Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

[Jollybear]

Dirtypanguin

No problem. But I still contend they DID believe the earth was flat. This is where our argument becomes circular (no pun intended)....

That is cool then.

Job 38:12
That it might take hold of the edges

(i.e. corners, ends, borders) of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

The blue is my emphasis but they are other possible definitions of the word used in the verse.

Ok, again this is not saying the earth is flat. Two points I have to bring up here, this verse does not prove God thought the earth was flat (it is God speaking in that verse). Second, it is only saying God can shake the wicked out of the earth. There is other ways to translate it as well, skirt, wing, or corner of garment. Based on this, look at the “message” translation and I quote

“And have you ever ordered Morning, 'Get up!'
told Dawn, 'Get to work!'
So you could seize Earth like a blanket
and shake out the wicked like cockroaches?
As the sun brings everything to light,
brings out all the colors and shapes,
The cover of darkness is snatched from the wicked—
they're caught in the very act!”

God is not saying the earth is flat or a circular disk, he is saying to Job that he needs to halt his proud waves and tells him basically do you have the power to make morning come and expose the wicked and shake them out. And based on how it can be translated with garment or blanket as the “message” bible puts it, look how it says it. Basically once again it’s allegorical language. Seize earth LIKE a blanket and shake out the wicked like cockroaches? Also the contemporary English version puts it like this “takes hold of the earth and shakes out the wicked LIKE dust from a rug.

Anyway, in case you think I am deterring away by quoting other translations, I am not, I am just helping with the flavor. Just going with the translation you picked, here is what we have: takes hold of the corners or borders of the earth and shakes the wicked out of it. That don’t prove the earth is flat, to me it don’t even imply it, it implies God takes hold of the land people are in, shakes it with judgment and the wicked are overthrown. And the Hebrew in the whole sentence really implies that.

The taking HOLD of the CORNERS is just poetic language, just like verse 2 God says that Job darkened his counsel. Does that mean that Job literally made physically DARK God’s counsel? No, it’s poetic language, it’s allegorical language, it’s free language and intuition tells us what it means. Or how about verse 5 where God says “who stretched a MEASURING LINE across it (the earth)?” does this mean God literally had a measuring tape in his hand, oh yea, maybe he went to shop at Home Depot and bought it, funny thing is though I work there, I did not see him come in and ask where the measuring tapes were, heh, strange. Or what about verse 8 where God says “who shut up the sea behind DOORS” I gauss God got those doors from a home improvement store as well, if it was not home depot, maybe lows? Or what about verse 9 God says he made the clouds it’s garments. Where did he shop to get those garments at? Did he go to Wal-Mart, or maybe he went to see granny and asked her how to knit, or maybe he just knit them together himself and then placed them up in the sky with all their thread, hopefully he took the needle out, we don’t want that raining on anybody, do we? Ha! Come on, to be consistent, this is what you would have to believe otherwise your being selective. Or what about the same verse where he says he wraps those clouds in thick darkness, as if darkness had a physical touch or component to it. So he takes darkness, a physical thing, and then wraps it around clouds made of garments of thread, you really think God meant that literally? I mean Job himself would have knew better than this, if he would, surely God all the more? Or what about verse 14 where it says the earth takes shape like clay under a seal, did God believe that underneath the earth there is like a pottery weal? Or what about verse 17 where it talks about the gates of death. Did God believe death had a “GATE” to it? Maybe it was made of 2 by 4’s. Or what about verse 22-23 which says the snow and hail have a STOREHOUSE. Just imagine it, a big storehouse made of brick perhaps, with all the hail and snow in it and when God wants to use some of it, he just takes some out of the store, threw the doors and pass the cashier stand. Or what about verse 29 which says from whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens” perhaps God believed here that a womb has ice in it and something gives physical birth to frost. Or what about verse 37 where God says “who can tip over the water JARS of the heavens” I gauss he not only has clouds made of thread, but now he also has water jars up there and tips them over and makes it rain too, surely you must believe that he believed this, because it says it in the text! That would be CONSISTENCY, right? Not even JOB would be that dum to believe such a thing, therefore surely not God either, it’s POETIC LANGUAGE. And there is LOTS of it in Job and Psalms and elsewhere in the bible. Or what about chapter 39 verse 5, God’s speech continued, he says “who let the wild donkey go free? Who UNTIED HIS ROPES?” God KNEW there was no ropes and job knew that as well, it’s poetic language, but surely you must believe that Job and God believed every donkey had ropes that needed untying in order to go free. What about verse 18 God says the ostrich laughs at horse and rider. Why did Job not interrupt God and say “umm, God, I know your speech is to rebuke my pride, that is the whole point of your long speech, but can I just jump in and say something right quick, umm, ostriches don’t laugh” I could just imagine what God would have said to that “Job, you stupid man, you’re missing the point of what I am trying to tell you, of course ostriches don’t laugh! I was using language to try to convey to you that the ostrich don’t CARE about the horse and the rider! Don’t you GET IT JOB? And just imagine, job responds “oh…I’m sorry” and God says “ahuh, I gauss so, moving along now let me speak some more”. Or what about verse 19 says God clothes the horse with a mane. I gauss that mane is not hair coming out of him, it’s a piece of clothing according to God, right?

 

[Jollybear]

We also know that the earth does not have pillars, cornerstones nor is it "fixed" as the bible indicates.

It’s poetic and allegorical language based on its OWN context. Job 9:6 says “He shakes the earth from it’s place and makes its pillars tremble.” I have 5 points to say to this:

1: the verse above it says “he moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger.” This verse can be the foundation of the next verse, thus pillars are the mountains, he makes it’s pillars tremble, the mountains, how does it tremble? EARTHQUAKES, ohhhhh, that is scientific!

2: the fact that there is lava beneath us and water pockets as well, kind of shows in a sense a pillar like fashion for the crust of the earth.

3: In the Hebrew for pillar here it can be “column of SMOKE” that looks like that mountain again. He makes the mountains that have a column of smoke, or pillar of SMOKE tremble. Actually, I’m sure you remember that God showed up to the Israelites as a “PILLAR OF FIRE”, I gauss that meant God was a PILLAR then, huh?

