Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
I don't need no glasses. But I do wear my sunglasses at night.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
What is this "no assumptions allowed" crap? If the rule is "no assumptions allowed" it would be impossible to reach out and twist a door handle for God's sake!
Without relying on at least one or two assumptions, I am unable to make the case that the universe is billions of years old. But come to think of it, neither can I say anything substantial about it being 6,000 years old. Or any other number. You have to assume something to know anything at all. The question is: "what are well-founded assumptions and how do we differentiate them from dubious assumptions?"
Disallowing any assumption makes it impossible to say anything whatsoever.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I noted that the OP never defined what he meant by assumptions. He seems to make the assumption that if others cannot win when playing his silly game that the Bible wins. But, as you pointed out he relies on assumptions as well. And he loses even worse.
And this knowledge is based on empirical evidence; objective, tested, consilient and reviewed.
What is this 6,000 year old claim based on?
Bishop Ussher's timeline, I assume.
I can get away with this assumption I assume since Ussher isn't over 6000 year old.
I was going to report you for assuming in this unassuming thread but I'm only assuming you're assuming so I'll report myself.
Since no assumptions are allowed...the world stops existing when I go to sleep and starts to exist again when I wake up.
And the age of the world is only as far I remember it to be.
And I am the only conscious person in the universe.
You need to write a book on " The world as it really is without assumptions".
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Isaac Newton also did the simple calculation too. He came up with a similar result.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The rock layers prove the flood.
Mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980 helps show thi.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The author is God. He was there. He did it. You were not there.
I'm reaching for that ignore button.
Also presumes a completely unwarranted Biblical authority.
So much for "No assumptions."
Heyo
Veteran Member
My guess is that @SavedByTheLord would disallow the assumption that the principles of logic, as laid down by Aristotle, are valid if it helps him "win" the argument.
This whole thread and the others opened by @SavedByTheLord are just shouting matches and they are constructed as that. (And responding to them is just feeding the troll. Yes, I am also guilty of that but at least they didn't shout back (yet).)
To make this into something constructive, we'd have to agree on assumptions we do share. Like that reality is real and logic is valid. Yes, absolute basic stuff as I suspect that the disagreement goes that deep.
You're presuming again; that God exists and that the Bible is authoritative.
If you're going to use a source as a premise, it would be best to verify it's reliability first.
And, by the way, you were not there either, nor were the unknown authors of the Bible.
Neither were you so you're only assuming God was there or even if there was a God involved at all. And you're also assuming God is the author.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No assumptions. Consider this, there is no evidence of anything older than about 6000 years in all the universe. Assumptions are note evidence.
Don't be silly. Where are you getting this information? There is abundant, consilient evidence from multiple branches of science and other areas of study.study
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No one here has come up with any.