Jump to content

Christian Evidence


Recommended Posts

And I'll say again not knowing the answer does not mean a god did it much less your god did it...

Anything you say happened with creation of the world is really just a place holder. There will never be an atheist creation theory that doesn't have problems… at least at this rate. There are no problems with God creating the world, except, if you say "the lack of evidence". Edited by njaohnt
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Um, yes, there are lots of problems. God could of created the world. You cannot argue with that. So far, I'm still saying "Where did the lithium-7 go", so I can argue with the big bang.   Would you

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 prop

~ Bertrand Russell     ~ Richard Dawkins     More here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

Posted Images

Anything you say happened with creation of the world is really just a place holder. There will never be an atheist creation theory that doesn't have problems… at least at this rate. There are no problems with God creating the world, except, if you say "the lack of evidence".

 

Yeah, lack of evidence is not a big deal when it comes to something as important as creating the world... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no problems with God creating the world, except, if you say "the lack of evidence".

There are no problems with nature creating the world except for people that just want to make up an answer because they don't have the patience for science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything you say happened with creation of the world is really just a place holder. There will never be an atheist creation theory that doesn't have problems… at least at this rate. There are no problems with God creating the world, except, if you say "the lack of evidence".

 

Why should our world be any different than all of the worlds we've seen being born?

 

This page argues against the need for extraordinary evidence:

http://carm.org/extr...dinary-evidence

And these pages give evidence for the resurrection.

http://carm.org/does...us-resurrection

http://toptenproofs....esurrection.php

 

Citing Matt Slick is just adorable. He's one of the most dishonest people I've ever met and one of the most ignorant (despite being corrected on TAG incessantly, he still pushes it. At least he admitted once that he actually doesn't know anything about logic). This is another example of him being dishonest; he even has a footnote acknowledging that he is blatantly misrepresenting the position of his opponent so that he can claim they have equal assumptions. Furthermore, he doesn't address where the argument comes from (Bayes's Theorem) at all, nor does he even seem to know what "extraordinary evidence" means.

 

On the second link, he can't even tell the difference between evidence and claims! Citing Matt Slick gives you about as much credit as citing Ken Ham.

 

Anything you say happened with creation of the world is really just a place holder. There will never be an atheist creation theory that doesn't have problems… at least at this rate. There are no problems with God creating the world, except, if you say "the lack of evidence".

 

Which creation story? The physically impossible one from the Bible? How about the modern one where God causes the entire universe despite there being no notion of a cause that could actually apply in that scenario?

 

Oh, and then there's the fact that the universe has always existed and will always exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also:

 

SCIENCE!

 

If your god lives in the gaps, he is a very small god and he is ever shrinking.

 

I will re-ask my question "Where did all the lithium-7 go?". This is one of the main reasons I believe the big bang is false. It said in the article that someone said that this is probably one of the things suggesting that the big bang is false. Yes, there might be other evidence, but like it said, there is too much excitement in the big bang for any problems to say that the big bang is false.

 

 

That being said, wrong is relative and to think that the Big Bang is so wrong as to be able to be replaced with Creationism is insane.

 

 

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

 

I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

 

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

 

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

 

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

 

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

 

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

 

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

 

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

 

When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.

 

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.

 

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.

 

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.

 

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

 

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

 

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.

 

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

 

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

 

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

 

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

 

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat.

 

Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

 

So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory.

 

And yet is the earth a sphere?

 

No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere has certain mathematical properties - for instance, all diameters (that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same length.

 

That, however, is not true of the earth. Various diameters of the earth differ in length.

 

What gave people the notion the earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin with, the sun and the moon have outlines that are perfect circles within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. This is consistent with the supposition that the sun and the moon are perfectly spherical in shape.

 

However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those planets were not circles, but distinct ellipses. That meant that Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres.

 

Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up that would lift the body's substance against gravity, and this effect would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated, and Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed.

 

The earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual measurements of the curvature of the earth were carried out in the eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct.

 

The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).

 

The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or 0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent.

