1 edit
Originally posted by josephwApparently folks just choose not to believe in a creator and make the excuse that there is no evidence.
[b]I don't see any truth in holy books, and I don't see any indication or evidence of the supernatual.
**So what compels me to introduce the notion of God???**
So what you're saying is that you want concrete evidence.
And you think that that evidence should appear before your eyes.
You're looking at it now. But I'm not interested in proving th a fact they where written by men. So believe them. You seem to have no problem with that.[/b]
If God exists and wants us to relate with Him, perhaps He should just give us better evidence for His existence to go on. Or, supposing as you claim that everything right in front of our noses is already, in fact, strong actual evidence for belief in God; then, perhaps God should have provided cognitive apparatus for us that is more characteristically appropriately responsive to the actual evidence for this matter. There may be some atheists who are not altogether responsible in their deliberations on this matter; but your idea that atheists willfully choose atheism in this manner is fantasy.
Originally posted by josephwBecause He loves you.
God is there just waiting for you to tell the truth.
But because you insist on believing a lie He can't work with you.
Look at yourself. What do you know? Next to nothing. That truth is too hard for you to face. So you believe the easy thing. A lie. You are spiritually lazy because you won't face the truth about your miserable condition.
It's not ...[text shortened]... And neither will God. He will keep hammering on you till you break. Because He loves you.
If He loves me; and if He knows that my not coming to believe in His existence means I will end up suffering horribly; then why doesn't He just present me with evidence that He knows would be sufficient to elicit the belief from me?
Originally posted by duecerYou denying the scripture there? Or just interpreting differently - literal or metaphorical, it's all the same to me. If you're seriously arguing for a god with no supernatural powers then you're following a sect of christianity I'm entirely unfamiliar with, so you have me at something of a disadvantage. You're not a scientologist are you?
again I ask where did I say six days?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt is sort of why I said that I find the conflict of opinion between Christians entertaining. Even more so than between a Christian and an atheist.
You denying the scripture there? Or just interpreting differently - literal or metaphorical, it's all the same to me. If you're seriously arguing for a god with no supernatural powers then you're following a sect of christianity I'm entirely unfamiliar with, so you have me at something of a disadvantage. You're not a scientologist are you?
It is like two people arguing over what character meant in a soap opera which isn't even a relevant plot point.
If Christians cannot agree with what the bible is supposed to say, how are other people supposed to?
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyeven scientific data can be interpreted in different ways, what makes you think that he ancient Biblical text should be any different ?
It is sort of why I said that I find the conflict of opinion between Christians entertaining. Even more so than between a Christian and an atheist.
It is like two people arguing over what character meant in a soap opera which isn't even a relevant plot point.
If Christians cannot agree with what the bible is supposed to say, how are other people supposed to?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieScientific data, you can perform many independent experiments on a hypothesis to converge to a more and more accurate theoretical model. You cannot do that with a single source like the bible.
even scientific data can be interpreted in different ways, what makes you think that he ancient Biblical text should be any different ?
2 edits
Originally posted by lauseyof course you can, indeed as ones understanding progresses, seemingly unintelligible portions take on greater clarity for even Paul writing two thousand years ago acknowledged this when he stated that at present we see by means of a 'hazy mirror'. As for scientific data, i may look at exactly the same piece of data and draw a completely different conclusion, that is why both creationists and evolutionists have recourse to science in an attempt to establish their arguments.
Scientific data, you can perform many independent experiments on a hypothesis to converge to a more and more accurate theoretical model. You cannot do that with a single source like the bible.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCertainly a single set of data can be interpreted in different ways, but multiple sources of data from independent experiments can help to increase accuracy.
of course you can, indeed as ones understanding progresses, seemingly unintelligible portions take on greater clarity for even Paul writing two thousand years ago acknowledged this when he stated that at present we see by means of a 'hazy mirror'. As for scientific data, i may look at exactly the same piece of data and draw a completely different co ...[text shortened]... ionists and evolutionists have recourse to science in an attempt to establish their arguments.
