A tale of two statements

[El Cid]

The only thing science assumes is that this material universe obeys certain physical laws (your so-called “methodological naturalism”), BECAUSE all the evidence supports that assumption.

Gods word teaches that the universe generally operates according to His natural laws. That is one reason modern science was invented by Christians.

Science says NOT a single thing about a supernatural being BECAUSE said supernatural being presents no evidence for supernatural events. If said being ever presents supernatural events then, —and only then, will science have something to say about it.

The Big Bang is a supernatural event.

It is religious fundamentalists such as yourself who distort science to be, and attribute to it, what science NEVER claims to be, in order for superstitious people like yourself to promote superstitions and myths. IOW, religious fundies NEED for science to be characterized as your enemy because science and critical thinking refute the myths you want to promote.

Educated orthodox Christians dont consider science our enemy, we invented modern science. It probably never would have come into existence if not for Christians and the Christian worldview. Christianity is the only religion that teaches that there is an objective reality that operates according to natural laws. This resulted in the systematic study of nature because the scripture teaches that we can learn about God from nature.

A true, educated scientist actually sees how science supports a divine creator without ever using supernatural events. Said speculative creator has done just fine producing moral beings without breaking a single physical law of the universe. Imagine that!

But you dont believe in a personal creator. Morality can not come from an impersonal amoral source.

It is orthodoxy and its dependance upon mythical stories that needs science to be its enemy (Catholicism merely compartmentalizes whereas evangelicals bury their head in the sand), whereas, science has no enemies. Science merely studies what can be studied.

See above about educated orthodox Christians.

Religious fundies oppose science because what science has discovered to be true actually refutes the myths promoted by orthodoxy. Therefore, orthodoxy is a false religious system of belief on the same level with paganism (eg Zeus and his lightening bolts). Moral philosophy would be the better form of religion. And moral philosophers had no problem believing in an absolute good creator, imperfect nature, sin, and salvation.

So far nothing in science has refuted any teaching of orthodox Christianity. How does a moral philosopher know that the creator is good?

 

[El Cid]

No, we have proven that not to be true by probing the physical brain and controlling sentience and thought through its physical manipulation.

No, not if the mind is like the computer is for you. If my keyboard got damaged you would think I was brain damaged, but it would not be true. The brain is like the minds keyboard to the outside world.

 

[5wize]

No, not if the mind is like the computer is for you. If my keyboard got damaged you would think I was brain damaged, but it would not be true. The brain is like the minds keyboard to the outside world.

This is just ridiculous. You think people with dementia, depression, and severe mental retardation are just healthy self aware minds like yours and mine but stuck in a nightmare of bad expressions in the world that even they are aware of but cannot help? That's called tourrettes.

There is NO evidence of this at all. Your analogy is sensible only in a world where brains and computers are compared as if they are equivalents. What are the thoughts of a computer?

 

[El Cid]

Fraid so, He can logically be deduced from the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.

Please be so kind as to present your deductions. Once you've done that, all you need to do is show how these deductions can then be claimed to be evidence. Good luck.

The BB theory has confirmed that the universe is an effect and therefore requires the right kind of cause. The Christian God fits that cause perfectly. So the universe is strong evidence for His existence.

El Cid said:
Fraid so.

No, biblical scholars both Christian and non-Christian agree that verses 3-5 are an ancient Christian creed composed less than 5 years after the resurrection

Fulfilling scriptures that were created AFTER the fact doesn't sound like much of a claim to begin with. Care to try again?

Huh? ALL written descriptions of events are written AFTER the event.

El Cid said:
based on linguistic evidence. It was pre-Pauline. And of course, Paul was a skeptic and yet after he saw the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus he became the greatest leader of the Christian church.

Paul was also quite intelligent and would never bother mentioning scriptural claims made AFTER the resurrection which fulfill a resurrection that occurred BEFORE they were jotted down.

See above.

El Cid said:
What evidence?

Ignorance is bliss. Seek and you shall find that the gospels fit the Jewish liturgical calendar like a hand in a glove.

Absurd. Why would they insert historical people, places and events into something that is totally metaphorical? It makes no sense.

El Cid said:
See my post to Docphin5 where I provide evidence that they are very different from myths.

Myths provide incredible explanatory power just like the scriptures do.

