|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
I am pasting what I said regarding this passage here. I am not going to debate with you any longer, for you have a right to believe what you want to believe as well. I will just say that the Bible does not teach that the world is flat, that is just you interpretation of various passages. Here is my earlier post on the passage in Isaiah. I have nothing more to add than this other than I never said I was trying to make the Bible a scientific text, only that in many areas it had amazing scientific accuracy. ( The earth hanging in space on nothing, the fact that the stars are innumerable, the description of the hydrological cycle ( Ecclessiestes 1:7), the fact that the stars are all unique, ( 1 Corinthiand 15:41) etc Show me where I said the Bible was a scientific text. You are just putting your own spin/interpretation on what I am saying. Here's the earlier post... Now, lets look at what the text says... Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in... 1. The word translated "sit" here is the Hebrew word "Yashab" which means to dwell, remain, sit, abide. 2. God is said to sit or abide upon the "circle", ( or compass) of the earth. Nowhere does the Bible say that the surface of the earth is God's dwelling place or the place where He sits, ( heaven is God's throne and the earth is His footstool, and the Heaven of heavens cannot ( fully) contain God according to the Bible). 3. A variant reading is He sits "above" the circle of the earth. Here is the phrase in a few other translations. a. He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, ( NIV) b. God sits above the circle of the earth. ( NLT) c. It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth. ( ASV) 4. ...the inhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers... This represents God as in an exalted position far above the earth, so exalted that all the inhabitants of the earth are seen as if they are grasshoppers, or more properly Locusts. Edit- of course we believe that God is everywhere, but this idea includes the idea that God is transcendant over the universe. "The idea is that God is so exalted, that, as he looks down from that elevated station, all the inhabitants of the world appear to him as locusts - a busy, agirated, moving, impatient multitude, spread over the vast circle of the earth beneath him - as locusts spread in almost interminable bands over the plains in the East. " ( Barnes notes on the Bible) 5. What would the appearance of the earth be from high above it? Would you see a sphere or a circle. The writer is saying that God is high above the earth beholding it's inhabitants. From God's perspective, high above the earth, the earth.would appear to be a circle. The word circle at this point is not referring to the shape of the earth but a circular pattern, but don't stop there... 6. God is not merely at one point above the earth, for the Bible teaches God is Omnipresent, and He does not merely see one part of the earth, because He is all seeing, so God sees the whole earth from all perspectives simultaneously from His lofty position. He is not looking down at a flat earth, He is looking at a spherical earth from all perspectives simultaneously. Only God can do this. 7. If God sees the earth from all perspectives simultaneously, and it is always a circle before Him, then that would indicate that the earth is a sphere.. If it were a flat circle, it would not appear as a circle from all perspectives, would it? 8. This passage is mainly speaking of God's exalted position and transcendance above the earth. In the end, let's just agree to disagree. 
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/13/11 02:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Show me where I said the Bible was a scientific text.
Isn't your whole argument based on the idea that the Bible correctly predicted later scientific truths?
I'm not saying you're designating it a scientific text, but you're trying to apply logic to a book that doesn't have any.
It's a centuries old text that deals in the supernatural. It doesn't need to coincide with scientific truths.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,553
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,553 |
I still haven't figured out why what other people believe is so important to you.  I don't understand why people having faith (by definition, something believed despite no tangible evidence thereof) is such a danger to you that you have to fight it at every turn. You claim that you don't believe in God .... then that's fine. You don't have to. You've been exposed to God in the form of religion, and you have decided that there is no God as far as you're concerned. That's your choice. The choice to believe in God is a choice for other people to make.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Show me where I said the Bible was a scientific text.
Isn't your whole argument based on the idea that the Bible correctly predicted later scientific truths?
I'm not saying you're designating it a scientific text, but you're trying to apply logic to a book that doesn't have any.
It's a centuries old text that deals in the supernatural. It doesn't need to coincide with scientific truths.
No the Bible didnt predict them, it just mentions them.
The Bible has no logic? Youre saying there is nothing in the Bible that is not logical?