 

To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.

 

The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat.

 

Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the earth is wrong, strictly speaking. In 1958, when the satellite Vanguard I was put into orbit about the earth, it was able to measure the local gravitational pull of the earth--and therefore its shape--with unprecedented precision. It turned out that the equatorial bulge south of the equator was slightly bulgier than the bulge north of the equator, and that the South Pole sea level was slightly nearer the center of the earth than the North Pole sea level was.

 

There seemed no other way of describing this than by saying the earth was pear-shaped, and at once many people decided that the earth was nothing like a sphere but was shaped like a Bartlett pear dangling in space. Actually, the pear-like deviation from oblate-spheroid perfect was a matter of yards rather than miles, and the adjustment of curvature was in the millionths of an inch per mile.

 

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

 

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

 

This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

 

Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky, and eventually the geocentric theory was just left behind. It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so long.

 

Again, it is because the geological formations of the earth change so slowly and the living things upon it evolve so slowly that it seemed reasonable at first to suppose that there was no change and that the earth and life always existed as they do today. If that were so, it would make no difference whether the earth and life were billions of years old or thousands. Thousands were easier to grasp.

 

But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became clear that the earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution.

 

If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would have reached their modern state in ancient times. It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a static universe and the rate of change in an evolutionary one is that between zero and very nearly zero that the creationists can continue propagating their folly.

 

Since the refinements in theory grow smaller and smaller, even quite ancient theories must have been sufficiently right to allow advances to be made; advances that were not wiped out by subsequent refinements.

 

The Greeks introduced the notion of latitude and longitude, for instance, and made reasonable maps of the Mediterranean basin even without taking sphericity into account, and we still use latitude and longitude today.

 

The Sumerians were probably the first to establish the principle that planetary movements in the sky exhibit regularity and can be predicted, and they proceeded to work out ways of doing so even though they assumed the earth to be the center of the universe. Their measurements have been enormously refined but the principle remains.

 

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

Edited by ydoaPs
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

njaohnt

I will reiterate my note from a few days ago

This thread is about Christian Evidence - and whilst no one is expecting peer-reviewed and repeatable methodologies - it would be good if we could read well reasoned arguments backed up by primary sources, texts, academic arguments, websites etc. Merely posting links and gainsaying others' arguments is not getting us anywhere.

I repeat please could you counter the members' arguments with something other than belief and faith-based assertions. This thread can stay open for as long as it takes provided the discussion continues - it will however be locked if you continue to preach and merely affirm your own belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Miracles are, almost by definition, not repeatable. I would be very surprised to find a miracle that can be repeated.

 

If you are looking for an example of any miracle though, I have given one in post 531 of this thread (and further explained in post 542):

http://www.sciencefo...d/page__st__520

 

This type of miracle is obviously not able to be repeated for scientific analysis - you either beleive the people who tell you about it, or you don't.

 

That was my point - as a scientist - even the most trivial positive assertion I make needs to be supported by repeatable, statically verified and controlled experimental observation. If, as the OP has done on numerous occasions, you wish to equate a religious belief with acceptance of a scientific theory, you need equatable evidence.

 

An anecdote of an single, unrepeatable, unexplained event is simply not enough to explain anything in science - it's simply not compelling enough to count as evidence. If one wishes to provide "Christian Evidence" equivalent to evidence for scientific theories like evolutionary theory or big bang theory - "miracles" as commonly defined, don't cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a LOT of contrary stories in the bible.

Indeed. I think there's an even better example from the New Testament: who saw Jesus after he died, and in what order?

 

Write down the order of events as given by each of the four Gospels and see what you get.

 

Alternately: Give a timeline of the places Joseph and Mary lived. Include Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc. Do this for each gospel independently. Now compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I think there's an even better example from the New Testament: who saw Jesus after he died, and in what order?

 

Write down the order of events as given by each of the four Gospels and see what you get.

 

Alternately: Give a timeline of the places Joseph and Mary lived. Include Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc. Do this for each gospel independently. Now compare.

