Example: Human behaviour from today and in the OT proves bible god is not real

[Geezer]

5 hours ago, SilentVoice said:

I tried reading the Koran to disprove it but as I turned the first page I was attacked by a demon. I've been attacked quite a few times by them actually. One time was very scary, it literally forced my voice out of me, it tried to get me to say "there is no god but *llah". Fortunately I was able to rebuke them in Jesus' name. As soon as you use the name of Jesus, they panic. They do everything in their power to close your mouth to stop you from sending them to hell. A good analogy would be the scene in the Matrix when Neo had his mouth closed.

Now I get it. You’ve been attacked by a Demon, and more than once. I don’t know about you, but I just hate it when that happens. It tends to screw up my whole day. And the smell.....wow. The ones that have attacked me really smell bad. And you just can’t get that smell out of your clothes.  You pretty much just have to throw them away and get new clothes. 

 

Apparently Demons have never heard about deodorant, or maybe deodorants just don’t work on them. I’m pretty sure doctors have medications now that will keep Demons away.....as long as you take your meds. You might want to check into that.

[Bhim]

Aw dang guys, we've got ourselves another Asperger's Christian. Jesus is not sending his best people. I feel like I was invited to debate Bill Maher, and instead got Ocasio. Then again, maybe this guy is the Christian version of the Mini-AOC Twitter account, and is just parodying a Christian. Fine, here we go...

 

58 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

The only thing I found interesting in that article is the force of air burst in asteroids. The article admits that the large majority of kinetic energy is absorbed by atmosphere, not impact. That asteroid impacted debris over 100km. A small city is would have been a small % of that area. Nowhere in the article does it note any extraordinary properties to set the earth on fire, melt rocks, nor does it contain anything about sulphur chunks or even any solid elements being left behind. In fact, it showed a picture of a chunk of asteroid containing an average-looking rock full of various elements in the usual veins and patterns.

 

No one mentioned anything about melting rocks. In fact, the article is pretty non-specific about the mechanism of destruction.

 

58 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

What do you mean by destroy?

 

What do you mean by "what do you mean by destroy?" I know it sounds like I'm making fun of you - and I am - but I also mean this as a serious question. You're very close to asking a question about such a simple concept that I don't know how to explain it any more simply. In this case destroy means "severely damage." If you ask what that means, then I question whether you're speaking English, or using Google translate

 

58 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

So apparently, a 20m rock weighing more than the Eiffel tower doesn't contain enough kinetic energy to DESTROY a city at all, just knock down a few buildings. @ me when you read an article where an asteroid can turn a small city in to flakes.

 

Do you even science bro?

 

58 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Well the Word of God is preserved for us, and you can look for yourself there are physical remains there. Unless you say that cartographers, historians and all the people who go there to document the rubble are involved in a plot to mislead you and scare you in to joining the church.

 

The word of God also says that Jesus was running around with a male prostitute (Mark 14:51-52). And as a right-leaning individual who supports Donald Trump (and Boris Johnson, which I mention since you're British), I don't support that kind of behavior because it discourages a healthy family life. You sure you want to discuss the word of God?

 

37 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Conclusion: it doesn't fall from the sky naturally.

 

Yeah...you posted a bunch of stuff about stellar nucleosynthesis and solar system geology (both very interesting topics), and then made a completely unrelated conclusion. By the way, that dude standing next to you when you type your messages? Sorry to be the one to tell you, but...that's not Jesus. You've got a demon, dude. Might wanna get that checked out.

[WalterP]

For example, you haven't seen the damage done to Sodom, so it isn't real to you. You can call that subjective truth, I guess. Where as objective truth would be that God destroyed Sodom by raining down golf ball-sized chunks of pure sulphur down on the whole city, heating the rocks to several thousand degrees to cause them to flake and the site is preserved even to this day and you can go there and pick up those chunks of sulphur for yourself, even though you might not believe me or even have a look on Youtube for people actually doing that.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sulfur, usually as sulfide, is present in many types of meteorites. Ordinary chondrites contain on average 2.1% sulfur, and carbonaceous chondrites may contain as much as 6.6%. It is normally present as troilite (FeS), but there are exceptions, with carbonaceous chondrites containing free sulfur, sulfates and other sulfur compounds.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry SV, but if you compare your two quotes you'll see that they are mutually exclusive.

 

In the first you claim that that it's an objective truth that god rained down pure sulfur on Sodom.

 

In the second, none of the cited types of meteorite are pure sulfur.