I never said it needed to coincide with scientific truths, I just said that in many cases it does.
Would you agree with the following statements and or principles?
The life of the body is in the blood.
The earth hangs in space.
The stars are so numerous that is impossible to count them.
Evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.
When someone has certain diseases, like leprosy, you should quarantine them to avoid infecting someone else, ( germs)
One side of the earth has daylight while the other side has night.
Increasing entropy
All of these facts and principles and others are mentioned in the Bible. Again, I am not saying the Bible is a scientific text, that is not its intention, but to say that the Bible is entirely illogical and unscientific shows a basic ignorance of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I still haven't figured out why what other people believe is so important to you.
Who said it was?
But, y'know, when somebody wants to talk about the ten legged stegosaurus that created the earth ... well, I'm probably going to throw my two cents in. And it's probably going to be snarky, because they believe in a ten legged omnipotent stegosaurus.
My question is why do people have such a problem with me poking fun at it?
I've never told people not to believe. Ever. In fact, almost every religious thread on this board, I always tell people to continue to express their beliefs. If they believe it, they should share it.
The only time the idiocy of religion becomes a real problem with me is when it negatively effects the greater society, which it often does - war, sex education, contraception, the basis of law on the moralities that have been twisted from the fables of the text, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,553
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,553 |
Perhaps it's because peoples' faith is important to them .... so you acting like having faith in nothing is somehow a superior, rather than an alternative belief system, is offensive.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Increasing entropy? Really? Could you post it for me? Quote:
but to say that the Bible is entirely illogical and unscientific shows a basic ignorance of the Bible.
If it's not testable, it's not "scientific."
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Perhaps it's because peoples' faith is important to them .... so you acting like having faith in nothing is somehow a superior, rather than an alternative belief system, is offensive.
a) if it's that important to them, they should have thicker skin about it.
I get razzed by people all the time for my obsession with the Browns. I get pointed out the fallacies in logic, and the inordinate waste of time, and the YouTube watching of 7th round draft picks ...
... and at the end of the day I know it's kind of stupid and illogical. But I don't care, and the wisecracks don't bother me.
And I never said I was superior. Someone who believes that a talking snake had a hand in man's early stages is no less superior than I am ... smart people, noble people, good people, wise people -- they all have some form or crazy nonsense that they say or do. There's no superiority to it.
There's a whole host of illogical beleifs and behaviors I've held and hold (certainly someone will quote that particular passage).
People get made fun of for their ideas and beliefs on this board constantly -- hell, [you have been a part of it before. So have I. I don't know of many posters who can claim otherwise. But for some reason it doesn't seem to bother you until it comes to Christianity.
And the great majority of the time, the things that i say that are considered offensive are things that are pretty much a direct part of the belief system -- a talking snake in a garden, a man carrying two of every animal on a boat, a hippie socialist Jewish carpenter rising from the dead.
If you want to have faith in Christianity, go for it, and spread the word ... but be prepared to deal with how illogical and crazy it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps it's because peoples' faith is important to them .... so you acting like having faith in nothing is somehow a superior, rather than an alternative belief system, is offensive.
a) if it's that important to them, they should have thicker skin about it.
I agree with you but you know.. you tell one athiests 8 year old kid that his dad is going to hell and all of the sudden they don't have thick skin either. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps it's because peoples' faith is important to them .... so you acting like having faith in nothing is somehow a superior, rather than an alternative belief system, is offensive.
a) if it's that important to them, they should have thicker skin about it.
I agree with you but you know.. you tell one athiests 8 year old kid that his dad is going to hell and all of the sudden they don't have thick skin either.
I think that's a different context, and it's made so by the inclusion of an 8 year old.
If someone told me I was going to hell, I'd laugh and make fun of them.
If someone told my kid that, that's a whole different worm ... if my kid overheard it or saw it on TV or something, that' wouldn't be a problem, either. That's what parents are there for.
When I talk to children or they ask me questions about anything, I usually make a habit of asking what their parents think.
