...The God that is real doesn't have this kind of power, either to save humans or to put them into a better mode of life. ...
You seem to be thinking that God only maintains consistency between objective facts in the world, but thoughts and intentions and faith are not "facts in the world" to be taken into account. In that case,
No, I am saying that what the Christians expect are just not things the real God can possibly do. He doesn’t have the power. For instance, you don’t have the power to leap to the top of a tall building. God doesn’t have the power to fulfill the formula Paul made up.
What are you talking about?
...Unfortunately Christianity does some heavy hand waving whereby the adherents feel justified to deny the findings of science in the last few centuries, from a little ancient poetry...
Science is not derived from logic such that any of it's conclusions is beyond dispute. And since science is not based on any necessary premises, no absolute consequences can be drawn or relied upon.
Let me state explicitly what you never got around to in four major hand waving paragraphs. You believe God made the Earth in seven days, taking the poetry from the Bible literally.You deny science. I do not. Where is God?
Quote from: jayceeii on July 08, 2019, 01:13:35 pm Let me state explicitly what you never got around to in four major hand waving paragraphs. You believe God made the Earth in seven days, taking the poetry from the Bible literally.You deny science. I do not. Where is God?My arguments relied on the validity of the big bang, which is 14 billion years ago. Yet you accuse me of believing in a literal 6 days of creation. That's just disrespectful. You write disparagingly about the "Christian mind". This is just anti-christian bigotry. How would you know what the "Christian mind" is like? It sounds like you've had a bad personal experience with individuals who call themselves Christian. You need to set that aside and address the issues.Go back and actually read my responses. You'll see that I do not deny science. In fact I think there are reliable principles that allow for miracles (the conservation of information - the assertion that faith and intentions carry physical information). Science at present cannot even define consciousness. So it cannot say where it comes from or where it is going or what physical effects it might have.So do you think that science tells us that consciousness ends at death? Think again. Either there is life after death or there is not. There is no middle ground. And science cannot tell us about what is not observable. You cannot observe that your consciousness has cease to exist. That is a blatant contradiction of terms. The theory that you cease to exist after death is inherently unobservable. And inherent contradictions are automatically ruled out by logic. The only alternative is that there is life after death. That is the ONLY observable (scientific) alternative.The only question left is what happens after death. How does your life here have consequences to your existence there? If you live your life here as if there are no consequences to face, then you go there being WRONG! Dead wrong! It will only be seen that your faith is inconsistent with your existence there. And you spend eternity suffering the results of being wrong and inconsistent. And visa versa too.
Some may say that you are no more conscious after death than you are before you were born. But that's just asserting the conclusion without proof; it's a faith statement, nothing more. Yes, we can observe facts that happened before we were born, but we cannot observe facts after consciousness ends. So you inherently cannot observe evidence that you've cease to exist.