If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[ZenMode]

haven't I?

No.

God/Jesus only made himself known when man was at his most superstitious and there were no video recording devices.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

That is a rather big mystery and conundrum that you casually blew by.

Why would a lawfully organized, mathematically rational, finely tuned universe just blink into existence by purely inanimate random chance?

There has never, ever been any situation in your life where the rational came from the irrational, and where something came from nothing.

You just took it for granted that a mathematically rational universe exists without even pausing to ask the deeper question 'why?'

Where did these universal laws of physics come from and why do they exist? Does it seem logical to you that they could just result from chance and purely inanimate reasons?

there we have it.

I guess gaza babies deserve to die.

 

[ZenMode]

That is a rather big mystery and conundrum that you casually blew by.

Why would a lawfully organized, mathematically rational, finely tuned universe just blink into existence by purely inanimate random chance?

There has never, ever been any situation in your life where the rational came from the irrational, and where something came from nothing.

You just took it for granted that a mathematically rational universe exists without even pausing to ask the deeper question 'why?'

Where did these universal laws of physics come from and why do they exist? Does it seem logical to you that they could just result from chance and purely inanimate reasons?

We don't know how the universe came into existence and I'm fine with that.

You want to fill in the knowledge gap w/ a god.

The knowledge gaps are really the only reason there is to believe....the same reason man believed in gods 2000+ years ago.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

No.

God/Jesus only made himself known when man was at his most superstitious and there were no video recording devices.

miracles aren't the point.

the point is morality and the golden rule is the solution.

everyone misses Jesus one most important teaching on purpose.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

We don't know how the universe came into existence and I'm fine with that.

You want to fill in the knowledge gap w/ a god.

create the gap, fill it with god.

Zionist douchebaggery.

 

[ZenMode]

miracles aren't the point.

the point is morality and the golden rule is the solution.

everyone misses Jesus one most important teaching on purpose.

God and the divine Jesus dont need to exist for the writings about them to matter.

 

[ZenMode]

create the gap, fill it with god.

Zionist douchebaggery.

No need to create gaps. Religious people find them all the time and fill that gap with god.

"My grandmother had stage 4 cancer and is now cancer free!"

God did it, of course

 

[Cypress]

You're running cover for ridiculous, anti-science claims of the Bible.

The Bible isn't a scientific report.
Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry, you don't read poetry like it's a peer reviewed scientific report.

At the level of metaphor and poetry, Genesis 1 is actually a pretty decent description of life, the universe, and everything: there was a void, then a moment of creation, then the creation of land and waters, then the appearance of plants, then the appearance of animals, then lastly the appearance of humans.

That's really not a bad summary at the level of metaphor.

~100 years ago, Einstein and other scientists throught the universe was infinitely old and had always existed. In a way, Genesis was closer to the truth.

Most Christians believe the Bible is literal BECAUSE it's sold as the Word of God.

No, it is Protestants believe in strict literalism. And usually that's only the fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a minority in world Christianity.

But you should read everything literally. Science, poetry, history, Scripture. What you really have to decide is how to interpret those words, and understand what kind of genre you are reading. You don't read poetry the same way you read a physics paper or a historical biography.

 

[gfm7175]

So, you believe God can change the atomic structure of water to make a liquid into a solid so a person can walk on it?

I believe that God, the creator of the heavens and the Earth, knows the ins and outs of his own creation.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

God and the divine Jesus dont need to exist for the writings about them to matter.

right. because Jesus's moral teaching is the payload, not his existence.

can you dig such a deep thought?

 

[Cypress]

Random equations are no the Universe, Clanker.

Nothing random about them. They are universal mathematical principles which matter and energy conform to.

We aren't living in a disorganized, unlawful universe. That is one of the clues which the logical person infers that life, the universe, and everything didn't happen by random chance and by purely inanimate reasons.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Atheism, specifically implicit atheism is nothing more or less than a failure to believe someone else's claims of a God.

Okay...that is the claim.

MY CLAIM is that every person who uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor is motivated to do so by something other than a failure to "believe" someone else's claims of a god.

I say EVERY one of them either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Are you saying you do not "believe" there are no gods...and that it is NOT more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

You use the exact same reasoning every single day.

That sounds like a compliment. But you did not seem to realize that it was.

So why don't you allow it for atheists?

I do. But let's examine my position re why a person uses "atheist."

You don't believe me when I tell you I'm 8' tall and can summon lightning just because I claim it. So why don't you allow that atheism can be that?

I do accept that people who call themselves atheists do NOT "believe" claims of others who claim a "belief" in a god.

I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY GODS.

AND, OF COURSE, I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS.

(Not the same thing!)

So...discuss.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

The Bible isn't a scientific report.
Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry, you don't read poetry like it's a peer reviewed scientific report.

