Sorry Creationists ... Evolutionary gap in early land animal fossil record filled

[youfiad]

The claim that science shows you the world as it truly is is a kid's claim. There's no way to prove it; it's purely a statement of faith. It's basically the same claim as the one saying that if something can be known, science can tell us.

The "invisible teapot" ploy is infantile, and will get from religious folks exactly the disdain it deserves. For starters, it was made up on the spot, with nothing at all to give it credence -- whereas, for example, the Abrahamic religions have thousands of years of testimony from people that it's true (if you could dig up a reference to an invisible teapot orbiting the sun from ancient Babylon, you'd have an equivalence).

BTW, I've almost never heard a believer "just tell us that we have to believe that their God exists". That's another caricature -- and it's easy to argue against caricatures.

The dispute is actually a lot like the difference between criminal court and civil court: for a criminal charge to succeed, the jury has to be unanimous, but for a civil suit to succeed, it only requires a majority or supermajority -- and you're saying that to win their case, the civil suit people have to get a unanimous jury. The thing is, the same parameters don't apply.


footnote: there is no such thing as "proof" in science, there is only "best conclusion".

Again, you are wrong. Although there is no way to prove anything in science 100%, there is a way to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. Faith is believing something without evidence whereas science is believing what the evidence shows. If you want to classify it as a faith, then go right ahead, but you are never going to understand what science truly is then. Trying to religion and science on the same playing field is foolish and unintelligent.

You really need to read more on the story of the flying teapot. It is much deeper than I wrote. Go read about Russel's Teapot on google. or wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot . The claim that Abrahamic religions have thousands of years of testimony is also idiotic.. Just because people believe it doesn't make it true. People thought that the earth was flat for thousands of years. People thought many things for long durations that were found to be false in the end. Belief doesn't demonstrate truth. It just doesn't. If in indoctrinate millions of people to believe that a mystical rock created the earth in 1 day, after 1000 years, that doesn't make it true.. It just doesn't. I'm sorry, but if you ever want to have any sort of intellectual discussion, you will have to learn that.

 

[Kulindahr]

I view the Christian perspective as something that is man made. It's funny how Christians attempt to elevate their god above that of god(s) from other religions. I guess the predominant religion is always the right one at the time, correct?

What makes the Judeo-christian god the right one? Is it because a majority of people believe it? I'm sure the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans would have other ideas.

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans had no rational approach to things. Their 'gods' were all nothing but more powerful parts of creation, as well. They flunk on two counts.

 

[youfiad]

That sounds just like a religious testimony.


What the frak did you believe before that made life "meaningless"?

I was a Christian until I was about age 12, then I learned to think for myself.

While I was a kid, my Christian family, my Christian peers and my Christian teachers always told me, in a very indirect way, that things were the way they were just because they are the way God wants it. As a very curious kid, that was never a very satisfying answer. When I started to ask people questions who actually knew what they were talking about, they were actually able to explain to me not only the what, but the why. Live was no longer boring and simplistic, but colorful and vaste. I started learning why some people suffered from certain diseases and others did not intead of hearing, "God's decisions are a mystery". I started to learn that the world is not as static as the bible wants us to believe, but it is ever changing and, at times, unpredictable. I learned that math could be used to explain how we got here and that we are all made up of dead stars from failed solar systems in ancient galaxies.

Sure beats the hell out of "Worship the God that created you, believe he died for your sins, go to heaven, and worship him more." I used to fear death as a Christian. Since I have learned how to live, I no longer do.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, they criticize atheists and agnostics for "assuming" their religion isn't real, while at the same time hypocritically "assuming" all other religions aren't real. I suppose religious people are the only ones allowed to decide which ones are real and which ones are fake?

What "assuming"?

You guys have a view of religion and believers that is so warped you have no clue what you're talking about.

In reality, the Jewish/Christian myth of creation involving God and Satan is no more and no less believable than say the Ancient Greek myth of creation involving Gia and Uranus.

The Greek myth is ludicrous on the face of it, and the gods aren't even creators -- they stumble around and their accidents result in stuff they didn't plan.