 

Ordinary chrondites average 2.1% sulfur.  Not pure sulfur.

 

Carbonaceous chrondites may contain as much 6.6% sulfur.   Not pure sulfur.

 

The exceptional carbonaceous chrondites that contain free sulfur also contain sulfates and other sulfur compounds.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate  As you will see from this link, sulfates share ionic bonds with other elements.  Not pure sulfur.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sulfur_compounds As you will see from this link, sulfur compounds are mixtures with other elements.  Not pure sulfur.

 

So, your second quote contradicts your first.

 

Therefore you have not demonstrated that its an objective truth that god rained down pure sulfur upon Sodom.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Hierophant]

1 hour ago, SilentVoice said:

You desperately threw an absurd alternative explanation at me because you refuse to glorify God. Of course you know, you're just being rebellious. "There may not be an answer". You can't even be honest with yourself, how am I supposed to take you seriously? Even if the answer was a natural geological phenomena, it's still an answer. But as you'll eventually concede, God did it.

 

Stop pretending to know what my motivations and intent are, because you don't. I am trying to explain to you why your methods of thinking, reasoning, and analysis are garbage. If you knew what you were talking about, you would not believe in a flat earth. That right there tells me you do not know how to evaluate evidence and come to conclusions based on inductive reasoning.

 

No, I do not know a God exist, let alone the Christian God ~ by any definition. You are trying to tell me you know my thoughts better than I do because you cannot understand how someone does not believe in a God. I do not rule out a God, I am not making any assertion whatsoever, I am stating that I find the evidence insufficient to warrant belief. I have no interest in rebelling against some God, I don't see how that would do me any personal favors.

 

What I meant by "....there may not be an answer," I fully explained in the next sentence on my post. If you would make an attempt at reading comprehension, you would have seen that. I will state it once again so it is crystal clear to you: I am stating that at this moment, right now, we may not be able to explain the phenomenon. As I stated, I don't know, it is outside of my area of expertise and I don't even want to discuss a topic I am wholly unfamiliar with. BUT, maybe there is an answer and I don't know what it is, or it is possible later on we have the technology and/or understanding to explain it.

 

As far as conceding that God did it, I put this to you, if you can demonstrate that a God did it, fine, I have no problem with that. Matter of fact, if you wrote a research paper on how the Christian God did it, put it up for peer review, and got it published, you better believe I would take it as fact. As I stated before, as much as you don't want to believe it, I have no desire other than to know what is real - what comports to objective reality. In my earnest desire to be fair and objective, I cannot just accept the claims of the Bible and then not accept the claims of other religious writings. If I am going to do that, then I have to accept that Mohammad flew on a winged horse, saw a caravan, and upon return to his camp, accurately told his colleagues when the caravan would arrive, which it did.

 

If you are going to be objective, you have to set one standard for everything. It is unfair to be highly critical of other religions and beliefs, then lower the bar for your own pet beliefs.

[SilentVoice]

24 minutes ago, WalterP said:

For example, you haven't seen the damage done to Sodom, so it isn't real to you. You can call that subjective truth, I guess. Where as objective truth would be that God destroyed Sodom by raining down golf ball-sized chunks of pure sulphur down on the whole city, heating the rocks to several thousand degrees to cause them to flake and the site is preserved even to this day and you can go there and pick up those chunks of sulphur for yourself, even though you might not believe me or even have a look on Youtube for people actually doing that.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sulfur, usually as sulfide, is present in many types of meteorites. Ordinary chondrites contain on average 2.1% sulfur, and carbonaceous chondrites may contain as much as 6.6%. It is normally present as troilite (FeS), but there are exceptions, with carbonaceous chondrites containing free sulfur, sulfates and other sulfur compounds.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry SV, but if you compare your two quotes you'll see that they are mutually exclusive.

 

In the first you claim that that it's an objective truth that god rained down pure sulfur on Sodom.

 

In the second, none of the cited types of meteorite are pure sulfur.

 

Ordinary chrondites average 2.1% sulfur.  Not pure sulfur.

 

Carbonaceous chrondites may contain as much 6.6% sulfur.   Not pure sulfur.

 

The exceptional carbonaceous chrondites that contain free sulfur also contain sulfates and other sulfur compounds.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate  As you will see from this link, sulfates share ionic bonds with other elements.  Not pure sulfur.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sulfur_compounds As you will see from this link, sulfur compounds are mixtures with other elements.  Not pure sulfur.

 

So, your second quote contradicts your first.

