Disprove the Bible

[KidPokerX]

If we found that water was present on mars at one time, and that there was life at one time, would this disprove our bible?

[tbach24]

I think the exsistence of dinosaurs already disproves most religious books. However, you're not really supposed to believe everything from religious books, they're basically fables. Weird stories with a moral.

[KidPokerX]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the exsistence of dinosaurs already disproves most religious books.

[/ QUOTE ]
How come?

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the exsistence of dinosaurs already disproves most religious books.

[/ QUOTE ]
How come?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. God put the dinosaurs there to test us. tbach has failed. Have fun with your eternal damnation.

[tbach24]

"On the first day God created Heaven/Earth...and then on the last day God rested."

Seven days of creation, no dinosaurs.

[M2d]

has anyone seen a dinosaur? all we have are fossils, and those are part of "heaven and earth"

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone seen a dinosaur? all we have are fossils, and those are part of "heaven and earth"

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.

[KidPokerX]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they did, in fact, roam this planet at one time.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone seen a dinosaur? all we have are fossils, and those are part of "heaven and earth"

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen a dinosaur. Komoto (sp?) dragon. Alligator. Anyone else care to chime in?

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they did, in fact, roam this planet at one time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[tdarko]

jessica tandy...oh wait she is extinct /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
has anyone seen a dinosaur? all we have are fossils, and those are part of "heaven and earth"

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen a dinosaur. Komoto (sp?) dragon. Alligator. Anyone else care to chime in?

[/ QUOTE ]


Komodo Dragons (http://www.sfsu.edu/~geog/bholzman/courses/316projects/komodo.htm)

They share a common past with dinosaurs but are not direct descendants.

So, assuming dinosaurs DID exist, komodo dragons are not dinosaurs, nor even direct descendents.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
If we found that water was present on mars at one time, and that there was life at one time, would this disprove our bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would not disprove the bible more than any number of things do now, like heavy scientific evidence showing the life of the earth being atleast a few billion years, and probably around 15 billion.

Most Christians don't read the bible as completely literal, and consequently nothing is really proven wrong.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
life of the earth being atleast a few billion years, and probably around 15 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earth = 4.6 billion years, no?
Life = 3.5 billion years, no?

I think those are the numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong. Old testament = 5.8k years old, earth = MUCH older

Also, like you said (and I said in my original response), religious books are not to be taken literally, but to be taken as a fable-type thing.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
heavy scientific evidence showing the life of the earth being atleast a few billion years, and probably around 15 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's older than some estimates on the age of the Universe!

[pshreck]

Yeah, but as I have learned, there are tons of Christians who actually believe the earth is 6k years old. I am sure there are a few on this board.

Arguments for this usually involve the great flood, which was mentioned in the bible, which they say greatly skewed fossils and other things we use to reason how old the earth is (riiiiiiiight). They also believe man lived at the same time as dinosaurs, and of course the infamous 'there is no such thing as evolution'.

[tbach24]

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH

I guess santa and the easter bunny exsist as well

<font color="white"> sorry to anyone this might affend (sp?) </font>

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the first day God created Heaven/Earth...and then on the last day God rested."

Seven days of creation, no dinosaurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you skipped is important. Particularlly

Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures acording to their kinds; livestock; creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.


I think this leaves plenty of room for dinosaurs.

[jstnrgrs]

The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH

I guess santa and the easter bunny exsist as well

<font color="white"> sorry to anyone this might affend (sp?) </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Want to be frustrated? Get into a theological argument with one of these guys. Once the 'all forms of life lived at the exact same time despite all scientific evidence' argument comes up, it usually gets nasty.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... have you read the bible?

[tbach24]

5.7k years ago... first thing that I could think of over 5.7k years old (http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/egypt.htm)

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago... first thing that I could think of over 5.7k years old (http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/egypt.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, your WRONG, the great flood eroded these artifacts, which were actually created in the early 1970s in Harlem.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago... first thing that I could think of over 5.7k years old (http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/egypt.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[jstnrgrs]

The Bible is silent on the presence of water on mars. It also says nothing about life on other planets. I don't think such a discovery would disprove the Bible any more than the invention of Coke with lime would demonstrate Einstein's theory of relativity.

[tbach24]

Okay, please explain the idea behind the Hebrew calendar then? Is the start (something like 5785 years ago) totally arbitrary?

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point me to the passage in the Bible where it says 5.7k years ago. You won't find it.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago... first thing that I could think of over 5.7k years old (http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/egypt.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to think that, then there's nothing that I will or want to do to change that. Religion is empowering, I am just saying that taking religious books word for word is ridiculous. I believe in God, but I know that there is minimal truth in the Torah (or any other religious book).

[jstnrgrs]

Yes. The entire thing at least twice. Have you?

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point me to the passage in the Bible where it says 5.7k years ago. You won't find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is done from tracing the history in the bible... there is no passage saying "thus book thous are reading is 5700 years old", but I think everyone else knew that.

[pshreck]

I really have no idea which side of the argument you are on?

Do you take the bible literally, or not so literally? How old do you believe the earth is?

[jstnrgrs]

Well, I know very little about the Hebrew calander, but I would guess that it was started thousands of years after 5785 years ago. At that time it was probably someones best guess as to the age of the earth. It may be like how the Christian calander was not set up for a few hundred years after Jesus, and it is likely that Jesus was not actually Born on December 25, 1 B.C.

But you should really fond someone more enlightened on this subject than myself.

[doughhater]

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone seen a dinosaur?

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, am I the only one who saw Jurassic Park? Obviously Dinosaurs are real and were genetically re-engineered in the late 80's on a remote tropical island.

[jstnrgrs]

As I said, the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth. Any attempt to figure the age of the earth from the Bible would be open to interpretion, and there is no reason to believe it can be done at all.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth. Any attempt to figure the age of the earth from the Bible would be open to interpretion, and there is no reason to believe it can be done at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I thought, we are actually agreeing. Those who take the bible literally actually trace from Adam and Eve, and have constructed timelines completely from the word of the bible (I have seen them :shudders:).

I agree it is pointless to look for the age of the earth or other highly scientific things in the bible.

[Duke]

Come on! The psychology forum is where religion threads belong.

This has been decided in the past.

~D

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
I really have no idea which side of the argument you are on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you take the bible literally, or not so literally?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I took the Bible literally (which I don't always do), I still would know nothing about the age of the earth

[ QUOTE ]
How old do you believe the earth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is likely that the earth is a few billion years old. Although when God is involved, you never know (the earth migh be just a few seconds old).

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You bring up a great point. When someone is mentally incapable of understanding the proofs in question, there is no point in trying to present them.

I can't believe that you are now saying that Egypt didn't exist when it did. I've heard the dinosaur argument before, but this is a new one. I salute you.

~D

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I thought, we are actually agreeing. Those who take the bible literally actually trace from Adam and Eve, and have constructed timelines completely from the word of the bible (I have seen them :shudders:).


[/ QUOTE ]

It is likely that those timelines have huge gaps in them, as the Bible does not provide a continueous history (geneologies often skip several generations, and there is no accounting for the time between creation and the creation of Adam (unless you take the "days" of creation to be literal "days"), and more importantly there is no accounting for the time between the creation of Adam, and the fall.)

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You bring up a great point. When someone is mentally incapable of understanding the proofs in question, there is no point in trying to present them.

I can't believe that you are now saying that Egypt didn't exist when it did. I've heard the dinosaur argument before, but this is a new one. I salute you.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm a 100% atheist. I was trying to get some of the agnostic/atheist crowd to come up with some intelligent arguments but apparently I've failed miserably. Or you have. Take your pick.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You bring up a great point. When someone is mentally incapable of understanding the proofs in question, there is no point in trying to present them.

I can't believe that you are now saying that Egypt didn't exist when it did. I've heard the dinosaur argument before, but this is a new one. I salute you.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm a 100% atheist. I was trying to get some of the agnostic/atheist crowd to come up with some intelligent arguments but apparently I've failed miserably. Or you have. Take your pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually when I see a capitalized "PROVE IT" it indicates that any actual proof method will be denied.

Sorry for implying that you were what you were acting as, but you can imagine the headaches brought on by people denying that a system can't even be consistent within its own bounds because there's a god, or whatever.

It's very easy to disbelieve the age of the universe anyhow if you don't believe in things like causality, or gravitation, or carbon dating (for the Egypt and dinosaur thing). The people I usually hear saying "PROVE IT" don't believe these things, so there is no way to prove it.

It's impossible to prove that the universe is more than 1 second old, too, since it all (including memories and everything) could just be "put there" to test us.

The point is that if one denies a sufficient amount of information, math, and science you cannot prove anything at all.

~D

[tbach24]

And to think that I didn't respond to that because I didn't want to go deeper into a huge battle of uber-religious vs. others. You tricky devil. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[mason55]

Yeah sorry guys, I kind of feel like an [censored]. Thought it would stir up some good discussion but I know that everyone's tired of arguing with the super religious.

This is the one thing that has always made me think though. Occam's razor is really all you have. But then you're deciding which is more likely, that all these crazy creature have been around and died and the Earth has been around for 6 billion years and the amazing things that we call humans came from a pool of chemicals? Or someone in the sky put us here.

I dunno. I'd still like to hear some good arguments against the "God is testing us" argument because that's one I've always been stuck on.

[jimdmcevoy]

[ QUOTE ]
that all these crazy creature have been around and died and the Earth has been around for 6 billion years and the amazing things that we call humans came from a pool of chemicals?

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems much simpler than trying to imagine how complex god would be if he existed

[bosoxfan]

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone seen a dinosaur? all we have are fossils, and those are part of "heaven and earth"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I didn't know Carl Everett posted here.

[jdl22]

You of all people should be aware of the presence of dinosaurs a few years ago in Kualoa ranch. Still waiting for those poor stranded plane crash survivors to run into the T-Rex.

[KidPokerX]

Ok possibly so, but what if scientists did find life somewhere other than our planet (since the bible only pertains to and mentions about Earth). Would this stir up any emotions in religious followers (kind of like in the movie contact)? If so, what for?
The presence of life on another planet would be a monunmental discovery in mankind, since it would bring up so many questions now to be answered (where did that form of life come from? Was it from the same bacteria/organsism that put life on earth? Do they have their own God)?
And better yet, let's say they did have their own seperate God. Would this prove that our "God" is in fact the civilzations longest lived myth?

