CDZ Moses Was a Real Historical Person

[harmonica]

there is no such thing as a miracle--that's how I know

So, you dont think the Big Bang happened?

......if there was a Big Bang, god didn't make it happen = not a miracle...not a supernatural event

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why could it not be a similar case with Moses 'miracles'?

First of all, while we may not have understood "voodoo zombies", we were safe to assume it had nothing to do with the magical chanting of voodoo priests and, instead, had a purely physical explanation. The biologist who investigated wasnt investigating in order to find out if it was a miracle or a physical phenomenon. So your comparison fails from the start, there.

This is not a valid comparison to parting a sea. Listen to yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

there is no such thing as a miracle--that's how I know

So, you dont think the Big Bang happened?

......if there was a Big Bang, god didn't make it happen = not a miracle...not a supernatural event

Do you ever get tired of these frauds and their cheap, childish tricks?

"No miracles"

Religious nutsack: "oh, so you're saying the big bang didnt happen, eh?"

What the **** is this embarrassing nonsense? This is intellectual cowardice and fraud. This is meamt to waste your time by forcing you to defend a statement you never made and a position you never took. And these assholes have to act like this, because they have no good evidence or arguments. They want to exhaust you, until you say, "This is not worth it, you are a fraud and a liar". Then, they find a mirror and declare victory. I, for one, won't be a prop in their masturbatory exercise.

 

[JimBowie1958]

there is no such thing as a miracle--that's how I know

So, you dont think the Big Bang happened?

please people--look up the definitions before responding!!!
there is no god - so no miracles
mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun

1. a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

di·vine1
/dəˈvīn

1. 1.
   of, from, or like God or a god

You are not thinking about the topic.

If a thing is considered by science to be a 'miracle' it is often because science has not yet come to understand the natural laws behind the 'miracle'.

The Creation of the Universe is probably the biggest miracle ever, and yet science has thoroughly proved it happened, but they cannot fully explain its origins. But explaining part of it that is natural doe snot make it suddenly NOT a 'miracle'. The instigation of the Big Bang is beyond natural science.

And there most certainly is a Creator, duh, hence your inability to reason on the topic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, you dont think the Big Bang happened?

......if there was a Big Bang, god didn't make it happen = not a miracle...not a supernatural event

OK, prove that.

 

[sparky]

there is no such thing as a miracle--that's how I know

So, you dont think the Big Bang happened?

......if there was a Big Bang, god didn't make it happen = not a miracle...not a supernatural event

Was Stormy involved?

~S~

 

[JimBowie1958]

......if there was a Big Bang, god didn't make it happen = not a miracle...not a supernatural event

Was Stormy involved?

No, that there that you're thinkin' of was the Bag Bang.

 

[harmonica]

So, you dont think the Big Bang happened?

......if there was a Big Bang, god didn't make it happen = not a miracle...not a supernatural event

OK, prove that.

.
..maybe I have you wrong--maybe I deduced your OP wrong--you don't believe in god or miracles? if you do, it's up to you to prove it--not me to disprove
...

 

[harmonica]

there is no such thing as a miracle--that's how I know

So, you dont think the Big Bang happened?

please people--look up the definitions before responding!!!
there is no god - so no miracles
mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun

1. a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

di·vine1
/dəˈvīn

1. 1.
   of, from, or like God or a god

You are not thinking about the topic.

If a thing is considered by science to be a 'miracle' it is often because science has not yet come to understand the natural laws behind the 'miracle'.

The Creation of the Universe is probably the biggest miracle ever, and yet science has thoroughly proved it happened, but they cannot fully explain its origins. But explaining part of it that is natural doe snot make it suddenly NOT a 'miracle'. The instigation of the Big Bang is beyond natural science.

And there most certainly is a Creator, duh, hence your inability to reason on the topic.

but you can't prove there is a creator--plain and simple = no miracle

 

[JimBowie1958]

..maybe I have you wrong--maybe I deduced your OP wrong--you don't believe in god or miracles? if you do, it's up to you to prove it--not me to disprove
...

I think that what we call miracles are actually natural events that we cannot explain AT THAT TIME and it gets attributed to supernatural cause. Add the passage of time and it becomes even more inaccurate.

Jesus walked on water, increased surface tension can do that, bugs do it all the time now.

Jesus brought a dead man back to life, people are resuscitated all the time, one case was for as long as 24 hours clinical death. Why cant our resuscitation tech get up to a three day length of time?

Other things could have easily been mere hallucinations or optical illusions, like the Sun stopping in the sky for an hour so Israel could win a victory, that could happen with atmospheric conditions that bend the suns light to make an optical illusion.

I just dont buy the idea that the Eternal Creator who exists outside the Flow of Time would violate His own laws, natural or moral.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And there most certainly is a Creator, duh, hence your inability to reason on the topic.

but you can't prove there is a creator--plain and simple = no miracle

In my opinion, the body of accumulated evidence makes belief in a Creator far more plausible than the idea that we do not have a Creator.

This is why Aristotle and Plato believed in an unnamed Creator that hhas existed for all of Eternity and made everything. The ancient Greek even had a school of thought that believed this Creator was composed of three persons that were manifestations of the same Being, way before Christianity. They did all this using classic reason, and you piss on all that and wave it off, lol.

So I choose to stand along side some of the Greatest minds in human history who specialized in the topic instead of modern secular scientists blathering outside of their field of expertise.

Is this a mathematical proof? Not completely.

Is this a proof by the scientific method? Not at all.

It is a body of evidence of many varieties of type and circumstance that make it very evident that we have a Creator.

What concept of a Creator is it you reject? Any and all? Isnt that presumptive? How do you have that kind of time?