At the level of metaphor and poetry, Genesis 1 is actually a pretty decent description of life, the universe, and everything: there was a void, then a moment of creation, then the creation of land and waters, then the appearance of plants, then the appearance of animals, then lastly the appearance of humans.

That's really not a bad summary at the level of metaphor.

~100 years ago, Einstein and other scientists throught the universe was infinitely old and had always existed. In a way, Genesis was closer to the truth.

No, it is Protestants believe in strict literalism. And usually that's only the fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a minority in world Christianity.

But you should read everything literally. Science, poetry, history, Scripture. What you really have to decide is how to interpret those words, and understand what kind of genre you are reading. You don't read poetry the same way you read a physics paper or a historical biography.

you're a total fucking idiot.

 

[ZenMode]

The Bible isn't a scientific report.

Nobody has said it's a scientific report.

As I have said repeatedly, the Bible makes claims that directly oppose science.

I've listed them.

If you've ever seen the first Harry Potter movie, at one point he walks through the wall in the train station. Does that mean that the first Harry Potter is a scientific report? Obviously not, but the book and movie both make claims that go against science.

Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry, you don't read poetry like it's a peer reviewed scientific report.

That is not a fact. That is the opinion of some people. Again, even if you take away the creation story, there are a dozen other claims that go against science.

At the level of metaphor and poetry, Genesis 1 is actually a pretty decent description of life, the universe, and everything: there was a void, then a moment of creation, then the creation of land and waters, then the appearance of plants, then the appearance of animals, then lastly the appearance of humans.

That's really not a bad summary at the level of metaphor.

~100 years ago, Einstein and other scientists throught the universe was infinitely old and had always existed. In a way, Genesis was closer to the truth.

No, it is Protestants believe in strict literalism. And usually that's only the fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a minority in world Christianity.

Regardless of who believes what, the Bible is claimed to be the Word of God and there are multiple claims in there that directly go against science.

But you should read everything literally. Science, poetry, history, Scripture. What you really have to decide is how to interpret those words, and understand what kind of genre you are reading. You don't read poetry the same way you read a physics paper or a historical biography.

The Bible is claimed to be the Word of God and it repeatedly makes claims that go against science. All of the side stories and other assumptions will not change that.

**In fact, one of the claims is literally the entire basis for Christianity. The claim that Jesus came back from the dead after 3 days.

 

[Cypress]

you're a total fucking idiot!

It strengthens my case that posters of the quality of you and IntoTheNightgown are so adamantly convinced I am wrong

 

[ZenMode]

It strengthens my case that posters of the quality of you and IntoTheNightgown are so adamantly convinced I am wrong

He's an angry elf.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

It strengthens my case that posters of the quality of you and IntoTheNightgown are so adamantly convinced I am wrong

I'm happy with my position as well.

 

[gfm7175]

The Bible, according to many, many, many Christians, is the word of God and is taken literally as such.

Yes, The Bible is the Word of God.

The creation of everything in 7 days is taking literally.

By some Christians, but not all. Were you there when the creation of the heavens and the Earth occurred? I know that I wasn't there. I have no clue how it happened. I can only go by what The Bible says (and be aware of the issues that can arise from translating between different languages).

The existence of Adam and Eve is taking literally.

Yes. Adam and Eve literally existed.

The fall is taking literally.

Yes, "The Fall" is a historical event.

A belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old is also taken very literally by many Christians.

Some Christians believe that the Earth is thousands of years old (usually somewhere around 6,000 - 10,000 years old is believed). Other Christians believe that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. The age of the Earth is unknown (The Bible doesn't specify).

Even if you take away the age of the Earth, there are still a dozen events in the Bible that fly in the face of science. I've listed them multiple times.

You have yet to demonstrate how miracles didn't or can't occur. You have yet to demonstrate how you know more about the inner-workings of the heavens and the earth than the very creator of them.

By the way, this is a separate topic from the god of the gaps discussion. It's clear that you and many others here are 100% on the god of the gaps bandwagon.

What "gaps"? It seems that you have your preconceived notions about Christianity, and you are forever going to stick to them, regardless of any input from me, Into The Night, or anyone else.

 

[Cypress]

I'm happy with my position as well.

You haven't said anything intelligible or coherent.

 

[gfm7175]

No.

God/Jesus only made himself known when man was at his most superstitious and there were no video recording devices.

Why would the existence of video recording devices make any sort of a difference?

I've, time and time again, literally watched people deny doing what they were caught on video doing, even after they were provided and/or directly shown the video of themselves doing it.

Why would you think that all sorts of people would suddenly accept Jesus Christ as their LORD and Savior if they simply saw a video recording of him performing a miracle or two? In fact, there were plenty of people who were RIGHT THERE IN PERSON all the while he was performing miracles who still didn't accept him as their LORD and Savior.