Existence of a god or gos

Oh that post? Ha ha, just call me Rev Train Wreck, because of the forum literary pain I seem to cause by my not so rare use of artistic license! If the MA's* were not so keen on attempting to discredit me by nitpicking it would not happen. Hey, A nit is a big thing in a clean room eh? However, this ain’t no clean room! (sic)

Anyway; I think that quote was a mistake! I edit on the WP. So when I do a search I cut and paste from the word processor. I think what happened was when I searched for the quoted item (that I checked for spelling etc on the WP) I accidentally cut and pasted it along with the NASA link. Understand now? Or maybe I was making a comment that since NASA agreed with me that the universe began about 14.7 years ago, I said (took artistic license) NASA agrees with Christianity. It was a opinion not a fact. Or a WP cut and paste mistake. If it REALLY means that much to Freeware I will look for it and attempt to give a 'definite' on it. That seems a bit hysterical and kind of like a witch hunting expedition to me though….anyway; My apologies to all~

notes;

MA's = Malicious atheists, which are a minority compared to most atheists who are ethical and moral.

Rev A

 

Your comment was not a problem to me. However, his alleging a quote without having the link available to that alleged quote gave rise to a suspicion that the alleged quote either did not exist or that the quote existed only in his mind. But being that you are owning up to the quote, then I suppose that matter is resolved. Thanks for stepping forward with your explanation.

 

Now that we're all done gloating at my failed attempt to quote by memory and the absolutely catastrophical consequences of having misplaced 3 letters in the quote, I'd be interested in knowing if there is some kind of relevant reply to my alleged observation of on one hand asserting that science is useless to demonstrate gods and on the other hand that it is a good tool to demonstrate the existence and actions of those exact same entities.

 

It allows Theists the same and equal opportunity as non-theists to use double standards.

 

I hope I didn’t put you in a bad situation !

Greg AKA Rev A

 

It was a post and you did forget where it was didn’t you? It seems that I will have to go back and check, it should still be there...

As for the remainder of your post; Science is a good tool for proving Gods existence, if you would have read my post you would discover why I say that there is a double standard. Not ALL SCIENCE MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT DANIEL ASKED FOR. Not to mention metaphysical events etc. Its which scientific discipline of PROOF you want to use that defines how a problem is addressed. If you were a student I would give you a problem. Read and understand the KCA and make a report what kinds of science that argument uses. If you said none you would receive an F because you didn’t understand the argument, or simply didn’t read it.

Does that help Mr freeware?

Rev A



Rev A

 

Ok I located the OQ (original quote). However I cleaned it up I suppose in an edit deleting the offending words. Here is where it was originally located ;

" Ha ha! Ahhhh~ I included the worsley school for kids for you, no really it was a mistake but the information is accurate. Around seven years ago most if not all NASA sites and others would say the “universe began about “ instead of saying the BB happened etc. This is because about seven years ago PhD Christian apologists and scientists began correlating that the universe had a beginning with creation. OMG the secular scientists cried! We cant have that! NASA supporting Christianity! So now the secular sites try not to use the word beginning because of its theological implications even if its accurate. Even the atheist philosopher David Hume recognized the big bang theory had theological implications. i.e."

I switched from saying NASA supported the Big Bang which DOES have theological implications to the piece about David Hume which I felt was more relevant and not an opinion, it was a fact. I am not changing my opinion that the Big Bang has bibical or theological implications and that the NASA data supports it. NASA has no official position about God etc.

I hope that helps freeware~

Rev A

 

Not in the least are we 'by definition anti-science". Consider what you wrote "scientific evidence". I wouldn't want my life dependent on a court that has not all the facts and evidence to claim my innocense or guilt. The jury is still out on that. Too many discrepanies and the DA hasn't proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Sheesh, who are you guys? I sincerely hope you can both find a way to end this (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about a quote that was 3 words in length, of which the second word was misquoted by 3 letters. Surreal stuff.

Thanks for a relevant reply AT LAST.

What are these "kinds of science", RevAnarchist?