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Would this stir up any emotions in religious followers (kind of like in the movie contact)? If so, what for?


[/ QUOTE ]

Religious followers are a fiarly diverse froup of people, and I'm sure the discovery of extra-terestial life would stir up emotions in some, but I don't think that matters. People get emotional over all kinds of things.

[ QUOTE ]
Was it from the same bacteria/organsism that put life on earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way says nothing about the validity of the Bible. The Bible never says that God didn't put life on other planets, or that the life He put on earth would never live earth, or that God didn't take life from another planet and put it here.

[ QUOTE ]
Do they have their own God)?


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be suprised if they do. It is likely, however that they would have the same God as us. Of course they would see God from a different prespective than we do, so it might take a while that we are actually talking about the same God.

[ QUOTE ]
And better yet, let's say they did have their own seperate God. Would this prove that our "God" is in fact the civilzations longest lived myth?

[/ QUOTE ]

not any more than the fact that the Hindus have many gods that are not God proves that God is a myth.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno. I'd still like to hear some good arguments against the "God is testing us" argument because that's one I've always been stuck on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is none, because the argument is always provided in such a way that it is unfalsifiable.

I can assert that the Tooth Fairy exists, and do so in such a way that it can never be disproven. You have no argument against that either, but why should you need one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
not any more than the fact that the Hindus have many gods that are not God proves that God is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always wondered about this. What makes you so sure you have the "correct" God?

Obviously the correct Christian answer is faith, as that is what religion is based on. Most people believe in the religion they were raised, so do you think you were just luck to be born to parents that believe in the correct God and those poor Hindus are unlucky?

I would be interested in a well thought out, well reasoned answer.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno. I'd still like to hear some good arguments against the "God is testing us" argument because that's one I've always been stuck on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is none, because the argument is always provided in such a way that it is unfalsifiable.

I can assert that the Tooth Fairy exists, and do so in such a way that it can never be disproven. You have no argument against that either, but why should you need one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting page and a concept I had, somehow, never heard of. Thanks for that, I'm reading it and digesting and applying to every day situations that I can think of.

PS: Not sure if you missed it but I agree with you. I was just wondering if there was a valid counter argument against the "God is testing us" theory.

[TimM]

The question is, can it be turned into a compelling argument against a true believer? Someone who chooses to believe in any unfalsifiable assertion like "the Tooth Fairy exists" or "God exists" or "God planted the fossil record to test our faith" won't really care if we point out that their belief is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

[TimM]

I guess the closest I can come is this: There are an infinite number of possible unfalsifiable assertions one could make. If you are going to give consideration to any one of them, you have to give it to all, because you can never even conceive of a way to show which are worthy and which are not. The only way is to never give any consideration to unfalsifiable assertions.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the closest I can come is this: There are an infinite number of possible unfalsifiable assertions one could make. If you are going to give consideration to any one of them, you have to give it to all, because you can never even conceive of a way to show which are worthy and which are not. The only way is to never give any consideration to unfalsifiable assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, this sort of answers the question I posted about how are you sure your god is the right one. The only possible answer is faith.

The problem is that science is mutually exclusive for most religious belivers. Thus there's no way to say that "your ideas are unscientific" because they don't care. The more I talk and think about it the more I realize that discussing religion is completely STUPID. No one's minds will EVER be changed. The one thing that always has interested me is hearing opinions and reasoning from people who think differently from me, which I would still like to hear re: other religions.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago... first thing that I could think of over 5.7k years old (http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/egypt.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you aren't joking (it's a funny joke if you are), you should check out Occam's Razor.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago... first thing that I could think of over 5.7k years old (http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/egypt.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you aren't joking (it's a funny joke if you are), you should check out Occam's Razor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said I was joking and I already cited Occam's Razor. /images/graemlins/cool.gif Read the thread before you reply ffs.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on! The psychology forum is where religion threads belong.

This has been decided in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on! The psychology forum is where religion threads belong.

This has been decided in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty obvious what this thread is about. Don't read it if you don't feel like joining the conversation. It took 1000x more effort to make that comment than to just not read the thread.

[AngryCola]

Maybe, but I didn't write that comment, so it was pretty effortless.
Also, it's still true.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Note to self: read entire thread before replying to any particular post.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but I didn't write that comment, so it was pretty effortless.
Also, it's still true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't start this thread, so I'm not defending its placement. Hell, I spent 10 minutes trolling in this thread. But I don't understand why you want to waste your time in this thread if you don't care about it. You really have nothing better to do than complain that this thread is in the wrong forum? Personally, I think it's a valid OOT thread. It might have been done before but there's obviously a lot of new posters who have something to say about it.

Like I said, I'm not defeding it, I just don't understand the need to come in here and waste your time REPEATING the fact that it should be here.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on! The psychology forum is where religion threads belong.

This has been decided in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The psychology forum is a subsection of General Gambling. Why should religion threads that have nothing to do with gambling go there?

[AngryCola]

I did it for the same reason you posted your reply to me now.

Don't you have anything better to do than argue with me about my agreement with Duke's comment?

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
I did it for the same reason you posted your reply to me now.

Don't you have anything better to do than argue with me about my agreement with Duke's comment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche! I thought of that while I was replying, was hoping you wouldn't pick up on it /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the exsistence of dinosaurs already disproves most religious books. However, you're not really supposed to believe everything from religious books, they're basically fables. Weird stories with a moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Christianity to be wholly consistent with a view that the universe is billions of years old. It is true to the Bible text to view the 'days' of Genesis 1 as symbolic but the records of Jesus Christ as historical. The question is of the author's intent, and how the author would anticipate his words to be interpreted by the readers of his time.

Some Christians disagree with me on Genesis 1 interpretation, but many agree with me as well. So, if you choose to portray all Christians as believing that the universe is only 6k years old, then you are denying the facts. That may make it easier for you to dismiss the claims of Jesus Christ. But it is not intellectually honest.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5.7k years ago... first thing that I could think of over 5.7k years old (http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/egypt.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, PROVE IT. I maintain God left it there to test us.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of sick twisted god do you worship?


Edit, I just saw the rest of the thread where you said you were kidding. I still think my response is a valid one to someone who would say god is "testing" us, which many do maintain.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the exsistence of dinosaurs already disproves most religious books. However, you're not really supposed to believe everything from religious books, they're basically fables. Weird stories with a moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Christianity to be wholly consistent with a view that the universe is billions of years old. It is true to the Bible text to view the 'days' of Genesis 1 as symbolic but the records of Jesus Christ as historical. The question is of the author's intent, and how the author would anticipate his words to be interpreted by the readers of his time.

Some Christians disagree with me on Genesis 1 interpretation, but many agree with me as well. So, if you choose to portray all Christians as believing that the universe is only 6k years old, then you are denying the facts. That may make it easier for you to dismiss the claims of Jesus Christ. But it is not intellectually honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people, even most atheists, will not disagree that a carpenter named jesus lived 2005 years ago. He probably taught a lot of people some really great ideas compared to the current religions at the time. In fact, if he lived today, people would probably compare him to David Koresh.

The thing that's a stretch for atheists/agnostics is beliving that he is the son of God and that God exists. The more liberal christians belive in macro evolution but believe christ is the son of God, obviously. The more orthdox Christians belive in micro evolution but not macro evolution and thus believe the univere is a few thousand years old. These tend to be souther baptists and catholics. Along the same lines, this thinking includes most Jews and Muslims, who worship the same God but not the same prophets/saviors.

That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on! The psychology forum is where religion threads belong.

This has been decided in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of sick twisted god do you worship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, throw a virgin in the volcano or you're not going to wake up tomorrow.

[wacki]

mason55, you haven't been aroung long enough to talk to back to angry cola.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The psychology forum is a subsection of General Gambling. Why should religion threads that have nothing to do with gambling go there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tradition.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
mason55, you haven't been aroung long enough to talk to back to angry cola.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate doing this but:

AngryCola
Reged: 09/09/04

mason55
Reged: 09/27/04


I didn't realize that 3 weeks made him my commanding officer.

And I wasn't really serious, if you read the rest of the thread.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mason55, you haven't been aroung long enough to talk to back to angry cola.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate doing this but:

AngryCola
Reged: 09/09/04

mason55
Reged: 09/27/04


I didn't realize that 3 weeks made him my commanding officer.

[/ QUOTE ]


You shouldn't hate doing it, as you're right.

I appreciate wacki's support, though. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't hate doing it, as you're right.

I appreciate wacki's support, though. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well I'll never forget the day someone who registered 2 months after me called me a n00b.

[wacki]

Ya, like Clarkmeister, I just caught that. These threads are wayyyyyyy to long.

I need to quit OOT. Limit myself to poker. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

About the date... DOH!!!

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people, even most atheists, will not disagree that a carpenter named jesus lived 2005 years ago. He probably taught a lot of people some really great ideas compared to the current religions at the time. In fact, if he lived today, people would probably compare him to David Koresh.

The thing that's a stretch for atheists/agnostics is beliving that he is the son of God and that God exists. The more liberal christians belive in macro evolution but believe christ is the son of God, obviously. The more orthdox Christians belive in micro evolution but not macro evolution and thus believe the univere is a few thousand years old. These tend to be souther baptists and catholics. Along the same lines, this thinking includes most Jews and Muslims, who worship the same God but not the same prophets/saviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Orthodox' is not the right word here, since the young-earth theory only became popular among American Evangelicals in the last 100 years. (see the description for this book (http://tinyurl.com/6ql6w)) Even in the 1800s, most Christians believed the universe to be millions of years old (since the scientific evidence for 'billions' was not yet available). EDIT: Outside America, most contemporary Christians believe the universe is billions of years old.

[ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an oversimplification. Both about whether they worship the same God (sort of) and about whether they hate each other (some yes, some no. But most Christians would at least say that their Bible teaches them not to do it).

EDIT: But I do agree that it is sad.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]

'Orthodox' is not the right word here, since the young-earth theory only became popular among American Evangelicals in the last 100 years. (see the description for this book (http://tinyurl.com/6ql6w)) Even in the 1800s, most Christians believed the universe to be millions of years old (since the scientific evidence for 'billions' was not yet available). Outside America, most still do.

