So, was it trained on the videos of laboratory-created ball lightning, or did they just use old written descriptions of ball lightning going back centuries? In either case, it has nothing to do with aliens or the supernatural, so the headline doesn't really make much sense.
A flash of lightning. A thundering boom. And then a curious light floating through the air, illuminating the dark room, and bouncing off surfaces. “I was so terrified, I hid under my blanket,” says Millie Drozda, my grandmother, “as if that would do anything.” It was thirty-odd years ago, and she was more than 20 floors up in her Chicago apartment when she witnessed a deeply mysterious yet well-documented phenomenon: ball lightning.
People have been swapping stories about ball lightning for hundreds of years. An illuminated manuscript written by an English monk in 1195 may be the oldest report. It describes a “sort-of fiery globe” descending from a storm cloud and falling into the river Thames (Weather 2022, DOI: 10.1002/wea.4144). Nearly 600 years later, scientist Georg Richmann was killed inside his Saint Petersburg lab by “a Globe of blue and whitish Fire” that struck his head while he demonstrated a lightning-probing experiment to an engraver from the Imperial Academy of Sciences and Arts in Saint Petersburg.
Some accounts actually seem to give the impression they are intelligent and aware. I would definitely call it supernatural.
Heck most scientists cant even agree if its real. So by definition, it is supernatural.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Yeah, my main reason for posting this thread is that, since people want to believe, it's only a matter of time before supply meets demand, like how governments are admitting to aliens and whatnot, and AI can help with that.
I've seen ball lightning that looks very similar from what I remember. That was about 42 years ago. What I saw was a little smaller though. I would have just said it's ball lightning. And yes, it does move similar to that
Atheists can't help but bring religion into everything.
Face it: in the cosmic consciousness soup, humans are on the level of a flatworm. There are "some things" out there more powerful, longer lived, more capable than we can even try to understand.
Right because belief in the Christian God is stupid, but belief in the "cosmic consciousness soup" is totally not batshit crazy, degenerate and retarded new age drivel, brought to you by freemasons and jews.
Funny thing, it sounds like you think your nameless data-free god "thing" is older and bigger ("more powerful, longer lived, more capable") than this pitiful Yahweh character.
Sounds like this doesn't call for data but for a contest of deity. Shall we call fire from heaven via tattooed gematria, or see whose relic smashes whose? I would be happy to serve any god that could lick Yahweh in a fair fight.
Because whenever I test narrative memory and cosmic consciousness I keep bumping into him where no other can fit. I was asked here because I've hung with the real Inanna and Dumuzid long before the First Dynasty and have looked into all the forbidden texts I can find. And the guy that keeps quietly asserting himself keeps calling himself Yahweh (Being).
Ah, but see, u/factdigger is making himself a subject of ridicule because he demonstrates that he knows not whereof he speaks, he deletes a comment, he appears to rely on UFO/AI as the likeliest gods he refers to. The bluster comes from nowhere personal, but from someone he's attached to, thus some of my strategy. He can't recall consistently if you mean NASB or NSAB!
On the net there's no point in replying to a list of 20 books with summaries that say they prove various crazy stuff because the writer is indicating he's not listening. But what he said about truth was very good and would upend his own whole satire persona if pursued. So every word of mine is chosen and heartfelt.
If u/user20461 doesn't mind us getting offtrack, I'd be happy to shore up any questions you have about textual criticism. Everything he said was so generic and unsourced as to need no real reply. I've noted before that every time I check I find evidence that the copying was by others, not the Bible. The original higher critics, and even more so Hort and Westcott, made clear that they were not searching for truth but were trying to dethrone the Bible, and so when evidence is sifted by minds (especially working together) that seek the truth whatever it is, as factdigger claims, it yields sensible answers not connected to any extreme.
Forgot to add: You, Guy, are already taking up my mantle (if any) by posting excellent bullet-point defenses already, so I don't need to help on that front unless he actually returns with a tactical warhead instead of an AI picture of one.
Wrong. Human nature prohibits us from making a Sinless, Holy, Just God. We are so flawed and stupid. We like to believe works save us. Read Genesis. Read the Bible. What do you know about Christianity??
