kimco:


Ihe....the criminal lawyer's job is quite a lot depending on the context.

1. If the client pleads guilty, his work changes.

2. If the client pleads innocent his work changes

3. If the client pleads innocent but all evidence (which he is privy to) points to him being guilty, his works changes

4. If the client pleads innocent and the evidence against him/her seems weak...his work changes.

5. But in all cases the criminal lawyer's job is just one....establish reasonable doubt (or plead for a lesser punishment, in fewer circumstances) That's the whole point....

Whether you agree with it or not, the null hypothesis remains "God does not exist"
In order to move past that very first hypothesis, one is required to provide proof of otherwise. God exist is an established truth, not a fact. In order for you to make an established truth into a fact, you must first provide proof of it....


Example 1 + 1 = 2 is fact, anyone who claims otherwise is expected provide evidence.

Women are the weaker sex is an established truth, anyone can query that claim without needing to providing evidence to the contrary. The one making the initial claim is expected to establish that fact... Then anyone who questions it will have to provide his/her evidence.

Facts != Truth

Null hypo still remains "God does not exist"

kimco:


I had this feeling i knew you...how bro...been a while. Stopped watching anime for a while now.as for boruto, its a joke.

Anyways regarding the insult matter, I made that statement because I seem to receive insults whenever I ask questions on here. Its wasnt specifically directed at you,even though your post to him might've influenced my plea. Wasn't calling your character in question. Sorry for that.

Regarding the matter here is a case in point


Client is suspected of stealing some goods. Its up to the prosecutor to proof beyond reasonable doubts that indeed the suspect is guilty. All the defence need to do is call the "evidence" into question. That's all they need to do. There is no need to proof that the suspect is innocent, that isnt required. Just sow a seed of reasonable doubt. That's all.
The onus falls on the one making the claim against the null hypothesis, that is "innocent untill proven guilty", to provide evidence. So in our case the null hypothesis is "There is no God". Until now no one asked for evidence because it was based on faith...but now it is required. The rules don't change because no one was allowed to question then....the claim is still made and the null hypothesis still stands

FatherOfJesus:
Lol, I’m done with you bro

FatherOfJesus:
If you buy the Bible and never read it, you will probably become a catholic.

If you buy the Bible and only read what suits you, you will become a Pentecostal and then lie that the Holy Spirit directed you.

If you read buy a Bible and allow someone else to interpret it for you, you will become a normal Christian.

If you buy the Bible, read it, analyze it, reason it, research it, you will become an atheist.

I have read the Bible from Genesis 1 to revelation 22 thrice, ponder on it, looked correlations with reality, thought about all the contradictions and incoherence without bias I ended concluding that this book is like any other history book with exaggerations.

The funniest thing is that most people will tell you that you need the holy spirit for understanding, this is a subtly way of telling you that you shouldn’t read the Bible with you brain.

Ihedinobi3:


Hi there.

What an arrogant thing to say. That is exactly like saying that if you read a comprehensive physics text that covers all physics knowledge from elementary principles to complex and advanced cutting edge concepts, you will become anti-physics.

I think you'll agree that that is nonsense. It might be frustrating to make sense of physics without a teacher showing you what it all means, but that does not mean that physics is contradictory and incoherent. The need for a teacher is just natural. Not all knowledge is intuitive. Beyond a certain threshold, all knowledge is learned from experts who in turn learned from other experts etc.

Is self-teaching possible? Yes, but only when a given field of knowledge is still nascent and also when one can take advantage of established standards in a field of learning and access to the works of excellent instructors in that field. That is, self-teaching is a bit of an oxymoron. It still involves dependence on other people's established expertise and upon the degree of advancement in a given field.

For example, 20 years ago - and even today to some significant degree - software development was so nascent that any adventurer could become an expert in it. Although the field is still not quite mature, it has advanced enough for there to be some standards and bodies of work that any interested learner has to work through in order to get anywhere. In time, the knowledge will be too vast for anyone to get anywhere without some structured instruction. We're almost there now.

Contrast this with, say, medicine. It would be quite a feat if anyone learned medicine without structured instruction. It is not impossible, but it is so difficult that it would make little sense to want to do so. The knowledge there is quite mature and diverse. This makes it hard to learn without having proper guidance in putting it all together.

The Bible is a vast field of learning. It claims to teach human beings about God after all. That is hardly to be expected to be an easy navigation. There are bound to be difficulties pulling the many different classes of knowledge together to paint one clear cohesive picture. This is not something that a novice can undertake to do by himself. Structured instruction is therefore critical.

One big difference between the Bible and any textbook you might find is that a textbook looks to interpret knowledge distilled from the physical universe while the Bible is the spiritual universe that we need to have interpreted to us. That is, where Isaac Newton, for example, theorized gravity on the basis of an apple falling on his head, the Bible is the falling of the apple on one's head. It is not itself an observation and interpretation of spiritual reality as a textbook is of physical reality. You could almost say that it is a spiritual factbook. It only gives us information about spiritual realities. The interpretation of this information is only accessible through structured instruction by experts.