This is an oversimplification. Both about whether they worship the same God (sort of) and about whether they hate each other (some yes, some no. But most Christians would at least say that their Bible teaches them not to do it).

EDIT: But I do agree that it is sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I realize I definitely oversimplified... It was just to prove a point. And my assumption was American Christians, although I wans't aware of the facts about Christians outside America, and I thank you for teaching me that.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I realize I definitely oversimplified... It was just to prove a point. And my assumption was American Christians, although I wans't aware of the facts about Christians outside America, and I thank you for teaching me that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for implying that you were what you were acting as, but you can imagine the headaches brought on by people denying that a system can't even be consistent within its own bounds because there's a god, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: these denials were made on 2+2 boards by Christians and atheists alike.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
About the date... DOH!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I read SSNL on a regular basis and AngryCola is one of the posters I respect the most. Which is EXACTLY why I felt the need to "talk back" as you say, wacki /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[davelin]

Flame away but I'm a Christian and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Do I strictly believe that the Bible is only 6K years old. No I don't and I don't think you need to believe this to believe in God. If it were or were not true it wouldn't change my faith. The universe is a continuous source of wonder and amazement and we're always learning new things about it, who knows what we'll discover about it next. But nothing I've seen or heard has made me truly reconsider my faith after I became a Chritian about 10 years ago.

The universe had a definitive start, the time the earth cooled may not have alloted for the complexity of life we see today, the preciseness and "design" of the universe, the still mystery of the origin of life and many things still make me a firm believer today.

Flame away.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Please point me to the passage in the Bible where it says 5.7k years ago. You won't find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please look up Bishop Ussher and then report back. Thank you.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please point me to the passage in the Bible where it says 5.7k years ago. You won't find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please look up Bishop Ussher and then report back. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one person's conservative viewpoint that is certainly not agreed upon by all Christians.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
Flame away but I'm a Christian and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Do I strictly believe that the Bible is only 6K years old. No I don't and I don't think you need to believe this to believe in God. If it were or were not true it wouldn't change my faith. The universe is a continuous source of wonder and amazement and we're always learning new things about it, who knows what we'll discover about it next. But nothing I've seen or heard has made me truly reconsider my faith after I became a Chritian about 10 years ago.

The universe had a definitive start, the time the earth cooled may not have alloted for the complexity of life we see today, the preciseness and "design" of the universe, the still mystery of the origin of life and many things still make me a firm believer today.

Flame away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Davelin -

Can you answer my questions about how you know you've chosen the right God? I want to have a real discussion, and definitely don't want a flamefest. It's one thing I've always wondered and would really like an answer.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Davelin -

Can you answer my questions about how you know you've chosen the right God? I want to have a real discussion, and definitely don't want a flamefest. It's one thing I've always wondered and would really like an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really good question that's not the easist to answer, of course with any religion there's of course an element of faith to it. Here are some of the reasons why -

1) The Bible itself is a historical document that is authenticated by many scholars.
2) The claims of Jesus Christ is vastly different than what other major religious leaders declare, and is held up by point #1 and other evidence.
3) The claims of Christianity is unique and different from what is held by other major religions and I believe absolutely answers man's need for God.

Just a few picking off points, but I understand the complexity of this question.

P.S. If anyone would ever like to PM me, I'm more than happy to have a intellectual discussion on this topic. And I promise to remain as open and honest about this subject as I can.

[M2d]

haoles will believe anything

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the first day God created Heaven/Earth...and then on the last day God rested."

Seven days of creation, no dinosaurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

God also created animals and the like. dinosaurs are animals, correct?

[jason_t]

What are your thoughts on the problem of evil?

[jdl22]

nh

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the exsistence of dinosaurs already disproves most religious books. However, you're not really supposed to believe everything from religious books, they're basically fables. Weird stories with a moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

the bible, namely Genesis, is not meant to be taken literal IMO.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the first day God created Heaven/Earth...and then on the last day God rested."

Seven days of creation, no dinosaurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

#1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1916317&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)

disclaimer: I'm buzzed

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
life of the earth being atleast a few billion years, and probably around 15 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earth = 4.6 billion years, no?
Life = 3.5 billion years, no?

I think those are the numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong. Old testament = 5.8k years old, earth = MUCH older

Also, like you said (and I said in my original response), religious books are not to be taken literally, but to be taken as a fable-type thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

not quite a fable. I remember some religious teacher saying that a year to us is like a milisecond to God. So.. maybe a day to God is like tens of million years to us? So.. the oceans formed (in a day to God, but millions of years to us)... then animals/plants came (in a day to God, but millions of years to us)... etc.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah sorry guys, I kind of feel like an [censored]. Thought it would stir up some good discussion but I know that everyone's tired of arguing with the super religious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky isn't. Go have tea and crumpets with him.

[tek]

Random thoughts and questions:

--Birds are more similar to dinasaurs than aligators.

--I read a book years ago entitled Forgotten Worlds. One chapter made a compelling assertion that Jesus was not an actual person, but instead a composite of a few people.

--Christianity was not "invented" until long after JC supposedly died. It was invented to help control the gullible subjects of the crumbling Roman Empire.

--What difference would it make if the whatever that created
this world showed itself?

--It is the utmost in stupidity for people to kill each other over diverse religions and religious opinions that if falsifiable are no more right than another or if not falsifiable are to be ignored...

[jimdmcevoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
life of the earth being atleast a few billion years, and probably around 15 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earth = 4.6 billion years, no?
Life = 3.5 billion years, no?

I think those are the numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong. Old testament = 5.8k years old, earth = MUCH older

Also, like you said (and I said in my original response), religious books are not to be taken literally, but to be taken as a fable-type thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

not quite a fable. I remember some religious teacher saying that a year to us is like a milisecond to God. So.. maybe a day to God is like tens of million years to us? So.. the oceans formed (in a day to God, but millions of years to us)... then animals/plants came (in a day to God, but millions of years to us)... etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right, and maybe how we see evolution (humans evolving from single cells) God actually sees Adam and Eve

I hate it when people call the Bible a fable

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
What are your thoughts on the problem of evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question...I'll come back to it when I have time. The first thing I'll say here is that there is an eternal judgement for good and evil on this world but sometimes our problem is that we focus too much on the here and now. In other words we operate on a 100 hand scale which God declares to be too small.

[jakethebake]

Clearly this belongs in the religion (aka psychology) forum.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Good question...I'll come back to it when I have time. The first thing I'll say here is that there is an eternal judgement for good and evil on this world but sometimes our problem is that we focus too much on the here and now. In other words we operate on a 100 hand scale which God declares to be too small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to hearing your response.

Just to clarify for those who don't know, the problem of evil is the following.

Axioms:

1. If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.
2. Omnipotence implies the ability to destroy all evil
3. Omniscience implies the ability to be aware that evil exists.
4. Moral perfection implies the desire to eliminate evil.
5. Evil exists.

Arugment: Assume God exists. We know that evil exists. Then one of these possibilities must be true:

God can't eliminate all evil OR
God doesn't know that evil exists OR
God doesn't have the moral perfection necessary to want to eliminate evil.

Conclusion: God does not exist.

This comes first from David Hume: "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

[Roy Munson]

Are reptiles that exist today dinosaurs that survived?

[jstnrgrs]

I think most people who believe such things know that their belief is unscientific, but choose to believe based on faith. This is not an inherintly bad thing. (Not all correct beliefs are scientific.)

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that science is mutually exclusive for most religious belivers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true for some believers who don't think critically about what they believe, but for many, they can know some things through science, and others through faith.

Also your belief (I think), that the only beliefs one should hold are scientific beliefs, is unscientific.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of sick twisted god do you worship?


[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Please look up Bishop Ussher and then report back. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I maintain that the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth. I have said nothing about what Bishop Ussher says.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always wondered about this. What makes you so sure you have the "correct" God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is the only answer here. I also have the benefit of four seperate occations on which God was directly involved in my life, but for those who do not have that benefit, faith is required.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people believe in the religion they were raised, so do you think you were just luck to be born to parents that believe in the correct God and those poor Hindus are unlucky?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but I wouldn't call it luck. God has chosen to reveal himself to everyone in some way. For myself and many other christians, he brought me directly into the Christian faith through my family. A great blessing to be sure, but also a great responsabllity, for it is the duty of Christians to shair their faith with those who know nothing of it.

As for someone who lives their entire life without any exposure to formal Christianity, I have no belief regarding them except to say that it points to a failure on the part of Christians to adiquitely share their faith. Does God damn such people? I leave that to God, but I trust that God will not damn anyone who is not deserving of damnation. (And I also believe he saves many people who deserve damnation.)

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I also have the benefit of four seperate occations on which God was directly involved in my life,

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you get an autograph?

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you get an autograph?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how much that would go for on ebay?

[jstnrgrs]

For those who have been following this thread, youknow that I have been arguing on the pro-religion side (which is what I really believe). The peoblem of evil has been very dificult for me. Here is my idea (just an idea).

1. God creasted everything and is all powerfull.
2. God, therefore, created logic.
3. God exists above and outside the bounds of logic.
4. Therefore, logical conclusions pretaining to God may be incorrect.

In spite of what I have been taught in appologetics classes, I believe God can make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe God can make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which would mean he also couldn't drop it on his toe.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Which would mean he also couldn't drop it on his toe.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be wrong. God is all powerfull. He could make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it and then drop it on his toe.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which would mean he also couldn't drop it on his toe.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be wrong. God is all powerfull. He could make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it and then drop it on his toe.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've spent way too much time thinking about this.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good question...I'll come back to it when I have time. The first thing I'll say here is that there is an eternal judgement for good and evil on this world but sometimes our problem is that we focus too much on the here and now. In other words we operate on a 100 hand scale which God declares to be too small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to hearing your response.

Just to clarify for those who don't know, the problem of evil is the following.

Axioms:

1. If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.
2. Omnipotence implies the ability to destroy all evil
3. Omniscience implies the ability to be aware that evil exists.
4. Moral perfection implies the desire to eliminate evil.
5. Evil exists.

