Did Nothing Create Everything?

[(Q)]

I actually like your link to the Gordon Franz perspective and material better than my own and will likely use it in the future.

Thank You for providing it (Q)!

I am sure you noticed his belief in the Exodus Miracles. Do you agree with him on that?

I just think he has too much to lose with the discovery of any other Site than his own personal professional favorite.

I believe he is suppressing the New Site because it would destroy his own reputation, and force him to throw out many of his very public prior assumptions, and claims.

I think I might go with these links in the future thanks to you...

https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia/

https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia-part-2/

https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia-part-3/

I wish him well, but disagree with him.

Your posts speaks volumes. It's now clear to me that you have no desire whatsoever to look at the facts, that all you care about is that you really, really, really want to believe that site is the Mt. Sinai in the biblical account. You continue to base your beliefs on an appeal to the authorities making the claims, despite the fact an artifact has been shown to be a forgery and the inscriptions on that artifact do not show what those authorities say it shows. Even to this day, they continue to deny that fact and continue to claim it is what it isn't. Not only that, they refuse to provide access to the artifact to other experts in their fields. How dishonest is that.

The blackened mountain has been shown through geological analysis that it was not blackened by fire, yet your authorities continue to claim it was fire from the hand of God. They simply refuse to accept the science in favor of their irrational beliefs.

So, even though you may not be a fan of Bob Cornuke, you and he are identical in how you're dealing with this issue. There's no getting through to him and there's no getting through to you. No amount of facts are going to change their minds or yours.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Your posts speaks volumes. It's now clear to me that you have no desire whatsoever to look at the facts, that all you care about is that you really, really, really want to believe that site is the Mt. Sinai in the biblical account. You continue to base your beliefs on an appeal to the authorities making the claims, despite the fact an artifact has been shown to be a forgery and the inscriptions on that artifact do not show what those authorities say it shows. Even to this day, they continue to deny that fact and continue to claim it is what it isn't. Not only that, they refuse to provide access to the artifact to other experts in their fields. How dishonest is that.

The blackened mountain has been shown through geological analysis that it was not blackened by fire, yet your authorities continue to claim it was fire from the hand of God. They simply refuse to accept the science in favor of their irrational beliefs.

So, even though you may not be a fan of Bob Cornuke, you and he are identical in how you're dealing with this issue. There's no getting through to him and there's no getting through to you. No amount of facts are going to change their minds or yours.

I am not to blame for anything Bob Cornuke does.

The Mountain of God, and the evidence on the ground there are all I need and rely on.

The Site is plain, simple and obvious to anyone who will take but a little time to study the Exodus Account and the Site, in order to compare one with the other. They match perfectly in every detail.

It requires no advanced degrees to understand what is there.

Thanks for the fun conversation!
You are a wonderful person!

 

[(Q)]

I am not to blame for anything Bob Cornuke does.

Yet, you are responsible for what you do, which is the same as what Bob Cornuke does.

The Mountain of God, and the evidence on the ground there are all I need and rely on.

And, damn to hell with facts.

The Site is plain, simple and obvious to anyone who will take but a little time to study the Exodus Account and the Site, in order to compare one with the other. They match perfectly in every detail.

Yes, to those who really, really, really want to believe it does.

It requires no advanced degrees to understand what is there.

Yeah, it does.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Yet, you are responsible for what you do, which is the same as what Bob Cornuke does.



And, damn to hell with facts.



Yes, to those who really, really, really want to believe it does.



Yeah, it does.

We disagree on those things.

 

[billvon]

I am not to blame for anything Bob Cornuke does.
The Mountain of God, and the evidence on the ground there are all I need and rely on.

It's great that you have personal beliefs that make you happy.

 

[foghorn]

Oh, no, no, no... No answering a question with another question.

Really?
Bowser don't be a hypocrite.
You answered SetiAlpha's question with your own question remember?

Do you believe that Nothing created Everything?

Your reply:

Well, what is a thought? Is it actually something or is it nothing?

 

[sideshowbob]

The Site is plain, simple and obvious to anyone who will take but a little time to study the Exodus Account and the Site, in order to compare one with the other.

Aren't you paying attention? It's a lie. For one thing, the mountain was not blackened by fire.

