I will now prove atheists are illogical!

Do you lack the basic understanding that the NT references biblical prophesy within the OT to prove Jesus to be divine?

If it wasn't meant as a literal representation of prophecy, why reference it?

 

The entire message is that God created the universe. The generals of the sequence are correct, if not the details - and no one would suspect that they would be after 4,000 years.

The story of Adam and Eve is the why?

God created the universe, why, to allow us a chance to be separate from him that we may learn and grow.

Some critics seem t pick and choose, and white wash the entire process by applying standards that are simply not relevant. If you are unable to discern, that is on you. But when YOU apply standards that only a select portion of extremists with the faith do ... well, who are you rebutting?

There is a large and growing body of literature in Christian apologetics that harmonizes science and the Bible. Are you unaware of it? Accidentally or deliberately?

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The OT is a the history, wisdom, and in some cases revealed guidance of God through Prophets. Part of the OT is the prediction of te coming of the Messiah.

Jesus claims he fulfilled that coming, but the NT is not random bits and pieces. It is literal accounts, in most cases (Revelations would not be literal history) that meet very rigorours standards of historicity - its the collected works of Jesus that are believed to be the MOST genuine and accurate depictions of Jesus. That process came together in the Synoptic Canon, and, even after thousands of years, it is held to be remarkably accurate depiction of Jesus.

You simply do not know what you are talking about Revol. Hopefully this time, stating these corrections doesn't lead you to conclude that I am made man?

 

Certainly an omniscient God would have known minds today would read Genesis and it's depiction of creation and only be able to say..... "HUH?"

The universe is brilliant, any mind today would be able to write a beautiful and poetic representation of it's physical nature without a single iota of doubt.

Is God not intelligent enough to have supplied a much more cohesive process of thought where creation is concerned?

If the bible is the infallible word of God, he needs some clear lessons in logic and reason.... If it is fallible, how do we trust the portions that claim divinity which are referenced in the NT?

 

Certainly, knowing that man is not God and the difficulty of coveying visions in written word is understandable. Particularly when, 4,000 years ago, you see a vision of the universe being created and have but a dozen or so sentences to construct that will convey the message to an audience that is mostly illiterate.

The reason? God did it is the message. To an audience that is ready to accept that, there is no reason to pull out the junior chemistry set and give them exacting details about comsic background radiation that no one in the audience would even have a clue as to what the hell you were babbling about - at best, they would think your were speaking in tounges.

The idea that YOU have everything interpreted correctly and thus the Bible if fallible? The Bible is filled with tales of people getting it wrong, and not small among those tales of people getting it wrong are stories of pride and hubris.

Its not a science book - it's a collection of dissparate works, where context, intent, and understanding are required.

If it makes you feel better to say that the LITERAL version of genesis is not correct? Well, congrats, you are now in line with Christians and Jews from thousands of years ago.

 

So what are we left to believe Neutral, that God created this intricate and magnificent universe and wasn't intelligent enough to offer an expression to the mind that is both timeless in expression and in offering?

What did God intend when he offered his commandments of how one should 'properly' beat their slave?

 

Why don't you ask him? He still answers prayers.

But the beginning of the Bible is not intented as a scientific explanation of Creation. Its entire message is God created this universe for a purpose.

A purpose I just gave you ... again, and you skipped. You want to go back in time and ask God for something that was not needed or intended, be my guest.

I won't hold my breath though brother.

 

Well duh. How is this in confilict with anything I said ?

Literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with Science.

Most Christians do not interpret the Bible literally otherwise they would all be creationists.

What kind of mental midget thinks that because someone does not have a literal intepretation of the Bible that they are atheist ?

 

Nuetral, there is no rational reason to believe in god. Probability is not the realm of faith. You have badly misconstrued Russel's teapot. The supposition is not that there is a manmade teapot in outer space. It's that there is one there, regardless of where it came from. And we certainly haven't got the technology to detect whether there is one or not. It is unknowable, just like gods existence. That's why you think science leads to agnosticism. But in fact, for the reasonable reasons you mentioned (as opposed to the nonsense about our having complete knowledge about the contents of the solar system), we can make a reasonable guess about the probability of the existence of the teapot. Exactly the same logic applies to Zeus, the Judeo-Christian god, or anything else you can imagine (flying spaghetti monsters, space monkeys, whatever). Logic leads to atheism because if you follow the rules of science and logic, the likelihood that a god exists is very nearly (though not quite) zero.