Yes, but some ancient documents record actual historical events like the scriptures do. That is one of the ways we get history.

 

[El Cid]

Of course he is, you cannot get scars from a non-literal crucifixion.

Then this claim is false: e.g. "read verse 6 it refers to our old sinful nature being crucified to bring about our new life in Christ where we are no longer enslaved to sin."

Our sinful nature is literally crucified but since it is non-physical, then there are no scars of course.

El Cid said:
How? See above.

"it refers to our old sinful nature being crucified to bring about our new life in Christ where we are no longer enslaved to sin.":

See above.

El Cid said:
Abortions are not being born, they are the opposite.

False. Abortions are delivered. They are still births.

In some cases maybe but not D&C abortions, all that is left is shredded tissue.

El Cid said:
Yes, but the Biblical prophets had a direct connection to the real God,

Agreed.

El Cid said:
the gnostics god was man made.

Strawman argument. I wasn't referring to gnostics.

The guy that was the original poster, Docphin5 was.

El Cid said:
Yes,

Glad you agree.

El Cid said:
but He was not talking about the way to salvation, that is easily understood. His parable for those that were more mature.

So when he points out that the kingdom of heaven is populated by children, he's mistaken or is he saying children are the only people who are actually mature?

El Cid said:
Yes, there is, it is the foundation of orthodox Christianity.

Your claims don't make it so. Prove it.

El Cid said:
True just regurgitating orthodox doctrine does not make one a Christian, but some children show signs of a change in behavior and life, thereby confirming their understanding

Fallacy of the Non Sequitur and Begging the Question. Show your work. Prove it.

El Cid said:
and receiving a relationship with God. Many Christians are falling away because most American Churches dont teach orthodox doctrine and especially do not promote spiritual growth in the deeper things.

You're quite simply adding the mediator of the intellect when there can only be one mediator between humanity and God, i.e. Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5

Christ made our intellect and wants us to use it. That is why Christians invented modern science.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No, not if the mind is like the computer is for you. If my keyboard got damaged you would think I was brain damaged, but it would not be true. The brain is like the minds keyboard to the outside world.

If you break the keyboard, the computer still works.

We have no evidence of a mind continuing to work after its brain is destroyed.

 

[shnarkle]

The BB theory has confirmed that the universe is an effect

No, it hasn't. As astronomers look away from the so-called Big Bang, they usefully observe that the universe is expanding at a ever increasingly faster rate than it ever has. See the problem yet? Probably not. What they're presenting is a view from the event horizon of a black hole. What they're presenting of the Big Bang is simply the point at which they can go no further.

and therefore requires the right kind of cause.

A cause which is too elusive to name. Giving it the title of God doesn't cut it.

The Christian God fits that cause perfectly. So the universe is strong evidence for His existence.

False. The Fallacy of Begging the Question. The universe is strong evidence for the universe and that's it.

Huh? ALL written descriptions of events are written AFTER the event.

Not when they're prophesied BEFORE the event.

See above.

Absurd. Why would they insert historical people, places and events into something that is totally metaphorical? It makes no sense.

You obviously have no familiarity with figurative speech. I never claimed they were metaphors. I'm pointing out a well-documented HISTORICAL fact.

Yes, but some ancient documents record actual historical events like the scriptures do.

Again, Begging the Question. You're assuming what you claim to prove.

That is one of the ways we get history.

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean it's actual or factual history. Again, Begging the Question.

 

[shnarkle]

Our sinful nature is literally crucified but since it is non-physical, then there are no scars of course.

Correction, there are no physical scars. if you have no literal scars then you're literally not saved. Even Christ has scars.

See above.

In some cases maybe but not D&C abortions, all that is left is shredded tissue.

Nonetheless, they're delivered.

The guy that was the original poster, Docphin5 was.

Christ made our intellect and wants us to use it. That is why Christians invented modern science.

Too bad they no longer use science, but then they've taken their lead from the atheists who worship science rather than actually using it.

 

[El Cid]

Evidence?

The evidence is that you simply cannot point empirically to an intelligent source as you watch the process of a seed turn into a tree, but you can do that as you watch the process of metal and glass be formed into a watch.

Yes, but it is ingeniously hidden in a program called DNA.

El Cid said:
They only "self generate" because they have been programmed to, using a program called DNA. A program implies a programmer.

