waste the "threads time" whatever that means, you should come up with some arguments next time you post or I'll report you for spamming.

1. wow? do you really have that hard of a time tracking dialog or is it just a debate tacticto wear out a person? goes back to #3796 this quote "That said, this is not an argument for or against god and I never claimed it would be".

"But were did I myself make assumptions that contradict anything I said before? I dont know what you specifically mean. Thats what I meant."
(added nonsense to further confuse the dialog)

2. ok you say atheist isnt scientific but then call your self an atheist and all about science. actually one of your more sensible comments.

3. all atheists think they the smartest. clown show of narcissists. denying God is a godhood claim.

4. im impressed you took some time actually looked into something

5. ya you did. first time around you told me i made up the definition.

6. abiogenesis is a fairy tale concocted with in the imagination and buried in deep time. the advancement of science makes the idea laughable and thats why they (God deniers) now push the panspermia idea. I didnt say it "proved God" how come you dont understad the difference between "proof" and "proved"?
any way what you just did when "Abiogenesis is a theory, not a fact." thats an admission science doesnt have an explanation for life/living systems therefor its supernatural, by definition.

7. there are claims that they can see the edge of the universe. i suppose i could try to dig it up for a person that has admitted they wont look at anything.....

remember you said this "Abiogenesis is a theory, not a fact" you have no ground for atheism. you have no place to stand when you assert no evidence for God.

This post was edited by TiStuff on Mar 8 2023 04:48pm