mooeypoo

The "God theory" comes from the Bible, whereas the "Santa Claus" theory comes from parents. The Bibe doesn't say that God is false, but your parents do(or no longer deny their lie).

 

Excuse me? The "God theory" comes from WAAAAY before the bible. Ever heard of Gilgamesh? You should, it's the basis of 60% of the biblical stories, verbatim.

 

That said, we have evidence to show the bible was written by man after years and years of the stories in it passing from father to son. If that's the case, you can't possibly prove which of the stories come from God himself and which were actually stories parents invented or embelished that just continued onwards with the generations.

 

 

There's a big difference between Harry Potter, and the Bible.

1. The author of Harry Potter would even say that the books are false. The authors of the Bible are no longer availiable.

 

2. The Bible tells the story of creation, whereas Harry Potter doesn't fit with anything we see today.

The biblical story doesn't fit reality. In fact, it doesnt' fit itself (As I wrote before about having 2 conflicting biblical creation stories)

 

So what you seem to be saying is that if I can find you a book that:

1. Explains some creation version that loosely makes sense
2. Whose writer does not claim the book is false
3. Who has followers that believe it

You would believe it too.

 

That's the conclusion from YOUR latest claim, not mine. Is that so?

 

If so, I think you should become a Scientologist.

If that's not so, you need to come up with a better reason of what makes the Bible a proof of its own existence.

 

 

 

Please, next time, before you post stuff like that, try to see how I would respond. This is a big waste of time which could have been avoided.

Unlike what you want to believe, we don't exist to serve you. This is a discussion forum, we make our points, you need to address the points made. We are not supposed to make our points baed on what you could and couldn't answer.

 

Now, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what's so special about Israel that I (who grew up there and visited almost all religious locations) should be at complete awe and immediately transform myself to proper christian. I'm waiting.

 

 

Anyways,, this discussion is futile. You clearly think that "proof" is anything you say it is, and nothing we say it is, regardless of how established we explain it. You clearly move goalposts and change your argument -- just go over the last 20 pages of this thread and see how many times you repeated the SAME claim despite multiple people giving you relevant counter claims.

 

And you clearly do not go by what we define as logic, njaohnt; when you claim that the bible seems to be proof of god just because it's proof of God (which is basically what you're saying) or that the bible was written by god while other myths were invented by humans, but you give no proper evidence as to how you know this for a fact, or when you ignore OTHER religions with exacty the same amount of proof and evidence as your own just because it's inconvenient to you -- that means you're not here to discuss, you're here to preach.

 

And it's getting really tiring by now. If you wanted to convince people (Which is the point of this thread) that there's some rational justification in believing in a God, you clearly failed. Maybe you should let someone else who has more grasp on proper philosophical arguments try.

 

~mooey

 

Say it. But it's the opposite.

There were no really big miracles (like in the bible) in the past 2000 years. Maybe you should think befeore you post.

 

Unless you want to stop being a preacher, and start being a debater, and give us some actual examples as to what you mean.

 

Show me how it is the same.

 

If we were in a theology-works-yayzes! blog, we might've. As it goes, you're in a science forum. You made a claim, and you need to show *us* how it works, not the other way around.

 

Life ain't fair, but it does have rules. You accepted ours when you joined, it's time you start following them.

 

There's no winning by proxy here, njaohnt, and there never will be. If you want to convince anyone, you need to work at it, and dismissing everyone's claims off hand is not doing anything to your argument, it's just going against our rules and annoys us.

 

~mooey

Sure. Tell me why it's not evidence.

That's not the way things work, and ti's getting quite tiring repeating this fact: YOU are the one who is supposed to tell US why something is evidence of God, not the other way around.

 

 

That said, the only thing these places prove, is that there were people living in those cities long ago. That doesn't prove the biblical story is true, it just shows some elements of it might be true, and it definitely doesn't prove God.

 

What, exactly, do you expect to find in Israel that is proof of God? I'll tell you if it's there.

 

 

I think it's a fact. Whatever you think it is does not matter to me.

Hehe, this might work in a personal rant blog, but not in here. You came to this forum to discuss evidence for God with science minded people. This forum requires you to use scientific definitions. You can't just decide for yourself what constitutes proof, evidence, or fact.

 

Read our rules please. If you want to preach, start a blog.

 

 

 

~mooey

Is it just me, or is it really that the conversation goes one way, picks up a bunch of counter-claims, then njaohnt takes a breather for a couple of days, and when he comes back, it's as if half of our claims never happened.

 

 

njaohnt, I (and Capn, and others) made specific points. Can you relate to them? We're already 19 pages into the thread and we keep going in circles, it's getting really tedious.

