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

[Perfect Circle]

Well I guess you can school me on what matter is? Particle waves? Energy Waves?

It's generally defined as anything that has mass and takes up space. I'm not sure what you're getting at with waves...

 

[Walkntune]

What? Do you have any background at all in any level of physics? Because I'm pretty sure a high school physics class would cover this. Gravity, electromagnetism, and weak/strong nuclear decay are all forces that act on matter without being matter...

So you question my background in physics but have no clue what particle waves are?

 

[Walkntune]

I have no background in physics and I know what they are!

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have no background in physics and I know what they are!

Then you know of the duality of wave/particle theory and that light waves , while exhibiting a few qualities of particles, do not equate themselves with "matter" in the slightest.

 

[Perfect Circle]

So you question my background in physics but have no clue what particle waves are?

That's not what I was saying at all. I said that I don't know what you're getting at...

As far as I understand, particle waves don't have anything to do with matter.

Edit: Tumbleweed seems to have beat me to it.

 

[Jollybear]

Commoner

Do you think astrology should be taught alongside astronomy? You know, for the sake of objectivity?

I’m not trying to run from the question, but I think you’re asking the wrong question and here is why: astrology does not deal with science, but the AFFAIRS of humans interpreted in the stars. Astronomy deals with science (the physical universe). Intelligent design does not deal with the AFFAIRS of humans or even the AFFAIRS OF GOD (the designer) it deals with the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, therefore IT IS A SCIENCE ISSUE. Theology should not be taught alongside evolution or intelligent design because it’s not a issue of physical science, it’s another field, although yes all fields join together, but for the sake of helping others learn clearly and understandably, each subject should be dissected and broken down, thus theology and evolution/intelligent design should not be taught alongside each other, but evolution and intelligent design SHOULD be taught alongside each other. Now in light of that, astronomy and astrology should not be taught alongside each other because they deal with TWO DIFFERENT FIELDS.

In case you may say to me, intelligent design is not dealing with the physical sciences because it implies God, he is not physical. Granted he is not physical, but the IMPLICATIONS of intelligent design (which are that there is a God) are not what would be taught, but rather the intelligent design ITSELF would be taught. There is a difference.

So astrology should not be taught alongside astronomy UNLESS astrology can explain somehow that it DOES deal with the physical sciences. I have not studied allot of astrology but to my knowledge it has not done that, but I could be wrong.

But, there is your answer.

So again, THIS is education, hearing ALL VIEWS on a given subject, not just one. Hearing one is indoctrination and NOT education. Suppose intelligent design was the only thing taught in schools and NOT evolution, I would even consider THAT indoctrination, even though I agree with intelligent design, I would still say it’s indoctrination and not education. TRUE education is when kids hear ALL sides, ALL VIEWS of a subject, both right views and false ones alike. And they don’t just hear them; they understand the reasons behind the views. This is education and this is what should be done. By this being done, it teaches kids and not just kids but people in general to be objective and gracious to their fellow human being who may happen to choose to believe something different. Intellectual honesty is needed, but LOVE is also needed for those who are dishonest.

As a side note, why would organizations want to indoctrinate people instead of educate them? I think it’s FEAR of something. And I think that is just plain pathetic. Its insecurity and that breeds control. It’s a terrible darkness. It does a grave injustice to kids on so many levels.

 

[Jollybear]

Galileo

If it could it would, but it hasn't.

This is wrong. It does not automatically prove itself, one must gather the evidence and prove it and then answer all questions posed against it and pass all scrutiny and corner all other views against it to where they cannot respond anymore.

Just like a courtroom works matter of fact. Proof is not automatic, it has to be presented and SHOWN.

And I am willing to show it. And I am willing to have what I show pass through your scrutiny and what you say must also pass through my scrutiny. And everything must be accounted for.

Ergo for the time being we can safely assume "God" does not exist.

No, it’s not “safe” to assume that, for if you’re wrong, your soul is in danger. So I would not say it’s “safe” to assume that. It’s only “safe” if your right, but you don’t want to “gamble” something that is this serious by going with assumptions. You and I both must KNOW for SURE what the truth is.

How are the flying spaghetti monster and any of the other a fore mentioned gods any different than the one you're talking about?

They are different because my God is not finite like the spaghetti monster is, he is not finite like all the other gods are either.

To give a quick overview of what my God is, here it is:

1: He is eternal, having no beginning in himself, he always existed.
2: He is infinite in space, which is he fills all space as we know space to be and then he fills all space outside the space that we know, that is, he is infinite in all forms of space, space we know and space we do not know. He is infinitely big.
3: He is a super intelligent mind, he is a person, he has desires, a will, a character and he is intelligent. He has consciousness.
4: His power is above his creation, he can do anything he wants with his creation, thus miracles.
5: He knows all things that can be known.
6: He is love, he cares and loves everything he created, and he loves us.
7: He is full of wisdom; he knows what is best in all things.

The difference between my God and other gods is this:

1: Other gods such as polytheism they are finite gods, although they claim to have power and can do supernatural things, they are still finite. Spaghetti monster would be classified as finite, thus he would have a CAUSE and would not be the FIRST cause. Therefore he and other gods cannot be the one true God or the FIRST God through whom all things came.
2: Each of the hundreds of different gods are responsible over a small section of nature, and have power over small portions of the universe or the world. My God has power and responsibility over ALL sections of the world and over the WHOLE universe.
3: These other gods have a beginning or a birth in time, they are not eternal, they did not always exist, while my God has.
4: These gods have a physical/spiritual image to themselves. Head, nose, arms, legs, ect. But my God does not have this, for this is a creation, although my God can manifest himself into forms like this.