Who are the experts? Pastor-teachers who are trained in turn by pastor-teachers. The chain goes back, first, to the Man Jesus Christ--Who is also God--who trained the first set of experts to both complete the writing of the Bible and teach it and, second, to the Lord God in the Garden of Eden who taught Adam and Eve the things that they passed down to their descendants and were eventually captured in the writings of the prophets and interpreted by them and the priests that God also instituted.

That is to say that the Bible is interpreted by a chain of pastor-teachers which goes all the way back to God Himself.

As for the bit about having the Holy Spirit, let us consider the following illustration. Unless a person actually has the ability to process physical reality, that is, unless one has a normal brain, he or she cannot understand anything about physical reality. The ability to process information about the physical universe is the only way to actually make sense of the natural world. This applies to spiritual things too.

It is impossible to understand spiritual realities if one does not possess the faculty necessary for processing information about them. This is the epistemological problem that atheists complain about. That is, if God is not part of this universe, then how can we know anything about Him? It's like how the software program can know anything about the engineer who wrote it. It is impossible for the software code to know anything about the one who wrote it unless there is an intervention by the writer himself.

The solution then to knowing a God Who is not part of the universe is for that God to actually provide information about Himself directly and give us the ability to perceive it. Through a willingness to give Him the benefit of the doubt (that is, faith) and the provision of the Holy Spirit, we are made able to perceive information about this God.

The Holy Spirit provides us with the ability to perceive spiritual realities. Faith in God that rests on the witness of the universe that demands a Creator of the kind and nature that the Bible describes makes us able to actually take advantage of the Holy Spirit's help to understand the Bible. If we are unwilling to listen to God, then the Holy Spirit is of no use to us. If we are, then the Holy Spirit will grant us the ability to perceive and understand spiritual realities.

Once we have come to possess this ability through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we become able to understand any interpretation of the Bible provided by a competent pastor-teacher. Otherwise, we simply can't understand the things that a pastor-teacher says. Just as the Bible sounds like gibberish and contradictory nonsense to the unbeliever, Bible teaching provided by a competent pastor-teacher will sound the same to the unbeliever.

In short, the Bible is not open to just anybody. As much as it is a book that God has given to the human race to tell us of Himself, it is also a book that demands that we respect it and approach it the way it prescribes or else it will not yield its wealth to us. That is not strange either since every field of knowledge demands its own rite of passage so to speak.

Cheers.

FatherOfJesus:
The difference between a physics textbook and the Bible is evidence.
The Bible never provides evidence for anything hence rational people don’t believe it

FatherOfJesus:
religion cannot survive these two words “Prove it”.

It’s understandable when you typed numerous words without a single evidence for your god.

FatherOfJesus:
I already said that you will look for a way to runaway. It’s hard to defend things that are not in existence.

kimco:


Wouldn't the null hypothesis be "There is no God?"

If so,shouldn't the one claiming otherwise provide the evidence, and if so satisfied, can go ahead and ask a challenger to provide evidence proving otherwise?

Please don't insult me...we all want to learn...if i ask more questions, its not to frustrate you but to learn.

FatherOfJesus:
I am making a mockery of your God who can’t do anything about it because he doesn’t exist
If you have read so much yourself then your brain wouldn’t be infested with Jargons written by archaic humans who had little or no understand of how the universe works

Not my fault he doesn’t exist

FatherOfJesus:
Since you think English proficiency means you have read a lot then I can’t help you. Logic just died here

No wonder you are struggling to provide evidence for your God

FatherOfJesus:
Do you know that we are having this argument because your God doesn’t exist and you are furious because I hold that opinion?

Evidence would have shut my mouth

FatherOfJesus:
If you read books aside from the fairytales in the Bible then you must have heard about it.

But Ofcourse whatever you know doesn’t go beyond the scope of the Bible. Little wonder

If you had provided evidence for your God, you won’t be in this entanglement

FatherOfJesus:
The one you never learnt or intentionally ignore all because you cannot provide evidence for your God.

FatherOfJesus:
This is how frustrating it is to defend things that do not exist.

FatherOfJesus:
Take it easy on me bro, I didn’t hide the evidence for your God

First learn burden of proof before I engage you reasonable, else I will keep countering you with your own kinda logic

FatherOfJesus:
That is still not evidence for your God, until you proof he does, he doesn’t exist.

FatherOfJesus:
There is no point committing fallacy of ad hominem.

If you don’t have evidence for your god, don’t get furious when people question it, we are all not blind believers. Channel the furry toward looking for evidence, I’m not the source of all your problems

FatherOfJesus:
You skipped philosophy class when they were explaining positive and negative claims and Russell’s teapot.
It’s obvious, your god is not any more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Unless you proof your God exist.

You were the person with the first initial claim that a god exist.

FatherOfJesus:
No Christian can survive philosophical arguments, they always find a way to runaway which will be your case after this debate.

FatherOfJesus:
I see you know a lot after your inability to establish burden of proof. Lol

FatherOfJesus:
If it’s gibberish then disprove it, if you cannot disprove it then I cannot disprove anything in the Bible.
This clearly shows that the burden of proof is on that person claiming the positive. You cannot ask someone to disprove something that you have not initially provided any evidence for.

