if christian god existed, would he be a cruel god?

@Scroto_Baggins said in #138:

And to your question about "define verifiably", here are just a few:

• Evolution (which is not, as you creationists think, a "Theory". It is a fact which is proven by fossil records)
• Ice core drills
• The expansion of the universe
• Carbon dating

The list goes on.
The worth 'theory' holds a lot of weight in science, so I don't know why you would say it's not a 'theory'. It is a theory, which is well and beyond ex: a hypothesis or conjecture.

Regardless, one thing we can't do is go back in time and observe the actual creation of the universe as it happened. Only model it to present day and historical information as accurately as possible.

What we've managed to do in science - physics especially - is quite impressive!

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #139:

It's because proof by science is not the same as faith. Scientific proof and truth is not "ultimate truth", although it's the closest thing we as humans have devised on our own.

Hahahah. Like I said, no reasoning with somebody who is capable of self-delusion like that.

@Scroto_Baggins said in #142:

Hahahah. Like I said, no reasoning with somebody who is capable of self-delusion like that.
Again, it depends if you're talking matters of science or faith. It's really not about reasoning. But I will tell you that my faith is immovable, so if your intent in this discussion is to somehow dissuade me of my faith, that isn't going to happen.

I won't believe your "Ultimate truth" as long as the words that you hold sacred in the bible are proven wrong time and time again. If your book written by sand-people thousands of years ago can't explain how old the earth is or that we live in a heliocentric solar system, and science can, then I refuse to believe in the rest of it. Extreme claims require extreme evidence.

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #143:

Again, it depends if you're talking matters of science or faith. It's really not about reasoning. But I will tell you that my faith is immovable, so if your intent in this discussion is to somehow dissuade me of my faith, that isn't going to happen.

Well then we have nothing left to discuss, do we? I believe in logic and you believe in your demonstrably incorrect faith.

@Scroto_Baggins said in #144:

If your book written by sand-people thousands of years ago can't explain how old the earth is or that we live in a heliocentric solar system, and science can, then I refuse to believe in the rest of it. Extreme claims require extreme evidence.
I think you're confusing some things here.

The Bible is not the science as ex: a physics textbook. That is not the point. It doesn't aim to explain medicine, physics, any of that really. Well, I don't know for sure. Perhaps some mega-Christian can glean all knowledge of the world from it.

But its core focus is on matters of faith in and of itself - it is religious and faith-based in nature, not scientific.

So one major issue here is the basic assumption that somehow the Bible is intended to explain all of those things, when that isn't its purpose, and then dismissing it because of its failure to explain those things as competently as millions of pages of scientific literature...

@Scroto_Baggins said in #145:

Well then we have nothing left to discuss, do we? I believe in logic and you believe in your demonstrably incorrect faith.
There is no way to demonstrably disprove the Bible as a whole. There are many reasons for this. It really doesn't belong in discussions of science at all, in my opinion.

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #146:

I think you're confusing some things here.

The Bible is not the science as ex: a physics textbook. That is not the point. It doesn't aim to explain medicine, physics, any of that really. Well, I don't know for sure. Perhaps some mega-Christian can glean all knowledge of the world from it.

But its core focus is on matters of faith in and of itself - it is religious and faith-based in nature, not scientific.

So one major issue here is the basic assumption that somehow the Bible is intended to explain all of those things, when that isn't its purpose, and then dismissing it because of its failure to explain those things as competently as millions of pages of scientific literature...

All religion was created to explain the natural world and where we came from. Zeus was created to explain lightning. Poseidon was created to explain the seas and earthquakes. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of gods to explain fertility, life, and the rains. The Bible is indeed intended to explain all of those things because it does. And it is incorrect in its explanations. You are atheist to 99.9% of gods who have ever existed. I simply choose to go one God further. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and frankly there is very little evidence that anything that the bible states as fact.

@Scroto_Baggins said in #148:

The Bible is indeed intended to explain all of those things because it does. And it is incorrect in its explanations. You are atheist to 99.9% of gods who have ever existed. I choose choose to go one God further. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and frankly there is very little evidence that anything that the bible states as fact.
Again you are conflating faith (which is believe WITHOUT evidence) with science with your "extreme claims require extreme evidence" remark.

These discussions do not at all belong in the same room, in my opinion.

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #149:

Again you are conflating faith (which is believe WITHOUT evidence) with science with your "extreme claims require extreme evidence" remark.

These discussions do not at all belong in the same room, in my opinion.

Mental gymnastics. There's no debating somebody who doesn't believe in evidence and proof. I can never win because you will always fall back on your faith without any attempt to refute any of the facts that I've presented you with, or any regard for the truth.

Enjoy your "ultimate truth". To me it is the ultimate delusion.