Science is a rather rigid methodology that involves experimental verification of observation. It is one methodology, so as far as I can tell, there are no different "kinds of science". There are different fields, each dealing with groups of related phenomena, but the methodology is the same.

If God is outside the limits of this methodology, as you claimed in post 102, then how on earth can science be considered a tool for proving (sic) Gods existence?

Again, please explain what the "kinds of science" are that this assertion is obviously predicated upon.

 

Absolutely. Even more, each is also individually self-contradictory.

 

Absolutely false. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Homosexuality was accepted for most of history. It is only relatively recently that it has become such an issue. I know you won't believe me, so do your own research (honestly). Take a look at the Romans, as one example.

However, even if what you say were true (it isn't), it's irrelevant. It still would not justify inequality.

Correct, and it is wrong to deny equal rights to people simply because you don't like who they are or what they do (which has no affect on you).

I don't know nor care whether it was liberals who got prayer out of schools, simply because it is irrelevant. Doing so was an act of enforcing and upholding the Constitution, not hindering it. But just to clarify, this was only done for public, not private.

Creationism has no place in a science classroom, because it isn't science - period. It's not an alternate theory, nor is there any "controversy" to teach.

If creationism is touched on in some sort of comparative religion or religious history course, most people don't have an issue with that. Though keep in mind, in such a setting, creation myths from many different religions will be presented, not just your chosen religion.

This again, is government intervention to uphold the Constitution.

Nonsense. Many Christians are blatantly anti-science on this forum alone.


EDIT: I just noticed that .daniel made a similar post which you have already replied to.

 

So you're saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says so?

I agree that the multiverse theory cannot be verified, and no scientist will claim that it can be. It is a theory, which means nothing more than it's an idea that fits a series of facts. Once data or new facts disprove this theory, you improve upon it. But no one claims it as a Law until it can be rigorously verified. I think a lot of people confuse theories and laws in science.

An example: I come upon the scene of a shooting. A man is on the ground, bleeding. Another man is running away from the scene. These are all facts, observable facts. I theorize that the running man shot the other man and then fled the scene. This is a theory. It fits the facts. However, it must be verified.

CCTV shows that I'm dead wrong. Another man hiding in an ally shot the man, and the running fellow sprinted off in fear of getting shot. This new data destroys the old theory and gives us what would be a "Law" in science.

Not necessarily, however things like quantum fluctuations seem to violate conservation of mass/energy, so it is entirely possible that the singularly spontaneously appeared and then exploded out in the Big Bang.

If you have such overwhelming evidence, then present it please. I must have missed your previous links. Assume that I know everything I need to know about the Big Bang to understand you.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong. There is evidence in favor of the multiverse theory. It explains many previously inexplicable phenomena. Does that mean it's absolutely right? No. But our job is to develop experimental means of testing and proving or disproving it. If disproved, we adapt the theory to better suit the facts. Rinse and repeat.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence that I'm aware of.

 

Nope! I am saying that the Bible is true because the Holy Spirit has revealed to me the TRUTH of the Bible. Don't slip into that trap of presumption by thinking that you know what I think or by attempting to rewrite in your own terms the things that I have stated.

 

You did not seem to put much thought the questions.

1) evolution does not work that fast, but even if it did ..

How on earth did the bear swim across the ocean to get to South America.

This is not only a problem with the Spectacled bear .. but every other bear and every other animal.

In any case evolution does change a Brown bear into a Polar bear in a couple of thousand years.

Your statment about the species that Noah brought does not seem to be correct. "two of every living thing" Genesis 6:19

From evolution we would not have all the species we do today if Noah did not bring one of every species of animal.

The literal translation from ancient Hebrew reads:

"a living one from all flesh .. two from all you shall bring"

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen6.pdf

Ice core layers are the same as tree rings. They are very accurate and go back over 200,000 years. You count them but then you can also corrolate the dates through gas analysis.

Two different dating methods gives a very high level of confidence but there is also a third that can be done.

21-2400 BC is quite recent. We know about many of the civilizations that lived at this time, we have writing, art, bones, tools and so forth.

A few seashells found on a mountaintop does not a case for a global flood make.

There should be a seabed layer, easily distinguished, over the whole earth and this just does not exist.