Also, the claim that one doesn't know something isn't a cop out. What is my sister's name? You could put a lot of effort into that question and not get an answer, even though it's relatively simple compared to "what happened before the big bang." Any one who claims to know the answer to that question is being disingenuous (at least for now), including religious people whose faith inclines them to believe they have an answer. You may believe you know the answer, but if you even had a theory that withstood mild inquest you'd be rich and famous. If god created the universe, what created him? If he wasn't created, why did he wait so long to create the universe? What was he doing for the eternity before that?

 

Not that hard to understand really ,as far as the 0 thing is concerned ,its the same limitation as absolute anything .We can know the 'Thing in itself 'for instance the laws of pyhsics are absolute until proven otherwise ,see the "otherwise" takes care of the infinitely small probability of gods existance.

As far as probability as proof ,and who has the responsibility of presenting evidence to substantiate their claims ,i reckon after a more then 50% probability bar is reached then god nutters have to be doing the proving and evidence gatherinng.

hey we science based thinkers should go and just do as we do ,uniting only to stop religious nutters getting hold of government ,i call it the secular scientific revolution .

Weve had the religious reaction for to long ,if it loves believin in god then it belongs in church not government.

Hey if something is infinitely small in probability then hey it is a pure abstraction so therefore dosen't exist!?

or does It?

one thing for sure is that as science advances religion falls in a stupid ,incomprehensable ,child abusing heap of backward tribalist constructionism of the foulest post-modernist 'identity Politics" type.=Liberalism with christian coating.or more extreme nationalist forms like Fascism.both capitialist ideologies.


hey i am seeing rick santorum tear into Romney on Meet the Press,is he a liberal possibly?

 

Very sharp, I like you already!

The only way to come to terms with the universe having a creator is that God has always existed, and that the universe is a reflection of it's creator as a continuum, having existed (even as a so called illusion) for all of eternity.

 

God existing without anything to observe such an existence is the very definition of nothingness.....
To ponder that God created the universe begs the very simple but magnificent question posed by JasonW........ What WAS he doing for the eternity before that?

Science in fact does not declare the universe was created out of nothingness, that is in fact what religion declares!!!!!

 

Agh, more double standards.

What create dteh Big Bang? No idea? Well, then the Big Bang is no longer a valid hypothesis.

But if we don;t know what created God, then God is not a valid hypothesis?

It would be nice to see atheists apply standards equitably for a change.

 

Thats a big word for a faith thunker,hypothesis no Hypothesis is valid until it is elevated to a theory ,as god belief hasn't met through Evidence of any sort bar ,hearsay ,then it ain't even a valid hypothesis and definity not a valid theory to be relied upon as being true .

try again when god thunkers get any evidence at all other then the hearsay evidence of the "Holy books"then science will pause and put it to the test ,everytime science has done this in the past the god nutters take the evidence away and put it in the vatican vaults not to be seen or touched the shroud of turin .

What a crock the shroud of turin should be openly a scientific experiment and if found to be a crock then god goes away sorry.EVIDENCE FOR GOD =0.

 

Your not even making sense now...... Your inability to understand very simple logic is maddening......

If God has a creator, then that creator would be the true God..... Then you are right back at the beginning to ask the same question, what created that God?

The only way for God to exist is if 'he' always existed...... hint, hint..... If God created 'himself' he had to have existed in order to do so.......

The only way for God to exist is that 'he' always existed......

Now, beyond the ridiculous circular argument......
What was the eternal God doing before 'he' decided to create the universe?

Nothingness?

 

I really hope God created a really magnificent book to curl up to..... (*)(*)(*)(*), I think he's read that one before!

 

So you are already blowing your stack again are you?

We have no idea what the origins of God are - none. Having to define that existenece as precursor to a hypothesis is silliness itself.

The SAME logic applies to the Big Bang.