Just noticed that Tom Swanson has passed 20,000 posts and I wanted to bring that not inconsiderable milestone to public notice. Congratulations and thanks for your time on this site.

 

Favourite Swansontims

 

20% of those are probably in the Banned/Suspended Users, though, admittedly, they are no less amusing.

God is in physics - water does not flow up hill

 

No, that just means physics has certain natural laws that are consistent. That's not a proof for god, as I said above.

 

It could be said that formation of clouds takes water up hill, to neutralise gravity.

 

No, it couldn't. We know what makes clouds form, they are quite heavily susceptible to gravity (rain, anyone?) and to all of the other consistent, natural laws of physics.

 

It's not proof of God. If we explain something without the need of an external all-powerful being, why would we need that external all-powerful being to exist at all...? We can explain clouds, water flow, and physics in general without needing the influence of God. Hence, none of them are proof of his or her existence.

 

But that aside, rules that are indifferent to human, prayer etc are reliable, consistent, therefore helpful

 

I am at a loss as how that makes any sort of sense.

 

You're basically saying that the lack of proof for god is proof of god, and that the fact 99.99999% of nature is completely inconsistent with human survival is helpful.. or a proof of god. I don't see how that's any sort of logical.

 

Is an invisible God harder to see because of the distracting voices of the false gods;

 

An invisible god is impossible to see by definition. He therefore needs to reveal himself through other means.

 

is God another of those treasures whose value is unknown till out of reach?

 

Maybe, but then all we can say is that God MAY exist, but we have no proof for his existence yet.

 

~mooey

Oh, you were mentioning high-school students, so I ignored the possibility of imaginary numbers. Of course both posts above are correct, if you give hte possibility of i.

 

I thought we were talking high-school level exercise. My bad.

I prefer the format [math] y=\sqrt{\frac{x^{2} - 1}{92}}[/math] for any x.

 

Except x=0

 

((edit))

 

Actually, except x<1

 

and NO OFFENSE, but your going to school for Physics ?

that qualifies you to talk in authority about Biology................. how ????????

 

Seeing as what you're saying has zero to do with actual biology, it seems to work just fine.

 

That said, I would LOVE to know what your credentials are. Please, share, what qualifies you to be an authority on biology and what is and is not mainstream scientific thinking?

First of all, is it possible for you to communicate by loosing this copy and paste stuff, or does that require too much effort on your part ?

It's very easy to check that I didn't. Do you deny that I quoted you word for word?

 

Now. I shall stop feeding the troll.

second of all, the standard model is as I said, "most" scientists claim that single celled organisms have no intelligence,

do you really need the links, or are you just out of touch in the scientific community ?

Not only do *I* need the links, this forum rules demand that you comply and supply evidence. I suggest you comply to the rules you agreed to when you signed up to this forum.

 

second, the standard theory is not correct, but the technology to prove this is not here yet, just like so many things that need proof, the technology is not yet here

to prove it. That is not my fault, but I do understand the truth, from a scientific and a biological stand point. Life is intelligent, as a matter of fact, intelligence is an

aspect of life, that is how life evolved, by figuring out the problems, by thinking...

You saying that it's incorrect does not magically make it incorrect.

Even if it is incorrect, that does not make YOUR theory correct.

 

Evidence.

 

and I am not claiming anything "big", it just is the way things are...I do not mean to come off as arrogant, but I can easily say, how is it, that you do not understand this truth ?

 

 

"think" about it

Big or small, you need to stop stomping your feet in the ground against science (and the rules of this forum), you need to stop telling people to "think about it", and start posting substantiating evidence.

 

If you keep this up, you won't stay here long.

 

 

non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons.

 

intelligence - ants

thought - neurons

So ants CAN produce thoughts, and CAN produce neurons? That's what your sentence says. Clarify if that's not

 

 

NO, this is actually my quote.....so you are either incompetant, or you lied.,,

 

Listen, bub, this isn't your living room. You don't own this forum, you just got here, and you clearly avoided reading our rules. Anyone who reads this post can EASILY track back the post (as I have used the proper way of quoting) and see what you wrote. You also edit your post quote often, but that's besides the point.

 

Now, instead of arguing with me about what you did or did not say, how about you be CLEAR in telling us what you actually meant?

 

 

maybe your not so good at reading, but good at pasting ?

 

I told you once already, your gonna quote me , do it right( miss quoting someone on purpose to try to disprove them, is a useless tactic against me...nice try though..

 

 

besides, you demand I "prove" my theory, yet the very theory I am challenging, can not be proven.

that is a little hypocritical, don;t you think..

.kind of like me saying to a priest that theres no God, and he says "prove it".....

 

Enough.

 

 

Evidence.