Do you reject the Christian concept of the Creator? Why? How do you account for the impossibility of an Eternal Flow of time?

Etc, but I am making you think outside your little box.

My apologies.

 

[harmonica]

And there most certainly is a Creator, duh, hence your inability to reason on the topic.

but you can't prove there is a creator--plain and simple = no miracle

In my opinion, the body of accumulated evidence makes belief in a Creator far more plausible than the idea that we do not have a Creator.

This is why Aristotle and Plato believed in an unnamed Creator that hhas existed for all of Eternity and made everything. The ancient Greek even had a school of thought that believed this Creator was composed of three persons that were manifestations of the same Being, way before Christianity. They did all this using classic reason, and you piss on all that and wave it off, lol.

So I choose to stand along side some of the Greatest minds in human history who specialized in the topic instead of modern secular scientists blathering outside of their field of expertise.

Is this a mathematical proof? Not completely.

Is this a proof by the scientific method? Not at all.

It is a body of evidence of many varieties of type and circumstance that make it very evident that we have a Creator.

What concept of a Creator is it you reject? Any and all? Isnt that presumptive? How do you have that kind of time?

Do you reject the Christian concept of the Creator? Why? How do you account for the impossibility of an Eternal Flow of time?

Etc, but I am making you think outside your little box.

My apologies.

In my opinion, the body of accumulated evidence makes belief in NOT a Creator far more plausible than the idea that we do have a Creator.

 

[harmonica]

..maybe I have you wrong--maybe I deduced your OP wrong--you don't believe in god or miracles? if you do, it's up to you to prove it--not me to disprove
...

I think that what we call miracles are actually natural events that we cannot explain AT THAT TIME and it gets attributed to supernatural cause. Add the passage of time and it becomes even more inaccurate.

Jesus walked on water, increased surface tension can do that, bugs do it all the time now.

Jesus brought a dead man back to life, people are resuscitated all the time, one case was for as long as 24 hours clinical death. Why cant our resuscitation tech get up to a three day length of time?

Other things could have easily been mere hallucinations or optical illusions, like the Sun stopping in the sky for an hour so Israel could win a victory, that could happen with atmospheric conditions that bend the suns light to make an optical illusion.

I just dont buy the idea that the Eternal Creator who exists outside the Flow of Time would violate His own laws, natural or moral.

....hold it right there--you are totally discredited by saying jesus brought a dead man back to life and he walked on water--total bullshit--total lies--no proof --just like there is no proof of god or miracles --plain and simple

 

[harmonica]

..maybe I have you wrong--maybe I deduced your OP wrong--you don't believe in god or miracles? if you do, it's up to you to prove it--not me to disprove
...

I think that what we call miracles are actually natural events that we cannot explain AT THAT TIME and it gets attributed to supernatural cause. Add the passage of time and it becomes even more inaccurate.

Jesus walked on water, increased surface tension can do that, bugs do it all the time now.

Jesus brought a dead man back to life, people are resuscitated all the time, one case was for as long as 24 hours clinical death. Why cant our resuscitation tech get up to a three day length of time?

Other things could have easily been mere hallucinations or optical illusions, like the Sun stopping in the sky for an hour so Israel could win a victory, that could happen with atmospheric conditions that bend the suns light to make an optical illusion.

I just dont buy the idea that the Eternal Creator who exists outside the Flow of Time would violate His own laws, natural or moral.

link please of someone dead [ hahahhah ] for 24 hours and brought back to life

 

[JimBowie1958]

link please of someone dead [ hahahhah ] for 24 hours and brought back to life

George Rodonaia 1976, search it yourself

 

[harmonica]

link please of someone dead [ hahahhah ] for 24 hours and brought back to life

George Rodonaia 1976, search it yourself

of course you don't have and/or want to link it because it's bull shit

 

[JimBowie1958]

In my opinion, the body of accumulated evidence makes belief in NOT a Creator far more plausible than the idea that we do have a Creator.

Then how do you explain how we are here since time cannot be itself eternal?

 

[harmonica]

And there most certainly is a Creator, duh, hence your inability to reason on the topic.

but you can't prove there is a creator--plain and simple = no miracle

In my opinion, the body of accumulated evidence makes belief in a Creator far more plausible than the idea that we do not have a Creator.

This is why Aristotle and Plato believed in an unnamed Creator that hhas existed for all of Eternity and made everything. The ancient Greek even had a school of thought that believed this Creator was composed of three persons that were manifestations of the same Being, way before Christianity. They did all this using classic reason, and you piss on all that and wave it off, lol.

So I choose to stand along side some of the Greatest minds in human history who specialized in the topic instead of modern secular scientists blathering outside of their field of expertise.

Is this a mathematical proof? Not completely.

Is this a proof by the scientific method? Not at all.

It is a body of evidence of many varieties of type and circumstance that make it very evident that we have a Creator.

What concept of a Creator is it you reject? Any and all? Isnt that presumptive? How do you have that kind of time?

Do you reject the Christian concept of the Creator? Why? How do you account for the impossibility of an Eternal Flow of time?

Etc, but I am making you think outside your little box.

My apologies.

proof jesus brought someone back to life, please...?

 

[JimBowie1958]

George Rodonaia 1976, search it yourself

of course you don't have and/or want to link it because it's bull shit

I gave you data, and you are too lazy to Google it? OK, I dont care, but I answered your question.

This is something you atheists love to do, ask questions of theists, we go and dig it up, then you ignore it and ask another question.

I dont play that shit. Go look it up yourself, dude.

 

[harmonica]

In my opinion, the body of accumulated evidence makes belief in NOT a Creator far more plausible than the idea that we do have a Creator.

Then how do you explain how we are here since time cannot be itself eternal?

that doesn't prove there is a god or miracles