The "made up" theory works better on millions years, evolution, abiogenesis, than for Christianity.
Say Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs to the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days Aunt Sally is transformed into a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”
Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, hand-written instructions on how to make the sauce to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.
All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet dog eats the original copy of the recipe. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps, so the alarm goes out to the others in attempt to recover the original wording.
Sally rounds up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, however, one has misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient none of the others has on its list.
Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings are obvious errors. The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item in error than 25 people would accidentally omit it.
Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if Sally had enough copies.
This, in simplified form, is how scholars do “textual criticism,” an academic method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. it’s a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.
Wow, bro, only 1 reply to you and you react ultra defensively. Not even 5 comments in! Tell me, are you a coward who runs upon scrutiny of your worldview, or do you have actual defenses for it?
You think you are so right, but I wanna call that into question. Pride is bad.
Let's break this down:
I've read more ORIGINAL bible versions than your two brain cells will ever comprehend.
So you mean you read all the thousands of copies of manuscripts? How you define "original versions" is unclear.
Your lack of human history, belief systems, religions is so dumbfoundedly ignorant it is almost impossible to understand.,
"People made beliefs over time that partially echoed the truth so no faith is legit!!" This is a fallacy.
There are many people defending the Truth that is Christianity. Meanwhile, good luck seeing anyone argue for theose other belief systems!! Scrutiny and logic tends to prune away fake beliefs and leaves true beliefs standing!
For you "history", "world", "god" and belief start with the cheap re-written copy of the Torah c. 300 AD
God is eternal.
Thats what you say, and I believe history and the world started ~6K years ago. Yeah ofc you disagree but feel free to rebut that.
censored by post Roman ruling scholars.
What about the rich man and lazarus? What about "love thy neighbor"? What about Jesus' Kingdom being NOT of this world?? What about the Romans killing the literal Savior?? Given the content in the Bible, The romans musta been stupid morons who left a bunch of stuff to criticise them!! Or, you can admit God inspired people to write the Books of the Bible.
And the Torah is just a re-written censored piece of polytheist beliefs of Judaism c. 700 BC
So you believe it came from polythiesm. But i believe polythiesm came AFTER people knew about the true God. So who is right and why? It makes no sense that people would have a strict trend of reducing number of gods. Humans are rebellious by nature so they would make more gods.
to be a single god monotheistic religion in the worship of YHWH.
If polythiesm was true, there would be conflicts among the "gods".
But you know what: people existed before any of those were invented. Before Moses (copy of a Sumerian story, with name changed) left Egypt (another false story, copied from Sumer).
Did i say otherwise? Nope. Obviously humans existed before books. God created men, then men discovered the ability to write and invented books.
Why do you take a gnostic stance, rather than an agnostic one, on dates of when things were written?
Those people believed in gods (plural), knew languages before Hebrew, were in tribese before a single jew or son of Israel had born, and had a notion of history, cosmology and where we came from.
Yes. Adam and Eve existed before Hebrew and Isreal. None of this proves the Bible wrong.
books older, and less censored than the bibleS (yes, there are hundreds of bible versions, some are so drastically different
Do you know what Textual Criticism is? I will bet you have barely considered HOW we got the Bible and what went into translation. The most accurate one is NASB 1977 and 1995.
If aliens coming to earth in the year 4050 have to translate books promoting u/factdigger 's worldview written in 1995, into THEIR own language, are they out of luck?
they'd blow your mind, if you were intelligent enough to read them).
My rebuttals might make you question your worldview, if you care enough to read them.
Also, I notice you never explained how fallible stupid humans made the Sinless, Perfect God. If God does not exist, we should never be able to conjure attributes higher than ours. We are all there supposedly is, how could we concieve anything higher? All other gods lack Omnipotence, and other religions save by works. Christianity is the only one among the religions that says Faith saves, Faith is a gift from God. Faith is not blind, why would you think it is? It is athiests who believe such.
I have a big ol community full of evidence c/evidencedump.
You mention Assmann without mentioning the great work by one Coomer, namely God and Sex? That's the real Christian porn of textual originality.