On the whole, I agree with you ... atheists are often as dogmatic as the religious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Increasing entropy? Really? Could you post it for me?
Quote:
but to say that the Bible is entirely illogical and unscientific shows a basic ignorance of the Bible.
If it's not testable, it's not "scientific."
Hebrews 1:10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
The universe had a beginning.
The heavens and earth that now exist will one day perish.
They are waxing old like a garment.
They will be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
To be honest, I have no problem at all with anyones posts. I am just happy that the subject is being discussed and thought about. It looks like everyone disagrees with me, and as Phil said I'm getting murdered  , but I dont mind at all, because at least were discussing it. I'm not at all afraid of people disagreeing with me, and I don't get offended. My faith system is not nearly that shallow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps it's because peoples' faith is important to them .... so you acting like having faith in nothing is somehow a superior, rather than an alternative belief system, is offensive.
a) if it's that important to them, they should have thicker skin about it.
I get razzed by people all the time for my obsession with the Browns. I get pointed out the fallacies in logic, and the inordinate waste of time, and the YouTube watching of 7th round draft picks ...
... and at the end of the day I know it's kind of stupid and illogical. But I don't care, and the wisecracks don't bother me.
And I never said I was superior. Someone who believes that a talking snake had a hand in man's early stages is no less superior than I am ... smart people, noble people, good people, wise people -- they all have some form or crazy nonsense that they say or do. There's no superiority to it.
There's a whole host of illogical beleifs and behaviors I've held and hold (certainly someone will quote that particular passage).
People get made fun of for their ideas and beliefs on this board constantly -- hell, [you have been a part of it before. So have I. I don't know of many posters who can claim otherwise. But for some reason it doesn't seem to bother you until it comes to Christianity.
And the great majority of the time, the things that i say that are considered offensive are things that are pretty much a direct part of the belief system -- a talking snake in a garden, a man carrying two of every animal on a boat, a hippie socialist Jewish carpenter rising from the dead.
If you want to have faith in Christianity, go for it, and spread the word ... but be prepared to deal with how illogical and crazy it is.
To be honest, I have no problem at all with anyones posts. I am just happy that the subject is being discussed and thought about. It looks like everyone disagrees with me, and as Phil said I'm getting murdered , but I dont mind at all, because at least were discussing it. I'm not at all afraid of people disagreeing with me, and I don't get offended. My faith system is not nearly that shallow.
I am also happy because I am learning from your responses. I'm happy to hear the other side of the debate in this forum. Like I said, I am not blindly following a religion, I have examined the evidence and have become convinced that God is real and the Bible is true. I am not trying to prove that proposition, I am just giving reasons for my belief. as the Bible says to always be ready to give a reason of the hope that you have. I think most of you misunderstood my intentions.
Perhaps the fact that we keep posting shows that the discussion is beneficial to all of us. With that I will end my part in this discussion.
Blessings to all.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/13/11 06:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
BTW thanks for taking this position YTown. I would also like to say that even though they disagreed with me, Draftdayz, Purple, and a couple others were very civil and engaging in their posts. It's good to be able to discuss issues like these without namecalling and insults. Draftdayz, you especially gave me some food for thought, not that your points cause me to doubt what I believe, but they you provided some wonderful information. I believe that nature and the universe is a testament to the majesty of God, so the posts in which you shared your knowledge of the wonders of the solar system, galaxy, universe were appreciated. Ok, now I'm done, I promise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Draftdayz, you especially gave me some food for thought, not that your points cause me to doubt what I believe, but they you provided some wonderful information.
My goal wasn't to change belief, just inform. Thanks for the conversation.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I didn't mean you were getting 'murdered' in the overall debate ... it's essentially a debate no one can really 'win'.
But rather your insistence that there's is scientific evidence in the Bible. There isn't any.
Does that disprove it? No, not necessarily. But I think it's the wrong tree for a theist to bark up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Are you saying that there is no evidence behind Christianity.
I'm not saying a man named Jesus didn't exist, and that the religion that sprang up from his teachings doesn't exist. What I'm debating is your use of the word "fact" and what constitutes as it. You can't point to an unverifiable bible verse and use it as fact, it's a total misuse of the word.