 

[(Q)]

We disagree on those things.

It sure seems more like denial then it is disagreement. For example, it's denial of the fact the rocks were not blackened by fire, not disagreement. It's denial the artifact was a forgery with mistranslated inscriptions, not disagreement. If you actually disagreed with the science, then you would have some other science to back up your disagreements, but you don't. All you keep saying is for us to read the Exodus account because you believe it aligns perfectly with the site. That's not science, that's wishful thinking.

 

[billvon]

It requires no advanced degrees to understand what is there.

Well, that's sort of the basic problem, isn't it?
It requires no advanced degrees to understand that the Earth is flat. Just use your eyes! It sure looks flat. But just a little education will prove that understanding wrong.
It requires no advanced degrees to understand that disease is caused by miasmic gases. But just a little education will prove that understanding wrong.
It requires no advanced degrees to understand that light propagates through an ether, just like ocean waves propagate through water. You can SEE it! But just a little education will prove that understanding wrong.

It seems foolish to cling to ideas that have been proven wrong simply because you denigrate education.

 

[davewhite04]

We disagree on those things.

Exactly.

To you this Exodus situation is true, always will be. Great. Everyone is different, which is good, but know when you are speaking on deaf ears.

 

[DaveC426913]

... but know when you are speaking on deaf ears.

I would rephrase that as "unconvinced ears".

A large fraction of this 1200+ post thread is two-way discussion about SA6's Exodus hypothesis. He hasn't met the burden of evidence for his case, but it's not like no one is listening or engaging.

The shortcoming lies with the speaker not the listeners.

 

[davewhite04]

The shortcoming lies with the speaker not the listeners.

Who knows? Maybe they are spot on and you and the rest of you are wrong?

But that means I agree with SetAlpha6? No it doesn't. It means none of you know anything. But you just won't admit it. Never will at this rate.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who knows? Maybe they are spot on and you and the rest of you are wrong?

It wasn't about right or wrong; it was about listening. We listened.

It means none of you know anything.

Science isn't about "knowing".

It's about evidence compelling enough to make the best model.

Whatever you claim to "know" today can change tomorrow with new evidence.

Never will at this rate.

And a good thing, too. I'd hate to see the day I give up exploring and decide I just "know" stuff. That would make me a zealot.

 

[davewhite04]

It wasn't about right or wrong; it was about listening. We listened.

You should watch what words you use, think about what they mean etc before you say them. Who is "We"? Do you think you are a leader?

 

[DaveC426913]

Who is "We"?

Everyone who participated in the thread of course.

I was specifically referring to your comment about "deaf ears". That's demonstrably untrue. Not agreeing with someone does not mean one is deaf to their thesis.

And since you also don't agree with SA6, your reaction seems out of place, unless you count yourself as one of the deaf.

 

[davewhite04]

Everyone who participated in the thread of course.

I was specifically referring to your comment about "deaf ears". That's demonstrably untrue. Not agreeing with someone does not mean one is deaf to their thesis.

And since you also don't agree with SA6, your reaction seems out of place, unless you count yourself as one of the deaf.

Okay I'll re-word it for you. "people who will never agree".

 

[DaveC426913]

Okay I'll re-word it for you. "people who will never agree".

There's no "never" about it.
Rational people don't agree just because. They agree when the case has been made compellingly. This one hasn't been.

Can we get back on-topic?

 

[davewhite04]

There's no "never" about it.
Rational people don't agree just because. They agree when the case has been made compellingly. This one hasn't been.

Can we get back on-topic?

Do you realise how irrational you sound? You are assuming the position of The Truth.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are assuming the position of The Truth.

No, I am observing the participation of people in this thread.

But if you want to talk about assuming the position of The Truth, consider your claim that people will "never" change their minds. That is a bigger assumption of knowledge than you claim I made.
And mine is based on evidence found in this very thread.

Back on topic?

 

[davewhite04]

No, I am observing the participation of people in this thread.

But if you want to talk about assuming the position of The Truth, consider your claim that people will "never" change their minds. That is a bigger assumption of knowledge than you claim I made.
And mine is based on evidence found in this very thread.

Back on topic?

What topic?