For Ye Christian Ones...

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
haney wrote:
I am not going to go any further than the Noah’s ark story. Get your facts right about other cultures stories. Then I will move on to the rest of your ideas.

Are you a complete fool? Did you read any bit of the thread besides my first post? I’ve been hearing that story since I was 4, from the Bible, on T.V., and from other people in person. How in the HELL is my perception of Noah’s Ark, the story, wrong? Tell me. Now.
[/quote]

See here is a quote
"Why is it that the accounts of miracles so often quoted and glamorized in Churches today only exist in the Bible? "

I showed you that other cultures have some similiar stories.

You started off by saying many of those stories are not found anywhere else. I was merely showing that some of them do. For year we thought the 5 cities of the plain in Genesis where made up. Then we found the tablets of ebla which had all five listed in the exact same order as they are in the Bible. There are many things that people don’t believe existed outside of the Bible, and as time has gone one we have found certain aspects to be very accurate. I would have never said anything if you would not have said the stories are not found elsewhere.

Because they match very closly with the Bibles. The idea is that the first people would of had oral tradition that was handed down describing their ideas of creation. Almost none of them are similiar except for three that I know of the Hebrew, Egyptian, and Babylonian accounts.

If the stories are found in other cultures than that would take care of your opening statement that they are not found anywhere else.

You say there are no accounts outside the Bible, and then you say there are. Which one is it?

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
haney wrote:
I would assume you would know that there are marine fossils found on the upper parts of everest? That being said if the land was a little flatter than it is possible for all water in the world to cover the surface by 1.7 miles.

I guess you buy into the idea that mars was once flooded?

That’s beside the point. When those marine fossils were alive, no humans would be around for thousands of years, therefore, no Noah’s Arc.[/quote]

Didn’t you say there is no way that water could cover the face of the earth even if the polar ice caps melted? I fail to see how that is beside the point then. I Have yet to say the flood existed in this thread. I am just pointing out where you might want to restate some of your previous points

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
What do you get out of believing that God created that day for you? Pride? Assurance?

Is it easier to live life thinking that when you die, its not over? Does it make it easier to get through your day thinking that your friends and relatives that have died are still there waiting for you?[/quote]

I don’t know who you were writing this to, but I will give it a shot.

I will be honest with you I am compelled by the historical accounts of the NT, and the vast amount of probablity that their writers where writing what they truly saw that I have no choice but to believe. As hard as I have tried to dismiss it as a fairytale I simply have not been able to. I get nothing out of believing special out of believing or not believing. I just feel I have no other option. My mind cannot over look the impossibleness of it being a fake.

As Paul said " If Christ has not been raised from the dead than our preaching is in vain."

So kind of a ramble if you will. I just really don’t see another option for me. It is either the truth, or there is no real truth.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It deeply saddens me to read this from you, Mert.

Seriously, I think that one can statistically show the transfer of energy from one state to another throughout the history of the universe just like you say. BUT - there has to be a beginning point in which there was nothing. No energy, no matter, nothing. In other words energy had to be created from something, which is distinctly contrary to the “Energy cannot be created” part.[/quote]

From that point of view (creation of the universe) I see what your saying. I’m only saying that biological evolution doesn’t violate thermodynamics (which I’ve heard people argue before)

Also, alas, the caveat for physicist, no laws that we have yet discovered work in a singularity.

[quote]haney wrote:
He is a Paramedic/Fireman. The call was a paramedic call. the people searching for Him for 4 hours where paramedics. He never claimed it was a miracle. He only said He could not explain it. It was a CPR class offered by my job. No one asked him about his religious affiliation, and no one asked him what he thought it was. He just said he has seen some things that defy explination.

I never said it was a miracle I just said there is no explination for it.[/quote]

Well, you did say “I am certain everyone in the medical community would say that is impossible. Logically and physically.” You claim that something impossible logically and physically happened. That’s the very definition of “miracle.”

The difference being, we claim there is a physical, logical explanation. You claim a supernatural one.

Of course he does. It reinforces his views in the mysterious ways God can work. You’ll repeat to me that no inquiry was made into his religious convictions, but I’ll tell you this: he wasn’t a skeptical atheist exercising critical thinking, that’s for sure.

