ethang5

No I wouldn’t. That’s it. Your wife isn’t an abstract (apart from how she’s defined) unlike God which is completely abstract. 

Would you consider him genocidal then?

I’m sure there’s actual philosophical terms that we’re discussing, but it will probably take too much time for me trying to find what they’re called.

You would agree your wife isn’t abstract though apart from how we define her, correct? 

To me your wife is your wife (by definition)...

...and I know she isn’t completely abstract unless she’s a fictional person.

Okay can you tell me what interactions God has with you? I assume It will be on par with your wife.  

Initially you  agree with what I've always told you.

And then you go and contradict.

That didn’t answer my question. I’ll be more precise. How do you distinguish between God conceptually and God which you claim isn’t conceptual?

How do you distinguish between your wife  conceptually and your wife which you claim isn’t conceptual?

The stumbling blocks are many.

And heresy is because.

How do you distinguish between them?

How in the world do you extrapolate from what I say that I ‘lump theists in one big pile of illiterate, mentally ill, mentally incompetent human beings.’?

Unwillingness, for what ever reason, to solve simple problems is just self inflicted misery. 

How do you seperate God from concept?

I don’t. What’s your deal?

How about this?  try and prove that the concept of God has existed for more than five minutes. 

Time is relative to the observer. For me the concept has existed longer than 5 minutes. Are you saying God is relative?

Aaand?

Are you OK Mr E?

You just went BOOM

Time is relative to the observer. For me the concept has existed longer than 5 minutes. Are you saying God is relative?

Most literature is fictional at some level, but fictionality is not a defining trait of literature. A piece of writing is literary whenever authors employ literary techniques, regardless of whether they record what really happened or made it up.

Although the 19 books contained within this text were included in the Holy Bible for thousands of years, they were removed a little over 200 years ago.

Its now time to reclaim these treasured scriptures and get further insight into God's word.

It all boils down to the theist declaring this: 

I believe this, thus anything I don't believe is debunked.

And atheists have no reason to respond, other than because they very much enjoy doing so.

But the crucial thing that you are forgetting Mr E,  is that Atheists don't believe.

I spell at about a grade 5 level and dilexci as.

That is a great post Lemming, very thoughtful and wise. Most people in this world are simply too stupid and short sighted to understand something like prayer,...

Atheism is not disbelieve in God, it's rather belief in Nature. Denying God is as a matter of course denying the moral, rational & spiritual belief system contingent on God, in favor of another belief system contingent on Nature.

...if they have churches then they are no longer atheists 

A crutch is simply the wrong analogy. 

The so-called "arguments" for God are simply interpretations of how one views the universe. In essence, if you wish to "debunk" (or perhaps challenge is a better word here) such interpretations all you have to do is say no, I disagree with that and then offer up an alternative interpretation lol. This doesn't really debunk anything at all, and certainly in no way shows God does not exist.

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists.

Weall know that.

For example:

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
  

• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. 
  

• God has never spoken to modern man,...

• for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
  

• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. 
  

• The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. 
  

• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." 
  

• Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
  

Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.

And there should be evidence .

Lol, you have zero reason to believe that. If you don't know anything, speak for yourself, thanks. 

...and I would hate for atheism to end up becoming the same as those religions it's fighting against 

Using insults do not cover your incompetence. 

Yes, this is very true.

As I am an orthodox rabbi,

I can really only speak about the ideas implicit within orthodox Judaism. 

If you have insight into another branch of Judaism,..

It's a Democracy thing.  You should look into it some day.

In Trump's lifetime?  Hundreds.

nice argument.

How does the universe starting itself violate the law of causality ?

How does it violate entropy ?

How does it violate life from non-life ?

Scientific laws have an area of application. A phenomon outside the law's area of application may violate that law and that is no good reason to dismiss the phenomenon as impossible.

The Newtonian theory of gravity, conservation of mass, most triangle laws, Ohm's law, Bohr's atomic model and the ideal gas law are all invalid under certain circumstances.

So contrary to what you seem to believe, that is not evidence against the possibility of the universe having created itself.