4: When the passage says “shakes the earth from it’s place” shakes there is “quake, or tremble or perturbed ect. So, MOVED does not mean the globe was stationary, it means like earthquakes and stuff. Also from it’s “place” means in the Hebrew “standing place, station, post, city, land, region, locality, spot ect,” none of this is saying what you’re saying. God moves, or quakes the region or the city or the spot of the earth out of it’s place. That is NOT saying the earth as a glob is stationary, it’s not even DEALING with that issue at all.

5: if you want to say Job meant it literally, then just skip over to chapter 38:1 God says Job said some things that were NOT RIGHT.

Either way you look at it, you’re cornered in on all sides here. You’re intellectually ambushed.

EDIT: I want to take back, (sort of), something I said earlier. I was describing a "

compass" as described in your bible as a instrument that shows direction. While that does describe the word it's not the traditional meaning of the word. Chuwgh (khoog) is more close to the drawing compass.


Yea, I think this illustrates the point a little better. Seems as though the reference is to a 2D "circle". Case in point is Proverbs 8:27


Proverbs 8:27
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

This is the compass spoken of. This "God" drew a 2D circle on the "deep" (water). Refer to your Genesis creation story. This verse is basically saying (I was there when God drew a circle on the surface of the water)......

The one problem with what you’re saying here is, none of what you say is proven within the text itself. I mean you can say it’s traditional explanation of the compass, but that don’t help prove that this is what the text is saying. Of course people can make all kinds of traditions from scriptures, that don’t make them true though. Even if what you say is a true tradition, and when I say true tradition I don’t mean to say that it’s NOT a tradition, I mean to say that the tradition is a correct interpretation of what the author mean to say, even if it is a correct interpretation, it is not proven from the text itself that this is the case. It does not say God drew a circular flat disk and then made a dome of heaven over it, like a glass bottle shaker. It just don’t say it in the text, nor do I see it even implying it. All I see in the text itself is that wisdom was there with God as he set the heavens in place and marked out it’s horizon on the face of the deep. That is just not saying the earth is flat or a disk. It’s just not saying it. I don’t know what else to say to this, but that it’s just not saying it. It’s not there. And I mean that tradition you told me about, that has no more weight to it then if you made up your own traditional interpretation. What has weight is the text itself and proof. Tradition is no more powerful then my or your unproven interpretations. Seriously, how does a famous interpreter have any more insight then a layperson reading the bible? They don’t, they are a man like us.

But, may I have the source for this tradition?

All of this fits perfectly with drawing tools and measuring tools.

Isaiah 44:13
The carpenter stretcheth out [his] rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.

You are trying to correspond this with God making the earth and heavens, you can’t do it though because the context is different, this context is talking about man using tools to make idols and images to worship. God did not use tools to create the heavens and earth, he used his spoken command. I can just imagine God using a hammer and nails and a drill and going right to town. I don’t think the biblical authors believed God used tools or a physical compass to create stuff.

Job 38:4-5
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

If you’re going to say that God made the earth circular and flat because of the words this uses in Job 38:4-5, then to be consistent you would have to believe that God believed and Job believed that God used a measuring line for the earth, a physical measuring line. Do you really think they believed that? No, this is allegorical language. Plus, even if you were consistent, all this would be saying in Job is that God used a physical measuring line to make heaven and earth, it STILL would not be saying he made the earth flat, it’s just not there in the text.

 

[Jollybear]

Mestemia

It is also a view of the cross that is not found in the Bible. Sure, it can be read into it, but it cannot be found there unless one is already looking for it. For Paul, the key meaning of Jesus’ death is summed up well in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “one died for all, and therefore all died”. That’s almost the exact opposite of the popular Evangelical message, “one died instead of all, so that they might not have to die“. Even if we conclude that Paul’s language of “dying with Christ” is just another way of talking metaphorically about denying ourselves and self-sacrifice, it nevertheless makes clear that the Christian view of “salvation” expressed here is not about Jesus doing something instead of us, but of something that involves us and happens to us and in us. Ironically, while some feel they are glorifying God by making atonement something that involves no action or effort on our part, they’ve also radically departed from a central component of early Christian belief.

http://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/ii-samuel-24-security-in-religion-debt-faith-works-etc/
A few links about penal substitutionary atonement:
Jesus did not die for our sins | Catholic New Times | Find Articles at BNET

This author who wrote this article did not say that he believed the biblical authors believed that Jesus DID NOT die for our sins, but rather that he did not believe there interpretation of what Jesus did by dying on the cross. But he recognizes the fact that the biblical authors DID in fact believe and say that Jesus died for our sins. Here is the quote from the article itself admitting this.

“The interpretation of Jesus as the sacrificed victim is a human creation. It was shaped in a first-century world by the disciples of Jesus, who drew on their Jewish liturgical symbols as a way the Crucifixion might be understood. They borrowed this understanding directly from the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, in which an innocent lamb was slaughtered to pay the price for the sins of the people. The sinful people then had the cleansing blood of that sacrificial lamb sprinkled on them.”

So, based on this, I rest my case with that article. The biblical authors obviously believed Jesus died for our sins according to this article, but this article disagrees that Jesus died for our sins, but they don’t disagree that the authors of the New Testament BELIEVED that Jesus died for their sins.

http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_subst...nary_atonement

All I see in this article is it portraying or educating us on the different views of the death of Jesus that are out there. But it really does not get into what they believed the authors of the New Testament believed, or HOW they could have been saying anything other than that Jesus died for our sins. So because the focus of the debate is on “what did Jesus disciples in the New Testament actually say about Jesus death” to respond to this article would be irrelevant. But that does not mean that this article does not bring up important issues that need addressing, but for this purpose here, it is irrelevant at the moment.

Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again this article does not give exegesis of any passages within the New Testament showing that Jesus or his disciples did not believe he died for sin. That is what I am looking for, but this article does not go into that exegesis.

The Author of The Shack Denies Penal Substitutionary Atonement « Voice of the Sheep

I listened to the interview and it was interesting. But the guy who said he did not believe Jesus did not take the punishment for our sins did not account for the scriptures the other guy gave him. But he did say he believed Jesus died to reconcile us back to God. What he said is very vague. I am looking for something strait up and clear and simple.

