Is Logic Real?

[FuryOfASquirrel]

ok, than why does religion revolt you? It can't be because it doesn't use the scientific method right? It's gatta be more.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

ok, than why does religion revolt you? It can't be because it doesn't use the scientific method right? It's gatta be more.

I'm not revolted by religion, I simply don't believe a thousand year old book supposedly giving god's word is trustworthy. The "not utilizing the scientific method" part, is the major addon.

 

[FuryOfASquirrel]

I use that method and im a believer

That book is countlessly referred to as a book of moral standards, sure, it can be called that, it's also a guideline for life for follower's of christ

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I use that method and im a believer

That book is countlessly referred to as a book of moral standards, sure, it can be called that, it's also a guideline for life for follower's of christ

It's a book of moral standards? Perhaps. But it's also a book that describes tales of what are, pretty much, miracles. God creating the world in 6 days and resting on the 7th. A woman birthing a child without sperm. It's all miracles.

 

[FuryOfASquirrel]

what's wrong with miracles XD

I know a few modern ones myself, retold by countless people, one by a man i personally know, and one that you prolly know too XD

 

[Elenai]

I have also experienced miracles. I have experienced one myself and so has my mom. (I wont tell it yet because its personal) And people experience miracles every day. Just because it isnt brought on by a flash of light and a golden angel descending from heaven doesnt mean it isnt a miracle.

We often question the Bible. Thats why we do research and GASP scientific studies and methods and the scientific method itself to see if it is correct and the bible is often proved correct.

You wont even entertain the idea of God being real because he convicts you.

Newton made his theory based on his observation of natural occurence. It is now law. Because it has been deemed a fact.

And by the way Newton was a Christian.

Christianity was not made as it is impossible to fabricate. And even still you cannot deny that science owes religion its existence.

The bible does support alot of science. When most of the early secular scientists "discovered" that earth was round the bible already said it was.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22).

Thus science was supported by biblical fact. Even a thousand years later the bible is proving trustworthy and true. Not only on the big things but even the small things in life.

In one hundred years many parts of a science book will be changed. New theories and new laws added and taken away, just for another hundred years to pass by and for it to be changed again.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

what's wrong with miracles XD

I know a few modern ones myself, retold by countless people, one by a man i personally know, and one that you prolly know too XD

Yes, many, many people believe their friends in the hospitals were cured by miracles and not medicine. So why won't God heal amputees?

We often question the Bible. Thats why we do research and GASP scientific studies and methods and the scientific method itself to see if it is correct and the bible is often proved correct.

zomg sauce plox?

You wont even entertain the idea of God being real because he convicts you.

I'm not really an atheist, btw. I'm an agnostic, and I dismiss the idea of God because he has as much a chance of existing as Santa Claus.

Newton made his theory based on his observation of natural occurence. It is now law. Because it has been deemed a fact.

You said such science is flawed and not true.

And by the way Newton was a Christian.

As with a lot of other people. No real content here, folks.

Christianity was not made as it is impossible to fabricate. And even still you cannot deny that science owes religion its existence.

Science also owes Greeks their existence. Let's all agree that Zeus exists.

The bible does support alot of science. When most of the early secular scientists "discovered" that earth was round the bible already said it was.

The first ones to consider a round earth were the Mesopotamians. To say the bible says it doesn't say much.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22).

Ok.

Thus science was supported by biblical fact. Even a thousand years later the bible is proving trustworthy and true. Not only on the big things but even the small things in life.

Dinosaurs WERE NOT on Noah's Arc.

In one hundred years many parts of a science book will be changed. New theories and new laws added and taken away, just for another hundred years to pass by and for it to be changed again.

 

[FuryOfASquirrel]

not those kinds of miracles myspace

g2g = church

 

[Elenai]

God cures who he will when it fits his will.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/animalsontheark.htm here is but a taste of your "sauce".

Santa claus did exist. BEHOLD Saint Nicolas bishop of turkey during the middle ages known to be the patron saint of children.

I said that Science is man's explanation to the worlds workings and that it is flawed and not entirely true. I did not say that it was absolutly false.

Newton was a Christian, He used science to explain one of God's creations called gravity. You seem to think that all Christians are un scientific and stuipid that my friend proved you wrong.

I said Science owes Religion its existence and the Greek one is one of them.

Sure they were indeed the first but you forget that you said the bible isnt trustworthy and so I again proved you wrong with a passage that has remained trust worthy even when human science had at one point said the earth was flat and you could fall off of it.