You are merely arguing, not demonstrating, merely claiming even, that atheists are wrong. You are merely claiming (again), not even arguing, let alone demonstrating, that believing otherwise is irrational.

So; the scientifically established order of creation,

was the heavens, the stars, the sun,

So even if we assume this nonsense of days/indeterminate age - this Bible has the completely wrong order. Science clearly refutes the bible.

Weird firmament (day 2)

Special creation; is what the Bible said - that animals, plants and living organisms were created directly by God. That is your claim, and definitely did not happen. Don’t be obtuse.

The bible is explicit about the ages of individuals when they had their children, and their genealogy: using these numbers

Actually - these are all your claims. They are all the necessary physical implications of what you said.

If you claim the water in the mantle came out as liquid water: then you must claim that it was carried by rising magma.

The mantle is at tremendous temperature and pressure.

If any of it begins to rise containing water - it melts: becomes magma - due to physics.

All these things are physically required to happen for your claim to be correct - whether you want to admit it or not

So the absence or presence of water here does not make the flood any more or less likely - it’s impossible both ways.

However - if there was no water...

Indeed, the whole point here, is that you claiming the water in the flood was the deep earth water...

No, as your text inserted words that are not in the original. That makes them interpolations -- insertions, and not translations.

"Worn thin" to whom? To you?

So what?

It is just that Judaism doesn't understand this particular text as being one that invokes the idea of resurrection.

Then your statement of your particular interpretation of the texts on a thread about the Jewish system is irrelevant to anyone who wants to stay focused on the titular topic,...

Why would you continue to be so arrogant as to insist that your beliefs about Judaism are actually what Judaism is?

But you are and that's the problem. The purpose of this thread was a claim that resurrection could be found in the Jewish system as evidenced by particular texts. When you present this text within this thread, you are claiming that this is proof that something is true (as per the title) "within the Jewish system."

The idea may be in how YOU read the text but it isn't in how Judaism reads it. And, by the way, words like "death" and "worms" and "destroy" are not in the verse you cite. They are interpolations added by the translation you chose.

I can go through the Hebrew if you would like so you can see precisely what he words say and you will see how the translation you presented added in words that are not there. Your vision of the meaning here has nothing to do with the Jewish system.

...my focus is on Judaism, not anyone else's understanding of some English version of texts as seen through the lens of other beliefs. 

There's not much doubt that Trump is guilty of committing a wide array of crimes

There's four separate criminal investigations underway now

No discernable argument.

It must be so wonderful to live in a state of ignorant bliss where you get to believe anything you want merely by hand waiving away anything that doesn’t fit your political narrative.

What really makes me wonder is how you don’t understand why the two sides see things differently. The reason is because some people actually care about reality. I know that’s difficult for you to imagine, but try.

The bible states the earth was created in 7 days. It was not.

The bible states that the trees, fruits, seeds, and a variety of plant life, land and sea was created on the third day.

The bible also states on the fourth day that the lights in the sky, including sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day.

The bible also states that on the fifth day animals, fish, etc were all created.

...these things cannot have been specially created

...the earth has to put out 1400 times the power we receive from the sun in order to get rid of all that steam condensation heat.

The chronology of the flood is based on two things: modern humans have only existed in societies for a few tens of thousand years; and there is no evidence of any meaningful civilization prior much before that.

We have evidence of habitation, but no point in time at which there was any massive flood of any kind in the few hundred thousands years of hominids.

This makes the maximum time of the flood a few thousand years, and minimum of 5-6000

The second aspect is biblical lineages which describe descendants of Noah down; with around 10 generations between Noah and the Abraham who is historically placeable to ~4000  years ago

...despite there being no physical way it could come out without destroying the planet, and no way to get rid of it in 130 dayson the one hand.

This is the issue you seem to ignore; it’s still impossible that the water can get out:...

note: the lower bound estimate of how much water there is, is still too low to cover the planet - a point you ignore.

Now there *may* be enough water present. However; it is physically impossible for that water to escape into the planet - or return in a few years - because of basic principles of physics. 

In fact, it hasn’t validated the bible - it actually makes it more unlikely for the reasons above