ZenMode
Well-known member
"I have to admit, it sounds rather miraclous on its face. Clearly a miracle would have had to have occurred"
Science isn't situational. It applies always.
If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Science isn't situational. It applies always.
Into the Night
Verified User
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
Genealogy is not an age.
No, I'm a human being. Jackasses can't type very well.
What's wrong with what?
So you DO believe the Bible.
Nah. Just religious. Not a fundamentalist, like you.
The Democrat party is a conspiracy. It is no theory.
And I do, just as you do.
Why would I use the most recent lifespan for the genealogy described in Luke?? Presentism fallacy.
A widely varying human lifespan has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Luke does not describe the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth is unknown.
ZenMode
Well-known member
"Genealogy is not an age."
I've explained the connection between genealogy and the age of the Earth multiple times. You already replied to it, so you know exactly what I'm talking about. That means you also know that I'm not saying genealogy is age.
That being the case, I am stopping at this point. When you decide to stop playing dumb, I will respond to you.
Into the Night
Verified User
Science is not a religion. It doesn't apply.
Science is not a circular argument. It doesn't apply.
Science is not a logical fallacy. It doesn't apply.
Science is not a person. It doesn't apply.
Go learn what' science' means.
Into the Night
Verified User
Genealogy is not an age. There is no connection. Non-sequitur fallacy.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
So you are 'tipping your king' again.
ZenMode
Well-known member
"Genealogy is not an age. There is no connection. Non-sequitur fallacy."
Not surprising at all that you are also anti-math.
Oh, in regard to your comment earlier about believing the Bible because I pointed out the flaw in Joseph's genealogy...
It's not a surprising at all that you would take the troll-est position as relates to my comment. It should be abundantly clear that I do not believe in the Bible. That doesn't mean that I don't know what the Bible says.
Again, I'm not telling you anything you didn't know. You just insist on constantly playing dumb and trolling.
Into the Night
Verified User
You aren't discussing math. You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else.
So you believe the Bible.
You quote the Bible, point out some random 'calculation' from it, and then say you don't believe the Bible?
You are now locked in another paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
You are not discussing anything.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Correct. I can quote The Lord of the Rings, too.
In The Lord of the Rings, it says that when the elves die, they go to Valinor, but they can be reborn in Middle Earth.
Oh, in case you are thinking about continuing to play dumb, no, I don't think the Lord of the rings is based in reality.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... except when miracles occur. What is the definition of a miracle?
ZenMode
Well-known member
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?
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
nobody's doing that, fuckstick.
you;re just ignorant of human history.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
that's not how he does it.
That still leaves you nothing but an interpretation based on several untested and unconfirmed assumptions. There is no age of the earth mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
More importantly, genealogy only leaves you with the age of human history. Not Earth history. Genesis 1 includes more than just human history. The days in Genesis 1 do not necessarily correspond to 24 hour periods. The passage of time for God could be different in the same way the passage of time for a photon is radically different from the passage of time for a human.
God did not write the Bible. Even Jews admit that Moses supposedly wrote the Pentatuch. God did not write Psalms. God did not write anything in the New Testament.
No it doesn't matter scientifically. If you really believed that you would be insisting that we throw out Aristotle, Plato, Descartes because their science and natural philosophy is radically different from modern physics.
It doesn't matter theologically either. I've never been to any mainstream church where believing a 6000 year old Earth was part of the creed.
Genesis 1 and 2 are widely recognized as Hebrew poetry. Poetic writing is not scientific writing.
Do you scientifically analyze poetry? Do you read Samuel Taylor Coleridge or Ralph Waldo Emerson looking for scientific mistakes?
That's right, you don't.
ZenMode
Well-known member
And how would you know how he does it? You've never seen him. You've never talked to him. You've never seen anyone walk on water, come back from the dead after 3 days, etc.
Lots and lots of people.
Lots and lots of people.
I do not fear atheists for being atheists. If they choose to designate themselves as atheists...I would defend their right to do so with enthusiasm. I HAVE DONE SO.
If you think I am not smart...or not smart enough to understand that difference, you have the right to do so. But I have have had essays published as op ed pieces where I talk about that difference...and defend the right of people to espouse both.
Okay?
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?
Are you having fun debating with religious people, Zen?
A lot easier to do than to debate with folk of an agnostic perspective, isn't it?
You can feel that you are "lording" over them.
Two groups...one guessing about REALITY one way...and the other guessing about REALITY in another, incompatible, way.
Be brave, Zen...take on the agnostic perspective.
You can start by telling us what you see as inconsistent about my personal perspective on the question:
I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.
(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)
C'mon. Give it a shot.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
haven't I?
ZenMode
Well-known member
The Bible, according to many, many, many Christians, is the word of God and is taken literally as such.
The creation of everything in 7 days is taking literally. The existence of Adam and Eve is taking literally. The fall is taking literally. A belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old is also taken very literally by many Christians.
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.
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.
Atheism, specifically implicit atheism is nothing more or less than a failure to believe someone else's claims of a God.
You use the exact same reasoning every single day. So why don't you allow it for atheists?
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?