I'm 100% sure you've never read a number of these authors, because you asked Grok for a top 20 list and edited his artificial answer. You're not evidencing your claims of ad fontes very well as this is all 20th-century-plus. I've looked into all the great 6-letter authors on your list, Pagels, Ehrman, Vermes, Vallee, also Israel Finkelstein, and been unimpressed by their rants, as is mainstream scholarship which has recently begun pushing back against Westcott-Hort excesses and is readmitting the Textus Receptus gradually.
Instead of fighting, let's try "something completely different":
If you think you are RIGHT and the truth of your God is on your side, you should have no problem going to text outside your small circle ..., as you'd find or at least recognize truth there as well. Because truth, actual truth does not burn in the hottest of fires. If your truth is correct, it will sustain and deflect all these attacks from other sources.
Yes, as edited! That's something I've said here for 5 years. I'm burnished bronze from the exposure to Enheduanna and Ningishzeda.
If you want to read elsewhere, you need to start textual criticism OUTSIDE The small circle of bible study, and go to ACTUAL history research books, from people whose motives are not to try and prove bible right, but to find out the truth, whatever it is. Then, when you get this, you'll develop into the study of textual transmission
Yes, with the proviso that we must by those terms also exclude all textual critics in a small circle whose motives are not to find out the truth, whatever it is, but to try and prove a bible wrong. The German higher critics starting in the 19th century, who birthed Hort-Westcott, introduced this stream of bias in the other direction, and it hasn't let up since.
Factdigger, are you a student of truth whatever it is, or do you stick to a circle that affirms your own biases? Because the truth will break you as I've been broken and will be again. You might not want it, though I hope you do. The evidence that a person is a student of truth, whatever it is, is that, as you say, a person is willing to hear all sides before judging, is patient with those who differ because the truth can defend itself, is able to laugh and admit he's been wrong before and his current apprehension of truth will be strengthened by fresh meat. Would you like to start bearing that evidence?
Add: While we're at it, what's your UAP contact's name? I have a few words for him as well, and I expect he's the same as your god so you should have no fear of naming him.
Well, then we can proceed, and we can both drop the facades, invective, misassumptions, and dismissals, and pursue truth together. I'm not touchy, just trying to get past your own bluster to the true you.
I'm disappointed you assert zero positives about your god and your position mainly seems identical to the atheist position of "you're wrong". I had glanced through your writings and found a similar lack of reliance on facts and evidence, so your list of books with perfect ChatGPT formatting suggested it was an outlier rather than something on your shelf. You also didn't use it for any purpose because anyone can make a list of 20 books of any persuasion without that having any truth value out of context. That's why I taunted you, because you didn't bring anything to the table.
not willing to understand it, and stick to your Christian beliefs
I expressed that I've seen this material and understand it, and in my search for truth have sifted what is true and what isn't, in my fallible, perfectible judgment. My beliefs change from time to time, but the one thing I cannot change is that I've been given up to Yahweh's power and I cannot be taken from him unless by a superior power. (As soon as that superior power comes along, it would free me. If.)
Since you don't seem to produce a proposition capable of debate on a fundamental point, I suggested by implication that we discuss a binary proposition like "Yahweh is greater than any other god". I could continue by observations such as Yahweh being defined as All Being and All Being being automatically greater than any subset of being. You might parry that Yahweh in the Bible is not described as All Being but as some Dawkins caricature, and I would reply that that's irrelevant because of my definition. We might then agree that we both would worship whatever god is All Being without yet arguing about his name. That would be productive.
It's not productive for me to argue propositions like "The Bible is by humans for humans" because that gets us nowhere toward discovering whether Yahweh dictated the Bible or not. I hold the Bible is by humans for humans, and Yahweh dictated it, both, so there's no debate there.
It seems to me that as a student of truth you would not (1) run from debate, (2) ridicule generically, (3) make assumptions, (4) fail to define and defend your own perception of truth, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts. So far you appear exactly like someone who has no idea what a student of truth is but who is enslaved to some god that he is afraid to name or explain, who then projects that status upon others. God bless.
This is old. I believe I already addressed most of them in other threads. I wouldn't waste time on the details and separate claims, but I'd take him up on the paradigm level and ask him about his epistemic criteria, i.e. how he comes to knowledge about the things he asserts and what his justification is.