Yes. A program implies a programmer, but DNA is not a program, like Fortran, or Python that is traced back to empirical sources, uses and manual (created) deployment. DNA is merely a natural pattern that has affect on nature. Many natural patterns exist that of course will affect all nature and they are not deemed intelligently designed or are witnessed as originating from intelligence like a computer program or a watch actually is. I agree that you can imply it, but not with any veracity against the claim that it is a wholly natural, which holds more evidentiary value than an intelligent designer.

No, DNA is a complex linguistic code, and throughout all of human history those can only be produced by an intelligent mind. An arrowhead from 10,000 years ago was not witnessed as originating from an intelligence but all archaeologists agree it was.

Besides, even a cursory study of DNA shows that it is actually a naturally evolved set of characteristics with many layers of old biological junk and now meaningless evolutionary leftovers. It is showing us more of a natural and sloppy story of evolution than an intellegent and efficient well designed source of creation.

Actually most junk DNA has now been shown to have functions contrary to what evolutionists have been saying for years. Maybe the creator wanted to be what you call sloppy. Your last statement is a theological one not a scientific one.

 

[El Cid]

This is just ridiculous. You think people with dementia, depression, and severe mental retardation are just healthy self aware minds like yours and mine but stuck in a nightmare of bad expressions in the world that even they are aware of but cannot help? That's called tourrettes.

Basically yes. Living in a nightmare is good description, though mental retardation prevents the mind from learning so they dont fully understand the situation. They are like a child.

There is NO evidence of this at all. Your analogy is sensible only in a world where brains and computers are compared as if they are equivalents. What are the thoughts of a computer?

Yes, there is evidence. The mind can cure physical illnesses including brain damage so that is evidence that it can act outside the brains limits, ie the placebo effect.

 

[5wize]

Basically yes. Living in a nightmare is good description, though mental retardation prevents the mind from learning so they dont fully understand the situation. They are like a child.

That shows a profound lack of understanding of the brain/mind relationship. Schizophrenics actually report seeing things that are not there, which means that against your theory, not only is expression hampered, but perception as well. Without proper perception, how is there a healthy witnessing and correctly perceiving mind that can internally acknowledge a broken expression?

Mental health issues are issues of perception, and perception is the core of mental self awareness. Again, a healthy self aware person that has broken expression is a wholly different category of malady such as stroke, Parkinson's, Muscular Dystrophy, Lou Gehrig's disease, Tourettes, seizure, etc.... You are really barking up the wrong tree to force fit your hypothesis.

Yes, there is evidence. The mind can cure physical illnesses including brain damage so that is evidence that it can act outside the brains limits, ie the placebo effect.

You haven't made the case that those thoughts are outside the brains limits at all. If anything, you are proving my point that the brain is the source of all creative thought and there is nothing supernatural about any of it. Those thoughts originate in the brain of a biological entity, not a disembodied being, the disembodied "being" representing the same definitional error as the married bachelor embodied in the impossibly contradictory concept of a timeless and spaceless "being". No such thing - even definitionally.

 

[El Cid]

The BB theory has confirmed that the universe is an effect

No, it hasn't. As astronomers look away from the so-called Big Bang, they usefully observe that the universe is expanding at a ever increasingly faster rate than it ever has. See the problem yet? Probably not. What they're presenting is a view from the event horizon of a black hole. What they're presenting of the Big Bang is simply the point at which they can go no further.

No, the majority view is that the singularity at the BB is the beginning of the universe. And anything that has a beginning and changes is an effect.

El Cid said:
and therefore requires the right kind of cause.

A cause which is too elusive to name. Giving it the title of God doesn't cut it.

If the glove fits you must convict. Scientists use characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause everyday. And for our universe the characteristics point to the Christian God as the cause.

El Cid said:
The Christian God fits that cause perfectly. So the universe is strong evidence for His existence.

False. The Fallacy of Begging the Question. The universe is strong evidence for the universe and that's it.

No, see above. No fallacy for something that scientists do everyday.

El Cid said:
Huh? ALL written descriptions of events are written AFTER the event.

Not when they're prophesied BEFORE the event.

The ancient creed I quoted was NOT a prophecy. Did you even read my post?

El Cid said:
See above.

Absurd. Why would they insert historical people, places and events into something that is totally metaphorical? It makes no sense.