BTW... since when is Satan part of the Creation account?

The logic of Dawkin's response in the video I previously posted seems to have eluded Kul. People will always attempt to rationalize why their god's dick is bigger than all the others. In Kul's case, it's because his god is one god and the creator who brings order. Yikes.

Those are not rationalizations, they're logical criteria I relied on the decide among the choices. Another was written revelation -- any deity interested in communicating with his/her/its creatures is going to have something written, so there will be an objective reference.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's my limited understanding that the universe, at the quantum scale, is rather chaotic; particles popping into and out of existence willy-nilly, occupying more than one place at the same time and etc.

The chaos is only in our perception. But by order I didn't mean everything is placid; that's not what science means by order. I meant it has laws that don't change, that are the same everywhere.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just recently heard that clumpiness notwithstanding, the observable universe, in toto, is rather uniform in all directions; same degree of clumpiness every which way.

Yes -- and the degree of uniformity is astounding.

 

[Kulindahr]

42........

Shall we watch out for mice?

 

[zoltanspawn]

And that's one good reason to toss out Hinduism as worth consideration.

Don't misrepresent what I said. The texts only make him worth checking out. Since Hindu texts can't even agree on who was the creator -- Brahma, Vishnu, whomever -- they flunk out.

That Hinduism can be considered a single tradition is a testament to the civility, tolerance and open-mindedness of the communities involved. While Hindu texts "can't even agree" on various details, they remain Hindu.

If a similarly mature and civil tolerance were present in the west, we would speak of Hinduism's analogue 'Abrahamism' and its multiplicity of gods: Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, the Holy Spirit. (Don't forget the arch-angels, Lucifer, Lilith, various mythological heroes like Noah and generations of prophets.) But of course, too often the god of the west is a god who fights in history on behalf of certain tribes and so it's unrealistic to expect much ecumenism.

 

[youfiad]

The chaos is only in our perception. But by order I didn't mean everything is placid; that's not what science means by order. I meant it has laws that don't change, that are the same everywhere.

I guess I don't agree with this post either. Order, at east as far as entropy is concerned with thermodynamics, is a measure of how many different orientations a system can be organized. For examle, if you have a stopcock that separates two jars, in which one contains gas, and in which the other, is rid of matter. If you open the stopcock, the most thermodynamically favorable solution is one in which the two containers have the same concentration of gas. However, it is possible, however, more improbable that all of the gas particles remain in one of the containers to maintain a more ordered system. They prefer, however, to become more disorganized by spliting into two containers.

That's at least the order that we talk about. I have never heard it spoken about the uniformity of laws within our universe. And in some cases, uniformity is not observed. For more information, read about dark matter. So far, scientists have no supported theory to explain why the velocity at which distant stars on the outside of a galaxy is so high. If it were uniform, they could just use the models they use to explain our solar sytem. Another extreme is quantum mechanics. Many of the things we observe on a quantum level doesn't happen on a human level. So the uniformity between the classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is sort of not uniform.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, you are wrong. Although there is no way to prove anything in science 100%, there is a way to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. Faith is believing something without evidence whereas science is believing what the evidence shows. If you want to classify it as a faith, then go right ahead, but you are never going to understand what science truly is then. Trying to religion and science on the same playing field is foolish and unintelligent.

But your assertion cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To assert that science is the avenue to seeing things as they are is purely a statement of faith. All we know is that science leads to a great deal of knowledge; we have no way at all to claim there is no knowledge science cannot find. It's an assumption that is not even a hypothesis, because it can't be tested.

Religions are saying there is knowledge science can't find, and they have some. Science can neither affirm nor deny that, because by definition this knowledge isn't within the reach of science.

You really need to read more on the story of the flying teapot. It is much deeper than I wrote. Go read about Russel's Teapot on google. or wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot.

I know the teapot bit. Really, it's irrelevant, because it posits the existence of something science could actually detect. By using it to try to deny the existence of God the advocate is committing a fallacy by treating two entirely different things as the same. It's no different than if someone tried to disprove the existence of non-magnetic materials by using a proposed analogy... that involved magnetic materials.