 

~mooey

I never said ants produce neurons, if you are gonna reply, at least get my statements correct....

that comes from actually READING my post...

 

not COPY AND PASTING IT !!!!

 

I quoted you.

 

Henceforth the quote:

 

non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all.

(Notice you can click the little curly arrow at the left side to go to YOUR original post)

 

Which is also an example of why I asked you to be CLEAR. From your sentence, it sounds like you're saying that ants, who cannot collectively produce intelligence, can collectively produce thought, "for example neurons" -- which is unclear, but suggests that "neurons" are thoughts (or 'parts' of thoughts) and that you suggest ants can produce it.

 

Take care to be more clear if you want us to understand you. I'm starting to think you're just here to troll, friend. Please -- please -- prove me wrong, and start cooperating.

 

~mooey

I made the winning comment in reply to someone saying someone else was getting the better or the case against me, hence winning. So that not my start,

You're in a science forum, not a racetrack. The only "winning party" in science, is science progress. We are here to debate hypotheses with evidence.

 

You provided zero evidence so far, so I would not say we have any 'winnings' here. You can repeat your victory dance as much as you want, that won't change the fact you're not doing a good job at explaining how your theory holds water.

 

Anyways, scientifically called un itelligent random chemical actions from our neurons produce thought, and a sense of "self". I do not need to prove that.

 

I wouldn't say random chemical actions. From everything we know about neurology and biology, those chemical reactions are FAR from random. We might not fully understand them yet, but that doesn't mean they are random.

 

Scientists say single celled organisms are not intelligent, but millions to billions connecting together produce intelligence, and thought.

Stop saying "scientists say", and start giving us links to WHERE you saw scientists say things. Okay? 'cause you are making no sense, Dr. Maybe. I haven't seen scientists say any of what you claim they're saying.

 

Show us, don't tell us. This is the internet, you can use links, or names of books, but give us a reference.

 

The standard model is that these organisms do so without any level of intelligence on there on, only that they "somehow" magically produce "intelligence", and "thought" when so many of them connect and communicate.

 

You're making no sense again. That's not the standard model at all. You seem to either misunderstand neorology and biology, or you invent things. Thats why I ask you link to these articles where you read this stuff, so we can see if those articles might have been misunderstood by you.

 

Don't be as arrogant as to think that can't happen. We can't really talk about biology, intelligence or neurology if you keep claiming things that are NOT claimed in science.

 

 

I say that is wrong, and these single celled organisms have intelligence, and only produce higher intelligence through these connections, hence thought.

 

And by intelligence I "do not" mean "brain - neural" type cognitive thinking, but intelligence none the less.

 

and I say, that is how , evolutionary changes are made,

and when scientists "prove" how thought is produced ( EXACTLY ), you have will have my Proof....

 

Well then, I guess your theory is irrelevant then. Without proof, it's not going to go anywhere, whether someone else proved theirs or not.

 

Claims in science are examined INDEPENDENTLY. This isn't politics, we don't vote for "the best" theory or "the least of all evils". We examine the theory and see if it holds. If none holds, we have none. That's how it goes, and no matter how many times you insist that you don't need proof, this won't change.

 

~mooey

You are right in saying that one single celled organism on it's own "can not" produce thought, or think. It requires multiple cells, but that does not change the truth. Intelligence is "required" to solve such complexities. An organism needs to know the threat, in order to "predict" the best changes based upon current circumstances, that is intelligence, I do not need to "prove that ", do I ???

 

Sure. An organism that has intelligence analyses its environment, considers threats, etc, and predicts its own behavior.

 

However, there is zero proof that such organism can change itself (or its offspring, purposefully) by thinking about it alone.

 

I think you have a misunderstanding of how evolution works. We know how it works, it's one of the most established theories in science. It works very slowly, with very small mutations that do not work towards some "goal", but the adaptation adds to the natural selection to produce an adapted species.

 

If you claim that an individual organism can will itself, or its offspring, to evolve, you are claiming something VERY big, that stands against what we see in nature, and are therefore required to produce quite a remarkable set of evidence to support your claim.

 

Look, this won't work any other way. We don't need to disprove you, you have to supply proper SCIENTIFIC evidence - observation, experimentation, models, etc - that supports your hypothesis. No matter how much you believe you're right, you won't convince anyone of it without proper evidence.

 

And no, even if we can't "disprove you" it still doesn't mean you're right. No one can disprove the existence of invisible green elephants dancing around our heads, but you wouldn't say that means they exist, would you?

 

We expect a scientific claim to be accompanied by independently corroborated evidence. That's the only way, no way around it, no matter how much you argue about it.

 

It's a cool idea, really, I wish it would hold water, but what we know so far about nature and evolution, it doesn't. Show evidence otherwise, and we'll continue discussing them.