You obviously have no familiarity with figurative speech. I never claimed they were metaphors. I'm pointing out a well-documented HISTORICAL fact.

There is little or no difference between figurative speech and metaphorical speech. From Britannica: figure of speech, any intentional deviation from literal statement or common usage that emphasizes, clarifies, or embellishes both written and spoken language.
A document that is figurative would also have no reason to contain historical people, places, and events. It makes no sense.

.
El Cid said:
Yes, but some ancient documents record actual historical events like the scriptures do.

sh: Again, Begging the Question. You're assuming what you claim to prove.
I am just stating that generally myths do not contain actual historical events.

El Cid said:
That is one of the ways we get history.

sh: Perhaps, but it doesn't mean it's actual or factual history. Again, Begging the Question.

There is evidence that it is.

 

[El Cid]

If you break the keyboard, the computer still works.

We have no evidence of a mind continuing to work after its brain is destroyed.

Yes, some NDEs where there is no brain activity being recorded.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, some NDEs where there is no brain activity being recorded.

Are there any examples where the brains were permanently destroyed?
If not, why not?

 

[El Cid]

Our sinful nature is literally crucified but since it is non-physical, then there are no scars of course.

Correction, there are no physical scars. if you have no literal scars then you're literally not saved. Even Christ has scars.

No, there is no evidence for that assertion. Yes, Christ had scars because he was literally crucified.

El Cid said:
See above.

In some cases maybe but not D&C abortions, all that is left is shredded tissue.

Nonetheless, they're delivered.

Delivering shredded tissue is not a birth.

El Cid said:
The guy that was the original poster, Docphin5 was.

Christ made our intellect and wants us to use it. That is why Christians invented modern science.

Too bad they no longer use science, but then they've taken their lead from the atheists who worship science rather than actually using it.

There are many good Christian scientists. Ever hear of the American Scientific Affiliation? I dont know any Christian scientists that worship science and I am a scientist myself. But you are right about atheists, they do worship it.

 

[El Cid]

"I believe it therefore it's true" would be a *reason* to believe. It's magical reasoning and it is invalid, but it's still a reason. Of course they have *a* reason to believe, but what I'm pointing out here is the process.

I just want to put a part of your response under the microscope for a second here:

"You may not think that some of the things they view as evidence is really evidence"

What is and is not evidence is not a matter of opinion. Evidence means verifiable facts and data. If it's not verifiable, then it's not evidence. I FeEl tHe HoLy SpIrIt is not evidence. It might be a *reason* to personally believe, but it is objectively and definitionaly NOT evidence of any kind whatsoever.

No, not all evidence is something that can be verifiable scientifically with facts and data. Is the evidence that your wife loves you verifiable? If so how? But there is evidence for Christianity that is verifiable by science with facts and data. For one example, there is strong scientific evidence that the universe is an effect and needs a cause and the Christian God fits that cause the best.

 

[El Cid]

Basically yes. Living in a nightmare is good description, though mental retardation prevents the mind from learning so they dont fully understand the situation. They are like a child.

That shows a profound lack of understanding of the brain/mind relationship. Schizophrenics actually report seeing things that are not there, which means that against your theory, not only is expression hampered, but perception as well. Without proper perception, how is there a healthy witnessing and correctly perceiving mind that can internally acknowledge a broken expression?

In nightmares perception is hampered too. As I said living a nightmare is a good description of what the mind experiences when the brain is damaged.

Mental health issues are issues of perception, and perception is the core of mental self awareness. Again, a healthy self aware person that has broken expression is a wholly different category of malady such as stroke, Parkinson's, Muscular Dystrophy, Lou Gehrig's disease, Tourettes, seizure, etc.... You are really barking up the wrong tree to force fit your hypothesis.

See above.

El Cid said:
Yes, there is evidence. The mind can cure physical illnesses including brain damage so that is evidence that it can act outside the brains limits, ie the placebo effect.

You haven't made the case that those thoughts are outside the brains limits at all. If anything, you are proving my point that the brain is the source of all creative thought and there is nothing supernatural about any of it. Those thoughts originate in the brain of a biological entity, not a disembodied being, the disembodied "being" representing the same definitional error as the married bachelor embodied in the impossibly contradictory concept of a timeless and spaceless "being". No such thing - even definitionally.