But there's no use because I don't think he would even understand the criticism considering the low tier arguments and word-concept fallacies he makes.
a) To believe implies wanting or not wanting suggested...being alive implies perceivable need.
b) All separating into each one makes one alien/alius - "another", hence native (perception) within all (perceivable), while foreign (suggested) to one another.
c) Only within light (motion) can lightning (momentum) be shaped (matter)...
https://xcancel.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1957343505019175139
Check the community note, this is AI
So, was it trained on the videos of laboratory-created ball lightning, or did they just use old written descriptions of ball lightning going back centuries? In either case, it has nothing to do with aliens or the supernatural, so the headline doesn't really make much sense.
There are thousands of eyewitness accounts of ball lightning.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/atmospheric-chemistry/What-is-ball-lightning-reality-or-myth/102/i12
Some accounts actually seem to give the impression they are intelligent and aware. I would definitely call it supernatural.
Heck most scientists cant even agree if its real. So by definition, it is supernatural.
Aliens, prolly not.
Yeah, my main reason for posting this thread is that, since people want to believe, it's only a matter of time before supply meets demand, like how governments are admitting to aliens and whatnot, and AI can help with that.
Now that statement is something I can agree with
You're thinking like a human.
It just needs to fool us. Show us what we would naturally assume is something else.
I've seen ball lightning that looks very similar from what I remember. That was about 42 years ago. What I saw was a little smaller though. I would have just said it's ball lightning. And yes, it does move similar to that
That seems to be the difference alot of the time. I might not believe either had it not been for things ive seen as well.
Watching something like a planet stand still for half an hour only to zoom off at mach 20+ across the horizon and fade out into the atmosphere.
Something is out there. I dont believe its human.
I get fascinated looking at ancient art work, stuff like sumerian cylinder seals. The pictures tell a story on their own....
Atheists can't help but bring religion into everything.
Right because belief in the Christian God is stupid, but belief in the "cosmic consciousness soup" is totally not batshit crazy, degenerate and retarded new age drivel, brought to you by freemasons and jews.
Funny thing, it sounds like you think your nameless data-free god "thing" is older and bigger ("more powerful, longer lived, more capable") than this pitiful Yahweh character.
Sounds like this doesn't call for data but for a contest of deity. Shall we call fire from heaven via tattooed gematria, or see whose relic smashes whose? I would be happy to serve any god that could lick Yahweh in a fair fight.
Because whenever I test narrative memory and cosmic consciousness I keep bumping into him where no other can fit. I was asked here because I've hung with the real Inanna and Dumuzid long before the First Dynasty and have looked into all the forbidden texts I can find. And the guy that keeps quietly asserting himself keeps calling himself Yahweh (Being).
Name the time, place, and referee, and it's on.
u/guywholikesDjtof2024
Oh all right. All right! A man with nine legs.
He ran away.
24-hour rule, I win!
u/guywholikesDjtof2024 has roundly dismembered you. In before you threaten to bite my kneecaps off.
All that was was some worthless "challenge". Lots of satire, but little argument. Please retry with a better one.
24 hr rule doesn't apply to unserious/satire-laden comments.
Ah, but see, u/factdigger is making himself a subject of ridicule because he demonstrates that he knows not whereof he speaks, he deletes a comment, he appears to rely on UFO/AI as the likeliest gods he refers to. The bluster comes from nowhere personal, but from someone he's attached to, thus some of my strategy. He can't recall consistently if you mean NASB or NSAB!
On the net there's no point in replying to a list of 20 books with summaries that say they prove various crazy stuff because the writer is indicating he's not listening. But what he said about truth was very good and would upend his own whole satire persona if pursued. So every word of mine is chosen and heartfelt.
If u/user20461 doesn't mind us getting offtrack, I'd be happy to shore up any questions you have about textual criticism. Everything he said was so generic and unsourced as to need no real reply. I've noted before that every time I check I find evidence that the copying was by others, not the Bible. The original higher critics, and even more so Hort and Westcott, made clear that they were not searching for truth but were trying to dethrone the Bible, and so when evidence is sifted by minds (especially working together) that seek the truth whatever it is, as factdigger claims, it yields sensible answers not connected to any extreme.