 

 

If you're lazy, you can just take this quiz a couple of times.

 

And I almost completely forgot about this nice chart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

There are no problems with nature creating the world except for people that just want to make up an answer because they don't have the patience for science.

Um, yes, there are lots of problems. God could of created the world. You cannot argue with that. So far, I'm still saying "Where did the lithium-7 go", so I can argue with the big bang.

 

If it really happened it would be evidence for something miraculous.

Would you believe in God?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot argue with that. So far, I'm still saying "Where did the lithium-7 go", so I can argue with the big bang.

It looks like perhaps you missed the answer you were given the first time you asked this. Let me help you in case you've forgotten.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64226-christian-evidence/page__view__findpost__p__689732

 

Here, too: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328534.700-blame-dark-matter-underdog-for-mystery-missing-lithium.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, yes, there are lots of problems. God could of created the world. You cannot argue with that.

 

Yes, yes I can. There is no known definition of causality that works with a deity creating the universe. To illustrate the point, WHEN did God create the universe?

 

See, the universe is all of space and time. That means "before the universe" is contradictory to the point of meaninglessness. There is no time at which the universe did not exist. This is true by definition. If you don't believe me, tell me at what point in the universe does the universe not exist?

 

All of you listen. Atheists, and people that are not Christians will go to hell. It is a plain fact

 

I have no plans on going to Michigan anytime soon. You seem to be a bit fuzzy on what the word "fact" means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who can watch this series of videos, there are more than 15 of them, and still believe in the New Testament.... Well they do have faith.... but no idea what evidence consists of..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should our world be any different than all of the worlds we've seen being born?

What worlds have we seen being born? Why did you post this?

Citing Matt Slick is just adorable. He's one of the most dishonest people I've ever met and one of the most ignorant (despite being corrected on TAG incessantly, he still pushes it. At least he admitted once that he actually doesn't know anything about logic). This is another example of him being dishonest; he even has a footnote acknowledging that he is blatantly misrepresenting the position of his opponent so that he can claim they have equal assumptions. Furthermore, he doesn't address where the argument comes from (Bayes's Theorem) at all, nor does he even seem to know what "extraordinary evidence" means.

On the second link, he can't even tell the difference between evidence and claims! Citing Matt Slick gives you about as much credit as citing Ken Ham.

Those seemed correct to me.

Which creation story? The physically impossible one from the Bible? How about the modern one where God causes the entire universe despite there being no notion of a cause that could actually apply in that scenario?

Oh, and then there's the fact that the universe has always existed and will always exist.

Maybe you should read the post again. I think you're getting confused.

 

Those don't answer my question. I'm still asking my question. If those did answer it, show me. Perhaps I missed it.

 

Also:

 

SCIENCE!

I don't see how the answer my question. That's the same website where I got the lithium problem from.

If your god lives in the gaps, he is a very small god and he is ever shrinking.

There's the problem. The whole reason why we are still talking about this today. I think the opposite. I think that God is "getting bigger". I think the evidence is expanding, why do you think God is "getting smaller"?

That being said, wrong is relative and to think that the Big Bang is so wrong as to be able to be replaced with Creationism is insane.

It is not insane with miracles.

 

How about you read this: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt0220.htm and this: http://www.mechon-ma...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?

 

 

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....mbering_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://skepticsannot...a/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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Oh, for the love of FSM.

 

 

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.

So your idiocrasy is the same as the people who lived thousands of years ago?

Also it never really said anything to the contrary (directly).

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.

Sure. Tell me why it's not evidence.

 

Indeed. I think there's an even better example from the New Testament: who saw Jesus after he died, and in what order?

 

Write down the order of events as given by each of the four Gospels and see what you get.

 

Alternately: Give a timeline of the places Joseph and Mary lived. Include Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc. Do this for each gospel independently. Now compare.

I haven't seen any, but if you do, does it really matter? The Bible's purpose was so that people can stay out of Hell.

 

If you're lazy, you can just take this quiz a couple of times.