You can play word games all day long, but claiming that something supernatural or “impossible” happened simply because we don’t have all the facts to explain it otherwise does not a miracle (or a “logic defying event”) make.

Yes, as long as he knows what I’ll decide before I do, free will is just an illusion. I might feel free to change my mind, or even change it 1000 times, but no matter how much I try to “surprise” an omniscient God, it is impossible. Hence, while I might feel I’m exercising free will, I’m not.

No, but if you’re saying that you can accept the idea of a powerful but not omnipotent God with a wide ranging knowledge, but not omniscience; and who’s not all good but a bit more neutral and “hands off” we could be getting somewhere. But AFAIK, that goes against almost every church doctrine I can think of, be they Christian, Muslim or Jewish.

[quote]You are the one who said as we understand it it makes no sense. I said you are right we can’t understand it, and then you say that is the way you Theist are, you take the we can’t understand it route, and now you have come full circle back to we can’t understand it.

Maybe you should give up talking about logic since you keep running in circles.[/quote]

No, I said we can’t understand because the premise is flawed. The premise is that God the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent, all-good and gave us free will. That’s an impossible combination, like a square circle or 2+2=5.

The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claims. His stating that he can’t explain it simply states that he can’t explain it. It does not rule out a logical explanation he hasn’t thought of or considered.

Yeah, right. I just get tired of typing “impossible, logically and physically” every few lines. If it quacks like a miracle and smells like a miracle, let’s call it a miracle. I don’t see how playing those little word games support your point in any way.

Well, it’s not called organized religion for nothing. You all believe in Christ as your personal savior; God has certain attributes; the Trinity is pretty much a given, etc. There are some sects/cults/churches that reject the Pope, the innerancy of the Bible and the Virgin birth, but overall, there are some basic point on which all christians agree. In that way, you have church leaders, bishops and (for some) the Pope (I don’t know if you’re Catholic or Protestant, or Born Again…) speaking for all of you, or large subsets thereof.

Atheism is a more personal thing. We don’t get together and celebrate our lack of belief in a supernatural father figure. And while there are well known atheists, there’s not much in the way of “leaders” or movement. I have met and read “militant” atheists, and, personally, they grate on my nerves.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Also, alas, the caveat for physicist, no laws that we have yet discovered work in a singularity.[/quote]

Just a precision. It’s the other way around. It’s not that the laws don’t work in a singularity as much as we call some volume of space-time a singularity because the known laws of physics cannot be applied. Generally because some “infinites” get involved… infinite mass, infinite gravity, density, etc.

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
I gotta say pookie, my hat is off to ya.[/quote]

Well thanks. I’ve got to warn you though, I’ve recently been informed by tolerant folks that I’m a mean-spirited, poisonous, hate-filled smug asshole. So you might want to keep your distances.

[quote]pookie wrote:
haney wrote:
Well, you did say “I am certain everyone in the medical community would say that is impossible. Logically and physically.” You claim that something impossible logically and physically happened. That’s the very definition of “miracle.”
[/quote]
The definition of a miracle is that it was by divine intervention. I Didn’t attribute it to God, and neither did the Paramedic.

I did claim it was supernatural. I claimed it defied logic.

How do you know he has a mysterious view that God did it? He could have been an agnostic. You being an atheist would also accept the fact that it is tougher to believe in no God creating everything than it is to Believe in God (occam’s razor).

You act like this is unheard of. We hear all kinds of stories of people being clinically dead for longer periods of time then 10 minutes, and some how they miraculously survived.
Is there an explination? Possibly. I said it defied logic though. As you say 2 + 2 = 5 can’t equal 5. Well then if someone survived for longer than the norm in one of these situations then we could say that that would not fit the pattern, and we would have an abmormailty. Does it mean it was God? I am not saying that. It just would defy typical logic.

God would not be all powerful at that time. He would be operating in a realm where time is linear, but lack that ability to change it. So you would be required by your own choices to be true to yourself, and follow through with those decisions. It would not be foreordained by God. He would simply have just known.

I think He is all powerful, but I also believe that He has confined certain of His powers to be tamed by His laws that He has placed Himself under.
For instance God said He would never flood the entire Earth again (assuming the flood account is true) does that mean God lacks the power now to flood the Earth, or does it mean He has confined Himself to a certain Law?
I am surprised that you and your atheist buddies have not jumped on that since God can no longer flood the earth. That must mean He lacks the power right?

