Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mackk wrote:

Remember that big part where you said I have yet to see this superior intelligence from any of you? [/quote]

Oh, you mean where I questioned where the people are who are smarter than every person who believes in God. I asked you to QUOTE IT for a reason. I know exactly what I wrote and what I wrote was not what you wrote. Nowhere did I relate this to MY OWN intelligence.

Well correct me if I’m mistaken but you are a believer of god, therefore you are relating it to your own intelligence. And what exactly did I lie about? I don’t believe I lied at all, I gave my interpretation of what you wrote. Or are you relying on your tactic of making short, seemingly profound statements to convince me you’re correct?[/quote]

That has to be one of the most pathetic attempts at a debate I have ever seen…and I still remember JeffR.

The only one creating men from straw here is you.

122

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mackk wrote:

Remember that big part where you said I have yet to see this superior intelligence from any of you? [/quote]

Oh, you mean where I questioned where the people are who are smarter than every person who believes in God. I asked you to QUOTE IT for a reason. I know exactly what I wrote and what I wrote was not what you wrote. Nowhere did I relate this to MY OWN intelligence.

Well correct me if I’m mistaken but you are a believer of god, therefore you are relating it to your own intelligence. And what exactly did I lie about? I don’t believe I lied at all, I gave my interpretation of what you wrote. Or are you relying on your tactic of making short, seemingly profound statements to convince me you’re correct?[/quote]

That has to be one of the most pathetic attempts at a debate I have ever seen…and I still remember JeffR.

The only one creating men from straw here is you.[/quote]

Since you have no intelligent statement to make you insult what I write then assume victory. Good job big guy you win again, I’m probably racist too. The fact is you contradicted yourself and proved to be hypocritical.

123

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
Some minor events happened in the middle east some years ago, someone blew the stories out of proportion, to sell their god. These days the bible is one big metaphor.[/quote]
One big metaphor? Have you read the Bible? What is such a big metaphor about it?[/quote]

It was an ironic commentary on how every “fact” in the bible that is disproved is defended with “its just a metaphor”.
[/quote]

OK, so are you saying that facts of the Bible are being disproved? Or just that people that don’t have any real substance to their arguments call the Bible “stories” metaphors?[/quote]

Yes, we can in fact prove that the world is older than 6,000 years, that we all didn’t come from two people… then two people again after a flood… we actually know that the earth moves around the sun, and not the other way around (another one that always gets dismissed as metaphor). We could go on and on attacking a literal reading of the Bible.

There’s actually a very long tradition of reading the Bible in terms of metaphor, both in the Christan and Jewish traditions. In fact, I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that between the Scholastic Christians getting a hold of the Bible, and the modern born-again type movements started to emerge, very few people who read the Bible thought it was a literal history, or meant to be read literally.

124

I’m going to respond to the original question as to whether Noah’s Ark happened or not. This is an excellent question and unfortunately after reading through this thread most people believe that Noah’s Arc is fiction. This is very unfortunate because this is such an important event that Jesus himself mentions how people will be in the time of the end with how people were before the flood event. Matthew 24:37-39 states

“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

So here Jesus is saying that during his presence, some Bibles translate presence as coming, that people would take no note of the signs in the Bible that point to the fact that we’re living in the last days. These people would just be living there life, not paying attention until it is too late.

I see that most people who posted in this thread at least believe in Jesus many have faith in Jesus. Since Jesus was in heaven during the flood event and he states that the flood event DID HAPPEN, those who have faith in Jesus SHOULD believe that this event did happen. Peter is another Bible writer that compares the flood event to the time of the end and Armagedon. 2 Peter 3:3-7 states:

"For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: â??Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creationâ??s beginning.â??

5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.

8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

Again, Peter links Armageddon and the last days to the Flood event where most of the people on the earth at that time lost their lives due to the flood event. So according to the Bible the Flood event in Genesis is true and God used it to destroy ungodly people. Everyone knows about Armageddon, both Jesus and Peter link the flood event to a future event where God is going to remove people he deems as wicked and just like the survivors in the Arc who he deemed as righteous, he will preserve those who he deems as righteous alive.