Dinosaurs not on the ark. Perhaps but there are many ways they died out before the flood. Dinosaurs could have been on the ark how do you know they were not? And don't say the flood did'nt happen because hundreds of ancient cultures spread across the world say different.

And that picture is a bad example of a point. Science books have often been changed. You cannot deny that.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

God cures who he will when it fits his will.

Yes, so many cures, but not a single deserving amputee.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/animalsontheark.htm here is but a taste of your "sauce".

sounds more like an christian response to an atheist question.

Santa claus did exist. BEHOLD Saint Nicolas bishop of turkey during the middle ages known to be the patron saint of children.

Unfortunately he does not go down anyones chimneys these days, and he most certainly does not have flying reindeer.

I said that Science is man's explanation to the worlds workings and that it is flawed and not entirely true. I did not say that it was absolutly false.

science is not a man's explanation to the world's workings. that only defines a man's understanding of science.

Newton was a Christian, He used science to explain one of God's creations called gravity. You seem to think that all Christians are un scientific and stuipid that my friend proved you wrong.

Did I ever say christians were stupid or unscientific?

I said Science owes Religion its existence and the Greek one is one of them.

Science is an evolution of religion. Religion was used to describe the unknown, but we've gotten to the scientific method now. Not just tales of Medusa.

Sure they were indeed the first but you forget that you said the bible isnt trustworthy and so I again proved you wrong with a passage that has remained trust worthy even when human science had at one point said the earth was flat and you could fall off of it.

The bible can say humans are alive. That doesn't necessarily make it trustworthy.

Dinosaurs not on the ark. Perhaps but there are many ways they died out before the flood. Dinosaurs could have been on the ark how do you know they were not? And don't say the flood did'nt happen because hundreds of ancient cultures spread across the world say different.

There could have been a large flood, sure. I'm not a historian. What I doubt is that someone got rounded up two of every animal dependent on land, put them on a ship, and waited a flood out, and this was all the doing of god.

And that picture is a bad example of a point. Science books have often been changed. You cannot deny that.

Of course they change. Pluto is no longer a planet, plasma is a new form of matter, etc. Science has not changed, however. Only our understanding of it has. Furthermore, just because our understanding changes every day doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't trust it.

 

[Elenai]

You are now trying to defame God's character, I feel sorry for you.

Just because he does'nt go down chimneys does'nt mean he did'nt exist.
Just because God does'nt cure every sick person doen'nt mean He does'nt exist.

Science is man's explanation you do not live in science you live in the universe and explain the universe with science.

Your attitude says otherwise.

Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism was not the evolution of Science.

The bible says humans are alive.....and humans are alive.....and not to mention the bible says:

The Earth is suspended in nothing - "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7).

The Existence of Valleys in the Seas - "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (2 Samuel 22:16).

The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.

The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas - "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8).

The Hydrologic Cycle - "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8).

- "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28)

- "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

And all of this long before scientists of the modern age "discovered" it.

Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

You are now trying to defame God's character, I feel sorry for you.

"You are immature, but don't say anything bad about me, because I'm just telling the truth. No, let me take a shit on you, but don't think it's justified that you do the same on me! I'm the victim here!"

Just because he does'nt go down chimneys does'nt mean he did'nt exist.

The Santa Claus the common man sees, the guy in the fantasy, doesn't exist.

Just because God does'nt cure every sick person doen'nt mean He does'nt exist.

No, but I just find it odd how when someone is cured of a disease you can't VISIBLY see, it's a miracle, but visible ailments are never miraculously cured.

Science is man's explanation you do not live in science you live in the universe and explain the universe with science.

Science is the mechanics of the universe it's set in steel and doesn't change. Our understanding of it changes.

Your attitude says otherwise.

Oooh you can analyze bits of text to find out I'm stereotypical. I have many Christian friends, buddy. In fact, I know of only two friends of mine are atheists.

Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism was not the evolution of Science.

The bible says humans are alive.....and humans are alive.....and not to mention the bible says:

Yes, but that doesn't make it trustworthy.

The Earth is suspended in nothing - "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7).

Ok.

The Existence of Valleys in the Seas - "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (2 Samuel 22:16).

I can say I've taken a dump before, then say I am god. Because the previous sentence is true, am I a trustworthy source of information, and therefore when I say I'm god, it's true?

The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.

The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas - "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8).

The Hydrologic Cycle - "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8).

- "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28)

- "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

And all of this long before scientists of the modern age "discovered" it.

Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

Again, they putting in past things confirmed to be true doesn't make everything in it true.