Arugment: Assume God exists. We know that evil exists. Then one of these possibilities must be true:

God can't eliminate all evil OR
God doesn't know that evil exists OR
God doesn't have the moral perfection necessary to want to eliminate evil.

Conclusion: God does not exist.

This comes first from David Hume: "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Evil exists in the short term but God will ultimately judge and remove all evil from the world.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree. That's like saying NL and Limit hold'em is the same game.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most people who believe such things know that their belief is unscientific, but choose to believe based on faith. This is not an inherintly bad thing. (Not all correct beliefs are scientific.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not completely true.

[masse75]

Why are we wasting space on this?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are we wasting space on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because to some people the question of the origin and purpose of life is pretty important. And it's more interesting than the 59 "Check our my stats" topics each day /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
1. God creasted everything and is all powerfull.
2. God, therefore, created logic.
3. God exists above and outside the bounds of logic.
4. Therefore, logical conclusions pretaining to God may be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on making it impossible for any rational person to ever have a conversation with you about this subject.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. God creasted everything and is all powerfull.
2. God, therefore, created logic.
3. God exists above and outside the bounds of logic.
4. Therefore, logical conclusions pretaining to God may be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on making it impossible for any rational person to ever have a conversation with you about this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. In may be evident by my other posts but I believe it's 100% possible to have a rational and logical discussion about God.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

Evil exists in the short term but God will ultimately judge and remove all evil from the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't refuted or accepted the arugment.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Axioms:

1. If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.
2. Omnipotence implies the ability to destroy all evil
3. Omniscience implies the ability to be aware that evil exists.
4. Moral perfection implies the desire to eliminate evil.
5. Evil exists.

Arugment: Assume God exists. We know that evil exists. Then one of these possibilities must be true:

God can't eliminate all evil OR
God doesn't know that evil exists OR
God doesn't have the moral perfection necessary to want to eliminate evil.

Conclusion: God does not exist.

This comes first from David Hume: "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of 1 through 5 but I don't agree that it necessitates that God get rid of all evil absolutely now. If you believe in heaven and hell then you believe in an eternal judgment time. We've all been dealt our hole cards and we've seen the flop and turn. But the final river card hasn't been dealt yet so we can't say that there is a supernatural misdeal going on.

All evil will be removed, the Bible teaches that this is true and that God is being patient for those to come to him. Evil exists in the short-term not because of lack of God's justice or desire of evil, but because of His mercy and love. Judgement/justice delayed isn't justice unfulfilled.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good question...I'll come back to it when I have time. The first thing I'll say here is that there is an eternal judgement for good and evil on this world but sometimes our problem is that we focus too much on the here and now. In other words we operate on a 100 hand scale which God declares to be too small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to hearing your response.

Just to clarify for those who don't know, the problem of evil is the following.

Axioms:

1. If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.
2. Omnipotence implies the ability to destroy all evil
3. Omniscience implies the ability to be aware that evil exists.
4. Moral perfection implies the desire to eliminate evil.
5. Evil exists.

Arugment: Assume God exists. We know that evil exists. Then one of these possibilities must be true:

God can't eliminate all evil OR
God doesn't know that evil exists OR
God doesn't have the moral perfection necessary to want to eliminate evil.

Conclusion: God does not exist.

This comes first from David Hume: "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

[/ QUOTE ]

God allows free will. If evil was removed from the world man would not have free will. Man was put on the earth to be tested. Evil tries to tempt man away from god.

Evil cannot be in the presence of god, there is no evil in heaven.

I am not religious but your agrument pretty much dismisses some very well known and obvious assertions of religion.

[dr. klopek]

[ QUOTE ]
Man was put on the earth to be tested.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] god.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
God allows free will. If evil was removed from the world man would not have free will. [...]

Evil cannot be in the presence of god, there is no evil in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is St. Augustine's rebuttal to the problem of evil.

Free will does not require the existence of evil. As you say, in heaven there is no evil but there is free will. Moreover, there is plenty of evil and suffering that does not arise from free will, e.g., last December's tsunami in Southeast Asia.

[ QUOTE ]
Man was put on the earth to be tested. Evil tries to tempt man away from god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this an acceptable explanation to you?

[ QUOTE ]
I am not religious but your agrument pretty much dismisses some very well known and obvious assertions of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't my argument. It's an ancient argument, first due to Epicurus (ancient Greek) and studied intensely by David Hume (18th century).

I believe that Christian teachings imply that God is all powerful, all knowing and all good. That is axiom 1. I believe that omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection imply what axioms 2--4 state. I believe that evil exists. From this, the next statement follows logically. I don't think that I ignored any very well known and obvious assertions of religion; in fact, I used one of the primary assertions of religion and encountered disaster.

Finally, to add a little on my personal beliefs. I believe there is no God. I have believed this since I was 6. However, I am an agnostic. I admit that I can not know or give proof that there is no God. I can only try and justify my beliefs as you try to justify yours.

[Chris_P]

The bible it self tends to disprove itself.....it has been re-written thousands of times and each has been interpreted fromt greek and latin documents which as a result of their fairly basic language can be interpreted in many ways......

for example...religious fundamentalists interpret and read a diffrent bible from your average anglican.

[KidPokerX]

lol, ok so then the answer is clear - there's nothing more to disprove :P

[[censored]]

It's tough to answer you questions because when it comes to existance of God, I honestly don't know and I can't argue with conviction on either side.

I know that some people are 100% sure either way but at this time in my life I am absolutely undecided.

I live my life that was as well. I don't go to church or practice religion but I try to live my life in a moral manner.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible it self tends to disprove itself.....it has been re-written thousands of times and each has been interpreted from Greek and Latin documents which as a result of their fairly basic language can be interpreted in many ways......

for example...religious fundamentalists interpret and read a different bible from your average Anglican.

[/ QUOTE ]

some important facts that cannot be disputed:

1) The commonly quoted bible in the USA is the King James edition. In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants. What we commonly forget to discuss is that King James essentially had the bible re-written to suit his needs.
2) The old testament in the King James edition is vastly different from the modern Judaic bible - which IS only the old testament.
3) Even modern Judaica scholars are baffled by the oldest known bible in existence, the dead sea scrolls. When I last did my research on these scrolls the translation was complete, but they were not releasing the text to non-scholars yet due to a huge controversy. Apparently the Dead Sea Scrolls had little to do with today's Torah (the bible)

In short.... the bible is a very good moral storybook. But it has been re-written so many times that we have lost it's original intent or meaning. A perfect example of this would be Christianity... isn't it odd how Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi (who to this date is highly respected for his reform of the Jewish religion by Jewish scholars) yet Christianity has essentially broken away from almost all traditionally Jewish customs or beliefs?

I like what Jesse "the mind" Ventura once said.... Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. He was insensitive but right.

On the very same webpage I found these quotes from equally famous thinkers (many who should be better respected than The Body):

[ QUOTE ]
Albert Einstein was named Time magazine's Person of the Twentieth Century. He said: "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation. . . . Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

Charles Darwin is widely considered one of the greatest persons of the nineteenth century. He stated: "I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

Sigmund Freud maintained, "Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis." He also said, "Neither in my private life, nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever." As for preventing and treating the psychological harms of religion, Dr. Freud's prescription was clear: "When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life."

Thomas Edison asserted: "So far as the religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake. . . . Religion is all bunk. . . . All bibles are man-made." H. L. Mencken commented, "I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind."

Clarence Darrow explained, "I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose." Elizabeth Cady Stanton related: "The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion."

[/ QUOTE ]

free your mind people..... free your minds....

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible it self tends to disprove itself.....it has been re-written thousands of times and each has been interpreted fromt greek and latin documents which as a result of their fairly basic language can be interpreted in many ways......

for example...religious fundamentalists interpret and read a diffrent bible from your average anglican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first point is true for most ancient works of antiquity. There is much evidence, documental and archalogical that supports the Bible. The stories about King David, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has become increasingly corroborated. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has been examined and reported by archaelogist Clifford Wilson.

Every reference to an Assryrian king has been proven correct, an excavation in the 60s confirmed that the Israelites could have entered Jerusalem by way of a tunnel during David's reign. There is evidence the world did have a single language at one time.

Archaeologists digging in Turkey have discovered records of the Hittites. The great archaeologist William F. Albright declared "There can be no doubt that archaelogy can confirmedthe substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition".

Noted Roman historican Colin J. Hemer (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History) shows how archaelogy has confirmed not dozens but hundreds and hundreds of details from the biblical account of the early church. Prominent historian Sir William Ramsay started out as a skeptic but after studying Acts he concluded that "in various deatils the narrative showed marvelous truth"

Classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White said "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming" and that "any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd"

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
free your mind people..... free your minds....

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I'd say the same thing about non-believers.

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
free your mind people..... free your minds....

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I'd say the same thing about non-believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH.

[KidPokerX]

i disagree

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree. That's like saying NL and Limit hold'em is the same game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree because I think it is a gross overstatement to say that Jews, Christians and Muslems hate each other. Some yes but no where even close to a majority.

[Pharity]

Amen to that

[Good Idea]

I don't have time to read 126 posts so if I'm repeating someone else, I apologize.

Religion is based on faith and faith by definition is believing in something for which you have no proof. Whether it's faith in the existence in God or faith that your pilot isn't drunk. Science, of course, is based on facts and proof. So when we have have debates which try to settle once and for all if the Bible is true we get no where.
Early on in the book of Genesis it states that God gave man free will to live by His laws or not. If we could prove the existance of God we would no longer have free will and there would be no more faith. Think about that. If you had proof you would be tossed into a lake of fire, would you still covet your neighbor's wife? Probably not. I,for one, would stop coveting immediately. If God is all-knowing then He knows enough to prevent us from proving His existance.
I work with a guy who insists that the world is only 6,000 years old. And that fossil remains are faked in some kind of conspiracy or something. I'm not sure what the point of the conspiracy is. I've always told him that I'll accept his point that the world is 6,000 years old as long as he accepts that when God made it He made it appear to be millions of years older by scattering dinosaur bones around. My point is... I don't care how old the universe is. Maybe it's billions of years old and He let evolution run it's course. Then 6,000 years ago he popped back in and made Adam and Eve. Or maybe He made it all 6,000 years ago and created plenty of evidence to suggest that it is much older. Either way He left plenty of room for doubt and that forces us to either have faith or not.