2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So according to these verses the WHOLE BIBLE is inspired by God not just part of it which of course includes the Flood event.

Funny thing is historians and scientist have always and will continue to discredit the Bible when they can’t explain things in it. For example, I was watching the History Channel yesterday about great ancient battles and that particular episode was about the Israelites led by Joshua and the battle of Jericho. To make a long story short the Bible states that the wall surrounding Jericho would crumble and fall after 6 days enabling the Israelites to enter into the city. But since the historians being interviewed could not explain how the walls could literally fall they said that the walls falling must have simply meant that the city would be overthrown and the walls figurativly fell.

First Corinthians 3:19 and 20 explains this reasoning perfectly when it states:

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He catches the wise in their own craftiness and again, The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

125

[quote]mse2us wrote:
I’m going to respond to the original question as to whether Noah’s Ark happened or not. This is an excellent question and unfortunately after reading through this thread most people believe that Noah’s Arc is fiction. This is very unfortunate because this is such an important event that Jesus himself mentions how people will be in the time of the end with how people were before the flood event. Matthew 24:37-39 states

“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

So here Jesus is saying that during his presence, some Bibles translate presence as coming, that people would take no note of the signs in the Bible that point to the fact that we’re living in the last days. These people would just be living there life, not paying attention until it is too late.

I see that most people who posted in this thread at least believe in Jesus many have faith in Jesus. Since Jesus was in heaven during the flood event and he states that the flood event DID HAPPEN, those who have faith in Jesus SHOULD believe that this event did happen. Peter is another Bible writer that compares the flood event to the time of the end and Armagedon. 2 Peter 3:3-7 states:

"For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: â??Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creationâ??s beginning.â??

5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.

8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

Again, Peter links Armageddon and the last days to the Flood event where most of the people on the earth at that time lost their lives due to the flood event. So according to the Bible the Flood event in Genesis is true and God used it to destroy ungodly people. Everyone knows about Armageddon, both Jesus and Peter link the flood event to a future event where God is going to remove people he deems as wicked and just like the survivors in the Arc who he deemed as righteous, he will preserve those who he deems as righteous alive.

2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So according to these verses the WHOLE BIBLE is inspired by God not just part of it which of course includes the Flood event.

Funny thing is historians and scientist have always and will continue to discredit the Bible when they can’t explain things in it. For example, I was watching the History Channel yesterday about great ancient battles and that particular episode was about the Israelites led by Joshua and the battle of Jericho. To make a long story short the Bible states that the wall surrounding Jericho would crumble and fall after 6 days enabling the Israelites to enter into the city. But since the historians being interviewed could not explain how the walls could literally fall they said that the walls falling must have simply meant that the city would be overthrown and the walls figurativly fell.

First Corinthians 3:19 and 20 explains this reasoning perfectly when it states:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, â??He catches the wise in their own craftinessâ??;[a] 20 and again, â??The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.â??

[/quote]

Very good post and good for you for taking the time to write it. Naturally you’ll be ridiculed for the truth and you won’t change one single mind. But that’s all part of being on a message board I suppose.

126

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
Some minor events happened in the middle east some years ago, someone blew the stories out of proportion, to sell their god. These days the bible is one big metaphor.[/quote]
One big metaphor? Have you read the Bible? What is such a big metaphor about it?[/quote]

It was an ironic commentary on how every “fact” in the bible that is disproved is defended with “its just a metaphor”.
[/quote]

Well, it’s apparent, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about…You want facts study archeology…They get it about half right 50% of the time. The Bible is a book of truth, not facts. If it were a book of facts it would simply be a study guide…Do blame us for your ignorance of the matter. It is not a book of metaphors either, that is just as ridiculous.

127

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.

=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.

Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us.