 

[Elenai]

Sure. What ever you say.

He still existed as a person.

Again you fail to understand that Science is man's understanding of the universe not the universe is science.

Your attitude still says otherwise.

The bible is more trustworthy than most things in the world It has stood the test of time were as other things have withered away into the dust of History.

And so I still point out to you that you are not a completly trust worthy scource of information. Because you are a human being who is subject to not having all knowledge, you lie just like the rest of man kind, you have biases just like the rest of man kind, and thus you are not a completly trust worthy scource. God on the other hand is a completly trust worthy scource. And the Bible is God breathed.

The point being that the bible is trust worthy because even a thousands of years ago the bible has stood the test of time and has things in it which are indeed confirmed to be true.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Sure. What ever you say.

I love you too.

He still existed as a person.

Jesus probably did too. Doesn't make him the son of God.

Again you fail to understand that Science is man's understanding of the universe not the universe is science.

Again you fail to understand that Science is the mechanics of the universe not man's understanding of the universe.

Your attitude still says otherwise.

In other words "I generalize".

The bible is more trustworthy than most things in the world It has stood the test of time were as other things have withered away into the dust of History.

The Panda Express has stood longer as a famous Chinese food chain longer than other chinese restaurants. that must make it authentic Chinese cuisine.

And so I still point out to you that you are not a completly trust worthy scource of information. Because you are a human being who is subject to not having all knowledge, you lie just like the rest of man kind, you have biases just like the rest of man kind, and thus you are not a completly trust worthy scource. God on the other hand is a completly trust worthy scource. And the Bible is God breathed.

Of course. If a book says it was the word of god, I guess it's the word of god, eh?

The point being that the bible is trust worthy because even a thousands of years ago the bible has stood the test of time and has things in it which are indeed confirmed to be true.

The Panda Express has withstood the test of time as a famous restaurant more than other chinese restaurants, and it even has rice, which i've seen the chinese eat before.

 

[Elenai]

Thank you.

Biblical and archealogical proof says otherwise.

Actually chinese food has stood longer than any chinese food chain just as The bible has stood longer than any science book.

The bible is the word of God.

And even so the bible has stood the test of time.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Thank you.

<3

Biblical and archealogical proof says otherwise.

archaelogical proof? Is there a fossil of a goblet with half water half wine?

Actually chinese food has stood longer than any chinese food chain just as The bible has stood longer than any science book.

Because people don't change the Bible, they only say others are interpreting it wrong.

The bible is the word of God.

Did you see god throw down a book to you?

And even so the bible has stood the test of time.

Dane Cook stood the test of time by being famous and having lots of fans. That must make him a good comedian.

 

[Elenai]

Archeaological proof as in, The West wall at Jeruselem which proves the temple was there and the temple was dedicated to God.

Egyptian archeaology that shows when Sheshonq carried off the treasures of the temple and Jeruselem when the Israelites turned from God. and ect.

hmmhmmm. It still stands the test of time.

God gave the word to his prophets who gave the word to the people and it was written down. So essentially the bible was thrown down.

Even so it has stood the test of time and has shaped nations.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Archeaological proof as in, The West wall at Jeruselem which proves the temple was there and the temple was dedicated to God.

If they have a religion, they will draw about it. Lots of archaeology about religious art.

Egyptian archeaology that shows when Sheshonq carried off the treasures of the temple and Jeruselem when the Israelites turned from God. and ect.

If they have a religion, they will draw about it. Lots of archaeology about religious art.

hmmhmmm. It still stands the test of time.

So does fruitcake, but it tasted like shit before, and it still tastes like shit today.

God gave the word to his prophets who gave the word to the people and it was written down. So essentially the bible was thrown down.

So many prophets say other things are right. Muhammad says this, Moses says that.

Even so it has stood the test of time and has shaped nations.

[RUSSIANREVERSAL]In Soviet Russia, you test time![/RUSSIANREVERSAL]

 

[Elenai]

hmmhmm.

I like fruit cake. And still stands the test of time.

And yet it is the Bible that remains true to this very day.

Still stands the test of time.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

hmmhmm.

Zagga! Shocking Vibes! Tony Kelly!
Yo! Is it ironic, this gal a wine like a bionic
Mi mack it mi cock it I sink it like a titanic
Dump pon it, badman deh yah mi a chop it
Baby yuh know seh mi have it, hey

I like fruit cake. And still stands the test of time.

Are you kidding? That stuff doesn't even taste like it has real fruit in it. I mean, is that a Skittle in there?