 

~mooey

 

And I did not say making genetic changes out of thin air, miss quoting is a sign of loosing...

 

 

Again with winning and losing. If you plan to stay around th forum, you will discover this strategy is not a wise one.

 

That said, I did not misquote, I misunderstood, which is why I asked you specifically to restate your premise AGAIN so no one will misunderstand you.

 

Can you put your claim in a full sentence so we all can see what you're talking about clearly, please?

 

non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all.

Show me the research that shows that multiple ants can create a neuron. You need to SHOW the evidence, Dr. Maybe, not just tell me it "obviously exists".

 

it makes more sense to say, intelligent beings connecting together create different levels of intelligence based on there complexity, the most complex being able to produce actual thoughts...

 

I am again asking you to write in a single sentence (2 max) what it is you are claiming. You seem to be changing the goalpost a bit every time, and you're not being clear. I have no idea what it is you're claiming in the above quote. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense.

 

Can you cooperate here and write a coherent statement of what you actually claim, please?

 

 

~mooey

God is in physics - water does not flow up hill

God is in psychology - experience might help when bullies turn up

 

I find this rather ironic. I would expect that if God really is in Physics, then water WOULD flow uphill every now and then, as proof of miracles. Or maybe that water will flow down to the starving dehydrated children in Africa who are otherwise dying of thirst and maladies connected to bad water sources.

 

Or maybe that water would flow in space, if the universe was created by god for the purpose of man as the bible claims. Or that the laws of physic would break on the command of God when an innocent baby is suffering by great evil. Not all the time, no, that would make us get used to it. Just every now and then. That would be God's work.

 

 

 

Yet, what we have are rules of nature that are completely indifferent to humans, work regardless of our needs, wants, deeds, experience, experiments, or prayer.

 

.... I see that as proof against God, not for him.

 

~mooey

I am not quoting anyone. My own words, lol.

 

And since as of today, Neuro scientists "DO NOT" have a complete understanding of exactly "how" human beings can "produce" thought, or "thinking", it serves no purpose for him to state that something "can not" think, when in truth, no one knows exactly, how thought is produced, from hence consciousness or subconsciousness comes from.

 

Sure we know a lot, but so much is yet unknown, about neurons, memory, DNA coding, genetics, etc..

 

it is easy to say...NO.......but say "no" with "proven" science backing you up..not "best guesses" or "opinions"

 

 

No kind sir.

 

it is me, who is winning..

 

First, no one is here to "win". This is a discussion forum, not a competition. You need to follow our rules of conduct, as a science forum, and provide evidence to your statements.

 

Second, you are not quite correct. While we might not know the full details fo the processes involved in particular thoughts, we do know that thought involve multiple neurons in specific patterns, and we can more or less map them in the brain.

 

We can say, then, that a single gene does not have thought, since it does not have neurons. Neither does a chair, for the same reason, and neither does a molecule, or a single-celled organism, for the same reason.

 

Maybe we will find, one day, that these have some sort of input processing skills that are similar to what we consider "thoughts" or "imagination", but when that happens, we will require evidence for it, and we might redefine or re-examine our definition of 'thought'.

 

As it did not happen yet, you are in need of providing evidence to YOUR claim. Stating that someone else can't know you are wrong for sure does not make you right.

 

~mooey

 

The "proof" is in the organisms themselves all around you. The proof is in how your own mind works, in how "you" can even think to reply to me..

other then that I can not "prove" my point, no more then anyone can "prove" me wrong.

 

I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right, and you seem to miss the point of what "evidence" means.

 

The fact is that my mind works, is proof of what, exactly, other than that I have a working mind? The fact I can answer you is proof that I have some level of intelligence, that I have an internet connection, and that I can speak and write in English.

 

I see no relevancy on how it possibly gets even close to proving anything remotely related to producing genes or mutations out of thin air, or controlling our own genes.

 

For my own clarity, can you post your premise clearly, and in clear 1-2 sentence ? I fear I may have missed your point in the first post, since it was a little unclear. Maybe if you clarify your point, we can start discussing the option you suggest.

 

~mooey

 

it is Science, but there is not "ONE" universally proven hypothesis. So mine is valid, under such rules.

 

That's not how science works.

No, you are wrong in your "opinion". Think again. And please explain your "knowledge" on "exactly" how living beings "think", starting with Humans please.........

Unless I (and seemingly Moontanman) misunderstood your point, you seem to be claiming that organisms can think or imagine new genes/mutations for themselves. Since this is YOUR claim, you need to be the one providing evidence for it.


