How can this possibly be constitutional?

[Gordy327]

There is evidence, it's all around you, you just refuse to see it.

I can "see" shapes and patterns in clouds or other things. But it's still just a cloud. Seeing things that aren't there is imagination at best and delusion at worst.

For me, it's a matter of spiritual experiences, reason, and faith. And before you even go into your insulting replies know that I don't care if you disagree.

Experiences and such is subjective and anecdotal and does not constituents valid or reliable evidence. That's why assertions based on nothing but that can and should be dismissed.

If you're really interested you could do an AI search for evidence in a religious context. Here is one:

In a religious context, evidence refers to facts, events, or experiences that support religious beliefs, serving as a foundation for faith rather than blind acceptance. This evidence can be categorized as historical (corroborating biblical events), prophetic (fulfilled prophecies), personal (transformational experiences), or spiritual (guided by divine revelation).

No, I am not interested in religious BS. "Religious context" does not explain reality or establishe the veracity of evidence. It's nothing more than making things up or along the lines of "because i say so." Its still subjective and anecdotal nonsense.
"Religious context,"

 

[Gordy327]

Gordy is being ignored.

In other words, you cant answer questions posed, much less refute points made against your BS! But that's ok, it just means my points and arguments continue to go unrefuted.

 

[Gordy327]

That's the point, if you think that the physical world is all there is you are missing at least half of what exists in actuality. Evidence is by definition physical may be true for you but "there are more things in heaven and earth, Heratio, than are dreamt of in your phiosophy." The limits of physical evidence preclude your ever being able to understand the wonders of God's creation.

Prove there's something beyond the physical! Otherwise your assertions are baseless.

 

[Ganondagan]

The argument I was arguing against was about the Foundation of America being Christian. It isn't. The Foundation of America begins with the Constitution. Not the Articles of Confederation. Not the Mayflower Compact. Not what Thelma and Fred the Farmers think or believe.... it is about the Government and the United States Constriction that founded the American Government, has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

.

It is. The culture of the population of America, both before and after the Constituion was adopted, lived in a culture created by Judeo-Christian values. Adopting a Constitution doesn't change that.

And again, in case you missed it, the government is not the nation, the citezenry are the nation.

 

[Bodi]

Gordy is being ignored.

@Gordy327 is on your Ignore List?

Really?

Gordy?

 

[Bodi]

Let me provide you with an AI search result as an answer for question. It explains it very well and saves me from having to compose a long answer to do the same thing.

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

Google Search

"In a religious context, evidence is often defined as signs, testimones, or experiences that support faith and divine claims., but it is distinct from empirical evidence. It can include historical and archaeological findings, such as the confirmation of certain biblical figures, as well as personal experiences like miracles, answered prayers, and a feeling of spiritual conviction. This evidence is used to confirm the credibility of scripture and divine revelation, though it is understood that faith requires believing in truths that are not always visible."


Types of evidence in religion

• Historical and archaeological evidence: The existence of numerous biblical figures, such as King Ahab, Pontius Pilate, and Nebuchadnezzar, has been confirmed through external sources like inscriptions and historical texts, as this YouTube video and the provided information show.
• Miracles and signs: Miracles, such as Jesus's resurrection, are presented in religious texts as evidence of divine power and authority.
• Experiential evidence: This includes personal experiences like answered prayers or the feeling of a spiritual presence.
• Testimony: The accounts and testimonies of others, particularly eyewitness accounts, are often considered evidence.

Relationship between faith and evidence

• Evidence as support for faith: Many religious traditions view evidence as a way to support and strengthen faith, which is seen as active trust and commitment, according to this YouTube video and Stand to Reason.
• Faith beyond empirical proof: Religious faith often involves belief in spiritual truths that are not tangible or empirically provable, with faith itself being seen as assurance of what is hoped for, as cited in Bible Hub.
• Reason and revelation: Some belief systems emphasize that both faith and reason are necessary to arrive at knowledge, viewing them as two wings of the human spirit.

This is becoming a major problem in education. Reliance on search engines and AI to make an argument for a person. Instead of researching for oneself and thinking about things and constructing an argument people are just asking for others to do the work. That also means that those using AI are also leas equiped to understand what AI's conclusions are... because the "student" didn't do any thinking or researching or comparing or analyzing... it is a real problem and one that your post illustrates.



.

 

[Bodi]

It is. The culture of the population of America, both before and after the Constituion was adopted, lived in a culture created by Judeo-Christian values. Adopting a Constitution doesn't change that.

Like the Protestants and Catholics that were killing each other for 500 years?

This means... what version of Christianity are you referring to... and since all were in line with Islam and Judaism, not to mention the Native American religions and the African Religions and the newly arriving Asian religions... well, I know better than to keep owning your argument as you never actually show any evidence that the Constitution is based off of Christianity. LOL

And again, in case you missed it, the government is not the nation, the citezenry are the nation.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what a nation is. You show lack of understanding regarding what the Social Contract it, what the Enlightenment is and what Secularism is. Anyway, you have been thoroughly trounced in this debate.



.

 

[Ganondagan]

@Gordy327 is on your Ignore List?

Really?