For even more just Google penal substitutionary atonement

Instead of looking at more of this, how about I do this, I’ll give you ONE scripture, I could give you lots, but I will give you ONE scripture from the authors of the New Testament, and you tell me directly and strait up HOW this scripture from the author could mean anything OTHER THEN that Jesus died for our sins? Here is the scripture, it is in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and it says “For what I received I passed onto you as of first importance: that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES,” now tell me how the author meant that Jesus did NOT die for OUR SINS?


To say Isaiah when he said circle of the earth, that meant he said the earth is a flat disk and I say no, your reading that into the text, all the text says is that he said circle of the earth, then you say to me that we could do that with anything in the scriptures; then I said back, no we could only do it with things not detailed, but things detailed we can do it, such as the case with “Jesus died for our sins” I am not READING that INTO the text in that case, it is CLEARLY there, PROVEN to be there. But in the case of the bible saying the earth is flat or a disk, that is NOT there, you cannot PROVE that it’s there, there is not enough DETAIL that it’s there, but in the case of whether Jesus died for our sins or not, it is PROVEN that it’s there, one does NOT NEED TO READ that INTO the text, it is read FROM the text clearly. But, your making the claim that one could say ‘you can read anything into the biblical text then, therefore your argument is not valid when you say the bible does not say the earth is flat’ you cannot say this, because some things in the bible are too detailed to dispute on what the authors meant, such as the case that Jesus died for our sins. Some things are too detailed and too clear to dispute. But if you want to insist that one could read ANYTHING into the text, then according to 1 Corinthians 15:3 how does this scripture NOT mean that Jesus died for our sins? Could you give me an exegesis on this for me.

So as you can see:

This is your own reconstruction based on your interpretation of certain passages within the biblical text. To come to this conclusion that the biblical authors believed that Jesus died for our sins, you have to read your interpretation INTO the text and then build your reconstruction from your interpretation. But this interpretation is not actually IN the text, it has to be READ INTO the text, then the reconstruction built FROM the interpretation.

My claim is that the biblical authors believed and said that Jesus died for our sins. Your saying that is just my interpretation into the text and then reconstruction from that interpretation, but that it’s not literally in the text, it’s read into the text. Ok, again, my claim is that the biblical authors said Jesus died for our sins, the scripture I gave said with exact quote “Christ died for our sins”. So, tell me how that could mean anything other than that Christ died for our sins?

 

[McBell]

. So, tell me how that could mean anything other than that Christ died for our sins?

Your skill in ratification is most impressive.

 

[Autodidact]

There is more evidence for the New Testament’s reliability then there is for any other historic document in ancient times. Here is a comparison of the New Testaments reliability with other ancient documents, this is a time gap in years between the original and first surviving copies. New testament 25 years, homer 500 years, Demosthenes 1,400, Herodotus 1,400, plato 1,200, Tacitus 1,000, Caesar 1,000, Pliny 750. Also here is the NUMBER of early copies in comparison. New Testament has 5,686, homer 643, Demosthenes 200, Herodotus 8, Plato 7, Tacitus 20, Caesar 10, Pliny 7.

What do you even mean by "the original"? We don't have any original, or know what that might be. It doesn't even make sense to refer to any such thing. What we have is a scrap of something smaller than this post--that's the closest to an original ever found. Here it is:

It is believed to date from 125 C.E. That is, this scrap appears to have been written about a century after the death of Jesus.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It’s poetic and allegorical language based on its OWN context. Job 9:6 says “He shakes the earth from it’s place and makes its pillars tremble.” I have 5 points to say to this:

So now it's allegorical. I see....

The one problem with what you’re saying here is, none of what you say is proven within the text itself. I mean you can say it’s traditional explanation of the compass, but that don’t help prove that this is what the text is saying.

What I mean, after doing some searching around, was that the traditional compass we use for navigation was not what is being described in the scriptures. The compass being described is a drawing compass. That's really all the word meant - compass. No over exaggerated interpretations required. I know. Even though I provided the meaning of the word that's not what it (really) means right? You keep harping on the word (Disk) but it's not even clear the aramaic/hebrew language had a word for it. Circle (chuwg) was probably the best way they could describe what they believed the flat earth to be. They certainly didn't describe it as a spherical shape obeject. They didn't even attempt to describe it as a ball (duwr).


The Biblical Cosmos Versus Modern Cosmology



My conclusion is that the bible readers, believers, apologist fail to show how the bible describes the earth as a spherical shaped object. It's clear the English rendered word is ambiguous. So does this mean we are at a stalemate? Possibly.

 

[Alceste]

This is a false statement. SOME historians do not believe the bible to be all true, but SOME historians DO believe it to be the word of God. So your statement is false. Here is a historian who believes the bible is true right here in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPG4JCSKgfA and I am sure there is probably tons more.

That guy is a minister, not a historian.

When context says it’s allegorical, THEN it’s allegorical, but when context says it’s literal, THEN it’s literal. But the context is to be taken literally all the time, for the context is what says something is allegory or not allegory.

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

~ Zen Master Rumsfeld

 

[Jollybear]

I will respond to everyones up to date posts as soon as time permits me.

 

[Jollybear]

Mestemia

Your skill in ratification is most impressive.

I find it impressive that you find it impressive, for many may have gotten angry instead of impressed, so therefore I find your patience and emotional strength impressive. I admire when someone shows emotional strength.

 

[Jollybear]

Autodidact

What do you even mean by "the original"? We don't have any original, or know what that might be. It doesn't even make sense to refer to any such thing. What we have is a scrap of something smaller than this post--that's the closest to an original ever found. Here it is:

It is believed to date from 125 C.E. That is, this scrap appears to have been written about a century after the death of Jesus.

I would like to respond to this with a few points.

First point is: notice the little scrap you showed in the picture, look how worn it is. Obviously at one time it would have been a lot larger than this, in its full copy form. That means it would have been copied from another one, thus that one being older than this one. You even said yourself that this one is not the original; therefore, the original must have been written IN THE CENTURY of Jesus and not a century AFTER him. Thus, it’s reliable.