The claim that Abrahamic religions have thousands of years of testimony is also idiotic.. Just because people believe it doesn't make it true. People thought that the earth was flat for thousands of years. People thought many things for long durations that were found to be false in the end. Belief doesn't demonstrate truth. It just doesn't. If in indoctrinate millions of people to believe that a mystical rock created the earth in 1 day, after 1000 years, that doesn't make it true.. It just doesn't. I'm sorry, but if you ever want to have any sort of intellectual discussion, you will have to learn that.

Belief in a flat world is not comparable at all.

What you're doing here is pretending two different things are the same, as though someone who hasn't witnessed events but has beliefs about them is on par with someone who has witnessed those events and thus can testify about them. Belief doesn't demonstrate truth, but testimony does.

If you want to have an intellectual discussion, you'll have to learn some logic.

 

[Kulindahr]

I was a Christian until I was about age 12, then I learned to think for myself.

While I was a kid, my Christian family, my Christian peers and my Christian teachers always told me, in a very indirect way, that things were the way they were just because they are the way God wants it. As a very curious kid, that was never a very satisfying answer. When I started to ask people questions who actually knew what they were talking about, they were actually able to explain to me not only the what, but the why. Live was no longer boring and simplistic, but colorful and vaste. I started learning why some people suffered from certain diseases and others did not intead of hearing, "God's decisions are a mystery". I started to learn that the world is not as static as the bible wants us to believe, but it is ever changing and, at times, unpredictable. I learned that math could be used to explain how we got here and that we are all made up of dead stars from failed solar systems in ancient galaxies.

Sure beats the hell out of "Worship the God that created you, believe he died for your sins, go to heaven, and worship him more." I used to fear death as a Christian. Since I have learned how to live, I no longer do.

Wow -- what kind of Christians were those? They sound rather moronic to me, the sort of people using religion than really believing it.

The Bible most certainly doesn't want us to believe "the world is static".

If you feared death as a Christian, your teachers were NOT Christian. They may have made the noises, but if from their teaching you feared death, they were most definitely not teaching you Christianity.

I started asking questions, and it led me to Christ.

I've known people who were drawn to science because they were Christians, and people who became Christians because of science. The attempt to portray them as alien and incompatible and hostile doesn't fit with the evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

That Hinduism can be considered a single tradition is a testament to the civility, tolerance and open-mindedness of the communities involved. While Hindu texts "can't even agree" on various details, they remain Hindu.

If a similarly mature and civil tolerance were present in the west, we would speak of Hinduism's analogue 'Abrahamism' and its multiplicity of gods: Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, the Holy Spirit. (Don't forget the arch-angels, Lucifer, Lilith, various mythological heroes like Noah and generations of prophets.) But of course, too often the god of the west is a god who fights in history on behalf of certain tribes and so it's unrealistic to expect much ecumenism.

That just tells me that Hinduism isn't interested in truth. It flunks again.

Your "ecumenical" idea is like expecting Darwinians to happily accept Lamarckians because both believe in evolution.

 

[youfiad]

But your assertion cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To assert that science is the avenue to seeing things as they are is purely a statement of faith. All we know is that science leads to a great deal of knowledge; we have no way at all to claim there is no knowledge science cannot find. It's an assumption that is not even a hypothesis, because it can't be tested.

Religions are saying there is knowledge science can't find, and they have some. Science can neither affirm nor deny that, because by definition this knowledge isn't within the reach of science.



I know the teapot bit. Really, it's irrelevant, because it posits the existence of something science could actually detect. By using it to try to deny the existence of God the advocate is committing a fallacy by treating two entirely different things as the same. It's no different than if someone tried to disprove the existence of non-magnetic materials by using a proposed analogy... that involved magnetic materials.



Belief in a flat world is not comparable at all.

What you're doing here is pretending two different things are the same, as though someone who hasn't witnessed events but has beliefs about them is on par with someone who has witnessed those events and thus can testify about them. Belief doesn't demonstrate truth, but testimony does.