There is the difference between my God and all the hundreds or thousands of other gods out there including the spaghetti monster. The spaghetti monster and other gods are equivalent to demon and angelic entities, mere creations-not the creator/s.

 

[Jollybear]

DirtyPanguin

It doesn't beg the question if you're familiar with the language.

I admit I don’t speak Hebrew nor Greek, perhaps that may be a downfall for me here, but I feel I don’t need to learn to speak that language in order to understand the bible, since the lexicon’s do the Job for me. I feel my time would be better spent reading other stuff and researching other stuff then learning these languages. If I did happen to learn another language, it would be one that I would USE more often, such as Spanish or French. But the lexicon does the Job for me with the Hebrew and Greek.

Do you speak Hebrew and Greek? Are you familiar with it like this?

Even if we assumed they could have used that word for some reason they didn't.

For SOME REASON they didn’t? What would that reason be? If Kaphtor is closer to a flat earth disk and they believed the earth was a flat disk, why did they not use this word kaphtor then? You say for SOME reason they did not, but what would that reason be? This is an important question since kaphtor per your own words is closest to a flat disk, YET they did not use this word, yet according to you they believed the earth was a flat disk. Perhaps that “reason” they did not use “kaphtor” is because they did NOT believe the earth was a flat disk? And if you still think they believed it was a flat disk, then this is an important question to have answered, why did they not use the word kaphtor?

Either the word doesn't fit the context

This makes no sense though, if the context in the verses in question MEANT a flat earth, then kaphtor WOULD have FIT the CONTEXT indeed. How would it not fit it?

or they had no understanding of a spherical world.

So they believed in a flat disk earth, but did not use the word closest to disk which was kaphtor and the reason they did not use the word kaphtor is because they did not understand a spherical world? That makes no sense. What does their lack of understanding of a spherical world have to do with their belief in a flat earth disk and using the word kaphtor to describe that belief best?

Since I'm being honest here I'm not going to jump off and say...(it's because they had no understanding.....). No. It's because the word itself would not fit the context properly.

Why would the word kaphtor not fit the context properly if that is the closest thing to a flat earth disk to which they believed?

For instance, watch this, I will write a short sentence and then I will write the same sentence with a different word, and then I will show how both words can fit the context.

‘I love dogs.’
‘I hate dogs.’

Context is dogs, whether I have the word “love” or “hate” in it, the context is the same and the word love or hate does not change the context, it changes the feeling toward the context, which is about dogs.

Other Hebraic words that, in our opinion or loosely rendered in English, do no justice to the suttle nuances of Semitic languages. This is why the Hebrew to English lexicons and dictionaries can only go but so far. They are a good resource though.

They can only go so far? How is that so? There are so many ways to EXPRESS something one believes. You can use many kinds of words, or analogies, something.

I'm really not. The word simply means circle in the Hebrew language and is the equivalent of what we in the English language regard as a 2d object. This is why (mchuwgah) is used in their language to describe and instrument known as a drawing compass and its purpose is to draw 2d circles. We use an instrument today just like that in math classes, art class and one similar to that, that was used in the early days by ship captains.

I think you are equally interpreting the word Just as much as I am. You are not exempt from interpreting the word since the author does not give enough information. Plus if I have questions for you still, that shows there is some interpretation on your part that I am questioning. I would not be questioning something if it was as clear as day, but your case you’re making is not as clear as day.

Right..and more "careful" research shows that others do not. Not even Strong's renders the word as sphere. I list the Strong's because it appears that is the one people are familiar with but I traditionally use the (AHL - Ancient Hebrew Lexicon). Guess what? They don't render it as "sphere" either.

True some lexicons don’t translate it as sphere, just the one I mentioned does, although some others may as well that I don’t know of, but maybe they don’t, I have not looked at them all. But if ONE says sphere, then it’s possible it can be translated that way. But, without it, we can use circle and circuit and build on that.

Again, no problem but a modern meaning of the word in English is completely different that the meaning of the day in that language.

Recap, I had said that round can mean spherical according to the dictionary, to which you say the above, and so I ask you now, how do you know round in there day meant different then round in our time and language?

 

[Jollybear]

Circle in Hebrew did not mean globe or sphere or round. They already had words for round and sphere. None of these were used to describe to spherical shape of the earth.

If you want to say they did not use the best word for sphere in the Hebrew if they happen to truly believe it to be sphere, then I can just as easily shoot back by saying they did not use the best word for flat disk earth if that is what they truly believed. They had words in the Hebrew to describe something flat or a disk, like kaphtor per your own words.

Bible Studies: Hebrew Meaning, hebrew meaning, isaiah 40
"The word is chug (the "ch" pronounced like in loch or Bach). The cognate verb means "to draw a circle." The noun means circle, or horizon --which is the circle which defines the edge of your vision. It is extremely interpretive to understand the term as orb or sphere. Perhaps that was a later meaning of the term. The simple meaning is "circle". How much further you want to take that meaning is up to you."