You see I see no problem with the logic in it. Maybe I am not explaining it all that well. Maybe no matter how well I explained it you would never believe it.

Well then you would accept that the burden of proof is on you to say that for Jesus to be a myth. You don’t have to believe the Miracles, but to discredit his existance is certainly going against the grain of modern historical thought.

I am willing to say there may be a physical explination for it. I however will not say that it falls in line with typical logic on the situation. It doesn’t have to be a miracle. A miracle once again is by divine intervention.

[quote]
Well, it’s not called organized religion for nothing. You all believe in Christ as your personal savior; God has certain attributes; the Trinity is pretty much a given, etc. There are some sects/cults/churches that reject the Pope, the innerancy of the Bible and the Virgin birth, but overall, there are some basic point on which all christians agree. In that way, you have church leaders, bishops and (for some) the Pope (I don’t know if you’re Catholic or Protestant, or Born Again…) speaking for all of you, or large subsets thereof.\

Atheism is a more personal thing. We don’t get together and celebrate our lack of belief in a supernatural father figure. And while there are well known atheists, there’s not much in the way of “leaders” or movement. I have met and read “militant” atheists, and, personally, they grate on my nerves.[/quote]

You have your own organizations so I would not say that you are not organized.

You don’t have to go to church to be a Christian. You don’t even have to believe most of what modern Christians believe to be one. Atheist share similiar believes in the same way most spiritual people share believes. I am not Catholic or any other denomination. I go to a Church, but that does not mean I believe everything they believe.

YOu got my point. That bishop did not speak for all of us so why quote him?

The opening poster even said there are three types of believes on our origin in the Christian faith.
YEC, OEC, and TE.

So much for one person being able to speak for us.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yes you did admit to going through the motions. You said that you were religous. You never mentioned faith once. I don’t think you have mentioned faith in any of your posts. You’ve even gone so far as to say that you’ve heard different folks TELL you about the story of the flood. But you’ve yet to say that you’ve ever read it for yourself.
[/quote]

I admitted through going through the motions most of my life, but I wasn’t trying to have a relationship with ‘God’ or anything close to that. When I said I didn’t just go through the motions, I was refering rather obviously to the period in my life when I did honestly try to start a ‘walk with God’(put it however you want, you know what I mean).

If the best you can do is point out terminological ‘errors’ when you know exactly what I’m trying to say, don’t waste our time. Don’t make worthless posts just to say “you didn’t say this word or that word specifically, so it doesn’t count”.

Obviously if I was trying to get close to God and get involved, I had faith. Why would you do that with something you didn’t have faith in?

Usually in Church when a story from the Bible is being taught about, you are asked to turn to that scripture in your Bible, remember? So yea, I’ve read the story myself, not that it makes a shred of difference…

If people didn’t try in religion with what THEY SPECIFICALLY could do, there wouldn’t BE religion. Faith for an individual is that individual’s belief and trust. How is that NOT about what the individual can do?

You’re suggesting that the efforts of all Christians to get close to God and understand him as well as the Bible are worthless? Then what is the point of trying? What is the point of the religion AT ALL if that is the case?

I never suggested or claimed that I speak for all believers, and certainly not that you do. You continue to put words in my mouth.

[quote]
Once again - there’s a huge, huge difference between faith and religion - a difference that seems to fly just over your head. But I’m sure you don’t think so. You just need to stick to making fun of Noah’s Ark, kissing pookies ass, and quit trying to wax theological - it just makes you look like an even bigger idiot. [/quote]

That difference never flew over my head. Religion SHOULD be a product of faith.

As far as your last sentence, I’m not the one running around calling people retawded and idiotic. I can do better than that, as far as insults go, but have yet to see you do so. You made a whole thread to apologize for doin the same kind of thing on another thread, but you are apparently unable to learn from your mistakes.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pro X,

Something we can agree on!