If you want to have an intellectual discussion, you'll have to learn some logic.

Nobody is claiming that science will one day review the answer to everything. But it has revealed, beyond a reasonable doubt, the answer to countless things. But just because science has it's limits, doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever nonsense that makes you feel better. It doesn't make it true, or intelligent.

It isn't the job of science to disprove religions. The burden of proof always lays with those who make the assertion. And since science isn't claiming that an imaginary friend in the clouds did this and that, you must provide reasons and evidence for everyone else to believe your claim. May I suggest that you watch a video called "The Dragon in my Garage" by Carl Sagan ([ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E[/ame]) , the world's most famous astronomist, cosmologist and astrophysisist of all time.

And obviously you don't know the teapot bit, because if if you did, you wouldn't claim that science could detect it. Because in the premise, it is undetectable with any scientific instrument -- just as God. It is not irrelevent, and claiming it so because it makes your case easier doesn't make it so. The two arguments follow the same logic in different circumstances. All they did was substitute a teapot in for God. But the rest of the argument is exactly the same. So how is it irrelevent?

 

[hotatlboi]

Having been a young earth creationist in my ignorant youth, I think the main problem with these people is that they simply do not understand what the theory of evolution says.

They think of it as the monkeys with typewriters example, where random chance created everything after getting it wrong a billion times. They don't understand that it's an iterative process of positive changes that are suited to outlast the negative ones.

 

[youfiad]

Wow -- what kind of Christians were those? They sound rather moronic to me, the sort of people using religion than really believing it.

.

You don't know the people that I know. You can't judge them for being Christian or not. They most certainly are Christian and I take offense to you saying that my family does not believe in God, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.

They were simply unable to anwer my questions because there are no answers for the questions I asked. You wouldn't be able to answer them, The pope wouldn't be able to answer them. The best you guys could do is speculate and give me a round-about answer.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess I don't agree with this post either. Order, at east as far as entropy is concerned with thermodynamics, is a measure of how many different orientations a system can be organized. For examle, if you have a stopcock that separates two jars, in which one contains gas, and in which the other, is rid of matter. If you open the stopcock, the most thermodynamically favorable solution is one in which the two containers have the same concentration of gas. However, it is possible, however, more improbable that all of the gas particles remain in one of the containers to maintain a more ordered system. They prefer, however, to become more disorganized by spliting into two containers.

I know that definition -- I've taught it.

One of my physics professors spoke of order in the sense I used. He said there was no reason we had to say that the constants of the universe were even constants, why they shouldn't differ from place to place or time to time. The only reason we have for believing it is they seem to always have been.

That's at least the order that we talk about. I have never heard it spoken about the uniformity of laws within our universe. And in some cases, uniformity is not observed. For more information, read about dark matter. So far, scientists have no supported theory to explain why the velocity at which distant stars on the outside of a galaxy is so high. If it were uniform, they could just use the models they use to explain our solar sytem. Another extreme is quantum mechanics. Many of the things we observe on a quantum level doesn't happen on a human level. So the uniformity between the classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is sort of not uniform.

Dark matter doesn't violate uniformity -- we just don't understand it yet.

Nor do the speeds of those stars -- it just means something's going on we haven't figured out.

Same with the quantum stuff.

 

[Kulindahr]

And your judeo Christian approach is the rational way? I think not. And the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians created a lot of science and technology... that was lost in the dark ages because of the Church. In the end, any notion of deity is not rational.

And that is a statement of faith.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, all creation myths fail. But your reasons why some do and some don't doesn't make any sense to me. There is nothing that says there has to be only one god. That's just your religious bias showing through. So your point about multiplicity of deities is based on false premise.

And they say religious people are biased! Your whole paragraph reeks of bias.

The one creator requirement is a parameter I arrived at from mathematics BEFORE I was a Christian.