In your own words in this thread you've said that spiritual reality is unknowable and untestable by Man because we can't perceive it, it's beyond our senses. That makes religion extremely UNfactual as there's no way to verify it. However, that doesn't mean there's no truth.
________________________________________________________________
I didnt notice the above statements at first, and I thought that this needed to be responded to. When I used the word fact, the definition that I intended was the first definition below, not the third. I know that spiritual things like life after death and the existence of God cannot be observed or proven scientifically but that doesnt mean that they don't exist, are not real, or have no truth. There are many things that are unknown and untested.
fact   /fækt/ Show Spelled
[fakt] Show IPA
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation;
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
My intention was not to prove the Bible or the existence of God scientifically. I was merely trying to state that many things that the Bible states about nature have been shown to be consistent with what has later been discovered by science. Additionally, this was only a very small part of the overall discussion, which was " Is it unreasonable to believe in God and in the truth of the Bible" in response to those who state it is. In fact, this post did not start out as an argument for the existence of God, it started out as a poem, and then many responded by trying to demonstrate the non-existence of God.
The debate was not me saying that I can prove the existence of God, but rather a response to others who were arguing that the Bible is inconsistant with itself and scientific discoveries. All of my posts were in answer to these assertions.
Fullfilled prophecies, archaeological discoveries, internal consistency, external verification, and scientific accuracy were all discussed,
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/17/11 10:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I know that spiritual things like life after death and the existence of God cannot be observed or proven scientifically but that doesnt mean that they don't exist, are not real, or have no truth.
The method of science only deals with with observable. If you can't witness it, then test and verify it, you can't say it exists and incorporate it into working scientific theories. It's the problem with Intelligent design and creationism.
Quote:
There are many things that are unknown and untested.
But that doesn't give us free reign to believe anything that comes along. You're using a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance" in order to make your argument.
To be honest, my only point in joining this thread was to point out that:
A.) Science makes no mention of an all-knowing being or an afterlife because it deals only with the observable
B.) Science is, and never was, at odds with religion. As long as religion doesn't take itself too literally, then Science can't step in to correct it.
C.) Human's are great at pattern recognition, and we do so to alleviate inner cognitive pressures. It's why science is a necessary "check" when we observe the universe so we can't insert our bias.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
I don't know where I appealed to ignorance. I wasnt even arguing anything you just said, just stating that I was not trying to prove my beliefs scientifically, I was merely stating that there is evidence that points to the Bible being a supernaturally written book. Evidence, not proof. Everyone is stumbling over the misconception that I am saying that the Bible is a science text. I am saying that scientific discoveries seem to indicate that the Bible is not a mere human invention. Do you see the difference?
When did people have scientific knowledge that the earth was suspended in space? The oldest book in the Bible says " God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing..." ( Job 26:7). How many ways is there to interpret the earth hanging on nothing, or the fact that God stretches out the sky over empty space.... How about the fact that the stars were innumerable? When did science discover that, and what did the ancients believe about the number of stars. How did the ancient Hebrews know that the ideal time to circumcise a child was at 8 days old?
The point is, did the biblical writers know these things by natural means? If this things were well known facts of science by the time of the Biblical books writings, then I guess there is no argument. Please enlighten me. What did ancient science know regarding these truths 2,000 - 4000 years before Christ?
with regards
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/17/11 08:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
I don't know where I appealed to ignorance. I wasnt even arguing anything you just said, just stating that I was not trying to prove my beliefs scientifically, I was merely stating that there is evidence that points to the Bible being a supernaturally written book. Evidence, not proof. Everyone is stumbling over the misconception that I am saying that the Bible is a science text. I am saying that scientific discoveries seem to indicate that the Bible is not a mere human invention. Do you see the difference?