128

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
I’m going to respond to the original question as to whether Noah’s Ark happened or not. This is an excellent question and unfortunately after reading through this thread most people believe that Noah’s Arc is fiction. This is very unfortunate because this is such an important event that Jesus himself mentions how people will be in the time of the end with how people were before the flood event. Matthew 24:37-39 states

“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

So here Jesus is saying that during his presence, some Bibles translate presence as coming, that people would take no note of the signs in the Bible that point to the fact that we’re living in the last days. These people would just be living there life, not paying attention until it is too late.

I see that most people who posted in this thread at least believe in Jesus many have faith in Jesus. Since Jesus was in heaven during the flood event and he states that the flood event DID HAPPEN, those who have faith in Jesus SHOULD believe that this event did happen. Peter is another Bible writer that compares the flood event to the time of the end and Armagedon. 2 Peter 3:3-7 states:

"For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: �¢??Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creation�¢??s beginning.�¢??

5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.

8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

Again, Peter links Armageddon and the last days to the Flood event where most of the people on the earth at that time lost their lives due to the flood event. So according to the Bible the Flood event in Genesis is true and God used it to destroy ungodly people. Everyone knows about Armageddon, both Jesus and Peter link the flood event to a future event where God is going to remove people he deems as wicked and just like the survivors in the Arc who he deemed as righteous, he will preserve those who he deems as righteous alive.

2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So according to these verses the WHOLE BIBLE is inspired by God not just part of it which of course includes the Flood event.

Funny thing is historians and scientist have always and will continue to discredit the Bible when they can’t explain things in it. For example, I was watching the History Channel yesterday about great ancient battles and that particular episode was about the Israelites led by Joshua and the battle of Jericho. To make a long story short the Bible states that the wall surrounding Jericho would crumble and fall after 6 days enabling the Israelites to enter into the city. But since the historians being interviewed could not explain how the walls could literally fall they said that the walls falling must have simply meant that the city would be overthrown and the walls figurativly fell.

First Corinthians 3:19 and 20 explains this reasoning perfectly when it states:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, �¢??He catches the wise in their own craftiness�¢??;[a] 20 and again, �¢??The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.�¢??

[/quote]

Very good post and good for you for taking the time to write it. Naturally you’ll be ridiculed for the truth and you won’t change one single mind. But that’s all part of being on a message board I suppose.
[/quote]
Yeah, you’re most likely write. Satan has done a good job at causing confusion and misleading people. I know that most people won’t listen to what’s in the Bible even if I can show scripture after scripture about a doctrine. It happened in Jesus day. Due to the Jews preconceived ideas and what they wanted Jesus to be they saw miracles performed right in front of their eyes and saw him fulfill prophecy but they still denied he was God’s appointed Messiah and as a nation they rejected him. To most people, due in part to the fact that a lot of people don’t take most of the Bible as literal, scripture is not as powerful as seeing someone who was crippled being able to walk again. But the Jews in Jesus’ day saw this many times but they still did not believe. So knowing this I know that most people will not change their mind due to what the Bible says.

129

[quote]mse2us wrote:

Yeah, you’re most likely write. Satan has done a good job at causing confusion and misleading people. I know that most people won’t listen to what’s in the Bible even if I can show scripture after scripture about a doctrine. It happened in Jesus day. Due to the Jews preconceived ideas and what they wanted Jesus to be they saw miracles performed right in front of their eyes and saw him fulfill prophecy but they still denied he was God’s appointed Messiah and as a nation they rejected him. To most people, due in part to the fact that a lot of people don’t take most of the Bible as literal, scripture is not as powerful as seeing someone who was crippled being able to walk again. But the Jews in Jesus’ day saw this many times but they still did not believe. So knowing this I know that most people will not change their mind due to what the Bible says.[/quote]

The Jew’s “preconceived notions”… you meant like the stuff in that first, slightly larger part of the Bible, with all those proficiencies about what the Messiah would be?

Have you read the prophets?

