Originally posted by lauseyI think he did. But he didn't say more about it, so I assume that he realize that it is a weak argument and let it go. Well done. Don't argue with weak arguments, that's a good rule.
"the circle [or, sphere] of the earth."
The "[or, sphere]" is what galveston75 put in.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40:22&version=NIV
So galveston75 interpreted the bible to mean something different to what it actually said. Cicles and spheres are not the same thing.
"circle of the earth" doesn't say more about the Earth than it's like a hoola-hoop. The bible is wrong in this. I'm glad he didn't bring up this, becuase it is really a weak argument that the bible is scientific.
Originally posted by galveston75The word used in Isiah 40:22 is “chuwg” (can’t make Hebrew characters, sorry) which translates as ‘compass’ or ‘circle’, not sphere. Most ancient maps of the world represent it as a circle, usually surrounded by ocean, including those of the ancient Greeks who were presumably not informed by the god of the Israelites.
I just gave you one and you just mindlessly blew it off. But the challenge is still there for you to disprove it. I think it's your turn.
Isiah 11:12 and Revelations 7:1 say the earth has four corners. Matthew 4:8 suggests one could see the whole of the earth from a tall mountain. Psalm 104:5 says that god "set the earth on it's foundations; it can never be moved". Ecclesiastes 1:5 says the sun rises and sets, then rushes back to where it rises from.
I'm bored of digging up these fails now, but there are many more in your bible, and really very little which can be considered scientific. If you like sciencey scripture, you might try the Quran...
Originally posted by FabianFnasExactly..your right again. Yes the earth is described in the Bible as a hoola hoop. Sorry I misunderstood that point.
I think he did. But he didn't say more about it, so I assume that he realize that it is a weak argument and let it go. Well done. Don't argue with weak arguments, that's a good rule.
"circle of the earth" doesn't say more about the Earth than it's like a hoola-hoop. The bible is wrong in this. I'm glad he didn't bring up this, becuase it is really a weak argument that the bible is scientific.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephw“...Is not the existence of the universe credible evidence? ...”
[b]"So, therefore, because there is no credible evidence that there is a God,.."
Is not the existence of the universe credible evidence? Why do you think it's not?[/b]
No, it is not evidence for the existence of a God (if that is what you are actually saying?); and for the reason I just gave. Now I have answered your question, please answer my question.
Reminder:
How it logically follows from:
1, we don't know “how, what, when, and why” something X is so.
That:
2, X is so because of a supernatural God.
?
Originally posted by josephwI just gave it! -now STOP pretending I didn't! Read my post and, this time, please don't insult our intelligence by pretending it is does not give a reasonable answer to the question. Reminder of the critical part of it:
Get back to the thread.
Do you have a reasoned response as to why you think there is no God?
“...To show that an assumption that ANY particular existential claim is true is unreasonable ( not JUST the existential claim that there is a “God” ) when there is no credible evidence to support it, one only has to merely point out that is no credible evidence to support it –that is all!
If this was not the case then ANY existential claim should be seen as perfectly credible no matter how wild or absurd such as the existence of tooth fairies or the existence of an invisible flying cat floating above your head right now DESPITE the fact that there is no credible evidence for this existential assumption because there is no credible evidence for this existential assumption being false!
To believe an existential claim such as there exists a yeti is faith. And to disbelieve existential claim such as there exists a yeti is a particular absence of faith and it is NOT faith that there exists NO yeti (because there is no credible evidence for the existence of a yeti). The same logic is valid when it comes to the existential claim that there exists a god.
So, therefore, because there is no credible evidence that there is a God, it is reasonable to assume that there is NO God. There is also no evidence that there is NO God -but, for the reasons I have just pointed out, that is irrelevant because the claim that there is a God is an existential claim. ...”
Now I have gone to the bother of explaining here (above) EXACTLY and actually why I don't believe there is a God.
In what way does the above NOT answer the question of why I don't believe there no God”?
In what way is this not a 'reasonable' answer? Explain to us which part is not 'reasonable' and why.
-please explain.....
...or perhaps you are not really interested in why many people don't believe that there is a God so this whole thread is just a farce?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWow, this gives me a headache.
I just gave it! -now STOP pretending I didn't! Read my post and, this time, please don't insult our intelligence by pretending it is does not give a reasonable answer to the question. Reminder of the critical part of it:
“...To show that an assumption that ANY particular existential claim is true is unreasonable ( not JUST the existential claim t ...[text shortened]... why many people don't believe that there is a God so this whole thread is just a farce?
How much easier is it to just believe in God?
lol... yes, I'm trolling, but just a bit.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo you are making the assumption there is no God based upon you have not seen any evidence. Fair enough.
I just gave it! -now STOP pretending I didn't! Read my post and, this time, please don't insult our intelligence by pretending it is does not give a reasonable answer to the question. Reminder of the critical part of it:
“...To show that an assumption that ANY particular existential claim is true is unreasonable ( not JUST the existential claim t ...[text shortened]... why many people don't believe that there is a God so this whole thread is just a farce?
God is -actually- all there REALLY is, and all of what appears to be, the man's making for 6,000 years of built ignorance, is "why" the world is in such the nightmare of war, hatred towards another, sickness, dis-ease, and any chaos one could conjure up other than was expressed.
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75If you consider "The Message" with such high regard. How about this:
Isaiah 40:22 (The Message)
21-24Have you not been paying attention?
Have you not been listening?
Haven't you heard these stories all your life?
Don't you understand the foundation of all things?
God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas—
yes, like a ten earth be round from one viewpoint and flat from another? You guys are getting really silly.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21&version=MSG
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (The Message)
But if it turns out that the accusation is true and there is no evidence of the girl's virginity, the men of the town are to take her to the door of her father's house and stone her to death. She acted disgracefully in Israel. She lived like a whore while still in her parents' home. Purge the evil from among you.
I think what it says is pretty clear. How would you interpret it?
Originally posted by lauseyI don't interpret at all. It says what it says but I don't understand what your asking.
If you consider "The Message" with such high regard. How about this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21&version=MSG
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (The Message)
But if it turns out that the accusation is true and there is no evidence of the girl's virginity, the men of the town are to take her to the door of her father's hous ...[text shortened]... il from among you.
I think what it says is pretty clear. How would you interpret it?
Originally posted by galveston75It is saying that if it turns out that the woman you are marrying isn't a virgin, you and other men of the town are to take her to her father's house and stone her to death.
I don't interpret at all. It says what it says but I don't understand what your asking.
Would you agree with this?
Originally posted by lauseyI agree that it was a law at one time but we are no longer under those laws..
It is saying that if it turns out that the woman you are marrying isn't a virgin, you and other men of the town are to take her to her father's house and stone her to death.
Would you agree with this?
Originally posted by lauseyI just posted this in another thread but don't recall which, and it's proper with what you're addressing.
I thought it was supposed to be a message from God. If we can dismiss what is said in that verse now, why can't we dismiss any of them?
John 8:7 (King James Version)
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Christ was saying all of you are of guilt to actions whether it is of adultery or not, that you are to forgive, as he also said to forgive 7 times 77 times if one were to offend thee.
He made the old law obsolete and showed what IS of God, not an eye for an eye, that being the law of the earth, which is why there IS judgement, and the yayhoo satan!