That's how science works: You make a claim, you have the responsibility to substantiate it. We can then go over your evidence and scrutinize it -- that's the next step of science. if your theory stands through scrutiny, we can talk about the next steps of, perhaps, considering its inclusion in mainstream thinking.

As it goes, you are making quite a large claim without a shred of evidence, and that's not quite the way to convince anyone that you have a point. Not to mention that from everything we do know, see, and test, your claim is plain wrong. So, not only do you need to supply evidence for your claim, you need to also explain how it fits our observations.

Because we do science here. Science has nothing to do with opinion (quotes or not) It has to do with evidence.

~mooey

Yes, I'm aware of this. Prophecy though, was not intended to be a prediction of the future. It was more of a warning to the nations - change their ways, or suffer the wrath of God. Jeremiah 18 verses 7-10 show this:

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

 

If you view prophecies as warnings rather than as predictions, it makes perfect sense that they would not always be fulfilled.

But you used prophecies as proof of God, didn't you? If that's the case, then the lack of consistency is something you need to address if this really is evidence. That's what I meant.

 

Either you view prophecies as prophecies, or you view them as warnings. You can't eat the cake and leave it whole. If I tell you that there's going to be a massive robbery in a big bank tomorrow, then it's a win-win situation according to you, isn't it? I mean, if there is a robbery, I just gave you a prophecy that was proven true. If there isn't, then it's because it was a warning for you to behave better and since you have, I made sure it won't happen.

 

There's a reason why science requires falsifiable evidence. You can't ever test anything if it's a win-win no matter what.

 

How do I know if those are really prophecy-warnings, only some of them happening because god changed his mind due to people's behavior, OR if those are actually anecdotal rather random (something guesstimated for good reason) "prophecies", only some of them happening because of luck, retrospectively fitting events to the vague ones, and having some of those said by people who knew how to analyze the conditions of current events.

 

One means god did it, one means man did it. How do you prove either way with a "win-win" no matter what type of explanation? See what I mean?

 

Many of them are, but many more are quite specific. I listed a few of these specific prophecies which have been fulfilled in an earlier post, but I'll re-create the list here for convenience:

Okay, a couple of things here:

 

First, I woud expect a book that is given by the omniscient God to have *all* of the prophecies accurate. Wouldn't you? I see no reason why some would be vague if God already knows them and sends someone to prophecize them on purpose. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

Second, we should take into account that some prophecies are just obvious enough "odds-wise" to come true. When you watch political scientists on TV, they "prophesize" things. Some come true, some even quite accurately. They don't get their inspiration from a deity, they just know the situation and make educated guesses. If I tell you "There's going to be an earth quake tomorrow!" I have great odds of success because there's an earthquake *every day*. If I say "there's going to be an earthquake of magnitude 7.2 at coordinates X and Y", and I am right, then either I made it happen, or I have some information others do not have (like better technology/detection/etc), or have some damn good divine inspiration. (Yes, I know I'm falling into the false dichotomy here, doing that just for the point).

 

Do you see what I mean? I'd be completely bored with the first, and yet completely impressed with the latter.

 

Third, let's take a quick look at these examples:

Amos 9: 7-15. Outlines the destruction of the nation Israel, but says that its people will not be totally destroyed. They will instead be scattered "among all the nations." During this time the walls and ruins of Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Then a time will come when the people will be brought back from exile, and never again be "uprooted" from their land.

Here's the chapter in Hebrew/English parallel: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt1509.htm

 

First off, this is about the fifth time God threatens this in the bible. Israelites were really bad kids, he was quite often upset with them and this threat of scattering them all over is not the first.

 

Second, this happened right after the Israelites were conquered and the first temple ruined and destroyed. It was a known and common practice to take the existing people in such conquered land and dismantle them, sending them away everywhere else -- to prevent uprising in the land that was just conquered. Even if this was a prophecy, it's not very impressive.

 

Third, the temple was rebuilt and the Israelites still were not returned. So, was god wrong, or did he expect the temple to be ruined again? And if so, well, it's been more than 2000 years after the destruction of the second temple, and STILL we have a "problem" with the jews being scattered all over and not just coming back to Israel. In fact, according to the bible, the land of Israel stretches "מהפרת עד החידקל" - from "Pratt" to "Hidekel", two rivers on opposite ends. One is around Iraq, the other in the middle of Egypt. Until this day ultra-religious jews believe that when the Messiah comes, the third temple is built, Israel will stretch all the way between these points.

 

Quite honestly, that sounds ridiculous, but even so, regardless, it was not fulfilled.

We can quibble on adding a "yet" here, but this can't be included in the fulfilled prophecies. It happened more than once, it was OBVIOUSLY going to happen at the time Amos spoke to the people (war time, conquered, byebye land, regular occurrence) and the final stage did not happen.