It wouldn't be accurate for a detective at a crime scene to gather a single piece of evidence for a jury to convict someone on. He/she will gather fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence, and many other bits of information to construct what happened.
I cannot see how science can settle the dispute between if 6 days of creation was literal or metaphorical. The bible is the only source of the information, and it doesn't explain what it meant.
Normally if you read something in a science book and something didn't make sense, they can trace back with references and ask the relevant people who carried out the research.
Asking God hasn't seemed to help Christians settle the above said disputes.
Originally posted by lauseyOf course you cannot. If you do, then it's not science anymore.
Scientific data, you can perform many independent experiments on a hypothesis to converge to a more and more accurate theoretical model. You cannot do that with a single source like the bible.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
of course you can, ...
And the bible cannot be a scientific source of anything, no more than the Ring Trilogy by Tolkien can prove the existance of Hobbits.
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut my friend the Bible actually has proven to be a sourse of accurate science. Was not the world thought to be flat thru most of mans existance or it was being carried on the backs of animals?
Of course you cannot. If you do, then it's not science anymore.
And the bible cannot be a scientific source of anything, no more than the Ring Trilogy by Tolkien can prove the existance of Hobbits.
"The Bible also speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” or he “suspends earth in the void,” according to The New English Bible. (Job 26:7) In view of the knowledge available in 1600 B.C.E., roughly when those words were spoken, it would have taken a remarkable man to assert that a solid object can remain suspended in space without any physical support. As previously mentioned, Aristotle himself rejected the concept of a void, and he lived over 1,200 years later!
Also at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the Bible spoke of “the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) And over 3,000 years before the famous scientist Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are held in empty space by gravity, the Bible poetically stated that ‘the earth is hanging upon nothing.’ (Job 26:7) Consider also this poetic description of the earth’s water cycle, recorded some 3,000 years ago: “All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7, New International Version)
Originally posted by galveston75Was not the world thought to be flat thru most of mans existance
But my friend the Bible actually has proven to be a sourse of accurate science. Was not the world thought to be flat thru most of mans existance or it was being carried on the backs of animals?
"The Bible also speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” or he “suspends earth in the void,” according to The New English Bible. (Job 26:7) In view ...[text shortened]... the streams come from, there they return again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7, New International Version)
No. That is the 'Myth of the Flat Earth'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Originally posted by avalanchethecatits an allegory. And my point still stands, just because we don't know how God created the universe doesn't make it "magic". 300 years ago a helicopter landing on the town green would have got the pilot and passengers burned for witchcraft, doesn't mean they were practicing magic does it?
You denying the scripture there? Or just interpreting differently - literal or metaphorical, it's all the same to me. If you're seriously arguing for a god with no supernatural powers then you're following a sect of christianity I'm entirely unfamiliar with, so you have me at something of a disadvantage. You're not a scientologist are you?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExcept that creationists make the conclusion then try to distort the data to fit. I am yet to meet one creationist that did not start with the conclusion and work backwards.
As for scientific data, i may look at exactly the same piece of data and draw a completely different conclusion, that is why both creationists and evolutionists have recourse to science in an attempt to establish their arguments.
Originally posted by galveston75No, not at all. The bible is anything but scientific.
But my friend the Bible actually has proven to be a sourse of accurate science. Was not the world thought to be flat thru most of mans existance or it was being carried on the backs of animals?
Yes, we know now that the earth is not flat. And...?
The bible tells about the four corners of the world. Does that make our planet a qube or a tetraedra? Not very scientific, is it?
It also states that the rainbow has nothing to do with refraction of light. Not very scientific, is it?
No, the bible is not more scientific than the Ring Trilogy of Tolkien.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell ok......
No, not at all. The bible is anything but scientific.
Yes, we know now that the earth is not flat. And...?
The bible tells about the four corners of the world. Does that make our planet a qube or a tetraedra? Not very scientific, is it?
It also states that the rainbow has nothing to do with refraction of light. Not very scientific, is it?
No, the bible is not more scientific than the Ring Trilogy of Tolkien.