 

Therefore you have not demonstrated that its an objective truth that god rained down pure sulfur upon Sodom.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yes, you're essentially arguing my point. I highlighted only 2-6% sulphur occurrence in asteroids/meteorites. Read the bold parts. When my initial argument is that the destruction of Sodom was not by natural means, and that the sulphur left behind embedded in its rocks was pure, i.e. not 2-6%. Earlier in the thread, I told you I was talking about a "pure" element, i.e. an element that did not have to be refined / smelted, for example pure gold. Do you remember? There have been pictures/videos posted in this thread showing the sulphur from Sodom as a completely different colour than naturally-formed sulphur (which by the way, according to the wikipedia page that I cited is mostly found in compounds, not elemental form). Notice how I underlined sulfide.

 

There are no volcanoes, geothermal vents, sulphur lakes, fossil deposit mines standing on top of Sodom, nor can any asteroids (as stated by Wikipedia) contain sulphur in a state found in Sodom's ruins.

 

Unless of course Wikipedia is untrustworthy.

[WalterP]

No. That's not correct, SV.

 

Please look again at your first quote.

 

For example, you haven't seen the damage done to Sodom, so it isn't real to you. You can call that subjective truth, I guess. Where as objective truth would be that God destroyed Sodom by raining down golf ball-sized chunks of pure sulphur down on the whole city, heating the rocks to several thousand degrees to cause them to flake and the site is preserved even to this day and you can go there and pick up those chunks of sulphur for yourself, even though you might not believe me or even have a look on Youtube for people actually doing that.

 

You said that pure sulphur rained down upon the whole city.

 

Therefore, you claimed that the sulphur was pure before it reached the ground.

 

That's what raining down means.

 

You contradicted yourself.

 

 

 

 

[SilentVoice]

1 minute ago, WalterP said:

You said that pure sulphur rained down upon the whole city.

 

Therefore, you claimed that the sulphur was pure before it reached the ground.

 

That's what raining down means.

 

You contradicted yourself.

You sound old enough to look up words in a dictionary.

 

But for those that might be curious;

 

Merriam-Webster--

rain; a heavy fall of objects

[the Norman invaders fled when the castle's defenders threw a rain of stones down upon them]

 

Yes. I am claiming that God literally rained (correct word) pure flaming sulphur (in elemental form), i.e. not volcanic / asteroidal / bacterial / fossilized, on to Sodom and a few other cities. If you read my previous posts, you won't find me claiming otherwise, you are probably just misreading my posts.

[Hierophant]

@SilentVoice Just to make sure I am not misreading something and that I understand what you are saying, are you stating that pure sulfur is not natural, i.e., that we cannot find it in pure form on earth?

[WalterP]

Just now, SilentVoice said:

You sound old enough to look up words in a dictionary.

 

But for those that might be curious;

 

Merriam-Webster--

rain; a heavy fall of objects

[the Norman invaders fled when the castle's defenders threw a rain of stones down upon them]

 

Yes. I am claiming that God literally rained (correct word) pure flaming sulphur (in elemental form), i.e. not volcanic / asteroidal / bacterial / fossilized, on to Sodom and a few other cities. If you read my previous posts, you won't find me claiming otherwise, you are probably just misreading my posts.

 

Then your claim is not one that science can investigate, SV.

 

Science can only investigate natural phenomenon.

 

It cannot investigate supernatural ones.

 

Sorry 'bout that.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Bhim]

@Hierophant @WalterP not to undercut any of the fine (and accurate, IMHO) arguments you've both made. But I can't help but notice that you're arguing about the specific mechanisms by which sulfur could destroy Sodom when @SilentVoice hasn't even provided a workable definition of what it means to "destroy" a city. I'm sure you both think it's self-explanatory - and so did I - but he seems to be challenging us at that level. Logically speaking, this is like debating general relativity with a person who doesn't yet agree that the earth is round.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that he's either the Christian version of Mini-AOC, or another Christian with psychological issues. I'm basing this on his inability to write articulate posts.

[SilentVoice]

1 minute ago, Hierophant said:

@SilentVoice Just to make sure I am not misreading something and that I understand what you are saying, are you stating that pure sulfur is not natural, i.e., that we cannot find it in pure form on earth?

According to that Wikipedia article, under the 'found in nature' section, it says that it is mostly found in compounds and always around geological processes, and the sulphur in asteroids is also mostly found in compounds and its make up is up to 6% sulphur. So, going by logic, if an asteroid exploded over Sodom, up to 6% of the debris would be sulphur (and also probably be in compound form).