It’s not extremely interpretive on my part because God did not use a literal compass to create the earth. There were no tools invented or created BEFORE he created the universe. So when you say the compass tool is the root of the word circle, the thing being drawn is allegorical language. For if when proverbs says God compassed a circle for the depth is allegorical language, then the line being drawn is also allegorical language. For the real point of the text in proverbs is that God made a boundary for the sea. The author used allegorical language by saying he set a compass upon the face of the depth (sea or ocean as the context says). So compass here is allegorical and even if it did say he drew a line, that drawing is allegorical too, for all it means is God by some mechanism made a boundary line for the oceans. This is the authors point, he is not trying to say God used a compass, let alone he used it to make a circular round disked earth, for it’s not even referring to that anyway, but to the oceans. Do you deny that? If so why?

Cabab does not fit that verse contextually which is why Hebrew speaking people of the day didn't use it there. I know that after rendering the word in English and understanding the meanings you may think it could work there but that's what I'm getting at. Not all these words fit just because one of their sub-meanings in English give you the impression it could work. In that verse "God's" action is already described (he's sitting above). Now the next word is just a description of what he's sitting above. Cabab doesn't fit.

There are two problems with what you’re saying here.

1: You have made two assumptions; the first one is that you assume God is enthroned above a circular DISK.
2: You assume God is ONLY enthroned and located above the circle of the earth.

Your first assumption I have been contending with already, the second assumption I will now contend with. You are speaking this second assumption to help back up your first one. But the second assumption doesn’t work because God is EVERYWHERE. He is omnipresent. That means he is not ONLY enthroned above the circle of the earth, but he is enthroned on all 6 sides of the earth, as well as being everywhere else in the universe. Basically you’re saying that because he is located above the circle of the earth, that means the earth is a disk and we are on top of it and he is not underneath it. This is a wrong assumption because God is not ONLY above it; he is on all six sides of it, including being everywhere else. So your assumption is wrong because God is omnipresent, and second your assumption is wrong because even if he WAS ONLY LOCATED above the circle of the earth and not on all other sides of it, STILL that would not prove the text as saying circle means flat, it would just mean he is located above a globe, that is on one side of the globe.

And remember Isaiah believed God was omnipresent. So, we know he did not MEAN God is ONLY located above the circle of the earth.

So based on this kaphtor or cabab can fit the context.

[quote[Does this ALSO mean you can't prove your point either?[/quote]

Unfortunately no I would not be able to prove my point either if you go with point number 1. But if you do go with point number 1, then you’re caught in a NEW dilemma, which is, “CIRCLE” would not mean a FLAT thing by a compass as you have been saying, for the heavens are obviously not a flat circle, they would be spherical, at least half a sphere anyway. And this is by the pure perception of the biblical authors.

Second you would have to explain how it refers to the heavens and not the earth since the text clearly says “circle of the earth” not ‘circle of the heavens’.

It was your evidence. I was simply pointing out that they rendered the word in reference to mean the vault of heaven and not the earth itself. Maybe what the lexicon was hinting at was that the earth itself was flat and the vault was more live a domed shaped structure above it. But not enough info is given by that lexicon.

Right, not enough information was given in the lexicon. But, the lexicon did not say the earth was flat and the heavens were half a sphere. It just said, sphere, circle, circuit, vault of the heavens. So if we just go with what it says, then the earth is a circle along with the heavens being a sphere, so the earth is a sphere. This is where I feel the weight of the evidence slightly tips more my way. It is hard to prove one way or the other though.

Right. And I agree to this. I'm not saying everyone believed the earth was flat but obviously it wasn't that apparent to some that the earth was spherical. The debate of whether it was, was in existence before, during and even Aristotle.

I concede.

IBSS - The Bible - Genesis 1:9-13 DAY 3: Circle of the Earth

The site above is very informative. I believe it's a Christian site as well. It does a decent job in shedding some light on the verse.

It’s an interesting article. Although I don’t want to respond to it since my response to you is enough and hits at the same issue just the same.

 

[Jollybear]

Ardipithecus

A poll by the National Academy of Sciences on the beliefs of doctoral degree science found that 93% of scientists did not have god belief. Seven% had god belief (not necessarily the Christian one.) Academic and research scientists are not under pressure to belief as would be family physicians who often admit (or fake) Christianity in fear of patient boycotts.

Table*1 : Leading scientists still reject God : Nature

Belief in personal God by US Scientists 1998

Personal belief -----------------7.0
Personal disbelief-------------72.2
Doubt or agnosticism---------20.8


I am a member of the American Academy of Neurology. We have annual meetings and medical education courses. I have talked to fellow neurologists hundreds of time. I am interested in belief among Neuroscientists. In 38 years of my attending the meetings I have only met two Christians..

I have a few questions.

First is: how many scientists answered this table? The table does not say, it just gives the percentage, but not the number of participants who answered the table. Also if I am reading it wrong, then I would ask, how many scientists are in the world? A lot more then that table.

Second: what does it mean by “greater” scientists?

Third: out of the 38 years of attending the meetings at Academy of Neurology, did you meet EVERY SINGLE person there in order to know how many of them really were Christians or not?

Fourth: Those two Christians that you happen to meet there, what did you think of them and what did you think of what they had to say and tell why you thought x, y or z?