If transgenderism is real, then in transgenders the mind is going totally against biology. Even brain cells are male or female. And NDEs point to mind being able to exist for short periods without the brain or body. So that it is possible that a much more powerful mind can live permanently without a brain or body.

 

[shnarkle]

No, the majority view is that the singularity at the BB is the beginning of the universe. And anything that has a beginning and changes is an effect.

Real true science allows conflicting or contrary evidence whenever possible. Again, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate which presents us with an ever receding origin; one that does not present us with a beginning at all.

If the glove fits you must convict.

And yet perhaps the most notorious example of how fallacious this truly is resulted in an acquittal.

Scientists use characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause everyday. And for our universe the characteristics point to the Christian God as the cause.

So you keep claiming, yet nowhere can anyone present this Christian God as the cause.

No, see above. No fallacy for something that scientists do everyday.

Just because they do it, it doesn't then follow that it isn't a prime example of Begging the Question. We can add the fallacy of the Non Sequitur to your arguments as well.

The ancient creed I quoted was NOT a prophecy. Did you even read my post?

Yes, but it's becoming ever more convoluted with each passing post.

There is little or no difference between figurative speech and metaphorical speech. From Britannica: figure of speech, any intentional deviation from literal statement or common usage that emphasizes, clarifies, or embellishes both written and spoken language.

Your ignorance is profound. The figure Metaphor is a specific figure and bears no resemblance to the figure Symbol, Analogy, Simile, Hypocatastasis, Hendiadys, etc. etc. etc.

A document that is figurative would also have no reason to contain historical people, places, and events. It makes no sense.

Still Begging the Question. You're assuming they're historical people. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. Moreover, there is no law, rule, or principle that precludes historical people from being employed within a figure of speech. If so, where???

sh: Again, Begging the Question. You're assuming what you claim to prove.
I am just stating that generally myths do not contain actual historical events.

And your claim is without any proof. The battle of Troy was once considered to be purely mythological, and yet even though this is not the consensus anymore, the mythological characteristics of the story are no less legitimate. Rats do not eat the quivers of arrows, but Herodotus claims that's why the Israelites were victorious over their enemies.

sh: Perhaps, but it doesn't mean it's actual or factual history. Again, Begging the Question.

There is evidence that it is.

When you get around to proving these claims, let me know.

 

[El Cid]

No, the majority view is that the singularity at the BB is the beginning of the universe. And anything that has a beginning and changes is an effect.

Real true science allows conflicting or contrary evidence whenever possible. Again, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate which presents us with an ever receding origin; one that does not present us with a beginning at all.

Yes, but the nevertheless the majority view is that it did have a beginning. Even you admit that it had an origin, all effects have origins as well.

If the glove fits you must convict.

And yet perhaps the most notorious example of how fallacious this truly is resulted in an acquittal.

In that case it didnt fit.

Scientists use characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause everyday. And for our universe the characteristics point to the Christian God as the cause.

So you keep claiming, yet nowhere can anyone present this Christian God as the cause.

The universe has purposes and we know that only personal beings can create purposes. That fits the Christian God. Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity just like the Triune Christian God. We know from art experts that creators always leave a unique fingerprint to identify them as the creator. So only the Christian God has a triune nature, no other known creator god has that characteristic.

No, see above. No fallacy for something that scientists do everyday.

Just because they do it, it doesn't then follow that it isn't a prime example of Begging the Question. We can add the fallacy of the Non Sequitur to your arguments as well.

How is it begging the question? I dont assume God exists, I am only assuming the universe exists and then reason to its cause. How is it a non-sequitur? It logically follows using the law of sufficient cause.

The ancient creed I quoted was NOT a prophecy. Did you even read my post?

Yes, but it's becoming ever more convoluted with each passing post.

In what way? The ancient creed was composed within five years of the event. Many historical events dont have that kind of evidence.

There is little or no difference between figurative speech and metaphorical speech. From Britannica: figure of speech, any intentional deviation from literal statement or common usage that emphasizes, clarifies, or embellishes both written and spoken language.

Your ignorance is profound. The figure Metaphor is a specific figure and bears no resemblance to the figure Symbol, Analogy, Simile, Hypocatastasis, Hendiadys, etc. etc. etc.