The Tower of Babel might explain different languages, but it does not explain different races.

We have the bones from folks that lived during this time period. They are not related to each other as would have to be the case if all humanity came from Noah and sons.

Something else that you have not considered. Where did all these large numbers of civilizations and races come from ? There is no point in time where there was not large numbers and continuous civilization in the date range of the flood.

Even if we extend the range back to 3000 BC we can not find lack of continuous civilization. According to Orthadox Jews the earth is roughly 5770 years old (3760) BC would then be the start.

Do the math

Noah was not born until 1060 years after Adam and the flood happened when Noah was 600.

Noah was not even born in 3000 BC so the flood could not possibly go back that far

3760 - 1660 = 2100BC as the rough date of the flood.


There is also the problem of languages. We have writing from many cultures in the 2100-2400 range. There was not just one writing and the writing that did exist did not change.

We have a history of Sumerian writing (The area where Noah lived) that dates from 3300 BC down to later than 500 BC when the Babylonians (Nebuchadnezzar) destroyed the Temple.

The Sumerians branched off to the Babylonians and the Assyrians to let you know the connection .. but guess what ? The Babylonians and the Assyrians spoke the same language.

There is no break in the language "period" from 3000 BC down to 500 BC.

We have the names of the kings ..how long each one lived .. and so on. These jive with the lists from the Pharaohs, and Hittites, and from other nations so we have a rather complete history of what these folks were doing and this history can be cross checked with the history of other cultures for verification.

Furthermore ... many of these civilizations are mentioned in the Bible and the timelines match up there as well.

None of the writing of these civilizations mentions their founders (Noah and Sons), who would have been on the same level as God Kings.

Noah and Shem lived 400 years after the flood .. This takes us down to 1700-2100 which is very recent.

Sargon of Akkad 2270 -2215 BC unified the city states of Sumeria into what is considered to be the worlds first empire. Given the area he ruled was where Noah lived he should have been on a first name basis with Noah.

No mention of Noah in the extensive history of these people. The history of the Sumerians does indeed have a flood story (which is where scholars think the Bible story comes from) but this is local flooding.

We have the story of the origins of these people .. No mention of Noah.

Sargon was "diefied" after his death (considered half man half God). Sargon's grandson Naram^Sin was diefied while still alive !

Noah and Sons are walking the earth at this time (supposedly) Everyone knows they are the fathers of all civilization. These people write extensively about their origins but not one mention of Noah.

Interesting that even though Noah and sons live all the way down to the Birth of Abraham there is no futher mention of Noah and sons in the Bible.

Even from the Bible we know of the Egyptians at the time of Abraham because Abraham goes and lives there for awhile. The "kingmaking rutual" of the Egyptians where the king was considered half God had been around for well over 1000 years at this time.

How could this be if the earth was only 400 years old and the fathers of civilization were still walking the earth and everyone on the earth knows it.

The language of the Egyptians is also unchanged during this time .

The Flood story as recorded in the Bible .. Didnt happen.


I did take the time to check out your links. Unfortunately they do not deal with many of the issues raised above.

The arguments made in many cases are just wrong, and in any case do not deal with the arguments from science.

Rather than me going point by point through these sites and dealing with the fallacies contained therin, just go to youtube and watch any of the myriad of presentations debunking creationism from a scientific perspective.

I have chosen to debunk creationism using the Bible itself (as shown above by the history of the Bible matching archaeological history and written history) because then folks who do not understand science can understand.

This need not in any way shape or form impact ones faith. It may even strengthen ones faith by setting one on a path wherby the basis for ones belief is on more solid ground.

My belief is that it is the underlying message of the Bible that is important and what God would want us to embrace. This is a wise perspective IMO, that many Christians have adopted.

I also think that this perspective reconciles the contradictions between the OT and the NT.

If one looks at the Bible as a book of wise sayings and lessons as to how to live ones life (similar to the spirit of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) rather than getting caught up trying to interperate things literally or cling to a literal interpretation one gains a certain freedom.

1) At the end of the day, do you really think we should go around trying to change society so as to bring back the OT laws/ Sharia law and start stoning adulterers in a public square ?

