God is Not Incompatibile With a Rational Explanation of Creation of Man

Sadly he’s offered nothing at all in support of his own belief, no attempt to demonstrate anything approaching objective / empirical evidence for any deity.

He keeps claiming his belief is compatible with science, doesn’t use dogma etc, but so far dogmatic unevidenced assertions are all I’ve seen him offer.

You’re saying here that he uses assertions A(E, T) to establish S(1),S(2),…,S(n) being true. That is still independent from using R(E, T) to show S is false. So the remaining question would be to establish how the testing of S is being done – with R(E, T), A(E, T), or even A(E, T, S(1),S(2),…,S(n)). The validity of the conclusion would depend on the test method.

What on earth have those things got to do with a belief or non belief in god(s)?

Perhaps have go at explaining exactly what you mean by ‘progress’. :face_with_monocle:

Obviously the pagan version of God is much more scientific and progressive… Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


You’re a theist, so this claim is nonsense. Maybe if you tried offering some depth, or detail for once, instead of relentlessly posting vague meaningless generic platitudes.

Here’s a clue, side how, or in what way? If all you offer is atheist, and you’re a theist, then it’s axiomatic you don’t side with atheists on the only position we can infer from the description.

1 Like

Atheist: A person who does not believe in God or gods.
Pagan: A theist. A person who believes in gods.

How is that siding with Atheists?

Perhaps you are referencing “Skeptics.” Among wich, you are probably not a very good one.

1 Like

And not all atheists are skeptics

Your theist mind has you proportion things into “group think”.


Care to explain the highlighted, if you can?

Because I disagree but you allege so you Prove first while I reasonably rebut if I can!

Shall the Giver of the soul of the man not have power to give soul to the womb man?

If we are told in detail how a Camry is created is it necessary to be told in detail how a Corrolla is made, since both come from the same source?

Not lesser creatures only lesser to the man. Animals still retain the fear of the womb man!

I do, but your proponents could not defend the Lying Theory when they presented it and I asked questions which arose from it and they could not answer.

But if you think you would fare better than they did, do present your version of understanding for due examination, if you are so confident in it!

Ah, so what have you been doing since in challenging his assertion?

He is not Providing any evidence of God because he is not talking about “Providing Evidence of God” BUT “About The Cause And Occurrence Of Life on Earth as you Truly said earlier!”


The Jews are Liars as Proven by the Bible itself and the fact that they Do Not Deny “Moses and All” also gives support to the Truth of the Contents of the Bible, but nevertheless, your point is that no one knows who wrote it.

Now, it is not possible for the Bible to have written itself, or is it?

Therefore, who wrote the Bible since no man claims responsibility for its writing?

I think at this point we can clearly see by your analysis that, it is not “the man” who wrote the Bible.

Therefore, good reason dictates that since it is not possible for the Bible to write itself, therefore it must be written by Some Other Person Who is Not Man

And here is where He, Whom we call God, comes in.

And after all these we are more interested in the Good Food of the Bible than He who Cooked it! :grin:

Welcome to Atheist republic Joygirl2

Please explain what is "womb man?

Please explain what is this “Lying Theory”?

This appears to be the “god of the gaps” argument. Where a god is substituted for the legitimate answer.

The contents of the bible are just stories, which were written by unknown authors. This is relevant because (for example) the new testament tales of jesus were written by unknown authors long after the crucifixion. There were no direct witnesses who documented the events of the days surrounding the crucifixion.

One should always question the source because although they maybe lovely tales, it is possible those tales were written by people with imaginations and nothing valid to support those tales.

Most atheists are skeptics, we question everything and do not take anything just because. The source and authorship is important, in verifying the veracity of such tales.

If you went to the market and purchased meat, and the butcher would not divulge what animal it came from, would you still eat it, despite the fact it may be human flesh?

If someone gave you a glass of water, would you not make sure it came from a clean source, and was not from a well contaminated by poisons?

How do you know whether the passages you read came from the devil? Would you blindly accept them as the word of god?


This part of your comment caught my attention: “Moses had nothing at all to do with the writing of the Pentateuch much less Genesis”

This is actually an overstatement of the facts. It is well attested(within biblical studies) that it’s unlikely that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch as even the the Bible itself makes no such claims, but saying that Christian and Jewish academics now believe that Moses had nothing to do it is to overstate or at the very least misunderstand the facts abit.
I believe you are basing your arguments of Richard Friedman’s work who in turn bases his book on Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis (J,E,P,D). Problem is the JEPD is no longer a really tenable hypothesis in academia. The past few decades of more recent discoveries, observed data and critical analysis has rendered it obsolete.

Past few decades have moved critical scholarship of the text to broadly falls somewhere between the supplementary or the fragmentary hypothesis. Basically the idea is that the Pentateuch was developed in its final form from earlier core oral and written traditions. In broad terms(not meant to be taken as a systematic approach), we have
A) The Patriarchal tradition: which were most likely persevered orally till it was written down.
B) The Mosaic tradition: could have been recorded by Moses himself or someone close to Moses living during the time(the data itself is neither here nor there). This would include Moses’ life and leadership period, the exodus, Sinai, and the wilderness journey.
C)Deuteronomistic traditions: Part Mosaic and parts adapting from the mosaic tradition.
D)Genesis 1-11: Probably written down during the exilic period.