XCelticX,

“First off, don’t take this as a guy trying to piss off and flame you because you’re Christian. I’m looking for a good discussion…”

This is false advertising. Seems to me your whole intent was to whip up your own jollies by arguing - make that re-arguing - the scientific record that does not promote the existence of a God.
[/quote]

Did you read the thread? SOME people actually WERE having a good discussion. I don’t associate myself with people on either side who happened to come in and start throwing around flames.

I never claimed or suggested what the goal of science is. Don’t put words into my mouth.

I made mention multiple times that many of the arguments being made applied to all religions, some more prominently than others.

So now you can speak for most people? I know QUITE A FEW that would disagree.

So you’re telling me that when it was discovered that dinosaurs and a plethora of other creatures existed before what was thought to be “God’s creation” of Earth, that evidence didn’t matter, or doesn’t matter today? Its very easy for you to simply accomodate your faith to encompass new scientific evidence, but the scientific evidence is the ONLY THING THAT SHOWS ANY PROOF.

I never said there was anything that proved or disproved the existence of God. Everyone knows that. That’s not the point.

Of course it seems a bit unreasonable to me that a God who created everything and wants nothing more than to love us and have us love him won’t show himself, or anything to suggest that he exists. Yet still, thousands go to Church every week, enjoying that crutch.

Ok? Your point?

[quote]
As is, I’ve typed too much on a thread that is predicated on a false bill of goods.[/quote]

‘predicated on a false bill of goods’ LOL. I like that, got anymore sentences that make you sound smart but don’t mean anything slightly relevant?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Seriously, I think that one can statistically show the transfer of energy from one state to another throughout the history of the universe just like you say. BUT - there has to be a beginning point in which there was nothing. No energy, no matter, nothing. In other words energy had to be created from something, which is distinctly contrary to the “Energy cannot be created” part.[/quote]

You want to explain how matter appears out of a void? You can’t.

Oh wait you can, you could just say a God created it. That’s the excuse for everything else you can’t explain, after all.

How bout this:

All of the matter and energy that exists today has always existed.

Its as simple as that, and you have no way to disprove it, while your theory on the other hand(matter/energy coming out of nothingness) is at the least illogical.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
God could prove himself. Why doesn’t he? Not for faith IMO. God is so self evident that we don’t notice the proof on a daily basis, and we come up with justifications. Each of our births was a 1 in 10,000 shot, influenced through SDIC by every breath of every creature before us.
[/quote]

Name any way God is self evident that can’t be easily explained in another way?

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
As far as your last sentence, I’m not the one running around calling people retawded and idiotic. I can do better than that, as far as insults go, but have yet to see you do so. You made a whole thread to apologize for doin the same kind of thing on another thread, but you are apparently unable to learn from your mistakes.[/quote]

Your absolute ignorance in a subject that you wanted to discuss is emabarrassing. But you’ve embarrassed yourself in the other threads you’ve started as well. So you’re either used to it, or just so incredibly Forest Gumpish in your oblivion, that you have no clue.

I insult you because you are an insult to this website.

[quote]haney wrote:
See here is a quote
"Why is it that the accounts of miracles so often quoted and glamorized in Churches today only exist in the Bible? "

I showed you that other cultures have some similiar stories.

You started off by saying many of those stories are not found anywhere else. I was merely showing that some of them do.
[/quote]

I didn’t say Noah’s Ark wasn’t in any other cultures, and if I had, I would be correct anyway. Other cultures have SIMILAR stories, not the same.

[quote]
Also other cultures had a creation story that is similiar. So I would do some research before you make statements like the Bible is the only one that has these stories.

I see no point in replying if you can’t get your facts right.

There are all manners of creation stories all over the globe. How are you going to suggest that more than one culture having similar stories makes those creation beliefs more viable?

Because they match very closly with the Bibles. The idea is that the first people would of had oral tradition that was handed down describing their ideas of creation. Almost none of them are similiar except for three that I know of the Hebrew, Egyptian, and Babylonian accounts.

If the stories are found in other cultures than that would take care of your opening statement that they are not found anywhere else.

You say there are no accounts outside the Bible, and then you say there are. Which one is it?[/quote]

Tell me an account outside of the Bible for Christ rising from the dead. That is from what much of modern Christianity is founded on, isn’t it? You’d think someone besides those who wrote the Bible would’ve noticed and said something…

I don’t care if other cultures/religions have stories that might be considered similar. If what is in the Bible is the truth, it should be concrete in all of those cultures should it not?

