Why did God create us

[Brian2]

its very reasonable to deduct that the Hebrew language was the original language of all people prior to the events of Bable.

I suppose it is if you think that the flood was world wide and that the only survivors were those in the ark of Noah.

 

[Brian2]

You might be misunderstanding science. The scientific method is a problem solving method so in that sense I do not know how "science says" anything about a God belief. I have seen those with religious beliefs quite often take their beliefs out of the religious area. for example the post directly above me about the Tower of Babble. There are events in the Bible that have been shown to be mythical.

I suppose that the Tower of Babel story is an area where many religious people say that science has overstepped the bounds of science if it is science that concludes the story is mythical.

 

[Brian2]

There is no suggestion either. There is a statement. And that statement is, that until someone demonstrates the existence or likely existence of X that there is no rational basis to treat X as though X exists.

That is a statement that is both true and reasonable. The fact that your god falls within the set of X, is purely incidental.

The statement is true and reasonable for science, which requires empirical evidence, but it is not reason able for sceptics to then claim that empirical evidence is the only reliable evidence to determine reality and because god/s fall within set X, that means that they do not exist.
That is like forcing science to be saying what it does not say.
And an interesting part of it is that if a sceptic/atheist is confronted with this he/she might say that they do not say that science has shown there is no God/s because if god/s showed us empirical evidence for their existence then we would believe in them.
So science has and has not shown god/s to exist.
It's like saying, "We'll take it any way we like as long as it suites our argument. The burden of proof is on the believer and the standard of proof required is scientific standard, faith has no place in belief in the existence of god/s".

I am not deceived because there are no such suggestions in science. The statements that such "suggestions of science" exist are made and perpetuated by unscrupulous theists, and those who buy into their intentional misrepresentations of the sciences. In most of the United States, those theists are primarily evangelical and/or fundamentalist people who claim to follow Jesus. In Turkey, it is primarily those who claim to submit to the will of Allah. In Hollywood, it is the Xenu followers. Different religions. Same deceptions.

Well it's good to hear that you don't think it is true that science has shown that God is not needed.

 

[ppp]

The statement is true and reasonable for science, which requires empirical evidence, but it is not reason able for sceptics to then claim that empirical evidence is the only reliable evidence to determine reality and because god/s fall within set X, that means that they do not exist.

The fact that you have to be so deliberately mendacious about the position that science takes means that you are not equipped to have an honest, thoughtful conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose it is if you think that the flood was world wide and that the only survivors were those in the ark of Noah.

That what the Bible says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose that the Tower of Babel story is an area where many religious people say that science has overstepped the bounds of science if it is science that concludes the story is mythical.

Nope. you are quite wrong since we understand quite well how new languages came about. It is a myth. And a rather foolish one.

 

[Brian2]

The fact that you have to be so deliberately mendacious about the position that science takes means that you are not equipped to have an honest, thoughtful conversation.

It's not really about the position that science takes it's about the position that atheists/sceptics claim about science.
But that is probably an over generalisation of the various positions that atheist/sceptics take.
BTW do you think that science has shown that God is not needed?

 

[Brian2]

Nope. you are quite wrong since we understand quite well how new languages came about. It is a myth. And a rather foolish one.

The Bible does not tell us how the initial language was messed up, so the how that science says might be the way God did it.
But of course you are probably presuming that the flood was a world wide one and that the world's people were all there at Babel with one language.
Imo the flood was not world wide and the people at Babel were locals who all had the same language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not really about the position that science takes it's about the position that atheists/sceptics claim about science.
But that is probably an over generalisation of the various positions that atheist/sceptics take.
BTW do you think that science has shown that God is not needed?

So far yes. There does not appear to be any need of a god for our universe. Now I could be wrong, but to date there is no reliable evidence for a god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible does not tell us how the initial language was messed up, so the how that science says might be the way God did it.
But of course you are probably presuming that the flood was a world wide one and that the world's people were all there at Babel with one language.
Imo the flood was not world wide and the people at Babel were locals who all had the same language.

No, I am not presuming anything about the Flood since it did not happen. Now the Bible quite clearly says that it was worldwide flood. You may reinterpret it since that is clearly false. But I don't see how you could get your flood story to work. That is why I always ask Flood believers what their version of the flood was.

 

[ppp]

It's not really about the position that science takes it's about the position that atheists/sceptics claim about science.

No point in reading past your first sentences until you find a foundation and quit flip flopping about.

 

[Brian2]

So far yes. There does not appear to be any need of a god for our universe. Now I could be wrong, but to date there is no reliable evidence for a god.

A lack of reliable evidence is not the same there being no need of a god for our universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lack of reliable evidence is not the same there being no need of a god for our universe.

That is what I said. But so far it does not look good for a deity.

There are times that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Not in this case, but it is rather interesting that even you know that there is no reliable evidence for your god. That tends to make that belief an irrational one.

 

[Brian2]

No, I am not presuming anything about the Flood since it did not happen. Now the Bible quite clearly says that it was worldwide flood. You may reinterpret it since that is clearly false. But I don't see how you could get your flood story to work. That is why I always ask Flood believers what their version of the flood was.

A large local flood could make the Babel story reasonable.
A large local flood at a time where there were large local floods over the earth could work for the flood story. But it would not get rid of all life on earth and I really don't think that is what God decided to do, or He would not have saved Noah and family.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A large local flood could make the Babel story reasonable.
A large local flood at a time where there were large local floods over the earth could work for the flood story. But it would not get rid of all life on earth and I really don't think that is what God decided to do, or He would not have saved Noah and family.

Okay, you are a bit confused. After the last glacial maximum there were quite a few very strong local floods. But they occurred at different times. Israel and surrounding areas were too far south to be subject to those floods, the Black Sea flood is not a good example, they would have been affected by sea level rise only which though rapid in geologic time was rather slow in human measures. The Black sea flood did engulf several cities, but if one does the math by human measures it was still a rather slow rise. It took a year for it to be filled at the rate calculated. That would have resulted in a flood that a person could have crawled away from. Villages do not move rather well. They were engulfed. People were driven out homeless, but not flooded. Would you like a link to the flood that most likely gave birth to the myth? Right place, roughly right time, not global. The problem is that it would not have solved the supposed problems that were the cause of Noah's flood so the story is still a myth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The problem is that it would not have solved the supposed problems that were the cause of Noah's flood so the story is still a myth.

Again, you use the word "myth" as in false rumours.
Myths can be true as well as false.

..and you cannot prove that the flood of Noah is not based on a true story .. you can only say that the account in the Bible is not accurate.
..nothing strange about that .. it is not recent history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you use the word "myth" as in false rumours.
Myths can be true as well as false.

..and you cannot prove that the flood of Noah is not based on a true story .. you can only say that the account in the Bible is not accurate.
..nothing strange about that .. it is not recent history.

In this case the word means "never happened"

Why believe the events that never happened in the Old Testament? If your God beliefs are based upon them then your God does not exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

And what language did he use because you can take an Animals name in any language and trace the origin of that name.
To think a man sat and did that is ridiculous.

Did what?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why believe the events that never happened in the Old Testament?

Most of them did happen.
..but I don't believe that they are accurate accounts.
The OT is comprised from scrolls of various ages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of them did happen.
..but I don't believe that they are accurate accounts.
The OT is comprised from scrolls of various ages.

Not as written in the Bible. Just admit the obvious, that Noah's Ark at best is a morality tale. It is not something that happened. To match reality one has to dilute the fairy tale to the point that it is unrecognizeable.