If the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is gibberish to you, the Bible is also gibberish to me.

Lol

FatherOfJesus:
Can you disprove that?

FatherOfJesus:
Same way I don’t have proof that the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t have evidence.

FatherOfJesus:
The difference between a physics textbook and the Bible is evidence.
The Bible never provides evidence for anything hence rational people don’t believe it

FatherOfJesus:
If you buy the Bible and never read it, you will probably become a catholic.

If you buy the Bible and only read what suits you, you will become a Pentecostal and then lie that the Holy Spirit directed you.

If you read buy a Bible and allow someone else to interpret it for you, you will become a normal Christian.

If you buy the Bible, read it, analyze it, reason it, research it, you will become an atheist.

I have read the Bible from Genesis 1 to revelation 22 thrice, ponder on it, looked correlations with reality, thought about all the contradictions and incoherence without bias I ended concluding that this book is like any other history book with exaggerations.

The funniest thing is that most people will tell you that you need the holy spirit for understanding, this is a subtly way of telling you that you shouldn’t read the Bible with you brain.

queenjoseph:
Thy bow was made quite naked, according to the oaths of the tribes, even thy words.
Thou did cleave the earth with rivers. Habbakuk 3:9

I studied the above verse in the Bible, but I cannot really understand it.

Please who can explain what that verse means.

I will be very grateful.

queenjoseph:
Another verse of the Bible that I don't know whether the answer is yes or no is Amos 3:5 which says:

Can one take up a snare from the earth and has taken nothing at all?

I would have said that the answer is yes because you can set up a snare and by the time you went to see if it has caught something,

you discovered it has not caught anything.

So you can actually take the snare from there even when it has not caught anything.

But I need matured answer.

Can you actually take a snare from the earth without taking anything at all?

heartbraker:
In conversation with God satan suggest that job would turn away from God if he should lose his wealth and good fortune.
God agrees to put the matter to test. WHY CANT GOD KNW THE MIND OF JOB ON WHETHER HE IS TRUELY THRUSTWORTHY WITHOUT TESTING HIM?
DOES IT MEAN GOD IS NOT AN ALL KNOWING GOD OR JUST A WICKED GOD THAT JUST WANT TO DESTROY JOB?

GeneralDae:

But you didn't answer me, wasn't trying to win an arguement. Just asking questions.

GeneralDae:

Lol, I know they are difficult questions, but I assure you they are genuine questions and I have never met a Christian who understood these things, they just preach saying: Accept that jesus died for your sins and you are saved. They call this the gospel.

Rather when you read the book of the gospels, jesus speaks more about the kingdom of God and tells stories about it.

For the problem of sin, jesus already gave us the solution- Repent and also forgive others who trespass against you. Even in Acts 3 ( the first preaching of the gospel after christ), peter only tells them to repent and be baptized, no where in that sermon do we see reference to a blood sacrifice for sin. Think about it, if believing in blood sacrifice to God for sin was the core of the gospel, peter under the influence of the spirit would miss no opportunity to sing it aloud in the first ever teaching of the gospel after the resurrection.

GeneralDae:
Ihedinobi3


As a judge, when you are in court and you have to condemn a criminal, and then you rather sentence your innocent son to death in place of the criminal, how does this work? is that justice? or can you give a better analogy to explain your position?


So all a murderer or rapist have to do is accept that someone took his/her place and paid the penalty? If they do, how does this solve the problem of sin?


Take a murderer for instance who escapes the law and human courts, then believes in Jesus blood sacrifice, are you saying the murderer would never suffer the penalty both from God and men but rather enjoy long life, prosperity on earth, then go to heaven? If that is your premise, then tell me how is that justice to the family of the murdered or to the one who was raped?


What about a murderer who could get away with it? For example an Emperor who is answerable to no one, committing so many crimes, and then accepted the sacrifice of jesus on his dying bed?

GeneralDae:

So humans sinned against God, then an innocent human took the fall? how is that just?
Also even at that, how does this death of jesus take away all the sins? how does it solve the problems?

FatherOfJesus:
I am quoting you here “This universe's lack of self-existence is unavoidable to everyone. This is why Psalm 19 and Romans 1 make so much sense“

That’s using the Bible to prove the existence of God. I read those passages briefly before replying you

GeneralDae:

We are free to believe what we want, but I don't understand. How does death on a cross forgive or take away sin?

GeneralDae:

These things are just symbols. God is not interested in sacrifice, whether animal or human. The sacrifices of God are a contrite heart and spirit. God desires mercy not sacrifice. Jesus already told us what to do when we sin, all we have to do is to turn a new leave and to forgive those who sinned against us as well. Jesus never said you should believe in his blood sacrifice to have your sins forgiven.
The idea of taking away the sins of the world has to do with being a scapegoat for community sin or what I call collective sin, it is not about individual sin. Collective sin led them to bondage and slavery, even the slavery and suffering of the innocent. Jesus is the lamb or scapegoat that came to take away this particular type of sin from Isreal and all men the world over who believe in him.