 

I don't know if the same sulphur can be synthesized in a lab but they are visually different as you can see. I'm now waiting for someone to suggest that maybe a volcano sent a unique bunch of rocks hundreds of miles through the air and coincidentally only hit Sodom with them.

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Bhim said:

@Hierophant @WalterP not to undercut any of the fine (and accurate, IMHO) arguments you've both made. But I can't help but notice that you're arguing about the specific mechanisms by which sulfur could destroy Sodom when @SilentVoice hasn't even provided a workable definition of what it means to "destroy" a city. I'm sure you both think it's self-explanatory - and so did I - but he seems to be challenging us at that level. Logically speaking, this is like debating general relativity with a person who doesn't yet agree that the earth is round.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that he's either the Christian version of Mini-AOC, or another Christian with psychological issues. I'm basing this on his inability to write articulate posts.

 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news Bhim, but look what SV wrote  11 hours ago.

 

Posted 11 hours ago

Is this a good time to mention unironically that the heliocentric model is nonsense and that the earth is flat?

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83218-everything-wrong-with-genesis/?tab=comments#comment-1225032

 

 

[SilentVoice]

1 minute ago, Bhim said:

@Hierophant @WalterP not to undercut any of the fine (and accurate, IMHO) arguments you've both made. But I can't help but notice that you're arguing about the specific mechanisms by which sulfur could destroy Sodom when @SilentVoice hasn't even provided a workable definition of what it means to "destroy" a city. I'm sure you both think it's self-explanatory - and so did I - but he seems to be challenging us at that level. Logically speaking, this is like debating general relativity with a person who doesn't yet agree that the earth is round.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that he's either the Christian version of Mini-AOC, or another Christian with psychological issues. I'm basing this on his inability to write articulate posts.

I could provide a rough definition now if you'd like, without pasting one from an online dictionary.

 

destroy; to utterly cast down, to remove from existence, to break entirely

 

Not 'to break a few roofs and knock a few buildings over'. Friendly hint, if only a few hundred people go to hospital and most of the city is still standing, it hasn't been destroyed.

 

The evidence provided shows rocks littered with unnaturally-formed sulphur completely falling apart and that only intense heat could do that. The same intense heat documented in the book you are bent on rejecting.

[WalterP]

6 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

According to that Wikipedia article, under the 'found in nature' section, it says that it is mostly found in compounds and always around geological processes, and the sulphur in asteroids is also mostly found in compounds and its make up is up to 6% sulphur. So, going by logic, if an asteroid exploded over Sodom, up to 6% of the debris would be sulphur (and also probably be in compound form).

 

I don't know if the same sulphur can be synthesized in a lab but they are visually different as you can see. I'm now waiting for someone to suggest that maybe a volcano sent a unique bunch of rocks hundreds of miles through the air and coincidentally only hit Sodom with them.

 

SV, you claimed a supernatural cause (god) for the alleged presence of pure suphur in the area where Sodom was alleged to have been.

 

But science cannot investigate the supernatural.

 

So, perhaps you could tell how something that science cannot investigate can be an objective truth?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Bhim]

12 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

I could provide a rough definition now if you'd like, without pasting one from an online dictionary.

 

destroy; to utterly cast down, to remove from existence, to break entirely

 

Not 'to break a few roofs and knock a few buildings over'. Friendly hint, if only a few hundred people go to hospital and most of the city is still standing, it hasn't been destroyed.

 

The evidence provided shows rocks littered with unnaturally-formed sulphur completely falling apart and that only intense heat could do that. The same intense heat documented in the book you are bent on rejecting.

 

Sorry, we can't work with this definition. "Utterly cast down" and "break entirely" by themselves would be fine, but "remove from existence" contradicts the other two. Something can be broken without being removed from existence, e.g. Hillary Clinton after America's last Presidential election (joking, joking...). You're trying to contrast removal from non-existence with knocking over a few buildings. There's a huge space between those two things.

 

We're going to need to stipulate to a clear definition of the word "destroy" if you want to proceed, and this doesn't work.

[SilentVoice]

4 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

SV, you claimed a supernatural cause (god) for the alleged presence of pure suphur in the area where Sodom was alleged to have been.

 

But science cannot investigate the supernatural.

 

So, perhaps you could tell how something that science cannot investigate can be an objective truth?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

You (by that, I mean anyone, using science) can investigate it. Compare all the sulphur found in the world, document where it comes from, what it looks like, how rare it is, how it's refined. Compare it against my claim and the sulphur found in Sodom's ruins.