Second point is: the fragment you showed in the picture is from John 18:31-33,37-38 Known as the John Ryland’s fragment because it’s housed in the John Ryland’s library. It was FOUND IN EGYPT-across the Mediterranean from its probable place of composition in Asia Minor-demonstrating that John’s gospel was copied and had spread quite some distance by the early second century. THIS MEANS that the original goes back even EARLIER then this 125 C.E. because the first copy was not done in Egypt.

Third point is: even if this 125 C.E. scrap were to be the original, that would still be impressive for survival of the fittest among ancient documents being closest to the actual event. You saw in my list, the earliest one I mentioned outside the New Testament was Homer and it was 500 years from the time gap in years between the original and first surviving copies, therefore if this scrap were to be the original, it would be about 100 years AFTER the event of Christ, A LOT EARLYIER STILL THEN ANY OTHER ANCIENT DOCUMENT from there events. If history can still be accurate even though it’s written down a hundred or 500 or a thousand years after the event, certainly it can be done with the New Testaments case since its closest to the events itself.

Fourth point is: And I am getting this from a book and I quote “earlier than the John Rlylands fragment are nine disputed fragments that date from A.D. 50 to 70, found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some scholars believe these fragments are parts of the six New Testament books including Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, and James. While other Scholars resist this conclusion (perhaps because its admission would undermine their liberal leanings that the New Testament was written later), they have not found any other non-New Testament texts that these fragments could be. The fragments were found in a cave that had previously been identified as containing material from 50 B.C. To A.D. 50. The scholar who first identified these early fragments as New Testament books was Jose O’Callahan, a noted Spanish paleographer. The New York times recognized the implications of O’Callahan’s theory by admitting that if it is true “it would prove at least one of the Gospels-that of St. Mark-was written only a few years after the death of Jesus.”

Fifth point is: Paul’s letter of first Corinthians is dated around 53 to 57 AD. Paul said Jesus rose from the dead in this letter, he also said in other letters he was acquainted with the apostles of Jesus who were with him for three years. How do you deal with that?

 

[Jollybear]

DirtyPanguin

So now it's allegorical. I see....

Well saying this to imply that it’s wrong without addressing the 5 points below the quote you gave does not prove your point, nor even make a point against any of my 5 points.

What I mean, after doing some searching around, was that the traditional compass we use for navigation was not what is being described in the scriptures. The compass being described is a drawing compass. That's really all the word meant - compass. No over exaggerated interpretations required. I know. Even though I provided the meaning of the word that's not what it (really) means right? You keep harping on the word (Disk) but it's not even clear the aramaic/hebrew language had a word for it. Circle (chuwg) was probably the best way they could describe what they believed the flat earth to be. They certainly didn't describe it as a spherical shape obeject. They didn't even attempt to describe it as a ball (duwr).

I have a few points to say to this:

1: God don’t use compasses to create stuff, so that is allegorical language. Compasses were an invention and design of man, it’s a man made tool. God don’t use man made tools, nor does he create man made tools.

2: There is only three spots in the entire Old Testament “chuwg” is used. It is in Job, proverbs and Isaiah. All other times compass is used in the bible, the word is not “chuwg”. Now that is significant because the words used for compass elsewhere like for example “Mecab” means “round thing, surroundings, roundabout, that which surrounds, that which is round, environs, surrounding places, roundabout, or ROUND TABLE”. They could have used this word, it’s close to the word “disk” like a table. A table is flat and it’s round. But they did not use this, I wonder why? Perhaps because they did not mean the earth is like a flat disk or table. As for the compass as an instrument, chuwg is not it, it is from the passage in Isaiah that you mentioned earlier and it is “machuwgah” and it means “circle-instrument, compass” and it’s in Isaiah 44:13 and no place else. Also remember I was saying that one of the ways “chuwg” can be translated is “circuit” which means beginning a journey and then ending the journey where you began. Now I said that implies a globe, you could say it implies starting the journey on one side of the flat earth, and then going around and ending where you started. But if that was the case, the biblical author probably would have used “cabab” which means “to march or walk around, circle about, skirt, make a round, turn around, ect” this is what would be done if one was to be starting a journey and walking on a disk or flat circular earth. But to go on a circuit, it just means to start somewhere and end there, it does not just perse mean to turn around. Plus BESIDES all this, your ignoring the fact that SOME lexicons translate chuwg as SPHERE, proof of that is here http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2329&t=KJV

The Biblical Cosmos Versus Modern Cosmology

God made the heavens first then the earth. The drawing a line, is a boundary for the ocean or the face of the deep.

My conclusion is that the bible readers, believers, apologist fail to show how the bible describes the earth as a spherical shaped object. It's clear the English rendered word is ambiguous. So does this mean we are at a stalemate? Possibly.

I think the weight of the evidence slightly points more in my direction.

For more strong evidence that ancient people did NOT believe the earth was flat, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth This shows that they figured out that the earth was spherical without the help of NASA. From using good things in the world and the universe that they could observe, they gathered that it was spherical. This article basically says the same thing I was saying that even if I lived in ancient times, I would not believe the earth was flat, just looking at an orange, or the sun or moon would make me think the earth was round based on them. But one good thing in the article here is that Aristotle said “The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.” It’s in nature to see and know that the earth is round; we don’t need NASA’S help to figure that out. NASA just helps us see it more fully and more close and more beautifully.

 

[Jollybear]

Alceste

That guy is a minister, not a historian.

Well he said with his own lips that he was an historian in this video somewhere near the end. He says “can someone be a follower of Christ and be an objective HISTORIAN. I believe you are looking at that person.” He also says “historic accuracy is my passion”. And “if any evidence comes that counters my beliefs, I revise them, and this I believe makes me an objective HISTORIAN”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLXQAevzWrE

Plus, there are probably other historians out there who are bible believers. Bible believers come from a wide spectrum of fields. There are archeologists who believe the bible, scientists who believe the bible, lots of different folk believe the bible and true lots of different folk don’t believe it.

As we know,

There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

~ Zen Master Rumsfeld

Right, some things we know and some things we don’t know. What I do know I claim I know and will back it up honestly and what I don’t know, I am honest to admit I don’t know. And where I don’t know, I may have a belief, I may not, depends, but if I don’t have a belief, I will put more thought into it, research more, or choose to believe something based on reasons and NOT desire (emphasis on NOT desire). I think believing something based on desire is very unwise.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have a few points to say to this:

1: God don’t use compasses to create stuff, so that is allegorical language. Compasses were an invention and design of man, it’s a man made tool. God don’t use man made tools, nor does he create man made tools.