When did people have scientific knowledge that the earth was suspended in space? The oldest book in the Bible says " God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing..." ( Job 26:7). How many ways is there to interpret the earth hanging on nothing, or the fact that God stretches out the sky over empty space.... How about the fact that the stars were innumerable? When did science discover that, and what did the ancients believe about the number of stars. How did the ancient Hebrews know that the ideal time to circumcise a child was at 8 days old?
The point is, did the biblical writers know these things by natural means? If this things were well known facts of science by the time of the Biblical books writings, then I guess there is no argument. Please enlighten me. What did ancient science know regarding these truths 2,000 - 4000 years before Christ?
with regards
..Or to make it concise: it cannot be proven empirically but it is reasonable to believe the verity of the Bible. Science as you describe it is empirical knowlegde. I'm not dealing with empirical proofs, but evidence based on both revelation and reason. My argument t is that faith is a reasonable faith, even though it cannot be proven empirically.
I agree with you regarding the fact that the Bible cannot be proven empirically. Even the Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen... So on this issue I don't see us as disagreeing, though we may or may not come to different conclusions in the end.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/18/11 12:31 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
My argument t is that faith is a reasonable faith, even though it cannot be proven empirically.
rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
There is nothing reasonable about believing that a man rose from the dead, or that a man loaded two of every animal onto an arc that he built by himself, or that a talking snake told a woman to eat an apple, and that's why there's sin, etc., etc., etc.
The Bible is entirely unreasonable.
Now, that doesn't disprove it ... but to call it reasonable by any stretch .... I don't see how you can say that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
There is nothing reasonable about believing that a man rose from the dead, or that a man loaded two of every animal onto an arc that he built by himself, or that a talking snake told a woman to eat an apple, and that's why there's sin, etc., etc., etc.
The Bible is entirely unreasonable.
Now, that doesn't disprove it ... but to call it reasonable by any stretch .... I don't see how you can say that.
I've looked around... I find it every bit as reasonable to believe that we were created by a divine God as I do to believe that there was a big ball of inorganic gas and matter that nobody knows where it came from and everything that we see developed out of it by some great cosmic accident.
So you can mock and/or debate the stories of the Bible if you want to and pick them apart as either real or metaphoric.... but in the end, there is a God because that is a far more reasonable explanation than the alternative... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
My argument t is that faith is a reasonable faith, even though it cannot be proven empirically.
rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
There is nothing reasonable about believing that a man rose from the dead, or that a man loaded two of every animal onto an arc that he built by himself, or that a talking snake told a woman to eat an apple, and that's why there's sin, etc., etc., etc.
The Bible is entirely unreasonable.
Now, that doesn't disprove it ... but to call it reasonable by any stretch .... I don't see how you can say that.
So which do you believe?
a. The universe always existed or
b. The universe had a beginning.
additional questions to think about...
If the universe had a beginning, was it created or did it come to exist on it's own?
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Was there a time when nothing existed? If not, what is eternal? If so, how did "something" spring out of nothing.
Can science even answer these questions? If not, where do we find the answers? Can these questions be answered by science, history, reason, or revelation, or are they unanswerable? If they are unanswerable, why are you debating me about it?
The way I see it, there is only three possiblilities.
1. There is a creator .
2. The universe is eternal.
3. The universe began to exist on its own.
Regarding miracles like the resurrection of Jesus and Noah's ark: whether or not the belief in miracles is reasonable is dependant on whether or not the belief in God is reasonable For if one believes that their is a God, then the belief in miracles, ( events that cannot be explained by the laws of nature) would certainly not be unreasonable. So the belief in miracles is consistent with theism.
Regarding the talking snake, it was not the snake that was talking, it was an angelic being who spoke through the serpent. The voice that the woman heard was not the serpents voice but satans. If satan had appeared to the woman in his own form, what do you suppose would have happened? I imagine you don't believe in angels and demons either. Does this mean that you dont believe that any beings higher than man exist in the universe.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/18/11 09:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
I concur
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I don't know where I appealed to ignorance.
Google "logical fallacy: Appeal to ignorance." I quoted the text where you did so.
Quote:
When did people have scientific knowledge that the earth was suspended in space? The oldest book in the Bible says " God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing..." ( Job 26:7).