What created the Universe? God - well, we have no idea what created God therefore you are a fool! And all evidence outside, like answered prayers, callings, Prophets, etc. can and should be ignored.

What created the Universe? The Big Bang - weel, we have no idea how a ball of pure eneregy appeared and exploded for no reason, therefor cosmic background radiation and mathematics should be ignored.

You do realize that that the physical laws that govern the universe came into existence WHEN the universe arrived? And that makes probing the origins of the origins exceedingly difficult.

So rejecting a hypothesis based on your standard, logically, applies to all hypotheisi - and invalidates them all.

You may find it maddening Revol, but its a debate forum and people are going to disagree with you. Keep your cool and engage the brain.

 

And another atheists is reduced to simple insult. So much for considering atheism to be intellectual in the slightest.

 

Good point he has had nothing to say for quite a while now ,maybe defining god voices in the head as a mental illness ,correctly so ,has thinned out the ranks of the prophets lately./

Yes a sensible control on the god nutty.thanku medical science ,what happened with rick santorum ?Oh well missed a couple.

 

Yep, the vast majority of the world is mentally ill - no way a small minority is just enraptured in its own arrogance - none whatsoever.

 

Regardless of how many times it has been explained to you, never ever once has science declared that the universe or any of it's constituents have appeared out of nothingness for no reason..... The only way for the universe to exist is if it is a continuum, it must return once again to the physical state by which it has created itself, this is demonstrated within it's current form and the observable properties of mass.

Mass can neither be created nor destroyed..... Period!

The fact that you can't grasp this very simple concept, yes, it is maddening..... Does that equate to me blowing my stack? Not in the least.... This is however your fall back defense, accusing others of anger!
How about you simply join the discussion and demonstrate that you have the capacity to reason within that discussion!

Again, if God created the universe..... What was the eternal God doing before that?

 

Here come the accusations!

Is that the only answer you have, that simple questions equate to arrogance?
Seems to me that this is quite a projection of the same!

Now, how about you adhere to the discussion at hand!

 

Well, that would be the point, if you bothered to read. Science makes no stab at the origins of the Big Bang ... because it CANNOT. The Big Bang is still valid.

We make no stab at the origins of God because we CANNOT. God is still valid.

You do realize that logic and science depend upon these little things called standards? These are needed to keep the concepts and derived conclusions accurate, accountable, and objective.

So when we stop applying standards, we are using something called subjectivism. And as your emotion level increase, again, I will remind you that this is a debate forum. Science does not have much leeway for emotion and the subjectiveness it imparts.

I am glad we got that standard cleared up now.

Again, science has been arund for hundreds of years, and there is a large and growing movement in Christian apologetics to HARMONIZE the two. Science does not conflict with faith, no matter how egregiously atheists insist that this is the case.

It DOES conflict with atheism. Which derives certainty from a science that provides none, and adamentally refuses the logical requirement of faith.

Science leads to agnosticism - not atheism or theism. Faith is what takes you the rest of the way. It all quite logical.

 

On a more personal level, I hear all the time that Christians cannot handle logic and that we fall apart when our dogma is challenged.

As we see, I remain clam - having rebutted the same charges of mental illness and the specific scientific claims at LEAST a thousand times on this forum. The level of my emotion after all that is no different than the level I get when telling an errant Soldier to tie his boot laces. The Soldier is in error, and simple correction made.

So I ask the wider particpants to take a look at who is ballistic when their dogma is challenged. After all, if some one tells you to tie your shoes, and you call the person mentally ill ... well, I am not sure how that reflects on anything other than the person hurling insults.

Its a debate forum. I understand that there is a diverse planet full of beliefs, some I heartily agree with and others I disagree with. Civility is a must if discussion is going to take place. However, it is a debate forum, and if emotions cannot be controlled, then perhaps a debate forum is not the best place to give your beliefs the old test.

 

Sure it does, the universe and the properties of mass ARE the originator/creator of itself; hence, just like the only way God can exist..... The universe has always existed, in one form or another!
That's not the question at hand...... The poignant question which you refuse to answer or even contemplate is...... What was this eternal God doing before 'he' created the universe?