 

Next:

Jeremiah 25: 8-14. Israel and its surrounding nations will be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar and the "peoples of the north." They will serve Babylon for seventy years. After the seventy years, Babylon will be punished for its crimes, and then they themselves shall be defeated and made to serve other nations. The Babylonian empire will be destroyed forever.

Jeremiah 25: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt1125.htm

 

Yea, this connects to waht I said above, see? It's not the firts time God threatens (and acts on) punishing the Israelites in this manner. Slavery and being sent off the land. This is because that's how things worked in warfare back 2500 years ago -- when you conquered the land, you dispersed the people and turned them to slaves. You did that to have slaves, of course ,but also to prevent uprising by dismantling the nation you just conquered. That's how it worked. In fact, half the laws in the bible are due to these type of actions that were done during wars and the Israelites were trying to separate themselves from.

 

In any case, who is to say this wasn't written right after it actually happened, Jaden? We don't have a good date on this, and it won't be the first time the bible is telling a story that already happened. The biblical stories were not originally written, they passed from father to son orally for quite a long time. When people discussed the events of Nebuchadrezzar (which were historically true, more or less) they added the fact that it was God's work. You may (and probably do) disagree with me, but my point is that you can't actually prove otherwise, and since you claim this is an accurate prophecy, and I claim the only reason it's so accurate is because it was written after the fact (or, at best, while it was happening) then I can't consider this a valid prophecy.

 

But that's the point here, isn't it? We see the meaning of "Evidence" quite differently. I am looking for something that contains irrefutable evidence. Heck, at the very least, contains *strong* corroboration. I'll take that. But you can't give that in the aspect of the prophecy, which is why no one in this forum who goes by scientific logic can accept it as evidence.

 

For instance, the idea that King Solomon built the old Jerusalem is relatively well established. It's established because we have multiple evidence from multiple sources, including digs and archeological finds from multiple places talking about Solomon and his great feat of building. And we also HAVE many of those buildings uncovered in the digs and they corroborate some of the historical claims.

 

However, the idea that Solomon did this because God exists and told him so is something that is *not* well established. As far as history knows, Solomon was a king and built his great city after conquering (or re-conquering, depending how far back and forward you go) the land.

 

Do you see what I mean in terms of the evidence and the claims?

 

Matthew 24: 1-2. The temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed completely. Not even one stone will be left upon another.

That's plain false. We have the western wall ("The Wailing Wall" / "The Kotel" / etc) of the temple standing, and some partially destroyed rooms and corridors. In fact, that's one of the biggest issues in the Israeli/Palestine conflict, since a mosque was built on top of those temple ruins during the time the Turks ruled the land.

 

That prophecy is false.

 

Luke 19: 41-44. Jesus says that because the people of Jerusalem have rejected Him, the city will be surrounded by enemies and destroyed.

 

Skipping this one for the plain reason that I don't know much about the new testament. I will point out, however, that Jesus' time was AFTER the first temple and BEFORE the second temple ruined. It's not a big surprise to predict something that happened before.

 

Daniel 9: 24-26. At the time this prophecy was written, many of the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Jerusalem and its temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians. Daniel says that the people will return to Jerusalem and rebuild. Later an 'Anointed One' (Jesus) will come, but will be rejected and killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing. Then a ruler will come with his armies and again destroy Jerusalem and the temple (as in Luke 19 41-44.)

We can argue about the 'anointed one' (in fact, jews DO argue about that that it's not Jesus, but rather the Messiah the Jews believe in. Also, seeing as Jerusalem was not really rebuilt (no third temple, seeing as there's a mosque on where it is supposed to go) that would either be a false prophecy, or evidence that Jesus isn't the anointed one ...

 

 

 

Anyways, I think you see my point. If you insist, I can keep going over the rest of these prophecies, but they're not as accurate as you make them seem.. Either they're SUPER accurate but didn't happen yet (in which case they're not true prophecies yet) OR they're not accurate. Can't have both.

 

~mooey

Mooeypoo, is it correct that you have read the original Hebrew bible?

Yeah, I studied how to read and analyze the Old Testament in biblical hebrew for 10 years in school. I can't say I'm an expert by any means, but I can read it and have studied it.

 

Is it your opinion that Genesis chapter 1 (or the Hebrew equivalent) could support the idea of old earth creationism? I have read that the word translated as day in the bible is 'yom', which could also mean any unspecified period of time. I ask this because OE creation makes a lot more sense (from a scientific perspective) than YE creation.

Eh, well, if you don't treat the bible as literal, then anything can mean anything. It's true that lengths of time in the bible are weirdly illogical; people live way too long in years and the creation is done way too short in days. Some religious folk decided that the days are actually much longer during CREATION time, but are much much faster during the rest of the time to explain how people lived for 400+ years.