Job 26:7 interpretations
It looks to me like there are many interpretations, some of them not involving your more modern interpretation that encompasses what we now know to be true. Some include a flat earth, some don't, it's pretty much up to the authors. Which is the correct interpretation?
Quote:
How about the fact that the stars were innumerable? When did science discover that, and what did the ancients believe about the number of stars.
Two points. The first is what definition of "stars" is the original author of that passage talking about? What definition of stars were the early astronomers talking about? If a star is just a twinkling object in the sky then it's a pretty good guess that they are innumerable. However, if we're splitting them into categories and other cosmic objects, then we could understand how some people were getting something in the thousands. If there was a different definition being used in these two instances, your point is moot.
My second point is: I guess it depends on the ancients you speak of. Mayans, for instance, had a culture that was radically different than any other culture at the time. They were founded around 2000 BC and have survived to current times. They represent one of the most successful civilizations in the history of our world, yet were far removed from what would be described as normal culture even around the 1st century. Their beliefs aren't based on monotheism. But they also had a highly accurate calendar and advanced mathematics (albeit in base 20 system). Does it say anywhere how many stars they thought exist? Maybe, I don't know.
Quote:
How did the ancient Hebrews know that the ideal time to circumcise a child was at 8 days old?
I've never even heard this. You'll have to explain.
Quote:
The point is, did the biblical writers know these things by natural means? If this things were well known facts of science by the time of the Biblical books writings, then I guess there is no argument. Please enlighten me. What did ancient science know regarding these truths 2,000 - 4000 years before Christ?
As far as I can tell what's written in the bible is more likely based on basic observations of the cycle of celestial objects. I'm not seeing anything too specific and could be expected of any culture that places importance on astronomical observation. And you know what? If they employed a method of observation, prediction, test and then either confirm or re-hypothesize, that's science. So yes, it's probable that they could know these things naturally.
You keep saying things like "facts of science" or Science, as if it were an entity unto itself. However, science is just what I explained above, a way to test the natural world. It's not just for scientists, critical thinkers or philosophers, it's something that everyone does to greater or lesser extents.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
... that there was a big ball of inorganic gas and matter that nobody knows where it came from and everything that we see developed out of it ...
You realize there's quite a bit of substantial evidence that says this is what happened right? I mean, a lot of evidence. And it doesn't say anything about a creator or lack-there-of. So I'm not sure why you think they're mutually exclusive?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
LA, I'd like to know what you know about the Big Bang and the current knowledge of what's going on with our universe. Don't look anything up, don't edit anything. Just type in a blurb, as long or short as you like, and let me see how much you know on the topic at this moment in time.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
The big bang theory is an effort to explain the beginning of the universe. If this theory is true, then the universe had a beginning. The big bang theory teaches that the universe began very small, then something caused it to begin to expand and it has been expanding ever since. Scientists cannot explain what caused this "big bang".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
More or less. Keep in mind this is a scientific Theory, not a layman theory, there is an abundance of evidence that it is based on. And while we don't know why it occurred, we do know that it did occur because of phenomenon like the cosmic microwave background and the expansion of the universe. You can read more about the foundations for the big bang here. The point is, this is verifiable and testable fact. By saying that you're willing to disregard all this evidence in favor of an untenable and inaccurate hypothesis (when there is nothing in it saying that God does or doesn't exist), you're basically taking an illogical, anti-reality, stance.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So which do you believe?
a. The universe always existed or
b. The universe had a beginning.
I don't know.
We've got tapes of Kennedy getting his head blown off, we couldn't figure that one out.
I don't pretend to have that knowledge or even a theory.
Quote:
If they are unanswerable, why are you debating me about it?
Because you're claiming to have the answer.
Quote:
Regarding the talking snake, it was not the snake that was talking, it was an angelic being who spoke through the serpent. The voice that the woman heard was not the serpents voice but satans.
Sorry. For a minute there I thought it was something nutty. 
Quote:
I imagine you don't believe in angels and demons either. Does this mean that you dont believe that any beings higher than man exist in the universe.