And regarding their incompetence, your mythical god was incompetent as well. He allowed for a fallen kingdom by letting Satan break away, put a stupid apple tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden, and allowed Eve to eat from it and in doing so somehow forever polluted mankind with sin. Then, after allowing that to happen, he got so pissed with his failed creation that he killed everything with a global flood. Then he has a change of heart, and makes a son named Jesus to come and try telling us he'll forgive all these sins in order to still be permitted in Heaven. We only have to believe. Then he let's his son get tortured and executed. And murder, rape, genocide, disease, starvation, and any kind of other suffering continues to this day.

All these fables are so very fucked up.

This is what results when judging one system of thought on the basis of another: nonsense.

I'm not even going to try to explain the errors in your hypothesis. But it's like some physicist looked at the expanding universe and decided everyone was wrong, it isn't expanding after all -- the speed of light is changing.

 

[youfiad]

And they say religious people are biased! Your whole paragraph reeks of bias.

The one creator requirement is a parameter I arrived at from mathematics BEFORE I was a Christian.


You are kidding aren't you? Can you please send me this math?

As I know the answer to this question is no, I now end this discussion. I have concluded that you are not intelligent enough to waste my time.

I can't believe I wasted all of this time already. Ohh well. You live, you learn.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, as I've shown you, there are very specific stories about various gods said to be involved in creation.

And I looked into those -- and dismissed them for rational reasons.

Your religion can't even figure that out. Was it Allah? Was it Jehovah? Was it Yahweh? And just how do Jesus and the Holy Spirit (forming the holy trinity with god) factor into this?

Actually, there are more Biblical god names than I care to count ...

OLD TESTAMENT NAMES FOR GOD

ELOHIM......Genesis 1:1, Psalm 19:1
meaning "God", a reference to God's power and might.
ADONAI......Malachi 1:6
meaning "Lord", a reference to the Lordship of God.
JEHOVAH--YAHWEH.....Genesis 2:4
a reference to God's divine salvation.
JEHOVAH-MACCADDESHEM.......Exodus 31:13
meaning "The Lord thy sanctifier"
JEHOVAH-ROHI......Psalm 23:1
meaning "The Lord my shepherd"
JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH.......Ezekiel 48:35
meaning "The Lord who is present"
JEHOVAH-RAPHA.........Exodus 15:26
meaning "The Lord our healer"
JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU......Jeremiah 23:6
meaning "The Lord our righteousness"
JEHOVAH-JIREH.........Genesis 22:13-14
meaning "The Lord will provide"
JEHOVAH-NISSI.........Exodus 17:15
meaning "The Lord our banner"
JEHOVAH-SHALOM........Judges 6:24
meaning "The Lord is peace"
JEHOVAH-SABBAOTH......Isaiah 6:1-3
meaning "The Lord of Hosts"
JEHOVAH-GMOLAH........Jeremiah 51:6
meaning "The God of Recompense"
EL-ELYON..............Genesis 14:17-20,Isaiah 14:13-14
meaning "The most high God
EL-ROI................Genesis 16:13
meaning "The strong one who sees"
EL-SHADDAI............Genesis 17:1,Psalm 91:1
meaning "The God of the mountains or God Almighty"
EL-OLAM...............Isaiah 40:28-31
meaning "The everlasting God"

MORE NAMES OF GOD

ABBA.............................Romans 8:15
ADVOCATE.........................I John 2:1 (kjv)
ALMIGHTY.........................Genesis 17:1
ALPHA............................Revelation 22:13
AMEN.............................Revelation 3:14
ANCIENT OF DAYS..................Daniel 7:9
ANOINTED ONE.....................Psalm 2:2
APOSTLE..........................Hebrews 3:1
ARM OF THE LORD..................Isaiah 53:1
AUTHOR OF LIFE...................Acts 3:15
AUTHOR OF OUR FAITH..............Hebrews 12:2

BEGINNING.........................Revelation 21:6
BLESSED & HOLY RULER..............1 Timothy 6:15
BRANCH............................Jeremiah 33:15
BREAD OF GOD......................John 6:33
BREAD OF LIFE.....................John 6:35
BRIDEGROOM........................Isaiah 62:56
BRIGHT MORNING STAR...............Revelation 22:16