 

Literally, it means "day". Figuratively, it means what you figure it to be... and yet, it seems to not quite be consistent with the rest of the bible.

 

~mooey

I have given evidence earlier in this thread. The bible contains a huge number of prophecies which have been fulfilled throughout history. I listed some of these in an earlier post (#542). No-one in this thread has, as of yet, attempted to nullify this evidence. It seems they prefer to ignore it.

 

It also contains huge amount of prophecy that was not fulfilled. And the prophecies that WERE fulfilled are really very vague, so they're a bit of a stretch.

 

You can find out that things are fulfilled after the fact any time, really, because then you fit the story to the real even that happened. The real magic would be if prophecies would be perfectly accurate *and* come true.

 

Wouldn't this be what you'd expect of an omnipotent omniscient god? Why make it vague when you want to prophesize something you know for a fact will happen? It's not very impressive...

 

~mooey

I'm sure that your parents have said (or have no longer denied) that Santa is false. The Bible never said that God is false.

 

I we go by this logic, you must believe in Harry Potter, because the Harry Potter books never said Harry Potter does not exist.

 

~mooey

Speaking of which, this podcast episode will really help you make some sense of the available degrees and the differences between them:

 

Graduate degrees and career paths (Podcast #2): http://students.gradschoolshopper.com/resource/podcast/graduate-degrees-in-physics-astronomy-and-related-fields-and-what-you-can-do-with-them-in-the-job-market/

 

There's also the episode "How to become a scientist", that discusses the issue of cross-disciplinary education.

 

Take a look at the resources in the site in general. It's true that they're aimed at graduate degrees, but the information in there can give you an idea of what exists out there and what to expect or aim for during your undergrad degree, so you can have the best options when you apply to grad school.

 

 

 

 

* Full disclosure: I work for AIP and on this podcast in particular. On the other hand, that also means you should feel free to ask / request more answers and/or resources. I'd love to help and so will the rest of the team.

So? Those don't deny each other, and I really don't think that you understand them. Perhaps you should see http://www.biblegate...5-6&version=NIV

How about you read this: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm and this: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0505.htm

 

Did you ever consider you might want to learn the original language properly, read the original version properly and *then* see who's reading it wrong?

 

How are they contrary to each other? I have not found that at all.Yes

What religious sites have you seen? Certainly not the ones that the people in the video were at.

There are a LOT of contrary stories in the bible. The two biggest examples are:

• Two versions of the ten commandments in different orders and slightly different commandments. You can compare here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Two_texts_with_numbering_schemes
  Did God publish two versions, or did the writer just forget the order when he mentioned them again in Deutronomy? And if that's the case, what else did he mix up?
• Two versions of the creation story. You may think it's a translation problem (ironically) but it's not; the stories are different in the original hebrew/aramaic too, if you care to check. Who made the error, the first story teller, the second, or god?
  See the comparison here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html or do some of your own research and find the two stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

There are a lot more contradictions, but I believe we also have quite a number of threads about them, just use the search box to find them.

 

 

What religious sites have you seen? Certainly not the ones that the people in the video were at.

 

Are you even listening to yourself?

 

This is ridiculous. I didn't just go on a trip to Israel, I grew up there. I hiked the country for 25 years (it ain't that big), while learning about my heritage and the bible, in the original language it was written in (unlike you). I visited most, if not all, of the religious cities, archeological digs and so called "holy" places myself, and most of them more than once. The only places I did not go to are places that are not safe to go to, and even those I was closer to than you.

 

And yet you, who was never in Israel, never saw any of this first hand, cannot read the original texts of the bible, dismiss me so casually without even knowing what I've done or where I've been in.

 

That's why the picture below was posted, mate. You are doing EXACTLY that right now, all you're missing is holding your hands to your ears and saying "lalalala".

 

Good luck with that.

 

And you're saying I look like that? Ha. Yeah right. Give me an example of where I said "I can't hear you!"(or I refused to hear you).

You continuously move the goal post, change your arguments and ignore ours. You might not have literally wrote that, but that's pretty much what you're saying right now.

 

 

The angels have their decisions to make, too. People have not done evil?

 

Oh, for the love of FSM.

 

Maybe you should watch all of them...

A fake?

 

Skipping all the mumbo jumbo about searching happiness in the physical world, and the lecture that follows, I tried to go over that movie AGAIN for what is supposed to be the topic of the video - actual places in israel that "PROVE!" god.

