Ironic.
How can I “goal post shift” when I have always believed this. What you call Goal Post Shifting is a difference in belief then what you have found with others.
Thus, that conclusion is based on other peoples opinions, not mine. Thus, I am accurate in all my posts.
Your posts almost exude an anger. I havent goal post shifted because I havent changed my position.
The ones who say it are a minority and shrinking with repeated mega fails with the recent papers that they managed to publish in dubious journals.
Suffice to say: They are falling into the same camp as the creationists that claim that there is a controversy in science when it is a controversy that rarely registers a pulse among the super majority of experts.
No
That only means that you are considering even more unlikely assumptions.
I have the theory that the invention of writing was in the long run the worst thing that could had happened to organized religion, because before the canon could and did change with the passing of time. This is supported by the fact that at least 2 narratives had to be added in genesis because they caught at least 2 main changing tales that were being told in those days, it was like making a snap shot of a living “document” that was just spoken in the early days.
That flexibility of changing with the society (that they were also controlling) was lost by organized religion when writing and reading became accessible to all.
This sounds like evidence to me:
"Thus the evidence within the Coconino Sandstone does not support the evolutionary geologists interpretation of slow and gradual deposition of sand in a desert environment with dunes being climbed by wandering four-footed vertebrates. On the contrary, a careful examination of the evidence, backed up by experiments and observations of processes operating today indicates catastrophic deposition of the sand by deep fast-moving water in a matter of days, totally consistent with conditions envisaged during the Flood. "
Well, I happen to believe God used evolution to create Man. I guess that means I am a goal post shifter. LOL
Am I? I dont believe the fossils on Everest are from the Biblical Flood. Are you saying they are likely to be from that?
hence we have King James version, NIL, yadda yadda yadda.
That doesnt refute Finn. That only points to a locational flood.
Don’t put claims in my mouth.
My evidence causes me to believe in my deity because they’re both mine own. The same evidence might cause someone else to believe in their own deity.
This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because you are not convinced by another’s standard of evidence, it does not necessarily follow that the other does not have a standard of evidence.
Of course. But my beliefs are not a court of law.
Don’t change the goalposts. The OP asked for “evidence”, not “evidence acceptable to a court of law”.
And, no, I don’t have any objective evidence. As I said in my original post that you quoted, “my belief in my deity is based on personal faith rather than verifiable observations”. This is a necessity for a belief based on faith–if there were objective evidence, faith would be unrequired.
Your numerous posts here are vague and off-topic at best, and at no time do you directly present evidence as to the veracity of your deity. If I am wrong, please point out the post that gives such evidence.
Once again, even there, just like in the case of global warming, the experts do not need that god theory to explain what happened.
That needed clarification, it was not clear what the heck you were defending there.
And once again the frozen 2 narratives are still there, it is indeed a dead document.
Nope,
Every single one of these examples is proof that either God doesn’t exist, or He is not benevolent. Good God! Who would crush someone’s legs, give you problems to struggle with or give someone horrible back pain and demonic attacks?
Yet you claim these are proof of God? WTF?
I won’t call it evidence, but quantum physics suggests that nothing can exist in reality without a conscious observer. The old tree falls in the woods argument. The question is what is consciousness and how is the universe itself conscious? Also how can the entire universe be explained with math? How is it that out of random chaos there is something so uniform and perfect that reality itself can be explained in fanstastic mathmatical equations. I’m not saying it is evidence for God but it suggests that our understanding is still quite limited and it does not rule out the possibility of a designer. So I put to you the question. Where is your evidence that there is no God? The problem also lies with the classical definition of God. Materialists have created a god out of a materialistic view and then with materialist science they’ve disproven this god’s existence. But if consciousness is the source of reality instead of the material then we have to question what is God and what is reality. Perhaps consciousness in its creative mode is God. At the Planck scale we are all connected, behind our individual eye there is a cosmic observer.
My posts have been in direct response to others questioning me. Other have understood even accepted my posts. Im not saying I changed their minds, frankly, I am not trying too. But they understand my perspective on this topic. You dont, Sucks for you.
If I am off topic, they are too. Why pick on me? Or is it because they believe as you do so your more forgiving?
By shifting the goal posts. The fictional nature of many stories in the Tanakh was used to show that it could not be used as supporting evidence as well as the fact as many religious claims are contained solely within its pages, they were in turn falsified. You then shifted the goalposts to some sort of strange weaksauce apologia for how sure the actual stories are fictional, but… something… you still haven’t actually said why we should give a damn about some ‘just so stories’ even if they’re metaphorical. Or, for that matter, what those stories have to do with the topic of this thread.
You haven’t engaged in anything but goalpost shifting so far. Prove me wrong, show where you address the factual claims made in the Tanakh and/or the Christian Bible and show how they support a religious narrative. If they are (as you seem to be tapdancing around) irrelevant, then admit you were simply shifting the goalposts in order to offer a dodge as an apologia. As for you imagining that someone is angry, you might want to look up the psychological phenomena of projection.
Proving that either you don’t understand what evidence is, or you’re deliberately misusing it to score rhetorical points. No, there is no evidence for a global flood. Quoting a well known site full of lies and half truths, like AiG, shows that you’re not either not interested in factual answers, or unwilling to spend the time and effort required to actually analyze factual claims you stumble upon.
Obviously, even if you have a local flood (which I just said have occurred), that’s not proof of a global magic flood. First of all, even for your claim, the answer is still no. Even if it was accurate, you need to find evidence of a global flood. Do you not understand why, even if there was a massive flood in the Grand Canyon, that doesn’t actually have any bearing on proof for a global flood?
I dont need it either. My point wasnt about God creating global warming. My point was scientist disagree. Thus, science is not the perfect determination of all. Science has been wrong in the past, and it will be wrong again. That is the nature of investigation.
And that only works by once again denying that the disagreements are minimal or the experiments have not been done in all the cases you are mentioning. Only deniers of the facts are making a mountain of a virtually non existent controversy.
Are you aware you cannot prove a negative?
It is said that He is also a Vengeful God.
So when you said that your posts addressed my question, you were mistaken?
Musicat. In what scenerio would it make sense for God to crush someone’s legs? I think we have to look at the meaning of life itself. If the meaning of life is to suffer and overcome hardships in order to grow spiritually then of course God would crush someone’s legs. A soft life leads to no growth. We are here to grow. But I’ll put another idea out there. That if we are God, then everything we experience is self-imposed for a reason. Think of it as exercise. Who would willing jog or lift weights, make themselves suffer and sweat?
I havent shifted the goal posts because I didnt set them
Your still holding on to other peoples placement of the goal posts as if I was with them. I wasnt.
You can insist, use condescending adjectives, post what I havent said all you wish. You can stomp your feet, yell until you are red in the face, it is still a false statement on your behalf.
For me to have shifted my goal posts, I would have had to set them differently in the first place. Now, an accurate statement would be that I didnt agree with where the posts were set in the first place, and came to a different conclusion that wasnt equal. Thus, your judging my responses based on other peoples assertions, which would be an incorrect approach on your part.