No, I don't believe in angels or demons.
No, I don't believe that humans are the highest order of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
So which do you believe?
a. The universe always existed or
b. The universe had a beginning.
I don't know.
We've got tapes of Kennedy getting his head blown off, we couldn't figure that one out.
I don't pretend to have that knowledge or even a theory.
Quote:
If they are unanswerable, why are you debating me about it?
Because you're claiming to have the answer.
Quote:
Regarding the talking snake, it was not the snake that was talking, it was an angelic being who spoke through the serpent. The voice that the woman heard was not the serpents voice but satans.
Sorry. For a minute there I thought it was something nutty.
Quote:
I imagine you don't believe in angels and demons either. Does this mean that you dont believe that any beings higher than man exist in the universe.
No, I don't believe in angels or demons.
No, I don't believe that humans are the highest order of the universe.
I never claimed to have the answer. If you had read this thread from the beginning you would know that it started as a simple poem, and then people started posting with arguments stating that God doesnt exist, ( good luck proving that), and the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales. Everything I have posted has been a response to the objections and criticisms against Christianity, like stating that the existence of evil in the world does not rule out the existence of God, and that the Bible does not contradict itself, science or logic. It is not I, but others that are holding an untenable position when they are seeking to demonstrate the non-existence of God.
We can go around and around with this, with you saying that I cant prove what I believe, and me saying you cant prove that what I believe is false. We could go on forever, and not get anywhere. Like many have said earlier, it is what you choose to believe. Just remember, that I did not bring up the debate of who's beliefs are right or wrong, others did, including you. I never ridiculed our challenged your belief system or anyone elses, as you did mine. Don't get me wrong, I am not offended, just making a point.
I challenge you to find one post where I said someones beliefs were wrong. I was merely stating my beliefs. I will not even say that I am defending my beliefs, for for me to do that is like a mouse (me) defending a lion ( Jesus Christ). I merely say these things for the benefit of those who may have an open mind and be undecided. I just wish someone with more knowledge and expertise was available to present these points, but there's just ignorant old me.
By the way, if you dont think that man is the highest life form in the universe, then what is?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
What part of the big bang theory do my statements disagree with? I know the theory does not mention God, but other than that what did I say that was opposed to this theory?
Not that I'm saying I agree with this theory, but suppose this theory is absolutely true. What besides the fact that it doesnt prove God or the supernatural is in contradiction to what I'm saying.
I am just a layperson, so please enlighten me. I appreciate your comments.
By the way, thank you for the link. I am looking forward to reading it.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/18/11 04:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
What part of the big bang theory do my statements disagree with?
No part.
Quote:
Not that I'm saying I agree with this theory, but suppose this theory is absolutely true.
Again, it's not "just a theory." This is a scientific theory which is much more different than a layman theory. For a quick synopsis on the difference you can read about the differences here.
Quote:
What besides the fact that it doesnt prove God or the supernatural is in contradiction to what I'm saying.
You and DC said you didn't believe it and scoffed at the probability of it. I offered both of you evidence for it as fact, and a reminder that the only thing it contradicts is the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old, which isn't even in the Bible.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
By the way, if you dont think that man is the highest life form in the universe, then what is?
Does it matter? If we're found or find an alien race and they're more advanced than we are, how can we even say that we're better than them?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I challenge you to find one post where I said someones beliefs were wrong. I was merely stating my beliefs. I will not even say that I am defending my beliefs, for for me to do that is like a mouse (me) defending a lion ( Jesus Christ). I merely say these things for the benefit of those who may have an open mind and be undecided. I just wish someone with more knowledge and expertise was available to present these points, but there's just ignorant old me.
You posted a poem, which as I said earlier in the thread, was a great thing to do to express your beliefs.
Around here, any thread you start on religion is going to turn into a theological debate (unless it deals with Islam, in which case it usually boils down to mass genocide). And we go around and around for ten pages. Happens a few times a year.
Quote:
By the way, if you dont think that man is the highest life form in the universe, then what is?