And yet it is the Bible that remains true to this very day.

Is that not the disputed topic at hand?

Still stands the test of time.

You can say that 52 times, but it doesn't make it more meaningful.

 

[Elenai]

I do like fruit cake. I had an old world flavor to it. That and my mom made really good fruit cake.

Nope because the bible will always stand the test of time.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I do like fruit cake. I had an old world flavor to it. That and my mom made really good fruit cake.

Fruit cake involves preserved and candied fruit, of which I find disgusting,

Nope because the bible will always stand the test of time.

Test of time, test of time, whatever. This thread is beginning to come to a halt anyways.

 

[Hakeem]

Elenai, you need to support your facts.
The bible has many things in it that turn out to be true.
That doesn't make everything in it true.

MySpaceBarBroke, you need to give metaphors that are actually related to the things you compare.

Daelin:

Yet Christianity remains one of the most expanded religions.

So? Islam is the fastest growing.

Nice words... too bad they are the words of yet another human. Limited... like always, it is simply impossible to overcome our limitations. True we can use "technology" and pass information further to future generations, but they are just "tools" capable of increasing our possibilities.

What other words would they be? So what if I am human, humans are the smartest things we know of. Someday we mere humans will know most things worth knowing.

The rest of what you said wasn't relevant.

 

[Eleandor]

Let's clear something up first:
Science is not the universal mechanism
Science is the study of the universal mechanics with the goal of producing useful models of reality.
So science is indeed a man's explanation to the world's mechanics. this does not define a man's understandings of science, but a man's understandings of the universal mechanics.
On this area, there is no difference between religion and science. Both try to give an interpretation on the universal mechanics. One through philosophy, another through empirical observation.
Indeed, brokenbar fails to see how science is a man's understanding of the way the universe works. However, Elenai also fails to understand that religion is also a man's understanding of the way the universe works.
For today's standards, the most *logical* (wink) interpretation is the empirical one. If you ask me, I'd rather trust empirical facts than "facts" written in the bible.

Why does the bible stand the test of time? is it because it contains certain facts that science has confirmed? Those facts were already scientifically confirmed before the bible was written, for example: it was already known that the world was round, and the bible could not deny this empirical interpretation by the time it was written (yes, I know it wasn't written in 1 day, this is a way of speaking). Many thousands of years ago, people did not know however how the world was created, and therefor the bible gives a false explanation. Today, we all assume the big bang was the cause, and although this empirical interpretation might contain flaws and does not reflect the universal mechanics perfectly, I tend to agree that it's a better explanation than "God created humans on the 6th day, and on the 7th day he rested". Every scientific fact that was known before the bible was written has been confirmed today by our science today. However, many scientific facts today prove that certain things in the bible are wrong. So, do you think that the bible can stand the test of time based on the "facts" written in the bible? No, not at all. If we would take the bible as a "scientific" book that wants to explain the universal mechanics, it wouldn't stand the test of time for even 1 day.

So why does it stand the test of time? Because it contains a set of rules and standards for human morals, which we can use or adapt for the sake of our civilization. Therefor, don't use the bible for ANYTHING related on science, because it simply is far from trustworthy. Use the bible to tell other people what you stand for and what your moral standards are.

To make the link with the beginning of my post: God gave us a bible for Moral standards. God gave us senses to make scientific observations.
Do we use our eyes and ears to create moral standards? No we don't. Do we use the bible to make scientific observations? No, I don't. Is the bible made to explain the universal mechanics? Yes it was, 2000 to 5000 years ago. The explanations in the bible simply don't meet today's requirements for scientific proves of how the universe works, so get used to it.

 

[Elenai]

Indeed you are correct about science and religion.

However, The bible was not written in a time when people believed the earth was round. The bible was written when people thought the earth was a resting on the back of a turtle.

And because the bible has "facts" in it that are proven today to be true does not mean that the bible is not a trustworthy scientific scource. And empyrical data is found through facts and a theory is made from that data.

for example" A catipiller turns into a butter fly. Fact, A biologist begins to collect data on butterflies from birth to death, He finds series of facts that when studied produce numerical and observational data. Eventually he takes this data and makes a theory that the body changes while inside. Which is then proven true by disections during the course of development. And the law of metamorphosis is born.