All that being said, the original question was "Would the existance of life on Mars disprove the Bible?" The answer is obviously... No
Even if you accept that every word in the Bible is true you wouldn't be silly enough to believe that it's the Whole Truth, would you? I'm pretty confident that God has us on a need-to-know program. This Universe is entirely too immense for us to be His only project.

[KidPokerX]

That was a very clear and insightful answer. I am defenseless. Thank you

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to read 126 posts so if I'm repeating someone else, I apologize.

Religion is based on faith and faith by definition is believing in something for which you have no proof. Whether it's faith in the existence in God or faith that your pilot isn't drunk. Science, of course, is based on facts and proof. So when we have have debates which try to settle once and for all if the Bible is true we get no where.
Early on in the book of Genesis it states that God gave man free will to live by His laws or not. If we could prove the existance of God we would no longer have free will and there would be no more faith. Think about that. If you had proof you would be tossed into a lake of fire, would you still covet your neighbor's wife? Probably not. I,for one, would stop coveting immediately. If God is all-knowing then He knows enough to prevent us from proving His existance.
I work with a guy who insists that the world is only 6,000 years old. And that fossil remains are faked in some kind of conspiracy or something. I'm not sure what the point of the conspiracy is. I've always told him that I'll accept his point that the world is 6,000 years old as long as he accepts that when God made it He made it appear to be millions of years older by scattering dinosaur bones around. My point is... I don't care how old the universe is. Maybe it's billions of years old and He let evolution run it's course. Then 6,000 years ago he popped back in and made Adam and Eve. Or maybe He made it all 6,000 years ago and created plenty of evidence to suggest that it is much older. Either way He left plenty of room for doubt and that forces us to either have faith or not.

All that being said, the original question was "Would the existance of life on Mars disprove the Bible?" The answer is obviously... No
Even if you accept that every word in the Bible is true you wouldn't be silly enough to believe that it's the Whole Truth, would you? I'm pretty confident that God has us on a need-to-know program. This Universe is entirely too immense for us to be His only project.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post man.

I especially liked god operating on a need to know basis.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
there is plenty of evil and suffering that does not arise from free will, e.g., last December's tsunami in Southeast Asia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't lump suffering and evil together. A tsunami is not evil, it is a natural disaster. Evil is a conscious decision made by conscious beings to do the opposite of good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Man was put on the earth to be tested. Evil tries to tempt man away from god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this an acceptable explanation to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not to me. Evil to me is the opposite of good. God wants us to be good, but we are not being good if not given the choice to do otherwise. Were God to just get rid of evil, he would take away our choice, and the supposed 'good' actions we took would not really be good, since there would be no choice.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.


[/ QUOTE ]
Completely disagree. That's like saying NL and Limit hold'em is the same game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that it's good that Jews, Christians and all hate each other?

[davelin]

Can faith be proved? No. Can faith be reasonable and even in some sense logical? Sure.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Congratulations on making it impossible for any rational person to ever have a conversation with you about this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, that doesn't make me wrong.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.


[/ QUOTE ]
Completely disagree. That's like saying NL and Limit hold'em is the same game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that it's good that Jews, Christians and all hate each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree they all believe in the same god. (And your secont point as well).

[jstnrgrs]

Please stop with the poker analogies. You're confusing me.

[Dead]

Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Please stop with the poker analogies. You're confusing me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thought it would help with this crowd. My point is that there are a lot of misconceptions about the major religions, just like (gasp) Hold'em poker.

[thatpfunk]

i think you are my favorite poster

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God allows free will. If evil was removed from the world man would not have free will. [...]

Evil cannot be in the presence of god, there is no evil in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is St. Augustine's rebuttal to the problem of evil.

Free will does not require the existence of evil. As you say, in heaven there is no evil but there is free will. Moreover, there is plenty of evil and suffering that does not arise from free will, e.g., last December's tsunami in Southeast Asia.

[ QUOTE ]
Man was put on the earth to be tested. Evil tries to tempt man away from god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this an acceptable explanation to you?

[ QUOTE ]
I am not religious but your agrument pretty much dismisses some very well known and obvious assertions of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't my argument. It's an ancient argument, first due to Epicurus (ancient Greek) and studied intensely by David Hume (18th century).

I believe that Christian teachings imply that God is all powerful, all knowing and all good. That is axiom 1. I believe that omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection imply what axioms 2--4 state. I believe that evil exists. From this, the next statement follows logically. I don't think that I ignored any very well known and obvious assertions of religion; in fact, I used one of the primary assertions of religion and encountered disaster.

Finally, to add a little on my personal beliefs. I believe there is no God. I have believed this since I was 6. However, I am an agnostic. I admit that I can not know or give proof that there is no God. I can only try and justify my beliefs as you try to justify yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason, did you read my follow-up to your (Hume's) argument?

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop it please. Christians also believe in Yahweh. The difference is that the Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

[jstnrgrs]

Well, it is kind of a different topic, but Christians, Jews, and Muslims do all have the same God. Surely you agree that Christians and Jews have the same God, after all, Jesus worshiped the God of the Jews.

As for muslims, though it is more debatable, they have the same God also. They believe in Abraham and the prophets (though their belief about Jesus is different), and the Koran contains many passages from the old Testament. They see the same God that we Christians do; though their view of Him is incomplete much like the cressant moon that symbolises their faith. (Note that I am not claiming that any of the other faiths provide a complete view.)

[Pharity]

Rubbish. You can twist and turn everything. Open your eyes and deal with it.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the exsistence of dinosaurs already disproves most religious books. However, you're not really supposed to believe everything from religious books, they're basically fables. Weird stories with a moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

the bible mentions dinosaur-like creatures. don't ask me chapter/verse, because i don't know. i've read it, though.

cheers!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
Science, of course, is based on facts and proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is based on faith. It requires order in nature, which can never be proved, but must be assumed.

Faith as such is non-meritorious. All humans operate from faith. It is the object of faith that counts.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the sad thing, that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God but they all hate each other on a macro level.

[/ QUOTE ]

jews, christians, and muslims do not worship the same god. do you see why?

cheers!

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop it please. Christians also believe in Yahweh. The difference is that the Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop it please. The main difference is that we don't believe Jesus is God. We also don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but that's not the main difference.

[Luzion]

I think people are making a lot of common misconceptions.



1) The Old Testament statements of God creating the world in blah blah days, or Abraham living to be +200 years, or the Israelities wandering the desert for 40 years arent meant to be taken literally.



2) This is a response to Jason_t. To commit a sin is to turn your back on God. You could say evil = committing sins. Everyone (except Mary) is born with original sin, because Adam and Eve originally did not listen to God in the garden of Eden. God created us in his own image. And the most important gift he bestowed to us is free will. You can choose to follow in God's footsteps, or to turn your back on him. It has nothing to do with God being unable to "conquer evil."



a) God gave us free will
b) some choose to follow God while others turn our back to him
c) yes, God can conquer evil, but at the expense of taking away our "free will," the very thing that is special about us from the angels. Angels are yet another discussion.



3) Its not as simple as Christians simply believing in Jesus . Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. That means believing that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, but separate at the same time.

[jimdmcevoy]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, God can conquer evil, but at the expense of taking away our "free will," the very thing that is special about us from the angels. Angels are yet another discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't/isn't Satan an angel? Did God create him with free will?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it is kind of a different topic, but Christians, Jews, and Muslims do all have the same God. Surely you agree that Christians and Jews have the same God, after all, Jesus worshiped the God of the Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Dead explained this better than I could. Jesus proclaim himself to be the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God one of the Holy Trinity. Jews do not accept this while Christians do.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes, God can conquer evil, but at the expense of taking away our "free will," the very thing that is special about us from the angels. Angels are yet another discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't/isn't Satan an angel? Did God create him with free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's been something that has been discussed and wondered for awhile. I believe that angels do have some sort of free will, but the Bible states that only man was created in God's image. In the NT it also talks about that angels will serve the brothers of Jesus (those who are saved) at the end of days.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
has anyone seen a dinosaur? all we have are fossils, and those are part of "heaven and earth"

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen a dinosaur. Komoto (sp?) dragon. Alligator. Anyone else care to chime in?

[/ QUOTE ]
sharks
coelacanth

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science, of course, is based on facts and proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is based on faith. It requires order in nature, which can never be proved, but must be assumed.

Faith as such is non-meritorious. All humans operate from faith. It is the object of faith that counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's incredibly naive and pretty stupid for any Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, agnostic and whatever in between to believe that we as man know almost everything there is to know about the universe and how things work and came to be. The total sum of knowledge we have about the world is probably closer to 10% than it is to 90%.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
This Universe is entirely too immense for us to be His only project.

[/ QUOTE ]
from whose perspective is it too immense?

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]
they do believe in the same God, but they go about it differently and they dont acknowledge that its the same God.
imho

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]
they do believe in the same God, but they go about it differently and they dont acknowledge that its the same God.
imho

[/ QUOTE ]

One analogy I like to use for people that say all religions are the same path to God is - that's like saying all political systems are the same, in that they are all ways to run society and maintain order. But they're certainly not the same (fascism vs. monarchy vs. democracy, etc.)

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
i disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

Stunningly insightful. Thanks!

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't lump suffering and evil together. A tsunami is not evil, it is a natural disaster. Evil is a conscious decision made by conscious beings to do the opposite of good.

[/ QUOTE ]

My first point was that if God were all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, he would not have allowed such suffering to take place and my second point was that there are many forms of suffering that arise from something other than the free will of humans.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
But, that doesn't make me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've chosen an argument that by its very nature is impossible to argue against. This is not necessarily the case because it's correct, but because you're disallowing any attempts to falsify it due to your belief that God transcends logic. This does not make accepting your faith in God make any more sense to me than it did previously. In fact, it makes less sense.

[Superfluous Man]

When was the last time you saw a talking snake?

[davelin]

Jason, do you believe objectively that there is good and evil or have these become just society's definition of actions that are beneficial or detrimental to mankind?