 

And I almost completely forgot about this nice chart.

Again, doesn't say anything like you are saying (directly).

 

It looks like perhaps you missed the answer you were given the first time you asked this. Let me help you in case you've forgotten.

 

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__689732

 

Here, too: http://www.newscient...ng-lithium.html

I'm still asking it. It never said anything about lithium-7 being possible at the amount which is. Did I miss it?

 

Yes, yes I can. There is no known definition of causality that works with a deity creating the universe. To illustrate the point, WHEN did God create the universe?

 

See, the universe is all of space and time. That means "before the universe" is contradictory to the point of meaninglessness. There is no time at which the universe did not exist. This is true by definition. If you don't believe me, tell me at what point in the universe does the universe not exist?

If God is real, He can make the universe start and stop, no matter what science says. I cannot tell you when the universe got created, nor when it did not exist. Only God knows that.

I have no plans on going to Michigan anytime soon. You seem to be a bit fuzzy on what the word "fact" means.

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

 

Yes if a true miracle ever occurred....

You're forgetting where we came from. The healer at my church has healed dozens of people, and John of God has healed hundreds. What makes you sure it was just a coincidence?

 

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.

If I haven't answer you, repeat yourself. Where?

 

How about first you tell me where all the lithium-7 went. Check and mate, atheists!!!1!!2!!on3!!

God created a third of the amount of lithium-7 than what the Big Bang says there should be.

Edited by njaohnt
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

njaohnt

I am placing this modnote in both this thread (well obviously) and in What is your Justification for Believing in a God.

Please take a look at the Religion Forum Rules - especially rule 2 (big bang) and the whole of rule 3.

1. This is science forum. Phrases along the lines of "no matter what science says" will raise hackles and must be supported by a great deal more than simple affirmations of personal faith or revelation. If you are not here to discuss and debate these matters then it might appear that you are here to proselytize and convert - and that is not allowed.

2. In both threads you have been asked very straight forward questions of fact/interpretation that were raised by your argument. It is a rule that questions like this should be responded to- it is this rule that stops the forum becoming a blog or soapbox. Please go back through the last few pages and see if you could address some of these outstanding questions. The threads will not be allowed to continue in their present form. Please note this is not the first time I have asked modnote 11 July & modtip 9 July


all posters

a. Please keep it friendly and civilized.

b. From either perspective and view there are arguments that seem persuasive and water-tight but which are disputed from the alternative position. A mere repetition of the argument does not advance matters. The instant and peremptory dismissal of a response is also to be avoided - no matter how sure you are in the logic of your point.

c. When arguing that a point is illogical, irrelevant, or incorrect it aids understanding massively if some explanation is given.

d. Any topics that branch off or are suggested by this thread would be much better addressed in a new thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Lots of things in the Bible. I heard of a wall, and instead of falling into a city, it fell outside the city, I forget what story that was. I'll see if I can find that place on those videos (Proving the Bible through Archeology).

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.

Really, that's kind of crazy.

I think you misunderstood me. "You can't just decide for yourself what constitutes proof, evidence, or fact." Yes I can, and I did. It's not like I would think that you would (doesn't seem like you take anything as proof, evidence, or fact.) take it as anything.

 

I think that you're forgetting where we came from, here. I did not post this in this thread.

All of you listen. Atheists, and people that are not Christians will go to hell. It is a plain fact

 

 

 

Edited by njaohnt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, that's kind of crazy.

I think you misunderstood me. "You can't just decide for yourself what constitutes proof, evidence, or fact." Yes I can, and I did. It's not like I would think that you would (doesn't seem like you take anything as proof, evidence, or fact.) take it as anything.

I take it as blatantly ignoring the scientific method and our rules.

 

Consider where you are, please. You came to a SCIENCE forum. You need to comply with the rules and methodology given by science. Otherwise, go debate in a theology forum, I'm sure you'll have a lot more consensus.

I think that you're forgetting where we came from, here. I did not post this in this thread.

 

I don't understand, you're quoting something you didn't say?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.