Forgot to add: You, Guy, are already taking up my mantle (if any) by posting excellent bullet-point defenses already, so I don't need to help on that front unless he actually returns with a tactical warhead instead of an AI picture of one.
Sure you do. What's the source that reveals the true god?
Invented by who?
Wrong. Human nature prohibits us from making a Sinless, Holy, Just God. We are so flawed and stupid. We like to believe works save us. Read Genesis. Read the Bible. What do you know about Christianity??
The "made up" theory works better on millions years, evolution, abiogenesis, than for Christianity.
Read my first reply before reading this.
part 2
Say Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs to the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days Aunt Sally is transformed into a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”
Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, hand-written instructions on how to make the sauce to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.
All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet dog eats the original copy of the recipe. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps, so the alarm goes out to the others in attempt to recover the original wording.
Sally rounds up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, however, one has misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient none of the others has on its list.
Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings are obvious errors. The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item in error than 25 people would accidentally omit it.
Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if Sally had enough copies.
This, in simplified form, is how scholars do “textual criticism,” an academic method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. it’s a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.
Wow, bro, only 1 reply to you and you react ultra defensively. Not even 5 comments in! Tell me, are you a coward who runs upon scrutiny of your worldview, or do you have actual defenses for it?
You think you are so right, but I wanna call that into question. Pride is bad.
Let's break this down:
So you mean you read all the thousands of copies of manuscripts? How you define "original versions" is unclear.
"People made beliefs over time that partially echoed the truth so no faith is legit!!" This is a fallacy.
There are many people defending the Truth that is Christianity. Meanwhile, good luck seeing anyone argue for theose other belief systems!! Scrutiny and logic tends to prune away fake beliefs and leaves true beliefs standing!
God is eternal.
Thats what you say, and I believe history and the world started ~6K years ago. Yeah ofc you disagree but feel free to rebut that.
What about the rich man and lazarus? What about "love thy neighbor"? What about Jesus' Kingdom being NOT of this world?? What about the Romans killing the literal Savior?? Given the content in the Bible, The romans musta been stupid morons who left a bunch of stuff to criticise them!! Or, you can admit God inspired people to write the Books of the Bible.
So you believe it came from polythiesm. But i believe polythiesm came AFTER people knew about the true God. So who is right and why? It makes no sense that people would have a strict trend of reducing number of gods. Humans are rebellious by nature so they would make more gods.
(/Athiest Argument style/)Give strictly repeatable, observable, testable, science-only, lab grade evidence or youre wrong!!!! (/Athiest Argument style/)
If polythiesm was true, there would be conflicts among the "gods".
Did i say otherwise? Nope. Obviously humans existed before books. God created men, then men discovered the ability to write and invented books.
Why do you take a gnostic stance, rather than an agnostic one, on dates of when things were written?
Yes. Adam and Eve existed before Hebrew and Isreal. None of this proves the Bible wrong.
Do you know what Textual Criticism is? I will bet you have barely considered HOW we got the Bible and what went into translation. The most accurate one is NASB 1977 and 1995.
If aliens coming to earth in the year 4050 have to translate books promoting u/factdigger 's worldview written in 1995, into THEIR own language, are they out of luck?
My rebuttals might make you question your worldview, if you care enough to read them.
Also, I notice you never explained how fallible stupid humans made the Sinless, Perfect God. If God does not exist, we should never be able to conjure attributes higher than ours. We are all there supposedly is, how could we concieve anything higher? All other gods lack Omnipotence, and other religions save by works. Christianity is the only one among the religions that says Faith saves, Faith is a gift from God. Faith is not blind, why would you think it is? It is athiests who believe such.
I have a big ol community full of evidence c/evidencedump.
You mention Assmann without mentioning the great work by one Coomer, namely God and Sex? That's the real Christian porn of textual originality.
I'm 100% sure you've never read a number of these authors, because you asked Grok for a top 20 list and edited his artificial answer. You're not evidencing your claims of ad fontes very well as this is all 20th-century-plus. I've looked into all the great 6-letter authors on your list, Pagels, Ehrman, Vermes, Vallee, also Israel Finkelstein, and been unimpressed by their rants, as is mainstream scholarship which has recently begun pushing back against Westcott-Hort excesses and is readmitting the Textus Receptus gradually.