CHIEF SHEPHERD.....................1 Peter 5:4
CHOSEN ONE.........................Isaiah 42:1
CHRIST.............................Matthew 22:42
CHRIST OF GOD......................Luke 9:20
CHRIST THE LORD....................Luke 2:11
CHRIST, SON OF LIVING GOD..........Matthew 16:16
COMFORTER..........................John 14:26(kjv)
COMMANDER..........................Isaiah 55:4
CONSOLATION OF ISRAEL...............Luke 2:25
CONSUMING FIRE......................Deut. 4:24, Heb. 12:29
CORNERSTONE.........................Isaiah 28:16
COUNSELOR...........................Isaiah 9:6
CREATOR.............................1 Peter 4:19

DELIVERER..............................Romans 11:26
DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS.................Haggai 2:7
DOOR...................................John 10:7(kjv)

END....................................Revelation 21:6
ETERNAL GOD............................Deut. 33:27
EVERLASTING FATHER.....................Isaiah 9:6

FAITHFUL & TRUE........................Revelation 19:11
FAITHFUL WITNESS.......................Revelation 1:5
FATHER.................................Matthew 6:9
FIRSTBORN (3)........................................Rom.8:29,Rev.1:5,Col.1:15
FIRSTFRUITS............................1 Cor.15:20-23
FOUNDATION.............................1 Cor. 3:11
FRIEND OF TAX COLLECTORS & SINNERS.....Matthew 11:19

GENTLE WHISPER.........................1 Kings 19:12
GIFT OF GOD............................John 4:10
GLORY OF THE LORD......................Isaiah 40:5
GOD....................................Genesis 1:1
GOD ALMIGHTY...........................Genesis 17:1
GOD OVER ALL...........................Romans 9:5
GOD WHO SEES ME........................Genesis 16:13
GOOD SHEPHERD..........................John 10:11
GREAT HIGH PRIEST......................Hebrews 4:14
GREAT SHEPHERD.........................Hebrews 13:20
GUIDE..................................Psalm 48:14

HEAD OF THE BODY.......................Colossians 1:18
HEAD OF THE CHURCH.....................Ephesians 5:23
HEIR OF ALL THINGS.....................Hebrews 1:2
HIGH PRIEST............................Hebrews 3:1
HIGH PRIEST FOREVER....................Hebrews 6:20
HOLY ONE...............................Acts 2:27
HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.....................Isaiah 49:7
HOLY SPIRIT............................John 15:26
HOPE...................................Titus 2:13
HORN OF SALVATION......................Luke 1:69

I AM....................................Exodus 3:14, John 8:58
IMAGE OF GOD............................2 Cor. 4:4
IMAGE OF HIS PERSON.....................Hebrews 1:3 (kjv)
IMMANUEL................................Isaiah 7:14

JEALOUS..............................Exodus 34:14 (kjv)
JEHOVAH..............................Psalm 83:18 (kjv)
JESUS................................Matthew 1:21
JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD................Romans 6:23
JUDGE................................Isaiah 33:22, Acts 10:42

KING.................................Zechariah 9:9
KING ETERNAL.........................1 Timothy 1:17
KING OF KINGS........................1 Timothy 6:15
KING OF THE AGES.....................Revelation 15:3

LAMB OF GOD...........................John 1:29
LAST ADAM.............................1 Cor. 15:45
LAWGIVER..............................Isaiah 33:22
LEADER................................Isaiah 55:4
LIFE..................................John 14:6
LIGHT OF THE WORLD....................John 8:12
LIKE AN EAGLE.........................Deut. 32:11
LILY OF THE VALLEYS...................Song 2:1
LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH............Revelation 5:5
LIVING STONE..........................1 Peter 2:4
LIVING WATER..........................John 4:10
LORD..................................John 13:13
LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.....................Revelation 15:3
LORD JESUS CHRIST.....................1 Cor. 15:57
LORD OF ALL...........................Acts 10:36
LORD OF GLORY ........................1 Cor. 2:8
LORD OF HOSTS.........................Haggai 1:5
LORD OF LORDS.........................1 Tim. 6:15
LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS..............Jeremiah 23:6
LOVE.................................1 John 4:8