2) Or rather should we just try and adopt the underlying message on a personal basis and focus on trying to make the world a better place ?

If you choose 2 and not 1 you are not really a literalist.

 

We have already been over that same subject... you refused to accept my last explanation, so now I will join the bandwagon and offer you another one.

God called on the intercom and instructed Scotty to beam a male and female of every living animal that was not indigenous to that area and make them reassemble outside the ark. Then after the flood was over, God gave Scotty another command telling him to return all the transported animals back to their original locations.

Now you know how God could have done it using scientific wild imaginings.

 

Hey .. and you are welcome to your opinion.

Perhaps it was aliens and they really did have teleporters ?!

Who am I to say otherwise. Either explanation is just as valid as the other.

One explanation that was given that was not very valid was that the Bear swam, that was a really silly one.

 

You said you have daily conversations with the Holy Spirit.

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that all the Bible stories were literally true, or not ?

 

What sense of the word "true" are you using? Actually the Holy Spirit told me that a lot of the Bible is written in metaphor and parable. So what is your point? The use of metaphor and or parable does not make the Bible less true.

 

So the Bible is true because the voices in your head tell you its true?

This is a bad sign.

Did it, now? Did it say that?

 

Is that what I said? No? Then you are misrepresenting what I said.

Yes, that is a bad sign for you, as it shows all the readers how you will attempt to manipulate a conversation, and turn the conversation toward a direction that you want the conversation to go. Thus making you a manipulator working with the craft of deception.

Not 'now', then. Yes, the Holy Spirit said that. BTW: the proper name is Holy Spirit, not "it".

 

If an invisible being is communicating with you and claiming it's a deity then you may need to seek professional help. There is not an ounce of sarcasm or animosity in that. It isn't healthy to hear things.

I already see where you're going with this. You aren't the only one who has read the Bible, you know.

Did it specify that, as an omnipotent all encompassing being, it prefers English titles? I imagine it prefers being portrayed as a white male too.

 

Well of course you are supposed to attack the messenger as opposed to saying anything about the message. So you say it is not healthy. That is also expected, considering that your idea of healthy is merely concerned with the physical health of the body or the so-called psychological health. In either case regarding your health concerns, your vested interest is in promoting and advancing science and numerology as opposed to being even remotely concerned about the spiritual health of a person.

I also notice you made specific reference to "It isn't healthy to hear things." "Hearing" is done with the ears. I said nothing about 'hearing'. As for the psychology involved in experiencing 'internal dialogue': http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...at-we-dont-say-out-loud-the-internal-dialogue I would be willing to bet that you and all the others on this forum are guilty of this same sickness that you accuse me of and suggest that this behavior is "not healthy".

Really? What does my comment have to do with the Bible?

On this forum it (the forum) requires English and any of the applicable English titles that would be appropriate. Of course, if you prefer, we could petition the Moderators and have them place in the TOS a standard that all participants must only use their native language in this forum.... as it was in the days in the story of the Tower of Babel when all the tongues were confused (altered so that the people could not communicate with one another).

 

Great rebuttals Incorporeal. I agree fully with your post (excerpt above). That said I am often saddened and angered when it’s obvious that a member is attempting to be deceptive, going to great lengths to tie up a debate with smoke and mirrors B.S. when they know they are wrong. You exhibit the pit bull like tenacity to expose those tactics. I must confess I do not have the temperament to do that. When I know a member is being difficult I lose all interest in the debate, because attempting to reason with that kind of member is like arguing with a disturbed adolescent. I appreciate your hard and productive work in exposing the (often) secular men behind the curtain*.

*(Remember the wizard of OZ when the Wiz was exposed as a fake?).

Rev A

 

It does not make the message any less true. It does make a difference for those who adhere to a literal translation.

What did the Holy Spirit tell you about the story of Noah's Ark ? Was it metaphor, parable, myth, or literal event?

 

Then don't adhere to a literal translation for the entire Bible. Learn the differences that are involved and learn when to apply those differences.

I just checked with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit instructed me to tell you to re-read my entry above and then for you to contact Him.