Ok what is your point?

A document that is figurative would also have no reason to contain historical people, places, and events. It makes no sense.

Still Begging the Question. You're assuming they're historical people. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. Moreover, there is no law, rule, or principle that precludes historical people from being employed within a figure of speech. If so, where???

Augustus Caesar, Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Caiaphas are all historical people and I could name more. I am not saying it precludes it but it is unlikely if the entire books are esoteric knowledge transmitters as docphin5 and you appear to be claiming.

sh: Again, Begging the Question. You're assuming what you claim to prove.
I am just stating that generally myths do not contain actual historical events.

And your claim is without any proof. The battle of Troy was once considered to be purely mythological, and yet even though this is not the consensus anymore, the mythological characteristics of the story are no less legitimate. Rats do not eat the quivers of arrows, but Herodotus claims that's why the Israelites were victorious over their enemies.

I didnt say that myths never have historical events, I said generally. And there are other textual characteristics that are unlike myths such as character development. The character development in the NT is far greater than most myths. Herodotus probably said that because he didnt want to admit that the hebrew god is God.

sh: Perhaps, but it doesn't mean it's actual or factual history. Again, Begging the Question.

There is evidence that it is.

When you get around to proving these claims, let me know.

I never claimed I can prove it. You cant prove with certainty anything except your own existence. I am just claiming there is strong evidence.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes, but the nevertheless the majority view is that it did have a beginning. Even you admit that it had an origin, all effects have origins as well.

You're conflating origin with a beginning. That which begins, must necessarily end. This is not the case with origin.

In that case it didnt fit.

It's a false assumption. Gloves shrink. They don't even necessarily have anything to do with the murder.

The universe has purposes and we know that only personal beings can create purposes.

Fallacy of Begging the Question. You need to back up these claims with proof, evidence, arguments, etc.

That fits the Christian God.

It fits your claims, but again this is still just Begging the Question.

Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity

Ibid.

just like the Triune Christian God. We know from art experts that creators always leave a unique fingerprint to identify them as the creator.

Art experts will also readily admit that these same means of identification can be used by counterfeit artists. See the problem yet?

So only the Christian God has a triune nature, no other known creator god has that characteristic.

False. https://slife.org/the-trinity-in-world-religions/

How is it begging the question? I dont assume God exists, I am only assuming the universe exists and then reason to its cause. How is it a non-sequitur? It logically follows using the law of sufficient cause.

You're then assuming that it must be the Christian god. Nowhere have you proven anything.

In what way? The ancient creed was composed within five years of the event. Many historical events dont have that kind of evidence.

What ancient creed? Was it composed five years before or after the event? Please document the creed and prove when it was composed. Consensus doesn't cut it. Making the claim without any evidence to support it doesn't cut it.

Ok what is your point?

You're butchering the English language. You're conflating a particular figure with figurative language. You're taking one particular figure and claiming that it encompasses all figurative speech.

Augustus Caesar, Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Caiaphas are all historical people and I could name more.

Please document how you came to the conclusion that John the Baptist was a historical person. There are no historical traces of John the Baptist anywhere that I know of.

I am not saying it precludes it

Fair enough. Thanks for conceding the point.

but it is unlikely

It's quite likely.

if the entire books are esoteric knowledge transmitters as docphin5 and you appear to be claiming.

I'm not making the claims of others on this forum. Strawman argument.

I didnt say that myths never have historical events, I said generally.

You're waffling.

And there are other textual characteristics that are unlike myths such as character development. The character development in the NT is far greater than most myths.

False. If anything they're just the opposite. There is little to no character development whatsoever in the gospel narratives. They are all thumbnail sketches. Regardless, this doesn't make them mythological or historical. It just makes them thumbnail sketches.

Herodotus probably said that because he didnt want to admit that the hebrew god is God.

Regardless, it doesn't negate my point, or prove yours.

I never claimed I can prove it.

I never said you could either. The fact is that I'm proving that you can't.

You cant prove with certainty anything except your own existence.

You've obviously never read any of my posts on that particular subject. My contention is that nobody can actually prove their own existence. I've posted a number of posts on the topic.

I am just claiming there is strong evidence.

No one has forgotten your claims. No one is disputing that you're making this claim. What I've done is to point out that the claim is weak at best, and probably false.