Instead of fighting, let's try "something completely different":
Yes, as edited! That's something I've said here for 5 years. I'm burnished bronze from the exposure to Enheduanna and Ningishzeda.
Yes, with the proviso that we must by those terms also exclude all textual critics in a small circle whose motives are not to find out the truth, whatever it is, but to try and prove a bible wrong. The German higher critics starting in the 19th century, who birthed Hort-Westcott, introduced this stream of bias in the other direction, and it hasn't let up since.
Factdigger, are you a student of truth whatever it is, or do you stick to a circle that affirms your own biases? Because the truth will break you as I've been broken and will be again. You might not want it, though I hope you do. The evidence that a person is a student of truth, whatever it is, is that, as you say, a person is willing to hear all sides before judging, is patient with those who differ because the truth can defend itself, is able to laugh and admit he's been wrong before and his current apprehension of truth will be strengthened by fresh meat. Would you like to start bearing that evidence?
Add: While we're at it, what's your UAP contact's name? I have a few words for him as well, and I expect he's the same as your god so you should have no fear of naming him.
Well, then we can proceed, and we can both drop the facades, invective, misassumptions, and dismissals, and pursue truth together. I'm not touchy, just trying to get past your own bluster to the true you.
I'm disappointed you assert zero positives about your god and your position mainly seems identical to the atheist position of "you're wrong". I had glanced through your writings and found a similar lack of reliance on facts and evidence, so your list of books with perfect ChatGPT formatting suggested it was an outlier rather than something on your shelf. You also didn't use it for any purpose because anyone can make a list of 20 books of any persuasion without that having any truth value out of context. That's why I taunted you, because you didn't bring anything to the table.
I expressed that I've seen this material and understand it, and in my search for truth have sifted what is true and what isn't, in my fallible, perfectible judgment. My beliefs change from time to time, but the one thing I cannot change is that I've been given up to Yahweh's power and I cannot be taken from him unless by a superior power. (As soon as that superior power comes along, it would free me. If.)
Since you don't seem to produce a proposition capable of debate on a fundamental point, I suggested by implication that we discuss a binary proposition like "Yahweh is greater than any other god". I could continue by observations such as Yahweh being defined as All Being and All Being being automatically greater than any subset of being. You might parry that Yahweh in the Bible is not described as All Being but as some Dawkins caricature, and I would reply that that's irrelevant because of my definition. We might then agree that we both would worship whatever god is All Being without yet arguing about his name. That would be productive.
It's not productive for me to argue propositions like "The Bible is by humans for humans" because that gets us nowhere toward discovering whether Yahweh dictated the Bible or not. I hold the Bible is by humans for humans, and Yahweh dictated it, both, so there's no debate there.
It seems to me that as a student of truth you would not (1) run from debate, (2) ridicule generically, (3) make assumptions, (4) fail to define and defend your own perception of truth, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts. So far you appear exactly like someone who has no idea what a student of truth is but who is enslaved to some god that he is afraid to name or explain, who then projects that status upon others. God bless.
u/smithw1984 Debunk u/ factdigger 's arguments? Plenty of them are in here.
This is old. I believe I already addressed most of them in other threads. I wouldn't waste time on the details and separate claims, but I'd take him up on the paradigm level and ask him about his epistemic criteria, i.e. how he comes to knowledge about the things he asserts and what his justification is.
But there's no use because I don't think he would even understand the criticism considering the low tier arguments and word-concept fallacies he makes.
a) To believe implies wanting or not wanting suggested...being alive implies perceivable need.
b) All separating into each one makes one alien/alius - "another", hence native (perception) within all (perceivable), while foreign (suggested) to one another.
c) Only within light (motion) can lightning (momentum) be shaped (matter)...
u/swamprangers
Please crop dust this factdigger guy's arguments, thanks!
He's buggered off!
So he has, he's scampered!
Will look at the other thread.
https://communities.win/p/19BtGVIb45/people-want-to-believe-in-aliens/c/4eVLPr4MVOq
Debunk the arguments and debunk the books!