P.S I read a book by an actual Neurologist who was a Christian. And he gave his CASE for why he believed in what he did USING his science. I think I will use some of what I learnt from that book in discussing/debating with you if you wish to continue; which I hope you do.

1. Age of Earth: we can measure the age of the Earth by dating the oldest rocks. Geologists have found rocks in Greenland, Nova Scotia, and Australia 4.4 billion years old. The evidence is the use of a highly accurate chronology. Several different isotopes (atoms) decay at a rate that is mathematically constant independent of temperature. We also have evidence in the meteorites that land on Earth. All of them (thousands to millions) are 4.5 billion years old. The Solar System is 4.5 years old or older in the case of the Sun.

I want you to know I have heard these arguments before, I researched it and read a lot about it and debated on a science forum about just this issue alone for a whole YEAR, just on the age of the universe and the existence of God too, which God’s existence was a very short section. The challenge in debating the age of the universe was a greater challenge for me then debating the existence of God I will say. Debating God’s existence was VERY easy actually. Anyway, I have a few questions for you regarding what you said here nonetheless.

1: You said the rate of the isotopes decays at a constant rate, I have read that there is ways it can be accelerated. Look here http://www.amendez.com/Noahs%20Ark%20Articles/NAS%20Radioactive%20Accleration.pdf Tell me your response to this?

2: Even if the decay rate WAS constant, you assume you know the initial conditions or amount of parent-daughter isotopes within the rocks from the start. For instance, suppose you walked into a room and saw an hourglass with the sand falling down from the top, half was up top and half was down bottom. Then you notice how fast it’s going down, so you calculate backward and assume a certain amount of time went by. But to do this, you must assume that it started from the top completely FULL of sand while the bottom started with NO sand, THIS is assumption of initial conditions. This you do not know. And if you claim you do, how do you?

3 You assume the amount of parent and daughter isotopes has not been altered by processes other then radioactive decay.

Basically you have not proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old, all you have proven is that people can see the percentage of parent-daughter isotopes in rocks and measure the decay rate at present. That’s all that proves.

2. Plate Tectonics with Continental Drift: We can SEE the spreading of the European Plate from the North American Plate in Iceland. I put markers on both sides 10 years ago. I went back three times and it proved the continental plates were separating from each other moving in opposite directions by 2.5 cm per year.

Ok and all that proves is that plates spread by 2.5 cm per year. How does that prove billions of years?

 

[Jollybear]

3. Evidence that Sun formed before Earth: Hubble shows us solar systems far away in different stages of formation. Astronomers have observed dust clouds, dust clouds forming disks, gravity pulling most of the dust into the centre; some disks have a centre already condensed into a mass that has ignited it nuclear furnace. The Sun is needed to be a gravitational pull on the circling dust so that some goes into the Sun. Some orbits and collects by electrostatic attraction into pebbles. Gravity collects into boulders, asteroids, and planets. We have seen other solar systems in those stages of formation. It is likely that our solar system formed like all other solar systems, no exceptions. Earth formed at least a few million years after the Sun had ignited its nuclear furnace.

Again I have a few questions.

1: Where is the evidence they see OTHER solar systems forming suns and planets? Particularly where is the evidence they see the sun within those other solar systems forming before the planets?
2: Even if they do see formation in other solar systems, they are not seeing the WHOLE formation from start to finish, thus they are attaching there assumptions ON what they OBSERVE. Are they not?

3: Even if they did see the formation of these other solar systems from start to finish, how does that prove OUR SUN formed before the earth did? It would just prove the sun in THAT solar system would have formed before the other planets. Plus, since they do not see the formation from start to finish, I suspect even their observations of these other solar systems are very vague as well, therefore based on this, how is that any proof that our sun formed before the earth? It’s not proof.

4: Can humans make a furnace fast? Sure they can, it don’t take humans billions of years to make a furnace, how much less for God? Surely he can make the furnace of the solar system faster then we can make house furnaces for ourselves. You assume chance exists and made the universe. If chance did it, then yea it would take a long time, actually I bet it would take more than 15 to 20 billion years, it would take zillions, trillions and trillions with probably trillions of zero’s following the word trillion. Basically the universe should not be here if chance made it.

4. Evolution a fact: Evolution is factual because we have seen some of it. We do not live long enough to observe it over millions of years.

Correction. MICRO evolution is a PROVEN FACT, MACRO evolution is NOT a proven fact. Micro evolution is variations within a kind or family of animal. But there are boundaries within a kind, they do not cross that boundary. In other words, a monkey will never become a human being. A fish will never become a monkey. They will always stay within their family, but of course variations will happen. I am a variation of my mom and dad for example. There are black people, there are white people, but they are all people, variations. Micro evolution is true, macro evolution is not true, nor proven to be true.

I like to say atheists have two gods, one called billions of years and the other called chance. I consider that a cop out. That is not proof of the premise of evolution, whether it be cosmic evolution or biological evolution.

What we have is tonnes of rock evidence in the form of fossils.

That is not evidence of macro evolution that is evidence that animals existed in the past and that they died by floods, thus were preserved in rock.