MAN OF SORROWS.........................Isaiah 53:3
MASTER..................................Luke 5:5
MEDIATOR................................1 Timothy 2:5
MERCIFUL GOD............................Jeremiah 3:12
MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT................Malachi 3:1
MESSIAH................................. John 4:25
MIGHTY GOD...............................Isaiah 9:6
MIGHTY ONE...............................Isaiah 60:16

NAZARENE.................................Matthew 2:23

OFFSPRING OF DAVID.......................Revelation 22:16
OMEGA....................................Revelation 22:13
ONLY BEGOTTEN SON........................John 1:18(kjv)
OUR PASSOVER LAMB........................1 Cor. 5:7
OUR PEACE................................Ephesians 2:14

POTTER...................................Isaiah 64:8
POWER OF GOD.............................1 Cor. 1:24
PRINCE OF PEACE..........................Isaiah 9:6
PROPHET..................................Acts 3:22
PURIFIER.................................Malachi 3:3

RABBONI (TEACHER)........................John 20:16
RADIANCE OF GOD'S GLORY..................Heb.1:3
REDEEMER.................................Job 19:25
REFINER'S FIRE...........................Malachi 3:2
RESURRECTION.............................John 11:25
RIGHTEOUS ONE............................1 John 2:1
ROCK.....................................1 Cor.10:4
ROOT OF DAVID............................Rev. 22:16
ROSE OF SHARON...........................Song 2:1
RULER OF GOD'S CREATION..................Rev. 3:14
RULER OVER KINGS OF EARTH................Rev 1:5
RULER OVER ISRAEL........................Micah 5:2

SAVIOR...................................Luke 2:11
SCEPTER OUT OF ISRAEL....................Numbers 24:17
SEED.....................................Genesis 3:15
SERVANT..................................Isaiah 42:1
SHEPHERD OF OUR SOULS....................1Peter 2:25
SHIELD...................................Genesis 15:1
SON OF DAVID.............................Matthew 1:1
SON OF GOD...............................Matthew 27:54
SON OF MAN...............................Matthew 8:20
SON OF THE MOST HIGH.....................Luke 1:32
SOURCE...................................Hebrews 5:9
SPIRIT OF GOD............................Genesis 1:2
STAR OUT OF JACOB........................Numbers 24:17
STONE....................................1 Peter 2:8
SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.....................Malachi 4:2

TEACHER...................................John 13:13
TRUE LIGHT................................John 1:9
TRUE WITNESS..............................Revelation 3:14
TRUTH.....................................John 14:6

VINE......................................John 15:5

WAY........................................John 14:6
WISDOM OF GOD..............................1 Cor. 1:24
WITNESS....................................Isaiah 55:4
WONDERFUL..................................Isaiah 9:6
WORD.......................................John 1:1
WORD OF GOD................................Revelation 19:13

What incompetent came up with that list? A full hundred and forty don't even come close to being "names of God". Most fail because they're adjectives or adjectival when you look at the verses.

You did look at the verses, right? You checked their context before you put them on the list? Or did you just copy it from someplace still stupid enough to have "Jehovah" around as a word.

After the adjectives come descriptives. If after the Super Bowl a commentator said, "He's the great quarterback ever", would you take that for the guy's name? If a member of the president's cabinet came to speak, would you act as though "Secretary of Defense" was his name? If Lance Armstrong came along in a mall, would you go up to him and say, "I'm so honored to meet you, Mister Winner" -- because of course his name is actually "Seven-time Winner?

I crossed over, just above, into another category, titles, so I'll just move on.

When a guy calls his fiancee "dear", do you assume that's her name? if he calls her "dearest sunshine", do you assume her last name is "sunshine"? That she has more than one name?

For that matter, do you think everyone's dad is named "father"? and all the world's young men are named "son"?

As I said, that list was formed by incompetents. See, after you remove the adjectives and descriptives and titles and nicknames of endearment and terms showing relationship, there's one left: "I AM". "YAHWEH" is another way to say the same thing.


BTW, "Allah" belongs to a different religion.