Read them with an open mind, and no preconceived notions, then decide if the Jesus from the NT is anything like the Messiah described by God, through the prophets. It should be an interesting intellectual exercise at least.

130

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.

=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.

Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]

You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.

My logical, rational, scientific response to your challenge goes like this:

The best evidence we have shows us that approx. 14 billion years ago all matter in the universe was contained in a singular point. Then, through a process commonly known as the big bang it exploded outward beginning the formation of the universe we have today. What happened before the bang? What was it like? We don’t know, and we will willingly admit we don’t know. What we will do is continue to study and explore the universe in search of facts. What we will not do, however, is make up stuff so that we can feel better about our ignorance.

131

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

Yeah, you’re most likely write. Satan has done a good job at causing confusion and misleading people. I know that most people won’t listen to what’s in the Bible even if I can show scripture after scripture about a doctrine. It happened in Jesus day. Due to the Jews preconceived ideas and what they wanted Jesus to be they saw miracles performed right in front of their eyes and saw him fulfill prophecy but they still denied he was God’s appointed Messiah and as a nation they rejected him. To most people, due in part to the fact that a lot of people don’t take most of the Bible as literal, scripture is not as powerful as seeing someone who was crippled being able to walk again. But the Jews in Jesus’ day saw this many times but they still did not believe. So knowing this I know that most people will not change their mind due to what the Bible says.[/quote]

The Jew’s “preconceived notions”… you meant like the stuff in that first, slightly larger part of the Bible, with all those proficiencies about what the Messiah would be?

Have you read the prophets?

Read them with an open mind, and no preconceived notions, then decide if the Jesus from the NT is anything like the Messiah described by God, through the prophets. It should be an interesting intellectual exercise at least.[/quote]
No the preconceived notions I’m talking about are not the prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures that Jesus fulfilled. I’m talking about the preconceived notions the Jews had before Jesus came to earth that most likely developed centuries after the book of Malachi was written. When Jesus got baptized and became the Messiah the Jews at that time were under Roman rule. Many felt oppressed by Romans and were awaiting the Messiah to be King and free them from Roman rule. They thought that Jesus was going to be a spectacular King like David and Solomon that would overthrow the Romans. But when they saw that Jesus was from a common, poor family and when he said that he would be rejected by the older men in Israel and suffer at their hands and made it clear that he was not there to be King the Jews could not believe that this was the long awaited King, so as a nation they rejected him.

I have studied and continue to study the Hebrew scriptures and believe that that part of the Bible is equally as important and the Christian-Greek scriptures.

132

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.

=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.

Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]

You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.

If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.

133

650×520 62.5 KB

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.

=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.

Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]

You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.

My logical, rational, scientific response to your challenge goes like this:

The best evidence we have shows us that approx. 14 billion years ago all matter in the universe was contained in a singular point. Then, through a process commonly known as the big bang it exploded outward beginning the formation of the universe we have today. What happened before the bang? What was it like? We don’t know, and we will willingly admit we don’t know. What we will do is continue to study and explore the universe in search of facts. What we will not do, however, is make up stuff so that we can feel better about our ignorance.
[/quote]

Logic has no place in a debate about religion.

134

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.

=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.

Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]

You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.

If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.[/quote]

You are attributing to me a claim I did not make. I never claimed something came from nothing. The fact that you say I made the claim, or that I must make the claim, does not make it so. I do not know where the universe came from, the conditions that existed 14 billion years ago, and I do not claim to. I stand proudly in the “I don’t know” camp. Nor do I discount any possibility. I leave open the possibility that the universe was created by a supernatural being…I just think it so unlikely that it does not warrant serious consideration. Why do I think that? People used to think the sun was carried across the sky by a god. We now know it isn’t true and realize that the sun has a perfectly natural explanation. People used to think earthquakes had magical/supernatural causes. We now know better…that earthquakes have perfectly natural causes.

I ask you this: Which is more likely…

1.) That the beginning of the universe has a perfectly natural, but as of yet unexplained, cause (like the sun and earthquakes used to have).

or

2.) That the beginning of the universe is somehow in a special category that requires a supernatural explanation.