These fossils can be accurately dated by isotope chronology whose accuracy is proven by a fossil mammal-reptile called Lystrosaurus. It lived in the Permian until 251.7 million years ago. At that time, Africa and South America were joined with the Northeast Brazilian coast matched to the coast of Cameroons in Africa. The mega continent began to split from south to north. Brazil moved west while Cameroons moved east,

Lystrosaurs lived in both places. The fossils were found there. The continents moved apart at 2.6 cm. over the next 200 million years. Measuring the distance of Brazil or Cameroon divided by 2.5 cm/year indicated 200 million years. Pillow lava at the coasts (when the rift started) measured 200 million years. Therefore, the initial lava from the young Atlantic rift matched the years of continental drift 200 million years. The Lystrosaurus a rare survivor of the Permian Extinction lived into the Triassic about 200-190 million years ago.

Again, the isotope chronology of the Brazilian and Cameroon coastal fossils of Lystrosaurus matched. This confirmed the accuracy of isotope radio decay, Plate Tectonics and the rate of growth of the Atlantic Ocean.

Again this assumes that the assumptions attached to rock dating methods are correct, such as rate of decay was constant, initial conditions are known and nothing outside the decay rate tampered with the clock.

Also it assumes that the assumptions of continental separation is constant, and assumes its initial starting point was from millions of years past. So you have two assumptions with this.

5. Human Evolution: This is a fact with plenty of evidence. We have accurately date fossils anatomically showing the gradual evolution of Sahalanthropus to Ardipithecus to Australopithecus to the genus Homo. We know bipedalism dates back 4 million years. Homo habilis had stone tools and a 700 cc brain.

All they found is bones in the ground. Some bones they found are just the skull, and it looks like a variation of ape. Another one is a few arm or leg bones, just a few fragments, that’s it. If you had a few pieces of a puzzle that showed blue on it, could you say what the picture is? Of course not. They have other bone heads as well, just either variations of ape, or variations of human. Actually we got people today who are alive who LOOK LIKE APES, but there not, they are human. This evidence is not evidence, it’s very subjective.

 

[Jollybear]

1.9-1.6 MYA - Homo habilis beginning of rapid enlargement of the human brain.

1.7-0.3 MYA - Homo erectus, H. ergaster (1000cc brain) and variant H. antecessor

400-100 Thousand YA - Homo heidelbergensis brain size 1000 - 1200 cc.

250-30 Thousand YA - Homo neandertalensis* (brain-1300 cc) coexisted with H. sapiens (side branch not ancestral.)

200-100 Thousand YA – Homo sapiens (brain 1300 cc.).

160-100 Thousand YA - Homo sapiens idaltu

120,000 to Now - Homo sapiens sapiens (us).

Size of scull does not dictate the intelligence of the person. Tell me what you think of this article Brain size and evolution: is there a valid correlation? what you think, not what you feel.

We have the fossil evidence plus genetic data, which shows how close we are to Neanderthals. We studied genomes of Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangs. We know that Chimps DNA is clearly similar to Human. The fossil evidence suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis is most like the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans. Ardipithecus branched off the more bipedal Sahelanthropoids.. The Bipedal branch lived in more savannah and steppes. This led to a natural selection of efficient walkers with a larger brain. Plastic brain casts of skulls show the gradual evolution of the Broca's Speech Area 41.

Neanderthals were fully human. Plus having similar DNA with Neanderthals and chimps mean nothing. Look here and tell me what you think. Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Embryology shows that human foetuses begin with a notochord, a tail with vertebrae, gill slits that are recycled during gestation by regulatory genes to make us in the final stages. These regulatory genes for over 50 anatomic features have been identified. Our genes have multiple sequential tasks directed by regulatory genes.

Chick embryos have proto-teeth and a long tail much like the Raptor Dinosaurs from which birds evolved.[/quote]

This point is proven false, completely false. Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Again tell me what you think of this article.

Nothing in the Genesis story is "evident." It is only a story, which conflicts with almost all branches of modern science.

It conflicts with your ASSUMPTIONS that are ATTACHED to TRUE science, it does not conflict with TRUE scientific facts, no it don’t.

I have presented hard evidence evaluated by peer-reviewed scientists, published and further criticised by other scientists. We attack our own finding before deciding our conclusions are the best possible explanation or FACT.

I think it should be “criticized” a little more.

I do not know if you should fear the truth about the nature of the Bible. It is mythology by primitive savage desert nomads.

One should not fear lies because well after all they are lies and lies cannot bind you with any authority. Although you should fear following lies, since it will lead you to a dead end. Also one should not fear the truth, because the truth is what SHOULD have binding upon us. Although you should fear rejecting the truth, for the truth will crush you if you rebel against it. We should not fear anything; accept dishonesty and selfishness, for it is those things that are the terrible darkness in this world.

Also once again the bible is not mythology. Archeology and historic corroboration back it up.

I find the Bible clearly mythical. It does not make sense.

Sense has no barring, for my sense finds the bible to make sense.

Christian belief is founded at the core by the desire for immortality without evidence of immortality.

First off, where do you get off judging peoples intentions for why they believe something or not believe something? True some people believe stuff for the wrong reasons, but not all people do this. This is a very weak point for you to make. I think it’s best to stay away from motives behind peoples beliefs. Motives are very diverse. I could say the same thing for your group, some people who agree with your beliefs believe them because it makes them feel comfortable not being accountable to a higher being, thus they are free to do what they want in their personal life and get away with. But, does that help my case? No, it doesn’t. Likewise, by you saying this, it doesn’t help your case either.