I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
What part of the big bang theory do my statements disagree with?
No part.
Quote:
Not that I'm saying I agree with this theory, but suppose this theory is absolutely true.
Again, it's not "just a theory." This is a scientific theory which is much more different than a layman theory. For a quick synopsis on the difference you can read about the differences here.
Quote:
What besides the fact that it doesnt prove God or the supernatural is in contradiction to what I'm saying.
You and DC said you didn't believe it and scoffed at the probability of it. I offered both of you evidence for it as fact, and a reminder that the only thing it contradicts is the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old, which isn't even in the Bible.
QUOTEI've looked around... I find it every bit as reasonable to believe that we were created by a divine God as I do to believe that there was a big ball of inorganic gas and matter that nobody knows where it came from and everything that we see developed out of it by some great cosmic accident. UNQUOTE
This is DCs post. Notice he said that he doesnt believe that the universe developed by accident. Does the big bang theory categorically state that the formation of the universe was an accident, or is that question unanswered.
It is on this point that I agreed with DC, that the belief in God is just as rational as the belief that the universe is one big cosmic "accident, or random chance. Can I hold to this belief and still believe in a big bang?
the Bottom line is that the big bang shows that the universe had a beginning and that the universe is expanding. Christians do not argue that, in fact theyve always said that the universe had a beginning.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the face of the deep. And the spirit moved upon the face of the water. and God said...
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/18/11 05:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
I challenge you to find one post where I said someones beliefs were wrong. I was merely stating my beliefs. I will not even say that I am defending my beliefs, for for me to do that is like a mouse (me) defending a lion ( Jesus Christ). I merely say these things for the benefit of those who may have an open mind and be undecided. I just wish someone with more knowledge and expertise was available to present these points, but there's just ignorant old me.
You posted a poem, which as I said earlier in the thread, was a great thing to do to express your beliefs.
Around here, any thread you start on religion is going to turn into a theological debate (unless it deals with Islam, in which case it usually boils down to mass genocide). And we go around and around for ten pages. Happens a few times a year.
Quote:
By the way, if you dont think that man is the highest life form in the universe, then what is?
I don't know.
I know. Ive been involved in one or two. I dont mind debating theology, I actually enjoy it. I apologize that I was a little combative in the last response to you. I may have wrongly interpreted the tone of your post.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/18/11 05:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I'm quite sure that if God created the universe then wherever he was at the time would have to be considered the "center" of that universe and logically that universe would be expanding away from that center. Fortunately I have a 7 year old daughter so I know exactly where the center of the universe is..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Yes, our children indeed are precious. May the Lord richly bless your daughter, and bless you as a father.
Regarding the big bang, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I accept it as a way of describing the way God created the universe. I don't know enough about the theory to say that. I have not studied it enough to say I've accepted that theory and all its implications, I'm just saying that it the Bible and this theory are not necessarily at odds with each other.
I do agree that God was at the center of the universe in creation, in fact I hold to a theocentric universe. God is both exalted and transcendant above all things yet at the same time very near and omnipresent. Some interpret Revelation 4-5, the description of the appearance of God and the Lamb, as showing a theocentric universe, with God in the center, then the highest of angels, then all the angels, then the redeemed in heaven, then all creation, as all creation in heaven and earth give a thunderous ovation to the glory of God.
6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.”
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they were saying:
“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!”
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”
14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshi
Absolutely mind blowing
If God is in the center, and the universe is expanding that makes the following verse very interesting....
Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. ( although this last verse is referring to the final judgement, not the present time. Yet it is interesting.)
God Bless
.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/18/11 06:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Does the big bang theory categorically state that the formation of the universe was an accident, or is that question unanswered.
Just that it happened. We don't have a "why" and maybe never will.
Quote:
Can I hold to this belief and still believe in a big bang?
They only thing that you couldn't believe is that the universe is 6000 years old. The Big Bang Theory precludes that idea and shows that the universe's age is somewhere around 14.5 billion years old. This is fact.
Have you read the last website about "just a theory?"
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The vision
|
|