[quote]haney wrote:
Didn’t you say there is no way that water could cover the face of the earth even if the polar ice caps melted? I fail to see how that is beside the point then. I Have yet to say the flood existed in this thread. I am just pointing out where you might want to restate some of your previous points[/quote]

Marine fossils being on top of mount everest DOES NOT proved that water covered the face of the Earth, so it IS beside the point.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Your absolute ignorance in a subject that you wanted to discuss is emabarrassing. But you’ve embarrassed yourself in the other threads you’ve started as well. So you’re either used to it, or just so incredibly Forest Gumpish in your oblivion, that you have no clue.

I insult you because you are an insult to this website.[/quote]

See you still avoided giving anything that refutes anything I’ve said. SHOW ME that my ignorance on this subject is embarrassing. You’ve failed miserably to do that so far…

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
haney wrote:
Didn’t you say there is no way that water could cover the face of the earth even if the polar ice caps melted? I fail to see how that is beside the point then. I Have yet to say the flood existed in this thread. I am just pointing out where you might want to restate some of your previous points

Marine fossils being on top of mount everest DOES NOT proved that water covered the face of the Earth, so it IS beside the point.[/quote]

No, it proves that the level of the land changes greatly over time. If the land were more evenly distributed, water could EASILY cover all the land, however were talking plate tectonics and millions of years…

Dear XCelticX,

baby steps

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
See you still avoided giving anything that refutes anything I’ve said. SHOW ME that my ignorance on this subject is embarrassing. You’ve failed miserably to do that so far…[/quote]

I have done that. Others have done that. Please see my Forest Gump reference. I have failed at nothing. I have clearly stated my positions. You, on the other hand, expect people to “know what you are talking about”.

“I never claimed or suggested what the goal of science is. Don’t put words into my mouth.”

Not putting words in your mouth - your whole point in starting the thread was to challenge the assertions of some religious claims by way of science with an underlying goal of supporting the idea that since science debunks these claims, it doesn’t make sense to believe in a God.

Which is objectively false.

“So now you can speak for most people? I know QUITE A FEW that would disagree.”

Very well, and who are these people that haven’t reconciled their faith with the modern state of science?

They are neither atheists nor fundamentalists, since both these camps have decided that there is no conflict and have chosen their side.

So who are these conflicted souls that can’t seem to square their beliefs with science? I believe they are there, I just think most people who have thought about this stuff have either picked a pole (atheist or fundamentalist) or situated themselves in between.

“So you’re telling me that when it was discovered that dinosaurs and a plethora of other creatures existed before what was thought to be “God’s creation” of Earth, that evidence didn’t matter, or doesn’t matter today?”

When did I say that that evidence didn’t matter? Again, your beef is with a small section of the population that regard themselves as literalists. Your overwhelming mistake is lumping everyone who professes to be a Christian to be a literalist.

“Its very easy for you to simply accomodate your faith to encompass new scientific evidence, but the scientific evidence is the ONLY THING THAT SHOWS ANY PROOF.”

That’s exactly right, and you keep missing the point - faith is not supposed to be a means of proof.

“Of course it seems a bit unreasonable to me that a God who created everything and wants nothing more than to love us and have us love him won’t show himself, or anything to suggest that he exists. Yet still, thousands go to Church every week, enjoying that crutch.”

Crutch? So objective.

Again, I repeat my earlier claim - if we had proof, there’d be no reason for faith. Assume God shows himself according to your hypothetical - what then? What’s left to do? There is no test of character - you’ve been handed the answers to the quiz.

“Ok? Your point?”

Point is claiming “science” leads to “atheism” is bogus - “science” is thus far silent on the existence of a God. Perhaps you don’t believe the claims of the Bible - the flood, earth being created in 7 days, etc. - based on what you know about scientific evidence. Great. What does that have to do with whether a God exists or not?

My point is…it doesn’t. The decision to believe will have to made with something more than the state of science.

“‘predicated on a false bill of goods’ LOL. I like that, got anymore sentences that make you sound smart but don’t mean anything slightly relevant?”

Tons of them, but I’ll try and keep this manageable so you can follow.