Second, Christianity is NOT founded on the desire for immortality, it’s founded on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his teachings, that is based on historic evidence. One such strong evidence is the fact that the apostles died for what they claimed they SAW. They saw Christ raised from the dead. They saw, they did not believe, they saw, and they died for this claim. No one dies for a known lie.

 

[Jollybear]

The belief is just a delusion. Christians are willing to fight or kill unbelievers because unbelievers are perceived as a threat to your immortality or the pitiful delusion of immortality and other divine magic.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about at all when you say this. This could not be farther from the truth and I really don’t understand how you could not understand this. Many Christians do NOT believe in killing people who don’t convert to their religion. Actually I’ll go so far as to say no TRUE Christians believe in killing those who refuse to convert. I’m a Christian and I don’t believe in killing those who disagree with me. You’re debating with me, NOT all those other “Christians” you refer to. And if you wish to still believe in the things you are promoting now, I won’t desire to kill you, not at all, although I will say I believe God will deal with you in his due time. God also will deal with me too, every man will be judged by God after they die. Although I have my ticket pass to heaven, Jesus Christ, you do not.

I understand why you would hate Atheists.

Hold on now, you need to back up there. I don’t HATE atheists. Matter of fact, I have a very good friend at work, he is agnostic, but more atheistic then anything. And me and him are VERY good friends. I get along with him more than anyone else in the store, even more so then some believers in God! Now think about that one! So don’t tell me that I hate atheists. Me and him have great and fun conversations, it passes the time too when it’s slow in the store. Don’t tell me I hate atheists. I love atheists, and agnostics and believers in God and every other kind of people out there.

I will mention some things I HATE though. Here is a list of things I absolutely HATE.

1: I Hate hypocrisy, also known as double standards. I hate Inconsistencies of standards, laws and religion. I Also hate hypocrisy of someone’s character. There standard may be consistent, but if their actions are not consistent with their standard they preach, I hate that.

2: I hate selfishness, where someone thinks it’s all about them and their views and not hearing what someone else has to say, and I hate it when people don’t realize that it’s about EVERYONE.

So, these are things I hate. But that does not mean I hate the person, that is to say there body, or their image or there LIFE. I respect human life; I do NOT however respect hypocrisy, selfishness, dishonesty, and double standards. I also respect someone’s freedom, that is, if they choose to be hypocrites, selfish, dishonest or go by double standards, they have the freedom to do that within the law of the land of course, but I certainly will have no part with them in doing it. And then if they try to force me, THEN it gets ugly, because then I believe in justifiable defense.

I know that it is not a rational belief in a Cosmic Being. It is the delusion of immortality as a gift from that God to its followers.

The resurrection of the dead to immortality is a part of Christianity, but it’s not EVERY PART, and it’s not the PREDICTION of this that is the evidence I refer to, for a prediction is not evidence UNLESS the prediction comes to pass.

Secondarily is fear of that particularly cruel God.

Again your addressing motives, this does not help your case at all. For even IF every Christian served God out of the motive of FEAR, that still does not dampen the case of Christianity. If God was a cruel God, that does not disprove him, nor his word the bible. You see how it does not help your case? I hope you see it. But none the less, you’re wrong here anyway, you gave a bad representation of who the Christian God is. God is not cruel, he is loving, caring, but yes also a God of justice and that justice is rooted in his wrath against INJUSTICE. Also some people may serve God out of the motivation of fear, but your simplifying a complex issue once again, and this is not right. There are also many folk who serve God out of the motivation of LOVE and PLEASURE and DELIGHT. I don’t serve God out of FEAR of him bashing me over the face, I serve him because his ways make SENSE TO ME (they are well balanced) and based on the EVIDENCE that I have looked at. This is the RIGHT representation of MY God. Remember you’re debating with me, NOT all those other “Christians” you may be referring to. You need to debate people on the merit of who they are and what they say, not on whom someone else is and what someone else says. I really can’t understand how that would be any different then racism, a black man does something bad and bang, someone thinks all black men are bad now. Some Christian or someone labeled as Christian does something bad, now all Christians are bad or have false motives. Do you see any logic in those kinds of arguments? No, I tell you they do not help your case at all.

 

[Jollybear]

Believe incorrectly and you burn in Hell.

That’s right, and what’s wrong with that? It’s called divine justice. Also to add, belief is not disconnected from action. So what someone truly believes will show up in their actions, and actions EFFECT society or other people. So, wrong belief equals BAD actions and that effects society and people harmfully or unjustly, therefore, that DESERVES HELL, why do you think it don’t? It’s SELFISH, IGNORANT and in MOST cases HYPOCRITICAL as well. So, how is that not deserving of hell?

That drives Christianity. Fundamentalists fear the very existence of someone like me threatens to make them think and find doubt.

I don’t fear thinking and doubting coming from what you find and say. As long as what you find and say WELCOMES criticism and accounts for everything I may say against it. I fear no belief, and I fear no man who may speak their belief.

An Atheist also threatens you as someone trying to kill your immortality.