Gordy?

Yep, just temporarily

 

[AZRWinger]

"Unknown" in what way? How is the Unknown being ignored? The BB has objective empirical evidence to support it. Mutations can be random or not. In none of that is science declaring "it must be god." "God did it" is just the intellectually lacking/lazy "explanation" for things.

Big Bang theory offers no explanation for the universe before the explosion. The theory of evolution requires step wise random mutation. Both insist on random chance.

 

[Ganondagan]

This is becoming a major problem in education. Reliance on search engines and AI to make an argument for a person. Instead of researching for oneself and thinking about things and constructing an argument people are just asking for others to do the work. That also means that those using AI are also leas equiped to understand what AI's conclusions are... because the "student" didn't do any thinking or researching or comparing or analyzing... it is a real problem and one that your post illustrates.



.

The same was said about calculators. Nothing was said in that post that I wouldn't have said if I'd taken the time to type it out one finger at a time. AI is nothing more than a labor saving device.

 

[AZRWinger]

Science will eventually have to admit that there is a creator, many great scientists already have. There is more to that creation than the material world they play in.

Indeed, Darwinists vigorously oppose even the suggestion of an intelligent design mechanism driving adaptation as heresy.

 

[Ganondagan]

Indeed, Darwinists vigorously oppose even the suggestion of an intelligent design mechanism driving adaptation as heresy.

I could understand if they just took a position of agnosticism but so many just flat out refuse to consider the possibility.

 

[Gordy327]

Big Bang theory offers no explanation for the universe before the explosion.

No one said it did. The BB explains the inflation of the universe.

The theory of evolution requires step wise random mutation. Both insist on random chance.

While mutations can be random, they can also be caused by other factors. Whats the issue with random chance anyway?

 

[Gordy327]

Indeed, Darwinists vigorously oppose even the suggestion of an intelligent design mechanism driving adaptation as heresy.

There is no evidence for design. That is just religious fantasy. Creationism with a different wrapping.

 

[AZRWinger]

No one said it did. The BB explains the inflation of the universe.

So then science offers no explanation for creation of the universe. Genesis does but it's fobidden by the open minded Leftists.

While mutations can be random, they can also be caused by other factors. Whats the issue with random chance anyway?

You have gone from denying science relying on random chance to admitting it. Thanks for the conformation.

 

[Gordy327]

So then science offers no explanation for creation of the universe. Genesis does but it's fobidden by the open minded Leftists.

Genesis is just a story, one of many ro explain the creation of the universe. But a story is all it is and has zero supporting evidence. You might as well say the universe was created by fairies, leprechaun, or gnomes. Same difference and equally as valid as Genesis.

You have gone from denying science relying on random chance to admitting it. Thanks for the conformation.

Specify where I denied it! Your bad faith posting does you no favors. You still haven't explained what the issue is with random chance. Are you going to dodge that question too, like you do with so many others?

 

[Bodi]

So then science offers no explanation for creation of the universe. Genesis does but it's fobidden by the open minded Leftists.

You have gone from denying science relying on random chance to admitting it. Thanks for the conformation.

Scientists couldn't explain Thunder either... so they said it was caused by Thor. Pretty stupid eh? Or, do you contend that they may be right?

 

[Gordy327]

Scientists couldn't explain Thunder either... so they said it was caused by Thor. Pretty stupid eh? Or, do you contend that they may be right?

People in their ignorance believed thunder and lightning was caused by angry gods. Fortunately, science eventually discovered the answer and dispelled such ignorance, as it does. The more science discovers and learns, the smaller the box where gods reside becomes. Science for the win!

 

[Bodi]

People in their ignorance believed thunder and lightning was caused by angry gods. Fortunately, science eventually discovered the answer and dispelled such ignorance, as it does. The more science discovers and learns, the smaller the box where gods reside becomes. Science for the win!

But at least we know what causes tsunamis... Neptune, Lord of the Seas.

He got really angry and unleashed the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004 after some quack started talking about Plate Tectonics as a source.

.

 

[Gordy327]

But at least we know what causes tsunamis... Neptune, Lord of the Seas.

He got really angry and unleashed the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004 after some quack started talking about Plate Tectonics as a source.

.

Of course. Everybody knows that.

 

[AZRWinger]

Scientists couldn't explain Thunder either... so they said it was caused by Thor. Pretty stupid eh? Or, do you contend that they may be right?

Which so-called scientists?

 

[AZRWinger]

People in their ignorance believed thunder and lightning was caused by angry gods. Fortunately, science eventually discovered the answer and dispelled such ignorance, as it does. The more science discovers and learns, the smaller the box where gods reside becomes. Science for the win!

Now you attempt to skip over "scientific" reliance on random chance to explain the pre Big Bang universe and Evolution. Random chance for the win.

 

[Gordy327]

Now you attempt to skip over "scientific" reliance on random chance to explain the pre Big Bang universe and Evolution. Random chance for the win.

Still waiting for you to specify where I denied random chance. You get more dishonest with each post!

 

[Bodi]

Which so-called scientists?

They were Norsemen. Lars Sergustrum the Wise and Sven Magnusen. Circa 979 CE


.