I was only giving you the biblical reference and how man described the word and how they believed their god made it. Not as a globe/sphere but as a circle. Something by definition is 2d and flat.

2: There is only three spots in the entire Old Testament “chuwg” is used. It is in Job, proverbs and Isaiah. All other times compass is used in the bible, the word is not “chuwg”. Now that is significant because the words used for compass elsewhere like for example “Mecab” means “round thing, surroundings, roundabout, that which surrounds, that which is round, environs, surrounding places, roundabout, or ROUND TABLE”. They could have used this word, it’s close to the word “disk” like a table.

Then what's the Aramaic/Hebrew word for "disk" then? I haven't found one. The closest I've come across in the langueage is;


Strong's
3730 - kaphtor kaf-tore' or kaphtowr {kaf-tore'}; probably from an unused root meaning to encircle; a chaplet; but used only in an architectonic sense, i.e. the capital of a column, or a wreath-like button or disk on the candelabrum.

See, you're over interperting a simple word and imposing your own meaning on it. Circle (chuwgh) doesn't mean (sphere, globe or ball). Other Hebraic words could have been used to describe a spherical or ball like structure but they weren't used. Why?...because at the time when these scripture were written they weren't viewing their land or earth as a spherical or ball like structure.

As for the compass as an instrument, chuwg is not it, it is from the passage in Isaiah that you mentioned earlier and it is “machuwgah” and it means “circle-instrument, compass” and it’s in Isaiah 44:13 and no place else.

Chuwg is a "root" word that means circle (compass) and a "mchuwgah" is an instrument for making circles. The word is directly linked to its root. Just because it's only found in one place means little to nothing. It is a word derived from its root and is associated with 2d objects and the creation of 2d objects. But what we can find that shows significance is the fact that both words are found so very close together in Isaiah centered around a common theme.

Also remember I was saying that one of the ways “chuwg” can be translated is “circuit” which means beginning a journey and then ending the journey where you began.

Right. Although the word "circle" here can mean circuit, circuit doesn't mean sphere. I'm a network engineer and I've worked with and around circuit boards for a long time now and a circuit board is a 2d object and at no time do we in the industry assume circuit to mean global or spherical. Look at the circuit schematics of a house. It's path is viewed in 2d where power from the panel box leaves, moves around the house and then returns to the box. This adheres to what is known as (Circuit Theory). I also attend the gym regularly and know of one of the trainers there does circuit training. Circuit does not mean global or spherical. At best it means round but in biblical terms (chuwg) doesn't mean round.

Now I said that implies a globe, you could say it implies starting the journey on one side of the flat earth, and then going around and ending where you started. But if that was the case, the biblical author probably would have used “cabab” which means “to march or walk around, circle about, skirt, make a round, turn around, ect” this is what would be done if one was to be starting a journey and walking on a disk or flat circular earth.

"Cabab" is the action whereas "Chuwgh" is just a descrption of something. Cabab is to encompass or surround. Cabab wound not have been an effective word in the aramaic/hebrew language to use to the describe a 360 degree flat earth.

Plus BESIDES all this, your ignoring the fact that SOME lexicons translate chuwg as SPHERE, proof of that is here http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2329&t=KJV

I'm aware the Gesenius Lexicon uses it but it doesn't appear it's talking about the earth rather the vault of the sky (heaven).

I think the weight of the evidence slightly points more in my direction.

I don't think that it is.

For more strong evidence that ancient people did NOT believe the earth was flat, look here Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This shows that they figured out that the earth was spherical without the help of NASA. From using good things in the world and the universe that they could observe, they gathered that it was spherical. This article basically says the same thing I was saying that even if I lived in ancient times, I would not believe the earth was flat, just looking at an orange, or the sun or moon would make me think the earth was round based on them. But one good thing in the article here is that Aristotle said “The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.” It’s in nature to see and know that the earth is round; we don’t need NASA’S help to figure that out. NASA just helps us see it more fully and more close and more beautifully.

The great Wikipedia is not necessarily the best presentation of evidence. One should always cross reference it with something else. But Just as Ye Olde Wikipedia expounds on a "Spherical Earth" you can also find just as much info on "Flat Earth". Basically, according to Wikipedia the people over time were divided in their opinions whether the earth was flat or spherical. So citing wikepedia is not conclusive evidence. It is a good start though.

 

[Jollybear]

DirtyPanguin

I was only giving you the biblical reference and how man described the word and how they believed their god made it. Not as a globe/sphere but as a circle. Something by definition is 2d and flat.

I understand, but I mentioned that point that God don’t create or use the compass tool so as to show that the passage in question is speaking allegorical language, therefore, based on that, how can you say with absolute surety that it is saying the earth is flat in proverbs 8:27?

Also I did mention that he drew a boundary line for the deep or the ocean, so it would not cross over the whole land.

In proverbs 8:27 where it says “depth” is the Hebrew word “Thowm” and it means “deep, deep places, abyss, SEA, of SUBTERRANEAN WATERS, ABYSES OF SEA, PRIMEVAL OCEAN, ect”

And actually in verse 28-29 it builds or explains further verse 27 and it says as follows “When he established the cloudsabove: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: (Thown) When he gave to the sea his DECREE, that the WATERS SHOULD NOT PASS”

Now putting it together, God drew a boundary for the oceans. To give it more flavor here is how the “Message bible” puts it

“When he mapped and gave borders to wild Ocean,
built the vast vault of Heaven,
and installed the fountains that fed Ocean,
WHEN HE DREW A BOUNDARY FOR SEA,
POSTED A SIGN THAT SAID NO TRESPASSING,”

If you will notice also in Genesis chapter 1 it says “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the DEEP (ocean), and the Spirit of God was hovering over the WATERS.” Now skip to verse 9 “And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas”.”

So in proverbs 8:27 it is talking about this very same thing in Genesis 1:2 and 1:9 that God MARKED or DREW or COMPASSED a boundary line for the oceans.