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
You've chosen an argument that by its very nature is impossible to argue against. This is not necessarily the case because it's correct, but because you're disallowing any attempts to falsify it due to your belief that God transcends logic. This does not make accepting your faith in God make any more sense to me than it did previously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it makes less sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

Also, what kind of God doesn't transcend logic?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason, do you believe objectively that there is good and evil or have these become just society's definition of actions that are beneficial or detrimental to mankind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me first make sure that I understand your question. Are you asking if I believe that there are standards of good and evil that exist independent of humanity? If that is your question, the answer is "no." Before I elaborate, would you let me know if I am interpreting your question correctly?

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the God that you believe in the sole arbiter as to what is good and evil in the world?

Side note: I apologize for not replying to your posts yesterday; I was out of commission most of yesterday taking a much needed break from poker playing and studying, and OOT.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it makes less sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I making an assumption about you that I think fits most posters on this board. I am assuming that you are a rational, intelligent human being. Your explanation flies in the face of that assumption.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what kind of God doesn't transcend logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's necessary for any God to transcend logic. Why do you think it so?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jason, do you believe objectively that there is good and evil or have these become just society's definition of actions that are beneficial or detrimental to mankind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me first make sure that I understand your question. Are you asking if I believe that there are standards of good and evil that exist independent of humanity? If that is your question, the answer is "no." Before I elaborate, would you let me know if I am interpreting your question correctly?

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the God that you believe in the sole arbiter as to what is good and evil in the world?

Side note: I apologize for not replying to your posts yesterday; I was out of commission most of yesterday taking a much needed break from poker playing and studying, and OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the way I interpret your question, I believe you interpret my question correctly /images/graemlins/smile.gif

For your second question, yes I believe God is the sole arbiter of good and evil in this world.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I making an assumption about you that I think fits most posters on this board. I am assuming that you are a rational, intelligent human being. Your explanation flies in the face of that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is more or less correct, but I think I gave logical reasoning for my explaination.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's necessary for any God to transcend logic. Why do you think it so?

[/ QUOTE ]

God is the creator of everything, and powerfull over everything. This inculdes logic. If God were bound by the rules of logic, then He would be limitted, and thus not really God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
My first point was that if God were all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, he would not have allowed such suffering to take place

[/ QUOTE ]

Most modern philosophy has given up this argument. The premise that a good God can't allow suffering is insupportable.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]
they do believe in the same God, but they go about it differently and they dont acknowledge that its the same God.
imho

[/ QUOTE ]

One analogy I like to use for people that say all religions are the same path to God is - that's like saying all political systems are the same, in that they are all ways to run society and maintain order. But they're certainly not the same (fascism vs. monarchy vs. democracy, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]
your analogy isnt applicable to my statement
im not saying all religions are the same path to God, im saying all religions are different paths to the same God.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]
they do believe in the same God, but they go about it differently and they dont acknowledge that its the same God.
imho

[/ QUOTE ]

One analogy I like to use for people that say all religions are the same path to God is - that's like saying all political systems are the same, in that they are all ways to run society and maintain order. But they're certainly not the same (fascism vs. monarchy vs. democracy, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]
your analogy isnt applicable to my statement
im not saying all religions are the same path to God, im saying all religions are different paths to the same God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gothca...but how do you know?

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
If God were bound by the rules of logic, then He would be limitted, and thus not really God.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not such a big deal not to be bound by the rules of logic. Women do it all the time. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because I making an assumption about you that I think fits most posters on this board. I am assuming that you are a rational, intelligent human being. Your explanation flies in the face of that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is more or less correct, but I think I gave logical reasoning for my explaination.

[/ QUOTE ]

So arrogant! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
God is the creator of everything, and powerfull over everything. This inculdes logic. If God were bound by the rules of logic, then He would be limitted, and thus not really God.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned, it's impossible to argue with you if you believe this. I am too logical of a human being to accept or argue such a premise. How can you reason and think about something if it doesn't even follow your own system of reasoning?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My first point was that if God were all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, he would not have allowed such suffering to take place

[/ QUOTE ]

Most modern philosophy has given up this argument. The premise that a good God can't allow suffering is insupportable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I am not aware of this. Do you have more details or a reference? Please.

All-good would imply the desire to remove suffering, all-knowing would imply the knowledge that suffering exists and all-powerful would imply the ability to remove suffering.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
All-good would imply the desire to remove suffering

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but again I'd say under what sort of time-frame or conditions are we talking about here? I'll disagree that all-good implies that absolutely all evil must be removed immediately.

[NotReady]

I'll find you some URL's. In the meantime, examples can easily be multiplied. A parent disciplines his child. Society punishes criminals. There is a more funamental problem involving the definition of good. Non-Christian philosophy always seeks to impose an impersonal abosolute. God must be subject to some impersonal standard. But if God is ultimate, He IS the standard. So the charge is then made that He is arbitrary.

He isn't, because He is absolute Good in His nature. Wouldn't an impersonal standard be arbitrary?

Of course, human reason always bogs down here. We think causally and in circles because we are finite. Human reson is and always will be incapable of omniscience.

[hoyaboy1]

I always thought a better and more interesting argument was how evil could have ever come about in the first place from a being that was all-good. Wouldn't it be impossible for an all-good god to create beings capable of doing evil? If there is no evil in god, there logically can't be evil in things he creates.

Of course, this is an argument against specific conceptions of god, not the existence of god.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

For your second question, yes I believe God is the sole arbiter of good and evil in this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose that you are walking down a street this afternoon, and the sky splits open. There is thunder. There is lightning. There are angelic trumpets playing Baroque music. A deep, bellowing voice says to you "I am God. davelin, listen to me. You are not following my will. My will is for you to lie, to cheat, to murder, to steal and to rape kittens. Do this, and you will be good." How would you react?

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God.

Christians believe in Jesus.

Jews believe in Yahweh.

Muslims believe in Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]
they do believe in the same God, but they go about it differently and they dont acknowledge that its the same God.
imho

[/ QUOTE ]

One analogy I like to use for people that say all religions are the same path to God is - that's like saying all political systems are the same, in that they are all ways to run society and maintain order. But they're certainly not the same (fascism vs. monarchy vs. democracy, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]
your analogy isnt applicable to my statement
im not saying all religions are the same path to God, im saying all religions are different paths to the same God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gothca...but how do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]
how do i know what?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For your second question, yes I believe God is the sole arbiter of good and evil in this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose that you are walking down a street this afternoon, and the sky splits open. There is thunder. There is lightning. There are angelic trumpets playing Baroque music. A deep, bellowing voice says to you "I am God. davelin, listen to me. You are not following my will. My will is for you to lie, to cheat, to murder, to steal and to rape kittens. Do this, and you will be good." How would you react?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the nearest kitten? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But in all seriousness this would be contrary to His previous declarative statements of good and evil. And it would contrary to the concept of God IMO if he arbitrarily changed like that.

[NotReady]

There are two sides to this coin. If God is capable of creating a being with free will, that being must be able to sin. But if the being is perfect, it will never want to sin. What you are bascially asking is why does anyone sin. What is the cause of sin? No one can answer this, because any cause of sin would nullify the sin - if my genes cause me to sin, my genes are at fault, if the way God made me causes me to sin, God is at fault, etc.

The only answer I've ever seen is that sin is irrational, causeless. Why would a human, created perfect, in a perfect environment, in contact with the creator of the universe, ever sin. It makes no sense. It's irrational. In part, that's the very definition of sin. There is no cause, and thus no explanation.

Of course, both Adam and Eve tried to point to something else as the explanation. "The woman you gave me gave me the fruit", thus trying to blame Eve and God at the same time. "The serpent beguiled me", thus trying to blame Satan. God rejected both arguments.

[NotReady]

I was reading through some Web pages not too long ago on this question, and several which were written by non-Christians stated that the theodicy problem was no longer considered valid because the premise that a good God cannot allow evil is false. I'm not here trying to make a theodicy argument, but only that my impression was that the syllogism as stated by Voltaire, Hume and others was no longer in wide use.

Unfortunately, I didn't save those pages and don't remember the route I took to get to them - mainly because I only thought it interesting that philosophy had abandoned the argument. So, if I can't find any evidence of that, I'm willing to admit that philosophers still use the argument, and we can debate the substance itself rather than getting bogged down in what "modern philosophy" thinks.

Sorry, it was an offhand remark, and I was under the impression my statement was common knowledge. I will try to find some references, but I really don't think it's of much importance and I'm not interested in debating the current position of philosophers - the allegations and defense are the real substance.

[Benal]

Ya'll just wait till ETs show up. What then?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
But in all seriousness this would be contrary to His previous declarative statements of good and evil. And it would contrary to the concept of God IMO if he arbitrarily changed like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

But God, being, as you said, the sole arbiter of what is good and evil in this world would have the authority to arbitrarily change what is good and evil if he so desired. I am telling you, suppose he did this. Being his follower and believing he is the sole arbiter of good and evil, you would believe him. How would you react?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
arbitrarily change

[/ QUOTE ]

God isn't arbitrary. He is just. He can't lie, He can't sin, He can't tempt to sin.

[ QUOTE ]
I am telling you, suppose he did this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying, suppose He makes a square circle. God can't do the intrinsically impossible, He can't violate His own nature.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in all seriousness this would be contrary to His previous declarative statements of good and evil. And it would contrary to the concept of God IMO if he arbitrarily changed like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

But God, being, as you said, the sole arbiter of what is good and evil in this world would have the authority to arbitrarily change what is good and evil if he so desired.

[/ QUOTE ]

God can't contradict Himself.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
God isn't arbitrary. He is just. He can't lie, He can't sin, He can't tempt to sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have a preconceived notion of what is good and evil and are telling me that God wouldn't do things that go against those notions. davelin and I initiated this conversation under the assumption that God is the sole arbiter of what is good and evil.

[ QUOTE ]
This is like saying, suppose He makes a square circle. God can't do the intrinsically impossible, He can't violate His own nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is absolutely nothing like that.