What percentage of the Pentateuch core traditions was written down by Moses himself is hard to tell but saying Moses had nothing to do with it as a definite statement is not something that can be made.
What we do know is that , at the very least, from the period of the Persian empire, the writers of Ezra - Nehemiah and Chronicles attached some core of the traditions to Moses and then extrapolated it to the Pentateuch as a whole. This was actually not uncommon for the time period.

Just wanted to point that out.

Dragons don’t exist, dinosaurs do. Dragons have scales, so do reptiles. Dinosaurs are scary, so are Giant Monsters.

The word Taninnim in the bible means serpents, repites, snakes, large monsters. You do not refute that definition. This would include creatures that are not found in nature currently. I believe this is a reference to dinosaur

You value your ideas higher than others’ and your perceptions above others as if you have objective reason to believe it…but you don’t, you merely assert it true and turn away to be content with your pride. That is hubris.

It sounds like your logic is, if the bible describes dinosaurs, that would justify the bible is an authority, That would be using the bible to justify the bible’s own authority which you think is the fallacy of authority. This is a non sequitur

You’re putting the cart before the horse. I am not suggesting the bible is true therefore the bible is true. I am saying;

  1. science is true (authoritative)
  2. the bible says something that resembles what history and evolution agrees on
  3. If that is true, the bible says something scientifically true

That is a categorically different argument. This is a non sequitur.

This debate topic is a negative affirmative topic, in other words I am not taking the burden of proof and merely taking a defensive stance on the issue and have no burden of proof other than an equal share. I have given evidence which I consider to be rational and in line with scientific consensus on multiple fronts. So it would be better to talk constructively about the implications of if this were true. But you won’t because if so the argument is already won so you are treating this as if I have the burden of proof when I don’t.

The biblical GOD is love 1 John 4:8 and is our creator and provider. The truth is so much more real that the lie because GOD was a man and died for your sins and that is how real love is and everyone has seen love but most have not believed that He is truth itself. I would rather believe that than make my god darkness and nothingness. For this reason the bible says None are without excuse in believing in GOD because GOD is ever present and available to all. Those who don’t believe have only excuses to believe because love is the ultimate truth and is the fulfillment of all desires of mankind and explains the purpose of having a mind which is a tool to experience it.

You could easily say, well what if my god is Hate? Isn’t that just as valid, well the truth is if you don’t worship love, you do serve hate. The bible says, nobody can serve two masters, either you will love the one and hate the other or vice versa. Do you believe in love or do you deny it for the sake of darkness?

Wombman is clearly woman, and yes the point he mad about the bible not specifying if women had souls is clearly silly. Thats like asking if a chicken has eggs or pineapples when it gives birth.

Well attested within biblical studies? Anyone want to buy a bridge on the moon?

1 Like

2 and 3) is a tautology - if the Bible says something that is true, the bible says something true. If the Bible does not say somehting that is true, the bible does not say something that is true. It does not prove anything about the general historical or scientifical correctness of the Bible, though. It also takes the unwarranted step from “X resembles truth” to “X is true”. Compare with:

  1. Science is true (authorative**)
  2. The Iliad says something that resembles what history and science agrees on
  3. If that is true, the Iliad says something scientifically true

You can repeat this exercise with any text, whether it contains any scientific truth or not, like Don Quijote, Beowulf, The Gilgamesh Epos. What does that tell us? Nothing, really. What is your point?

** although I would prefer the terms reliable, repeatable, non-democratic (as in votes are not taken), open to scrutiny, non-dogmatic.

Edit: embarrassingly, I forgot a negation.

1 Like

Wow :flushed: that’s a whole-lotta claims that need some standard for evidence and that are measurable…

My standard for evidence does not include heresay - something I learnt from Judge Judy.


I’m calling this one, you’re trolling. No one is that stupid…

Well, almost no one.

'kay champ, whatever.

Fab, but logic has strict principles of validation, and your superstitious spiel violated them, as was explained.

Nope, try checking any global news network, or even the Catholic Herald, and this lie is hilariously exposed. You are funny.

I’m not sure what’s most hilarious there, but prima facie the grammar is getting my vote.

1 Like

Science is not true.

Any respectable scientist operates under the assumption that the results of science are not true, and therefore they must continually test for any flaws in any theories or propositions.

Thus the results of scientific examination offers what may be possibly true, but science at it’s core is not true.

Science is just a method, a discipline that has proven itself as the most reliable method in determining the best tentative explanation based on the observations.

Your book:

GOD (why the fucking capitals???) is love??? The bible defines love…”Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant”

Jealousy is one up from envy- worse… For the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God—lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. (Deut 6:15)

Boast??? Or Arrogant??? Hahahaha. God created everything through himself and for himself (Colossians 1:16). He created the world to declare his glory (Psalm 19:1-4). … He delays his wrath for his own name’s sake and for the sake of his praise, and he will not yield his glory to another (Isaiah 48:9-11)

He’s like the bad, controlling, stalking, abusive husband on steroids!

Signed womb man!