Again, I am not threatened. If you want to play the threat game, I will go along and say once again, I could say that atheists are threatened by a God who claims authority over their lives. So a Christian threatens you as someone trying to kill your personal FREEDOM to do what you want with your life instead of using it to serve God’s purpose for you. There, did that help my case by saying that now? Of course not! Likewise, when you say “an atheist also threatens you as someone trying to kill your immortality” does not help YOUR case at all. Not one bit does it help your case, not even a PINCH.

I do not care if you believe in immortality or that you will become a God of your own planet. I think it is rubbish but I defend your right to believe as long as the belief does not pose an actual threat of violence or imposition of an oppressive Christian Theocracy.

Once again, the belief in immortality is a PREDICTION which means something it refers to what is COMING, and not for what is already HERE. Christians cannot use predictions as evidence of their religion, and that is not what I am doing anyway. Although if the prediction comes to pass, then it’s not only evidence, it can then be used as proof. But, as of now it is only a prediction based on a PROMISE from the God of the bible. But, that is not my evidence for Christianity, I have other evidence. Things I believe you will not be able to truly account for.

Also I believe in freedom of choice. I also believe in fairness of laws. I also believe in oppression being done away with. I also believe in no violence UNLESS it’s justifiable defense AND in cases where criminals need to be FORCED to be stopped, so they do not harm the common good of people.

Alright? This is what I believe, now that you know what I believe in and not what you think I believe in but don’t, now we can move along in our debate.

Science is structurally different from religion.

Slightly, but then again it depends on what you mean by science and then what you mean by religion.

In Science, we question theories.

Great, so that means you don’t mind me questioning your theories and your so called “facts”. True religion also believes in doing this.

We are trained in logical analysis,

So am I and I practice this all the time. Also true religion is logically based.

evidential analysis, and scepticism.

Ok, so are you skeptical about your skepticism ever?

We spend almost half of our time trying to disprove our own theories before submitting them for journal publication. If I find flaws in my theory, I re-examine the evidence and my research protocols. I have shredded flawed theories many times. I know my peers will look hard for any flaw. .

In the process are you ever ALOWED to TRY to disprove macro evolution or the age of the earth as being billions of years old, or any other such thing? Be honest now, are you ALOWED to do this?

In my classes, I challenged many theories. I still question the Dinosaur Extinction being due to the Asteroid impact only. I ask why fragile frogs, salamanders, fragile little birds, pond turtles, and mammals survived. I have looked for evidence of second factors such as a plague agent for which Dinosaurs had no immunity while birds, frogs, and mammals did. Palaeontologists have not convinced me of why frogs, birds, and tree climbing mammals survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction.

Ok

I could go on with lengthy lists of the evidence proving the matter-energy universe and how it works.

I am willing to go through all of it. But for practical and time purposes and post condensing purposes, lets deal with one thing at a time. I am less impressed at someone’s ability to recite tons of things they remember and more impressed with dealing and dissecting one thing at a time.

I would challenge you on God but since there is not a shred of evidence,

Yes, there is tons of SOLID evidence. We can get into it soon enough. But one thing at a time.

I do not think God can be proven or disproven. JHWY, Jesus, Allah, Trinity, Zeus, Jupiter, Ahura Mazda, Aed Alainn, Dagda, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, and Amun/Ra are all equal. They cannot be proven or disproved. Moreover, one does not have more credibility than the others do.

This is baloney, and I made this point to Galileo above for why my God is unique above the rest. And we can get into it further, but again one thing at a time.

Ardipithecus

Your thoughts now? Not your feelings, your thoughts.

There, whew, that took alot of work and days to write all this.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Honestly. I am so tired of people who deny the evidence presented by science, while they enjoy and accept the fruits of the exact evidence they deny.
As if their concept of "God" is to weak to stand up to the evidence of cosmology, biology, and geology.

 

[Perfect Circle]

No, it’s not “safe” to assume that, for if you’re wrong, your soul is in danger. So I would not say it’s “safe” to assume that. It’s only “safe” if your right, but you don’t want to “gamble” something that is this serious by going with assumptions. You and I both must KNOW for SURE what the truth is.

Well I would argue that it's not safe for you to assume that there's no giant taco that runs the universe, as I believe there is. I mean, that's not something you want to play around with. Disbelief in the giant taco carries a lot of risks... Yeah.. He MIGHT not exist. But it's probably safer to assume that he does, just in case. So from here on out, we'll just both agree to approach most situations in life with the assumption that a giant taco runs the universe.

They are different because my God is not finite like the spaghetti monster is, he is not finite like all the other gods are either.

Yeah... mine either. The giant taco goes on forever. He has no bounds.

To give a quick overview of what my God is, here it is:

1: He is eternal, having no beginning in himself, he always existed.
2: He is infinite in space, which is he fills all space as we know space to be and then he fills all space outside the space that we know, that is, he is infinite in all forms of space, space we know and space we do not know. He is infinitely big.
3: He is a super intelligent mind, he is a person, he has desires, a will, a character and he is intelligent. He has consciousness.
4: His power is above his creation, he can do anything he wants with his creation, thus miracles.
5: He knows all things that can be known.
6: He is love, he cares and loves everything he created, and he loves us.
7: He is full of wisdom; he knows what is best in all things.

Yeah, exactly! That's what I've been saying to all those who don't believe in the taco. They just don't understand how he's eternal, everywhere, super smart, loving, and knows everything!