[Kevin]

Christianity/Islam/Jewish faith:

God promised Abraham a son that would be the lineage of the Messiah. Abraham was in his 90's. His wife, Sarah, who had been barren for years, laughed at him. Abraham took matters into his own hands and had relations with his maid servant Hagar. She had Ishmael. God said, no, that is not what I had in mind. Sarah then got pregnant with Isaac. SO, the Ishmael and Hagar was sent away. Isaac had Jacob, Jacob had 12 sons, David and Jesus came from the tribe (son) of Judah. Ishmael's line bred Muhammed - so ultimately, they both think that they have the lineage to Abraham and the promise that God gave. Jesus declared himself prophesy fulfilled, was killed and resurrected and sits at God's right hand and will return to judge the earth.

Re the old vs young earth. I was referenced to a fantastic book from a physicist who talked of God's day. Since a day on earth is 24 hours but different times on different planets, the day 1 that is talked about in Genesis 1 is the day of a universe - some radiation something or other, I will get the actual term and share it. He gave each day based upon what was created, the first day was around 4.6 billion, the second was 1.2 billion, each day got closer and closer to an earth day, until finally, day 6 was a 24 hour day. So, it answered the question of an old earth and new earth at the same time. I have butchered it, and don't remember everything. I will get the title if anyone wants to reference it. However, it was totally logical based upon science and physics and written by a physicist.

In short, if there is a God, there is eternal consequence. If there is eternal consequence, we have to do what we are told, have faith, love God, love others, etc. Most don't like the idea of eternal consequence so they put their head in the sand, hands over their ears and say that there is no God so that they can eat, drink and be merry. Forgetting the fact that it takes much more faith to believe in a big bang and theory of evolution than an ultimate, loving creator. in fact, you would have to stack dimes to the moon over an area the size of Texas for the probability for a single amino acid forming, let alone the evolution that would have to come from that single amino acid.

Religion and Politics are usually one in the same, you are usually preaching to the choir or talking to the wall.

[NotReady]

No, God defines good and evil, and what we know of it is revealed in the Bible. It has nothing to do with my conceptions.

[ QUOTE ]
It is absolutely nothing like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's exactly like that. God can't do the contradictory. He IS good, so what He says is the definition of good. He isn't subject to an abstract, impersonal standard. He IS the standard.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
It's exactly like that. God can't do the contradictory. He IS good, so what He says is the definition of good. He isn't subject to an abstract, impersonal standard. He IS the standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am asking, what would you think if he told you to murder, to lie, to cheat, to steal, and to rape kittens and that those things would be good. You say he what he says is the definition of good. So, those things would be good. We're not subjecting to preconceived or abstract notions of what is good. He is doing this, on his own accord, by his own standards. How would you react?

Or, if you like, assume that he did 5800 years ago and that is what was passed down on Mt. Sinai and is in the bible. What would you think?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

God can't contradict Himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

He can't change his mind?

[Richie Rich]

DINOSAURS.

[NotReady]

The Bible speaks of God repenting, or changing His mind. This is not a change in His divine attributes or essential nature. It's not even an actual change of mind as we think of it, like I say I want chocolate then change my mind and pick vanilla. The repentence spoken of in Scripture has to do with God's relationship with men. He told Jonah He was going to destroy Nineveh, Jonah preached to them, they repented, God changed His mind about the destruction. To time bound creatures, these things happen in a sequence, but with God, He always knew Jonah would preach, Nineveh would repent, and He would not destroy it. Had they not repented God would have destroyed it. He changes how He deals with us concerning our actions, but He is immutable in His essence. You can find many more examples, I think they will all be similar, for instance:

Is.38:1-5
"In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah ... said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live. ... Thus saith the LORD ... I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years."

This is consistent with other passages of Scripture which say that if you repent and believe, you will be saved, and if not, you will be condemned. If you currently do not believe, you under God's condemnation. If you repent and believe, you will no longer be under His condemntion. God hasn't changed, He has mercifully changed the way He deals with you.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And I am asking, what would you think if he told you to murder, to lie, to cheat, to steal, and to rape kittens and that those things would be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these involve motive. If God told me to take an action that would be considered wrong by man, I would obey God rather than men. He told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham was willing to do so. And if God had let him go through with it, it would not have been sin. Of course, there is no warrant for believing God deals with us in this way in normal circumstances. I don't claim that God speaks to me in that way, and I don't think He does to anyone else during this age. So those who commit crimes claiming God told them are still to be treated under human law.

You're trying to raise the old dilemma from Plato. Is something good because God says it is (arbitrariness), or does God say it because it's good (impersonal, abstract standard above God). It's a false dilemma. It's good because God says it is, but it's not arbitrary, because He IS good. To then say that if He says to commit murder, murder becomes good, is to deny His essential character. He has already said murder is evil, and it is evil because it is contrary to His nature, therefore He would never command murder. In Old Testament times He did command that some be put to death, but it was not murder.

In order to make the speculation you are attempting, you have to first presuppose the impossibility of the God of the Bible. You presuppose the ultimacy of chance and the impersonal. This is Plato's position. But if God is sovereign He is not subject to our judgment, nor is He arbitrary. He is absolute and personal, immutably good and just. He can't deny Himself or violate His character.

[jason_t]

sup·pose
v. sup·posed, sup·pos·ing, sup·pos·es
v. tr.

01. To assume to be true or real for the sake of argument or explanation: Suppose we win the lottery.
2a. To believe, especially on uncertain or tentative grounds: Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps.
2b. To consider to be probable or likely: I suppose it will rain.
03. To imply as an antecedent condition; presuppose: “Patience must suppose pain” (Samuel Johnson).
04. To consider as a suggestion: Suppose we dine together.


v. intr.

To imagine; conjecture.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned, it's impossible to argue with you if you believe this. I am too logical of a human being to accept or argue such a premise. How can you reason and think about something if it doesn't even follow your own system of reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. You are only willing to discuss that which can be argued logically.
2. You believe that if there is a God, he is bound by the rules of logic.
3. Therefore, you have a logical reason for believing God to be bound by logic.

Let's hear it.

[jstnrgrs]

Okay, now I'm going to use poler analogies (and abandon my "God transcends logic" arguement for now).

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it be impossible for an all-good god to create beings capable of doing evil? If there is no evil in god, there logically can't be evil in things he creates.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is kind of like saying a profitable poker player can't loose pots (or even put money into the pot). If he is profitable, how can he loose money?

God decided to give us free will (which creates the possibility of evil) because the good of having free will is greater than any evil that may result.

There are two type of worlds which God could create.
1. A world with no free will, and only good.
2. A world with free will, and good and evil.

Which has a greater net good? Evidently #2, because that's what God made.

[NotReady]

1) presuppose. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...Inflected forms: pre·sup·posed, pre·sup·pos·ing, pre·sup·pos·es1. To believe or suppose in advance. 2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition....

Dictionary of Philosophy
presupposition

What is implicitly involved in making an assertion.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's exactly like that. God can't do the contradictory. He IS good, so what He says is the definition of good. He isn't subject to an abstract, impersonal standard. He IS the standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am asking, what would you think if he told you to murder, to lie, to cheat, to steal, and to rape kittens and that those things would be good. You say he what he says is the definition of good. So, those things would be good. We're not subjecting to preconceived or abstract notions of what is good. He is doing this, on his own accord, by his own standards. How would you react?

Or, if you like, assume that he did 5800 years ago and that is what was passed down on Mt. Sinai and is in the bible. What would you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. If I say I'll kill kittens then you'll say that is absurd and I worship a God that may irrationally tell me to go kill kittens. If I say God won't do this then you'll say but then God isn't the arbiter of good and evil.

Surely you see that your argument is a little absurd no? What if God because He's God chooses not to exist anymore what would I do then? What if God went back in time and killed baby Jesus in the manger, how would that affect my beliefs? These types of arguments are silly. All of these things are contrary to the God of the Bible which I and all Christians believe.

Surely we can have a reasonable logical argument about Christianity within the parameters of the beliefs of the Bible, which is the point of reference for all Christians?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am beginning to sense that you are bothered by this discussion and perhaps you've stopped thinking about what I am saying.

I am willing to question my own assumptions and beliefs and I am open to any new ideas presented to me.


[ QUOTE ]
If I say I'll kill kittens then you'll say that is absurd and I worship a God that may irrationally tell me to go kill kittens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not say that at all. If you said that you would kill kittens then I would say, okay, you really do believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good and evil. That bothers me, given the point I am trying to make, but it would be clear to me that I can't change your mind.

You see, I think that there are two possible reactions to my argument. One reaction is "I don't believe that God would do that." This means that you don't believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good and evil precisely because these things that he would be telling you are going against what you believe is good and evil. The other reaction is "Okay, I guess my morals were wrong." This means that you do believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good and evil. I believe most people would choose the former reaction.

[ QUOTE ]
If I say God won't do this then you'll say but then God isn't the arbiter of good and evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point I am attempting to make.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you see that your argument is a little absurd no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Can you tell me why you think so?

[ QUOTE ]
What if God because He's God chooses not to exist anymore what would I do then?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pointless discussion. Our dicussion started as the origin of good and evil. This does not touch on that question, and I don't see any reasonable question that it touches on.

[ QUOTE ]
What if God went back in time and killed baby Jesus in the manger, how would that affect my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would make a good movie.

[ QUOTE ]
These types of arguments are silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they are at all, but I am beginning to sense that you are bothered by the point I am trying to make and reacting as such.

[ QUOTE ]
All of these things are contrary to the God of the Bible which I and all Christians believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am attempting to be contrary to what you believe. That's how arguments are made.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely we can have a reasonable logical argument about Christianity within the parameters of the beliefs of the Bible, which is the point of reference for all Christians?

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat. This discussion started when you stated that you believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good. What if 5800 years ago God had said that murder was a good thing? Do you honestly believe that humans would be murdering each other left and right?

It's late. I just watched Sideways. I had a lot of wine tonight. I am probably rambling as such.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You are only willing to discuss that which can be argued logically.
2. You believe that if there is a God, he is bound by the rules of logic.
3. Therefore, you have a logical reason for believing God to be bound by logic.

Let's hear it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because in logic, the statement A and not A is absurd. If God could transcend logic, then A and not A would be possible. This is absurd. So God can't transcend logic. QED.

[NotInchoateHand1]

I believe this book is true.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

This is kind of like saying a profitable poker player can't loose pots (or even put money into the pot). If he is profitable, how can he loose money?

God decided to give us free will (which creates the possibility of evil) because the good of having free will is greater than any evil that may result.

