• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Myth: man invented electricity

No,t is not evidence for God and resurrection. The insect was not dead.
Valery is grasping at some very weak and amusing straws. Now it's a childish game of let's pretend.
 
So.......what? Is fhe "resurrection" of a bug being compared to that of Jesus Christ? A bug and Jesus Christ? Really? Is the bug seen as the Son of God too?
 
If it was proven that it had been, would you believe in resurrection?
If it was demonstrated that an insect was truly clinically dead but then came back to life, that would only mean that there was some kind of unknown mechanism acting on that specific insect. Until and unless that mechanism was identified and understood, the evidence wouldn't even tell us anything about any other insects of the same species, let alone anything about the Biblical story of Jesus' resurrection.
 
If it was demonstrated that an insect was truly clinically dead but then came back to life, that would only mean that there was some kind of unknown mechanism acting on that specific insect. Until and unless that mechanism was identified and understood, the evidence wouldn't even tell us anything about any other insects of the same species, let alone anything about the Biblical story of Jesus' resurrection.
Give Valery time, the penny might drop.
 
If it was demonstrated that an insect was truly clinically dead but then came back to life, that would only mean that there was some kind of unknown mechanism acting on that specific insect. Until and unless that mechanism was identified and understood, the evidence wouldn't even tell us anything about any other insects of the same species, let alone anything about the Biblical story of Jesus' resurrection.
Which is why the atheist excuse of not having evidence is just an excuse, not the reason that they don't believe.
 
Which is why the atheist excuse of not having evidence is just an excuse, not the reason that they don't believe.
Believe what? You've still not explained how the behaviour of a particular type of insect has anything to do religious belief in the miraculous resurrection of Jesus.

Lack of evidence is the reason (not excuse) for not knowing. Religious belief is based on faith, not evidence. You could have something called "religious knowledge" but as knowledge, that would still need to involve evidence.
 
Which is why the atheist excuse of not having evidence is just an excuse, not the reason that they don't believe.
No, the reason is that people like you have no evidence, merely blind belief.
 
Believe what? You've still not explained how the behaviour of a particular type of insect has anything to do religious belief in the miraculous resurrection of Jesus.

Lack of evidence is the reason (not excuse) for not knowing. Religious belief is based on faith, not evidence. You could have something called "religious knowledge" but as knowledge, that would still need to involve evidence.
Religious knowledge from the University Of Made-Uppery.
 
Believe what?
In God, resurrection, hell, satan, prophets, revelation, miracles, divine decree, accountability, angels, etc.
You've still not explained how the behaviour of a particular type of insect has anything to do religious belief in the miraculous resurrection of Jesus.
I was commenting on the dead coming back to life. What it has to do with it is obvious: it is miraculous and no matter how many miraculous things you come by, you don't believe any more than you did before. I.e. requesting proof is otiose.
But one group of animals can survive this: tiny creatures called tardigrades about 1mm long. In 2007, thousands of tardigrades were attached to a satellite and blasted into space. After the satellite had returned to Earth, scientists examined them and found that many of them had survived. Some of the females had even laid eggs in space, and the newly-hatched young were healthy.

It's not just the harsh environs of outer space that tardigrades can survive in. The little critters seem adept at living in some of the harshest regions of Earth. They have been discovered 5546m (18,196ft) up a mountain in the Himalayas, in Japanese hot springs, at the bottom of the ocean and in Antarctica. They can withstand huge amounts of radiation, being heated to 150 °C, and being frozen almost to absolute zero.
 
In God, resurrection, hell, satan, prophets, revelation, miracles, divine decree, accountability, angels, etc.
Then why would you consider not having sufficient evidence why someone doesn't accept all those things to be unquestionably true as defined "an excuse"? Again, this is the reason (not excuse) for not knowing. The reason (still not excuse) for not believing is simply a lack of faith, exactly the same reason you don't believe in Zeus or Shiva.

I was commenting on the dead coming back to life. What it has to do with it is obvious: it is miraculous and no matter how many miraculous things you come by, you don't believe any more than you did before. I.e. requesting proof is otiose.
Nothing here has literally "come back from the dead" though. There are all sorts of creatures which are capable of surviving in various extreme environments or situations but the point is that they survive. At no point are they clinically dead only to change back to clinically alive. And regardless, if we're talking about defined natural processes, none of it would be literally miraculous by definition (though people might use the word casually to mean unexpected, impressive or surprising).

Also, even if some species were demonstrated to have a natural ability to somehow "come back from the dead", it still wouldn't relate to the Biblical story of Jesus supernaturally "coming back from the dead". If anything, the discovery of any living creature being able to actually "come back from the dead" would weaken the significance of the Biblical story. Isn't the whole point that the only reason Jesus could do that was because of his unique power as the son of God? It wouldn't be as special if some random insects could do the same thing (and without making a big drama about it ;) ).
 
Hold on, gentlemen. An explanation is in order here.

Valery is NOT referring to the resurrection of Jesus, because he doesn't believe that Jesus was crucified. He's talking about the coming resurrection of everyone on Judgement Day. We can talk more about this later in Hell.
 
Then why would you consider not having sufficient evidence why someone doesn't accept all those things to be unquestionably true as defined "an excuse"? Again, this is the reason (not excuse) for not knowing. The reason (still not excuse) for not believing is simply a lack of faith, exactly the same reason you don't believe in Zeus or Shiva.

Nothing here has literally "come back from the dead" though. There are all sorts of creatures which are capable of surviving in various extreme environments or situations but the point is that they survive. At no point are they clinically dead only to change back to clinically alive. And regardless, if we're talking about defined natural processes, none of it would be literally miraculous by definition (though people might use the word casually to mean unexpected, impressive or surprising).

Also, even if some species were demonstrated to have a natural ability to somehow "come back from the dead", it still wouldn't relate to the Biblical story of Jesus supernaturally "coming back from the dead". If anything, the discovery of any living creature being able to actually "come back from the dead" would weaken the significance of the Biblical story. Isn't the whole point that the only reason Jesus could do that was because of his unique power as the son of God? It wouldn't be as special if some random insects could do the same thing (and without making a big drama about it ;) ).
You won't get through.
 
You didn't answer the question.

Yes, I did. Nothing can be proven. You are asking a question that cannot be answered. Actually, it is a rhetorical question. Your question answers itself the way you want it to. I don't answer rhetorical questions.
 
Yes, I did.
No, you didn't.
Nothing can be proven
I didn't ask if something could be proven.
You are asking a question that cannot be answered.
Nonsense. It's a 'yes' or a 'no' question.
Actually, it is a rhetorical question.
No, it's not. And I would be the one to decide if it was — not you.
Your question answers itself the way you want it to.
No, it doesn't. Although, I have a guess of the answer for sure. That doesn't mean I have it. You have it. You are afraid to answer. I don't know why.
I don't answer rhetorical questions.
It's not a rethorical question.
 
You know, back in high school, if you didn't believe in science, it was just called "FAILING".
 
No, you didn't.

I didn't ask if something could be proven.

Nonsense. It's a 'yes' or a 'no' question.

No, it's not. And I would be the one to decide if it was — not you.

No, it doesn't. Although, I have a guess of the answer for sure. That doesn't mean I have it. You have it. You are afraid to answer. I don't know why.

It's not a rethorical question.

It is a rhetorical question. It answers itself. But since you asked, the answer is no, because I know that nothing can be proven.
 
Back
Top Bottom