Based on what I have shown here this is not saying God drew a circular disk in a section of space in the universe.

Then what's the Aramaic/Hebrew word for "disk" then? I haven't found one. The closest I've come across in the langueage is;

Strong's
3730 - kaphtor kaf-tore' or kaphtowr {kaf-tore'}; probably from an unused root meaning to encircle; a chaplet; but used only in an architectonic sense, i.e. the capital of a column, or a wreath-like button or disk on the candelabrum.

Ok, whether the closest word for disk in the Hebrew is Kaphtor as you mentioned or the one I mentioned which was “mecab” if your correct that kaphtor is the closest this still begs the question, why didn’t the bible authors who you say believed the earth was flat USE the word Kaphtor then?

See, you're over interperting a simple word and imposing your own meaning on it.

If I am over interpreting a simple word, then so would you.

Circle (chuwgh) doesn't mean (sphere, globe or ball).

It does mean sphere in the particular lexicon link I showed you.

Other Hebraic words could have been used to describe a spherical or ball like structure but they weren't used. Why?...because at the time when these scripture were written they weren't viewing their land or earth as a spherical or ball like structure.

Yes they were. Your just reinstating your assumption by saying this.

Chuwg is a "root" word that means circle (compass) and a "m

chuwgah" is an instrument for making circles. The word is directly linked to its root. Just because it's only found in one place means little to nothing. It is a word derived from its root and is associated with 2d objects and the creation of 2d objects. But what we can find that shows significance is the fact that both words are found so very close together in Isaiah centered around a common theme.

Ok, I’ll give you that one, so based on this standard of one word being rooted in another word, proverbs 8:28-29 explains verse 27, so 27 is the root and 28-29 is the fruit of that root.

 

[Jollybear]

Right. Although the word "circle" here can mean circuit, circuit doesn't mean sphere. I'm a network engineer and I've worked with and around circuit boards for a long time now and a circuit board is a 2d object and at no time do we in the industry assume circuit to mean global or spherical. Look at the circuit schematics of a house. It's path is viewed in 2d where power from the panel box leaves, moves around the house and then returns to the box. This adheres to what is known as (Circuit Theory). I also attend the gym regularly and know of one of the trainers there does circuit training. Circuit does not mean global or spherical. At best it means round

And round can mean global or spherical according to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/round number 5 down.

but in biblical terms (chuwg) doesn't mean round.

This is assumption.

“Cabab" is the action whereas "Chuwgh" is just a descrption of something. Cabab is to encompass or surround. Cabab wound not have been an effective word in the aramaic/hebrew language to use to the describe a 360 degree flat earth.

It can mean this yes, but it can also mean go around, or walk around. It does not just mean surround. So yes they really could have used this word. You take a journey and start at one corner of the earth and walk around and end where you started. They could have used this.

I'm aware the Gesenius Lexicon uses it but it doesn't appear it's talking about the earth rather the vault of the sky (heaven).

I have three points to say to this:

1: If it’s referring to the sky or heavens, then Isaiah 40:22 is NOT talking about the circle of the EARTH, so in that case you cannot say that this passage in Isaiah is implying a FLAT CIRCULAR DISK, because it’s not referring to the earth (even though it clearly shows it is) but rather it’s referring to the heavens. So therefore, we cannot know based on the text what shape the earth actually is, since it’s only talking about the heavens. This means you cannot prove your point.

2: If you do say it’s referring to the earth and NOT the heavens in Isaiah, then that means the lexicon I gave that says spherical, is referring to the EARTH being spherical. Thus that proves my point.

3: If you say it’s referring to BOTH the earth and the heavens; that is, the earth is a circular disk and the sky is HALF a sphere or arch, well it does not say that in the lexicon. So the lexicon would be more so implying if it’s referring to BOTH, that the heavens AND the earth are BOTH spherical, which is actually the real case according to NASA pictures. So if you say it refers to BOTH, this proves MY POINT.

So which one do you go with, 1, 2 or 3 here?

I don't think that it is.

Well, whether it does or does not, perhaps we can debate another issue within the bible; one that has more data to it perhaps.

The great Wikipedia is not necessarily the best presentation of evidence. One should always cross reference it with something else. But Just as Ye Olde Wikipedia expounds on a "Spherical Earth" you can also find just as much info on "Flat Earth". Basically, according to Wikipedia the people over time were divided in their opinions whether the earth was flat or spherical. So citing wikepedia is not conclusive evidence. It is a good start though.

I will give you this one, your right Wikipedia is not the best source to use. This is one reason I love debating, the other usually holds you accountable to excellence and I like that. Therefore, here is a better source: http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/notes_size_shape.htm or this one that gives a direct quote from Aristotle http://reformation.org/flat-earth-exposed.html I tried to find his actual book online but this volume is not free unless I am doing something wrong in my search. But here is his exact quote here from the second link

“Either then the earth is spherical or it is at least naturally spherical. And it is right to call anything that which nature intends it to be, and which belongs to it, rather than which it is by constraint and contrary to nature. The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind-straight, gibbous, and concave-but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclips, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore spherical.” (works of Aristotle, vol 1 p 389)

There, that is a better source. So, this shows that ancient people, at least some or many did in fact believe the earth was spherical. The biblical authors would have known the SAME observations Aristotle had. And Aristotle would NOT necessarily be superior minded to the biblical authors either.

 

[Ardipithecus]

Anyone know of any scientist(s) peer reviewed that made it their purpose to disprove the things of the bible, and that was their primary concern in life in regard to science?

I am a neuroscientist, and I realise that about 98% of us are Atheists. However, I do not see it as an attempt to disprove the Bible.

I went into science because of my desire for knowledge of the universe, the Earth, animal life, and specifically human life. For the early years of my life I rather ignored the Bible as irrelevant.

The Bible did not affect my life or my search for the truth. So I had no animosity toward it.

It was only when I found that 50% or more of my fellow Americans believed in things I knew to be false and mythological. These included magical creation, an impossible world flood, a world only 60 centuries old, man created from dirt or Eve a clone of Adam's rib (which made Eve a man.) They deny the fact oof evolution, the 4.5 billion year Earth, Continental Drift, 14 billion year old universe, or the biological nature of human and animal cognition.