 

I feel bad for the spiritually blind, it's like trying to explain sound to a deaf person or tell someone without eyes what a rainbow looks like.

[Bhim]

5 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

You (by that, I mean anyone, using science) can investigate it. Compare all the sulphur found in the world, document where it comes from, what it looks like, how rare it is, how it's refined. Compare it against my claim and the sulphur found in Sodom's ruins.

 

Call me crazy, but I don't think he's going to do a survey of all the world's sulfur just to win an Internet debate with you.

5 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

 

I feel bad for the spiritually blind, it's like trying to explain sound to a deaf person or tell someone without eyes what a rainbow looks like.

 

Um, you can feel sound even if you're deaf.

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, SilentVoice said:

You (by that, I mean anyone, using science) can investigate it. Compare all the sulphur found in the world, document where it comes from, what it looks like, how rare it is, how it's refined. Compare it against my claim and the sulphur found in Sodom's ruins.

 

I feel bad for the spiritually blind, it's like trying to explain sound to a deaf person or tell someone without eyes what a rainbow looks like.

 

You don't seem to understand that remit of science, SV.

 

If something is found that has no natural explanation, then the only conclusion that science can draw is, 'cause unknown'.

 

Science is a strictly agnostic discipline that has nothing meaningful to say about matters of faith, religion or theology.

 

Sorry, but there it is.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

Here's a parallel for to consider, SV.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_of_the_Sands

 

https://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/ubar.html#:~:text=Ubar is the name given,evidence provided by Quran exegetes.

 

http://www.islam101.com/archeology/ubar.html

 

Some devout Muslims believe by faith that the Ubar discovered in 1992 was the city referred to in the Quran that was supernaturally destroyed by Allah.

 

But science cannot confirm or refute these beliefs.

 

No more and no less than it can confirm or refute your claim that the god of the Bible destroyed Sodom by supernatural means.

 

Science is always silent on matters of faith, regardless of who makes the claim; Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh or anyone else.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[Hierophant]

59 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

You (by that, I mean anyone, using science) can investigate it. Compare all the sulphur found in the world, document where it comes from, what it looks like, how rare it is, how it's refined. Compare it against my claim and the sulphur found in Sodom's ruins.

 

I feel bad for the spiritually blind, it's like trying to explain sound to a deaf person or tell someone without eyes what a rainbow looks like.

 

I finally found something. Took some digging:

 

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Sodom.pdf

[sdelsolray]

37 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

I finally found something. Took some digging:

 

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Sodom.pdf

 

It appears that SilentVoice's willful ignorance extends to geology and biochemistry.

[midniterider]

Why does the Christian need to point to sulphur, geology and other such nonsense when he has a relationship with the Almighty Living God? Shouldn't this same god who rained down sulphur chunks be able to just teleport all us non-believers right to the damn spot where Sodom was? 

 

SV, why do you believe anything you read in the bible? The bible is 100% BS.

 

 

 

[Astreja]

4 hours ago, SilentVoice said:

 Can you please show me any post in my post history where I've threatened anyone with hell? Maybe you misread or misinterpreted something I said.

 

Well, you seem awfully keen on bringing us around to your sordid way of thinking.  The subtext for all this faux geology you're vomiting at us is quite obviously "Ooh!  Look how big and powerful my god is!  You'd better fall on your knees right this instant and beg for forgiveness, or you're going to wish you had only died once when all that pure sulfur (yeah, right...) destroyed Sodom."

 

Give it up, SV.  We know ChristInsanity at least as well as you do.  That's why we're here, and not grovelling at a church somewhere.

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, SilentVoice said:

 

Galatians 4:25

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children

 

 

Things have changed since biblical times.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Sinai-mountain-Egypt

 

And there are tours to Mt Sinai all the time.

 https://desertecotours.com/English/sinai-tours/mount-sinai-tour?gclid=Cj0KCQjw0Mb3BRCaARIsAPSNGpXWLwdfjRLrtNwuhh2I_4bn4rHMgY8DPgKVMWY_ZNs3NC0TZmQIzwIaAnvaEALw_wcB

[SilentVoice]

6 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

Call me crazy, but I don't think he's going to do a survey of all the world's sulfur just to win an Internet debate with you.

 

Um, you can feel sound even if you're deaf.

 

You can feel a vibration but you can't hear it. Just like spiritually blind people can see religion but don't know God.