The difference between my God and other gods is this:

1: Other gods such as polytheism they are finite gods, although they claim to have power and can do supernatural things, they are still finite. Spaghetti monster would be classified as finite, thus he would have a CAUSE and would not be the FIRST cause. Therefore he and other gods cannot be the one true God or the FIRST God through whom all things came.
2: Each of the hundreds of different gods are responsible over a small section of nature, and have power over small portions of the universe or the world. My God has power and responsibility over ALL sections of the world and over the WHOLE universe.
3: These other gods have a beginning or a birth in time, they are not eternal, they did not always exist, while my God has.
4: These gods have a physical/spiritual image to themselves. Head, nose, arms, legs, ect. But my God does not have this, for this is a creation, although my God can manifest himself into forms like this.

There is the difference between my God and all the hundreds or thousands of other gods out there including the spaghetti monster. The spaghetti monster and other gods are equivalent to demon and angelic entities, mere creations-not the creator/s.

Once again, I totally agree! Except that the giant taco is like one more level above your god. So to him your god is equivalent to like maybe... Chuck Norris. All the other little gods that people believe in are like angels and stuff.

If you have a case that can refute the existence of the giant taco that's way way way better than your crappy god, please present it.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Slightly, but then again it depends on what you mean by science and then what you mean by religion.

Yeah, true... But then again, that depends on what you mean by slightly and then. Also, can you define "it" please. I'm not sure how you're using it in this context.

Great, so that means you don’t mind me questioning your theories and your so called “facts”. True religion also believes in doing this.

No... I don't believe he would mind you questioning his theories at all. That's the entirety of science. Here's another one of those definition problems though... I find it funny that you tagged "religions" with the qualifier of "true" in this instance. What exactly is a "true religion"? Because it sounds like a certain Scottish fallacy I know of...

So am I and I practice this all the time. Also true religion is logically based.

There's that "true religion" thing again...

Ok, so are you skeptical about your skepticism ever?

:sarcastic ...what?

In the process are you ever ALOWED to TRY to disprove macro evolution or the age of the earth as being billions of years old, or any other such thing? Be honest now, are you ALOWED to do this?

Oh no.. Of course not. Any attempt to disprove the scientific canon is grounds for an awful-waffle...

Yes, there is tons of SOLID evidence. We can get into it soon enough. But one thing at a time.

Please... oh please present it. Remember... you said SOLID evidence. Meaning verifiable, concrete, physical evidence.

 

[jonnychan]

That’s right, and what’s wrong with that? It’s called divine justice. Also to add, belief is not disconnected from action. So what someone truly believes will show up in their actions, and actions EFFECT society or other people. So, wrong belief equals BAD actions and that effects society and people harmfully or unjustly, therefore, that DESERVES HELL, why do you think it don’t? It’s SELFISH, IGNORANT and in MOST cases HYPOCRITICAL as well. So, how is that not deserving of hell?

@JOLLYBEAR

Science is the study of reality/actuality, what ever is comprised in Science should be regarded much highly than the so called spiritual readings that come out of human thinking such as Bible.

I do not understand how this issue has been debated for 26 pages.You are getting "offended" about the thought of "disproving" bible. Are you that afraid my brother ?

Don't come up with assumptions such as death and heaven/hell. Divine Justice? Deserve to go to hell? Once you are dead your body does not feel anything, okay for a second I will assume there is "spirit", so what could that delusion of yours called "hell" or "heaven" do to a spirit that cannot be sensed? It just takes a little common sense to disprove any religious scripture.

Did you ever see a logic in being created out of nothing? Neither Bible, not Khoran, nor the Vedas explain why life was created in the first place. They are just scriptures that talk about what should be done after life has been created, help us distinguish good from bad, all written by some people who think like you and me. Science on the other hand is unbiased and totally driven by the sense of eliminating "ignorance".

Also you seem like a pure Christian, go read the literature of other religions, particularly of the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and then come back and debate on this issue. They all have various definitions of god, the way god is perceived varies. Science on the other hand is reality like I said, everything that has been stated under science is happens 100 times out of 100. The key here is "variation" with a religious scripture and consistency with Science which is why Science exceeds religious literature.

 

[dust1n]

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?

Me.

 

[Gabethewiking]

In the process are you ever ALOWED to TRY to disprove macro evolution or the age of the earth as being billions of years old, or any other such thing? Be honest now, are you ALOWED to do this?

Jollybear, Hi!

Just wanted to comment on one of the things you said, well, really many, because you clearly have no idea of what Evolution is, nor seem to understand basic Science.

No, we are not allowed to Question/Disprove MACRO Evolution, The Grande Masters of science has made it very clear, we can not Question the Age of the Earth, MACRO Evolution and Gravity, this is set by our Universal Dogma, (Praise Dawkins).....

But seriously, do you really mean to ask the above Question? I want to explain something to you, If you manage to show Evidence that Evolution was "false", you would win the Nobel Prize, no one would come for your head, you would be celebrated as the most skilled scientist on the planet discovering the most amazing things ever, of course, you would need to explain how it all functioned to this point, but you would be a HERO! No persecution, where did you get this from?

Also, Macro/Micro Evolution does not exist, it is just words used to describe a certain point in Evolution, Evolution is Evolution, micro and macro is the same, so yes "Macro" Evolution has been proven and been tried to be disproved by many religious folks as well as hardened Atheist during the last century.