Out of curiosity I obtained our family Bible (150 years old) from my uncle. I decided to read it. I read Genesis. It said that God created the Earth before the Sun. I knew that was wrong. It said that there was day and night before the Sun was created. I knew that was false. It said that God made Adam, the first man by uttering magic words and breathing air on a handful of dust. It was outrageous. I know that humans evolved over millions of years. I had seen the fossils of our ancestors. The Bible said the first woman was cloned from one of Adam's rib. That meant Eve had sex chromosomes X and Y...thus being a male. Adam and Eve were the first Gay Marriage?

I did not devote my life to science for the purpose of disproving the Bible. Since I came from a secular and well educated family that ignored religion. My purpose in studying science was to learn about the matter and energy universe and the human brain.

I did not realise that the Bible contained so much bloody horror and sanctioned immorality until I read it in my senior year of college majoring in Physics.

In later years, I found the arguments of Fundamentalists were based on superstition and backed by a perverse reading of the Bible. I was shocked that modern people wanted Genesis Mythology taught alongside of proven biology. It seemed to me some kind of retrogression of America back to the Dark Ages.

In discussions with Militant Christian Fundamentalists I learned to use science to show that the Book of Genesis is Bronze Age Mythology of primitive nomadic Jews.

Genesis is factually false. To use it as a moral guide to me seems perverse unrelated to Science. If God murdered all humans on Earth with a world flood (except Noah's family) . God killed men, women, children, babies, and pregnant women because some adults sinned. That is crazy. Also God killed about 100 trillion non-human animals because some human adults sinned. It is so bizarre that it fits with psychosis.

People should learn science because it is real knowledge. Gandhi said, "Truth is self-evident." The American Cultural War is a war by Fundamentalists against progressive Americans to take America back to the Dark Ages. That is a Christian form of Taliban.

Ardipithecus

 

[sonofskeptish]

Nope, science can't prove that god doesn't exist. It can't prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist either. Nor can it prove any of the other 1000s of make-believe gods out there do not exist. But common sense can be used to decided that something does or does not exist.

 

[Jollybear]

Ardipithecus

I am a neuroscientist, and I realise that about 98% of us are Atheists.

According to a specific poll you looked at, but what if many or some did not speak on that poll? How do you really know how many scientists don’t believe in God? Not all scientists would have spoken on that poll you looked at.

Plus it would not matter if 100% of scientists were atheists, majority does not MAKE something true or false. EVIDENCE makes something true or false. Also ASSUMPTIONS do not make something true or false, EVIDENCE and passing through SCRUTINY makes something true or false. So far in this whole speech of yours I have seen all assumptions. Would you like to debate the issue? If yes, great, if not, that shows a close mind. Would you like to take up the challenge?

However, I do not see it as an attempt to disprove the Bible.

It doesn’t matter if it’s an attempt or not, if you’re right, it would already disprove the bible. But, I don’t believe your right. Want to go through the evidence? Only fear makes someone not want their positions scrutinized. Should we fear the truth? Should we fear scrutiny? Should we fear the evidence? I don’t think we should.

I went into science because of my desire for knowledge of the universe, the Earth, animal life, and specifically human life. For the early years of my life I rather ignored the Bible as irrelevant.

I admire your hunger for knowledge, I too hunger for knowledge. But when you went into studying science, did you QUESTION any fundamental things you learned? Did you ever say “could my science classes and text books be teaching me false things? What if something else is true? What if there is a completely different world of truth then what I have learned?” Did you ever question it? Or did you go into studying science with the dangerous assumption that “what they will be teaching me is more than likely THE TRUTH”?

Plus, the very fact that you ignored the bible as irrelevant WITHOUT FIRST READING IT shows forth a close mind. Although I do commend you that you went past that close minded stage and read it. One cannot judge something as irrelevant without first looking at it AND UNDERSTANDING IT FIRST. In other words it’s not enough to just read it, one must understand it. Otherwise the judgments against it are against straw men.

The Bible did not affect my life or my search for the truth. So I had no animosity toward it.

Do you have any animosity toward it now? If yes why?

It was only when I found that 50% or more of my fellow Americans believed in things I knew to be false and mythological.

Knew to be false? Or believe to be false? How do you “KNOW” that what it says is false?

These included magical creation, an impossible world flood, a world only 60 centuries old, man created from dirt or Eve a clone of Adam's rib (which made Eve a man.) They deny the fact oof evolution, the 4.5 billion year Earth, Continental Drift, 14 billion year old universe, or the biological nature of human and animal cognition.

Yes and how do you know there wrong? Plus that is just one interpretation OF the scripture texts, it is my interpretation, but there are other interpretations that help your assumptions of science FIT with the texts. But I refuse to do that, I believe it’s a form of intellectual dishonesty and violence to the scriptural texts, so I refuse to let modern science FIT with the bible. I let atheists and evolutionists say what they say and then I let the bible say what it says, then the scrutiny begins for BOTH. We BOTH and ALL of us have to remember, JUST BECAUSE we predominately had been taught something or know of something quite well, that does NOT make it true. This is something we really need to remember and be willing and open enough to let our views pass through other people’s scrutiny and make their views pass through our scrutiny.

Out of curiosity I obtained our family Bible (150 years old) from my uncle. I decided to read it. I read Genesis. It said that God created the Earth before the Sun. I knew that was wrong.

How do you know it’s wrong? Were you a witness when the earth and sun got made?

It said that there was day and night before the Sun was created. I knew that was false.

How do you know it was false? You are making an assumption here without backing up HOW YOU KNOW this. Knowledge WITHOUT evidence and without evidence passing through scrutiny IS NOT TRUE KNOWLEDGE, but is TRUE ASSUMPTION.

It said that God made Adam, the first man by uttering magic words and breathing air on a handful of dust. It was outrageous.

Now hold on there, you need to back up for a second, you need to PAUS and THINK about what you just said. WHY did you think it was OUTRAGEOUS? Was it because the NORM of what you see and witness in the world human life does not get born that way? In YOUR everyday experience through your life, this has never been witnessed by you and so therefore it’s OUTRAGEOUS, is THAT WHY? Or is it outrageous for some other reason?

I know that humans evolved over millions of years.