There are two type of worlds which God could create.
1. A world with no free will, and only good.
2. A world with free will, and good and evil.

Which has a greater net good? Evidently #2, because that's what God made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Voltaire,

I just want to say I disagree with you. Why isn't another possibility that God created a world with free will but no evil? If he never introduced evil into the world, we wouldn't have the will to perform it. Thanks!

Jason.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to say I disagree with you. Why isn't another possibility that God created a world with free will but no evil? If he never introduced evil into the world, we wouldn't have the will to perform it. Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

How can God make you not sin and also give you free will?

Why do you think God introduced evil into the world? The Bible says otherwise - sin entered through Adam, see Romans.

[davelin]

Jason, believe me when I say that I am not at all uncomfortable with your argument or this discussion. I honestly believe this is a silly argument. You're asking me to make an arguement for something that is contrary to my beliefs, that God would go back and change His moral standard.

But you ask what if God whenever years ago instead of the Ten Commandments told Moses that killing kittens is the way to go. Okay, somewhat silly but fine, that is what God has decided/declared is what is good and evil. Fine. But just like my objections to your original argument, I don't believe after establishing that killing kittens is okay, would repeal His standard for good and evil and say killing kittens is not okay. Your re-insertion of the original standard of good and evil is an argument you put in later.

I don't know why me saying that I believe that God is unchanging in His moral standards means that He isn't then the arbiter of what is good and evil. He has declared what is good and evil and that won't change. But your first assertion is "what if God changed..." How am I to argue within that?

My arguments have failed to convince you that Christians believe that God is the sole arbiter of good and evil because I said God wouldn't repeal what is good and evil. In order to "win" this argument, you want me to admit that God is capable of lying, which is something I will not do. But again, back to your later argument, if God had originally declared that killing kittens was good, then yes I believe that killing kittens is good.

[felson]

I haven't been following the arguments too closely, but let me toss in a few thoughts, borrowed from this excellent book (http://tinyurl.com/4nsx4) by philosophy professor Peter Kreeft.

Regarding God as the arbiter of good and evil, this is a question that dates back to Socrates, who asked "is a thing pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious?"

Let's replace "gods" with the God of the Bible (EDIT: and "pious" with "morally good"). Kreeft explains that giving either answer leads to philosophical problems. If you give the first answer, then you could have God endorsing the killing of kittens (http://extempore.livejournal.com/81264.html). If you give the second answer, then you deny God's moral authority.

Kreeft's solution, which I believe dates back to Aquinas, is that the answer is both. Kreeft explains it better than I could:

[ QUOTE ]
An act is good or evil both because of its nature and because of God's will. And God's will is rational, not arbitrary, because it flows from his nature. He is good. That's why he wills good for us, and that's why good acts are good. So there are really three things involved, three causes, in a sense: God's nature, God's will, and the nature of the act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, not all Christians are this sophisticated in their thinking. And maybe there are other ways to think about this problem. But I think Kreeft makes a good case.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Voltaire,

I just want to say I disagree with you. Why isn't another possibility that God created a world with free will but no evil? If he never introduced evil into the world, we wouldn't have the will to perform it. Thanks!

Jason.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no evil in the world, then you would be constrained from doing evil as well. In other words, your will would be constrained. In other words, your will would not be free.

[Luzion]

Jason_t, ffs. Did you not read my earlier response to one of your posts?
1) Committing a sin is to turn your back to God.
2) Committing a sin is what you would call "evil".
3) The reason we can turn our back to God is because he created us with free will.
4) The thing you call "evil" is a consequence of free will.
5) Yes, if God declared that you must kill kittens, then killing kittens would be "good", and not killing kittens would be "evil." Just like how God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac, then so be it.

I think you are very confused on the concept of "evil" in Christianity. Evil is not a separate force from good. Rather evil is a consequence of not doing what God commands.
If we have free will, then a consequence of being able to choose creates Evil.


Here is a little story that should help clarify everything.

**********
Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.
**********

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]


If there were no evil in the world, then you would be constrained from doing evil as well. In other words, your will would be constrained. In other words, your will would not be free.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am already constrained from doing lots of other things.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
I am already constrained from doing lots of other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but those constraints are due to the laws of physics, etc. Moral constraints are different.

[captZEEbo1]

I didn't read the entire thread, but in regards to the age of the earth....

It could have been millions of years between each day of creation. For example, between day 1 and 2, there was no sun, right? So what constitutes 1 day in that span? The Bible doesn't say 24 HOURS. Each day of "creation" is just a way to think about how the earth formed. God didn't necessarily have to create everything in the particular order that it said in the Bible. That was just the way to think about how the Earth was formed for people long ago. And to say God didn't create the universe, but a "Big Bang" did or something to that effect, that doesn't mean God had no hand in creating the universe. The way he created the universe could have been he initiated the Big Bang.

There is (arguably) nothing inherently inconsistent with the Bible and Science.

[pc in NM]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe this book is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. I respect your choice.

Give me one reason to believe the same that doesn't include anything in the bible....

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe this book is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. I respect your choice.

Give me one reason to believe the same that doesn't include anything in the bible....

[/ QUOTE ]

Dozens of archaelogical finds.

[scotty34]

Dinosaurs are actually much closer related to birds than modern reptiles.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I didn't know Carl Everett posted here.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL....This is the best post in this thread

PS....I hate the RedSox

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Dozens of archaelogical finds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones? And be specific, and how they prove statements in the bible directly related to Christianity and not related to just ancient civilizations. And I hope that you don't mean all the ones that have been faked.

One could do the same for other religions and I don't think it proves anything. Or Beowulf.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
If we found that water was present on mars at one time, and that there was life at one time, would this disprove our bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But the Torah, the Koran, and Dianetics would all still be intact, so you could just go join one of those religions and everything would be perfect again.

eastbay

[Luzion]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. But the Torah, the Koran, and Dianetics would all still be intact, so you could just go join one of those religions and everything would be perfect again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, dianetics? You mean the crappy and fake religion Scientology?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bible it self tends to disprove itself.....it has been re-written thousands of times and each has been interpreted fromt greek and latin documents which as a result of their fairly basic language can be interpreted in many ways......

for example...religious fundamentalists interpret and read a diffrent bible from your average anglican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first point is true for most ancient works of antiquity. There is much evidence, documental and archalogical that supports the Bible. The stories about King David, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has become increasingly corroborated. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has been examined and reported by archaelogist Clifford Wilson.

Every reference to an Assryrian king has been proven correct, an excavation in the 60s confirmed that the Israelites could have entered Jerusalem by way of a tunnel during David's reign. There is evidence the world did have a single language at one time.

Archaeologists digging in Turkey have discovered records of the Hittites. The great archaeologist William F. Albright declared "There can be no doubt that archaelogy can confirmedthe substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition".

Noted Roman historican Colin J. Hemer (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History) shows how archaelogy has confirmed not dozens but hundreds and hundreds of details from the biblical account of the early church. Prominent historian Sir William Ramsay started out as a skeptic but after studying Acts he concluded that "in various deatils the narrative showed marvelous truth"

Classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White said "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming" and that "any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd"

[/ QUOTE ]

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am already constrained from doing lots of other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but those constraints are due to the laws of physics, etc. Moral constraints are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made a lot of posts on the religion threads in the last few months. One rule of thumb I've learned is that the number of responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post. That's because people love to correct stupidity but are hesitant to take on intelligence.

That sucks though, because it means stupid posts get all the attention while the smart posts get lost in the noise.

Maybe someone else has observed this before and gave it a name. Until we find out the proper name, let's call this the Law of Stupid Posts. LSP for short.

Jason, I answered your question about God as arbiter of good with my quotation of Kreeft, but you didn't respond to that. Nobody else either. So LSP says that part was smart.

I also made the quoted response above. You didn't object to that either. I guess that part is okay too.

Of course, LSP wouldn't apply here if someone came up with a substantive criticism of my points. That could happen soon, but it hasn't happened yet.

[Luzion]

[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of posts on the religion threads in the last few months. One rule of thumb I've learned is that the number of responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post. That's because people love to correct stupidity but are hesitant to take on intelligence.

That sucks though, because it means stupid posts get all the attention while the smart posts get lost in the noise.

Maybe someone else has observed this before and gave it a name. Until we find out the proper name, let's call this the Law of Stupid Posts. LSP for short.

Jason, I answered your question about God as arbiter of good with my quotation of Kreeft, but you didn't respond to that. Nobody else either. So LSP says that part was smart.

I also made the quoted response above. You didn't object to that either. I guess that part is okay too.

Of course, LSP wouldn't apply here if someone came up with a substantive criticism of my points. That could happen soon, but it hasn't happened yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad you pointed out exactly what I was thinking right now. I answered Jason_t's question twice on "the problem of evil," but he did not acknowledge my post. Again I posted a even more simplistic explanation on Christians view on what evil is, but again no response from anyone. Do people really just ignore posts? Are the people here even qualified to discuss things on the Bible? Ive gone through 13 years of Catholic schooling; 9 of those years learning about Catholicism and Christianity... I would think at least my points would arise some discussion.

Btw Felson, your posts bring up very good points and Im glad that you and I both have made the argument that the consequence of having free will is the choice to do evil.

[omega_mail]

dinosaurs are in the bible, Job and Psalms (see: leviathan, and behemoth), if you do a search and read about them in their respective passages, their descriptions are what we consider dinosaurs to have looked like; and by the way, you cant just skip from day one to day seven, cuz on days 5 and 6 come the big animals, check it

[csmart]

What does reason have to do with a creation story?

You're about to reason your way straight to Hades, mister

[Shajen]

http://www.ascendancy.net/tribalwar/DieThreadDie.jpg

[tpir90036]

Keep in mind that I am an agnostic and do not necessarily disagree with the conclusion to the problem of evil.

However, the problem with this argument is that it tries to tie down "God" to our rules of logic. Assuming that a supernatural entity exists...there is no reason why it would have to care about or follow our rules of logic (or any other physical "rules" for that matter.)

Or put another way, attempting to argue logically about something which may exist outside of our capacity for understanding is useless.

[jstnrgrs]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person to think this. (I'm sure you've read the rest of this thread, where there is discussion of this topic.)