 

Quoting the movie: "If the bible is what it claims to you, you and I and everyone on this earth has an obligation to read it, to understand it, and to try and respond appropriately to it." (6:24)

 

Well. Seeing as I read the bible in the original language (and you don't), I would claim I can understand it better. And I do respond to it. Of course you have a right to understand it differently, but seeing as you are reading it in a TRANSLATED version, you cannot possibly claim that I, the one who read the entire thing cover-to-cover in the original language you claim it was "given to us" in, understand it less than you.

 

If the bible is literal, it is literal in its original language. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

 

The movie clearly states that the goal is to get YOU to check the facts for yourself and see how the cynics and critics are wrong. So how about you do that, then, friend? Check things out for YOURSELF (7:16). Learn hebrew, study the supposed contradictions in the biblical text, go to Israel for yourself, learn the alternative historical facts and contradictions. We can talk then about different interpretations of facts.

 

Right now, we're arguing about how you think no one else knows anything at all. If in nothing else, you're CLEARLY wrong in that.

 

 

Now, if you want to ask me about where I've been, or specific actual places in Israel, what they feel like and what they look like and what I saw when I was there, feel free to. I probably have pictures, too, somewhere.

 

~mooey

Yes, but Christianity follow the Bible the best (I find). As long as you follow the Bible, you're following the "One true way"

I just laughed out loud ...

 

So, which version of "the bible" are you following, exactly? The one that says whoever works in the sabbath (SATURDAY) should die? The one that prohibits you from wearing woven clothing? The one that tells you not to have ANY engraven images, or any symbols of anything, including a man's body on a crucible?

 

Yep. Follows quite directly, I'd say. Pick and choose, eh?

 

How they were written. The only way that the Bible could be false(and God) is if those books were written by greedy people wanting money. I doubt that because of how they were written, their length, etc.

 

Wow. How in-depth did you REALLY read the bible, friend? Any real close inspection of the actual text shows VERY clearly that it was written by various different people. The fact you have the same story told mutiple times with *different* details that are contrary to one another, should point that out immediately.

 

Then, the writing styles change dramatically. Then again, you wouldn't notice that one if you don't read the ORIGINAL language, which you do not.

 

Don't make claims you have no clue about. You don't know what the original biblical language says because you can't read hebrew/aramaic of the OT and you can't read Greek for some of the NT. Unless you can, you are reading a pre-interpreted TRANSLATION, which means you cannot possibly make any claims about the way the text is written originally.

 

If you want, I can show you examples of how the english translation is COMPLETELY different than the original text. I can show you quite a lot of examples on that, actually. And we can talk about the oh-so-holy 10 commandments, 70% of which Christianity doesn't follow at all.

Interested?

 

~mooey

 

 

 

(con't)

... Before you say this, maybe you should go to Israel and actually give evidence! You have know evidence that it is false, and the video is evidence of itself! What are going believe? Go out and show Science Forums what you find in Israel, but don't do this! This is an example of a bad skeptic. Before examining evidence of this, Moontanman has said that this is a spinel, not a not a ruby. He says that this is spinel because of a predetermination that the Bible is false. Remember, a predetermination leads to a false theory.

 

 

If going to Israel is evidence, then I should be a devout christian, seeing as how I grew up there, speak the language, studied the original bible for 12 years, and visited most of the religious notable sites.

 

... yet, I am not. And neither are the majority of the people who LIVE in Israel... so what exactly am I supposed to get from being in Israel?

 

Have *YOU* ever been there?

 

 

 

((EDIT: Sorry, I quoted the wrong post. changed))

Life is (hopefully) long, so you should consider doing what you're excited about and what makes you passionate. What you can do in order to make up your mind, is take a variety of courses -- a little bit in engineering, a little bit in physics and get a better bearing of what you like to do best.

 

I too started in Electrical Engineering, and ended up switching to physics, but it was a personal decision based on what *I* saw myself doing. These two subjects are not far off of one another, it's not like you're testing physics and pottery you can fairly well get the sense of which major suits you more.

 

 

You should also consider if you know enough about "cosmology" to pick that as your subject. That is a relatively broad research base and you might see that there are several ways of working in the field. So, consider what do you see yourself doing in, say, 10 years? Do you see yourself trying to solve complex universal equation that model phenomena in the universe, or maybe you would rather research "on the field" something that has to do with astronomy, or perhaps you would like to work on the methodology or equipment that is used to get more or better data in our universe? Maybe you want to research exoplanets, or maybe variable stars?

 

Each one of those has about a dozen different ways of reaching the same broad subject. It's best if you take the first year of college to get a "glimpse" of the various options before you make up your mind and stick to the major. It can't hurt, that's for sure. Even if you end up having Engineering as your major, having an extra physics class is going to be good for your resume and vise versa with physics major and an engineering class.

 

Good luck!

 

~mooey