It seems to me that logic and reason dictate that the origin of the universe be placed in the first category among all of the things that were once unknown but we have now figured out. We just haven’t gotten there yet.

135

I hope you guys realize all the mental masturbation spewed out onto these boards by Pat and his ilk is little more than a smokescreen.

“The Bible can’t be wrong, but we have no proof so we will use poorly reasoned arguments against ‘the other side’ and attempt to poorly obfuscate said arguments to make us look like we have some idea of what we’re talking about”.

Please. The bullshit has to stop. You DON’T understand the science behind the big bang, you don’t even have a fucking clue. If you actually want to disprove it, go do a fucking university paper on it, educate your bronze age minds and then come back. And as for “Book of Truth”, don’t make me fucking laugh, it switches so violently from stone cold literal fact to happy smiley ‘metaphor’ so often and so quickly it’s not even funny anymore.

And shame on you ALL for responding to a thread made by a known troll.

136

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I hope you guys realize all the mental masturbation spewed out onto these boards by Pat and his ilk is little more than a smokescreen.

“The Bible can’t be wrong, but we have no proof so we will use poorly reasoned arguments against ‘the other side’ and attempt to poorly obfuscate said arguments to make us look like we have some idea of what we’re talking about”.

Please. The bullshit has to stop. You DON’T understand the science behind the big bang, you don’t even have a fucking clue. If you actually want to disprove it, go do a fucking university paper on it, educate your bronze age minds and then come back. And as for “Book of Truth”, don’t make me fucking laugh, it switches so violently from stone cold literal fact to happy smiley ‘metaphor’ so often and so quickly it’s not even funny anymore.

And shame on you ALL for responding to a thread made by a known troll.[/quote]

I am using it as practice as these are pretty much the same arguments I always get when I engage in this debate.

137

I doubt this will change any minds, but it may help clarify the opinions of others. â??Conventional opinions fit so comfortably into the dominant paradigm as to be seen not as opinions but as statements of fact, as ‘the nature of things.’ The very efficacy of opinion manipulation rests on the fact that we do not know we are being manipulated.

The most insidious forms of oppression are those that so insinuate themselves into our communication universe and the recesses of our minds that we do not even realize they are acting upon us. The most powerful ideologies are not those that prevail against all challengers but those that are never challenged because in their ubiquity they appear as nothing more than the unadorned truth.â??

138

I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS THREAD IS STILL GOING

139

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.

=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.

Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]

In thermodynamics you can get something from nothing.

140

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

Yeah, you’re most likely write. Satan has done a good job at causing confusion and misleading people. I know that most people won’t listen to what’s in the Bible even if I can show scripture after scripture about a doctrine. It happened in Jesus day. Due to the Jews preconceived ideas and what they wanted Jesus to be they saw miracles performed right in front of their eyes and saw him fulfill prophecy but they still denied he was God’s appointed Messiah and as a nation they rejected him. To most people, due in part to the fact that a lot of people don’t take most of the Bible as literal, scripture is not as powerful as seeing someone who was crippled being able to walk again. But the Jews in Jesus’ day saw this many times but they still did not believe. So knowing this I know that most people will not change their mind due to what the Bible says.[/quote]

The Jew’s “preconceived notions”… you meant like the stuff in that first, slightly larger part of the Bible, with all those proficiencies about what the Messiah would be?

Have you read the prophets?

Read them with an open mind, and no preconceived notions, then decide if the Jesus from the NT is anything like the Messiah described by God, through the prophets. It should be an interesting intellectual exercise at least.[/quote]

I can see why the Jews believe that Jesus is not the Messiah, but Christians believe that Jesus will return and be that Messiah that the Jews are expecting. I just believe God wanted the hearts of the people to be right before he came as ruler. God wants to be the King of Israel, but the people wanted an Earthly King now. Jesus is God and he will become that King. We get closer every day.