Oh yea, how do you know that? Another assumption without backing up that claimed knowledge. And mind you, I have looked at this so called knowledge that you claim of. I am not ignorant on the issue here.

I had seen the fossils of our ancestors.

Ok, and that proves humans evolved over millions of years because you seen fossils? That don’t prove millions of years, that proves you seen fossils. That’s all that proves. It proves you saw bones, I too saw bones, so what?

The Bible said the first woman was cloned from one of Adam's rib. That meant Eve had sex chromosomes X and Y...thus being a male. Adam and Eve were the first Gay Marriage?

This is the first time I heard this one. It does not say in the text that God CLONED Eve. It said God made women out of Adams rib-BIG DIFFERENCE. If God made Adam out of dust, he can make Eve out of his rib easy.

Plus why do you find it so impossible that God could create Adam out of dust and breathe life into him? That sounds easier to believe then to believe that from the primitive soup came all the right molecules and stuff in the right place, at the right time, in the right order and bang spontaneous life blew into existence. That sounds more MIRACULOUS then God making man out of dust. The odds are against that, but more for God doing it. It just sounds more plausible to believe God made Adam out of dust, then man coming out of dust by himself by pure chance.

I take the position that atheists have MORE FAITH then believers in God do.

Want to go through the evidence? Want to take up the challenge on the existence of God?

 

[Jollybear]

I did not devote my life to science for the purpose of disproving the Bible. Since I came from a secular and well educated family that ignored religion. My purpose in studying science was to learn about the matter and energy universe and the human brain.

Again I admire your hunger for knowledge, but you said “well educated family that ignored religion”. Well that is not WELL educated. Education means you know of ALL FIELDS, KNOWLEDGE however is different than education. Knowledge is when you know the truth and the facts of something. Education is when you know of all views on the subject, even the views that are false. That is education, you know of everything. Education does not seek to “ignore” something and not learn of it or to understand it. That is TRUE education, to embrace learning and understanding everything.

I did not realise that the Bible contained so much bloody horror and sanctioned immorality until I read it in my senior year of college majoring in Physics.

Ok, and? The bible has a little bit of everything in it. It’s raw, real and honest. It documents history. Not all things in it are FAVOURED by the God of the bible, nor favored by the authors of the bible. Although some things were favored, but some things even when favored were not God’s PERFECT WILL to happen. For instance, God pronounced judgment on Adam for eating the fruit, although it was not God’s PERFECT WILL for Adam to die, it was his perfect will for him to live, but because he disobeyed God, God had to implement plan B.

In later years, I found the arguments of Fundamentalists were based on superstition and backed by a perverse reading of the Bible.

How is it based on superstition and how is it a perverse reading of the bible? For example, the bible clearly says God made Adam out of dust, to say otherwise would be perverse. Would it not?

I was shocked that modern people wanted Genesis Mythology taught alongside of proven biology. It seemed to me some kind of retrogression of America back to the Dark Ages.

I think intelligent design should be taught alongside biology, so that kids are TRULY EDUCATED and not INDOCTRINATED. This teaches kids to be OBJECTIVE and not NIEVE and CLOSE MINDED.

In discussions with Militant Christian Fundamentalists I learned to use science to show that the Book of Genesis is Bronze Age Mythology of primitive nomadic Jews.

You have learned to use science to SHOW that the book of Genesis is Bronze age mythology huh? So far you have not showed me anything except your position and assumptions. Would you mind now SHOWING me your evidence for all this, how shall we do it, one thing at a time? Doing all things will make our posts to long, let’s keep it practical shall we? What do you say? I am willing to prove the existence of God to you by means of true science and by metaphysics or logic or philosophical means.

Genesis is factually false.

This so called fact is an assumption and that is a TRUE fact UNLESS you back up with facts your assumption that Genesis is factually false.

To use it as a moral guide to me seems perverse unrelated to Science.

Oh it’s definitely related to science, ALL TRUTH is ONE TRUTH. No truth contradicts another truth. Any field out there in the world, if it has truths, those truths will complement other truths in other fields. And all fields are connected together to give a broader picture.

If God murdered all humans on Earth with a world flood (except Noah's family) . God killed men, women, children, babies, and pregnant women because some adults sinned. That is crazy. Also God killed about 100 trillion non-human animals because some human adults sinned. It is so bizarre that it fits with psychosis.

Ok, and why is it so bizarre? I am asking this in a serious way too by the way. I really have a purpose for why I am asking you this question, why is it so bizarre?

People should learn science because it is real knowledge.

As the field of religion has many diverse views and beliefs, so too does the field of science have many diverse theories. So, WHAT REAL KNOWLEDGE?

Gandhi said, "Truth is self-evident."

I agree, but at the same time, there are some self evident truths that people don’t know of because they have not LOOKED at them yet. It’s self evident that there is a fire place in front of me, but it’s not self evident to you because you have not seen the fire place in front of me. And why? Because you have not looked at it.

The American Cultural War is a war by Fundamentalists against progressive Americans to take America back to the Dark Ages. That is a Christian form of Taliban.

Are you speaking for ALL Christians and bible believers? If so, this is a false statement. I don’t deny that there can be some false fundamentalists and Christians out there who twist the scriptures. That’s a given. I don’t dispute that. But to group all Christians and bible believers together and say they are trying to stop America from progressing and bring them back to the dark ages is just downright false.

Also to say that these false Christians and fundamentalists are the ONLY ones doing a cultural war, that also is just downright false. That could not be further from the truth, there are liberals and atheists and non religious people who also do things to create a cultural war. What you’re saying is so far from the truth.

Ardipithecus

So what do you say, answer my questions here, take up the challenge, and prove your assumptions, one section at a time? How about it?

 

[Jollybear]

Sonofskeptish

Nope, science can't prove that god doesn't exist.

Your right, but It CAN PROVE HE DOES exist. That is my position.

It can't prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist either.

This is old, it can prove a very specific kind of God and the spaghetti monster does not fit the qualifications of this specific God.

Nor can it prove any of the other 1000s of make-believe gods out there do not exist.

Science and metaphysical evidence can prove a very specific God exists.

But common sense can be used to decided that something does or does not exist.

Who’s common sense, yours or mine?