Indeed the bible is the moral standard and the entire western world and its influences were built on the back of it. But the bible is a satisfactory start to finding out how God did it. The biblical explanation is taken out of question only because people do not want to admit God's existence, That is the root cause of it. I find that the theory of the big bang is very unsatisfactory, because it only theorizes on a massive explosion of a spec of high dense matter that spreads out creating trillions of light years of space. It does not account for however that even highly dense molecules don't explode with out being hit on the out side by some thing. Take for example heavy nuclear metals used in power plants it requires a chain reaction by launching a neutron at the molecule to begin the molecular explosion so to speek.

And the point of the bible being meant to explain universal mechanics that is also true. But 2000 years ago man would have had no idea about the many parts of universal mechanics. Such as valleys in the sea, and the earth being suspended in nothing, (floating in the void of space).

So even now the bible stands up to scientific attempts to bomb it down and many people have taken it as a scientific scource of knowledge. (intelligent design) for that matter. It teaches much the same as other science books only that Intelligent design bases its theories on a creator of some sort not just the Christian God. Were as the rest of science wants to absolutley destroy the very thought of creation being correct.

 

[Eleandor]

But 2000 years ago man would have had no idea about the many parts of universal mechanics. Such as valleys in the sea, and the earth being suspended in nothing, (floating in the void of space).

you have no idea.

Some random scientific facts known before the year of 2000:

The world is round - Mesopotamians
The first atomic model - Greek invention. Although it's a wrong model of atoms, nothing of it is even mentioned in the Bible
Awareness of the model of space with earth orbiting sun - Greek observation too
An extremely detailed and correct map of the world - I cannot give details on this one as I forgot who it was and when it was, but I can tell you it's a long time ago:

 

[Elenai]

I know what I am talking about.

Still proves my point that the bible is not man made.

And yet even still the bible knew these things as well and you say that the bible is entirely unscientific and useless as a scource when it proves usefull and trustworthy time and time again.

 

[Daelin]

What other words would they be? So what if I am human, humans are the smartest things we know of. Someday we mere humans will know most things worth knowing.

Limited thoughts...

The rest of what you said wasn't relevant.

To yourself of course... you failed to see my point in the beginning, so you practically ignored to comprehend what I had wrote.

Anyway, your narrow-mindness and overestimation of the human race matches that of my religion teacher. You two would get along really well... Don't get me wrong, everyone has his right to opinion. I'm expressing my opposite point of view. Don't take it any other way plz.

-Mihai

 

[Eleandor]

I know what I am talking about.

Good for you because I haven't got a single clue about what you're talking about

Still proves my point that the bible is not man made.

I must have missed your prove...

And yet even still the bible knew these things as well and you say that the bible is entirely unscientific and useless as a scource when it proves usefull and trustworthy time and time again.

And that's exactly my point: the bible does NOT prove itself trustworthy time and time again. It's not because you say it does that it actually does...
Need examples? Just visit the "Holy trinity" thread and try to read my post this time.

By the way, I think that we came at a point that this thread should be merged with the Trinity thread, because we're obviously not talking about logics anymore but rather about the bible... So let's not talk about that any further in this thread but move it to the other one (and feel free to quote this post in there)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Warning: Longass post headed your way.

Hmm. Feel free to ignore this post, it's long. Also, sorry for mostly picking on you Elenai, but you've said the most things I have objections with, or wanted to add to.

DO NOT compare religion and science to be murderers and cops.

And second of all science and religion can get along.

Agreed. Also, it's not evolutionists and Christians that don't get along, it's evolutionists and creationists. Personally, I find creationism to be the stupidest thing (one of them, at any rate) I have ever heard, but that doesn't mean I don't believe some sort of god (Jewish/Christian/Islamic, or a group of them, whatever) could have created everything.

Science often claims to have the conclusion and tries to find facts to support it.

Actually, science has facts and then finds a conclusion. You have it backwards.

And the very being of SCIENCE owes Religion its very existence.
Modern Science was built on the back of the church and was kept alive by it.

Bullshit. The church was actually against most science, such as a heliocentric universe.

With out the church thousands of ancient documents about Roman and Greek and eastern science would be lost and we would have lost hundreds of years of scientific development.

The church also destroyed as many documents as it kept...

Science also owes the Muslim and Jewish religions its existence. Algebra and High mathematics the very basis of scientific data came from the muslims.

It actually came from Arabs. Most of them just happen to be muslim.

And the Jews gave us History of which without science would not know were to look for answers.

History

And much of the bible supports science and scientific things. Scientists dont want to admit that God exists because God tells them that they are living their lives in sin and people dont like to be told they are living in sin.

Science doesn't declare that God exists because there's no empirical proof that he does. Also, God can neither be proven nor disproven.

We often question the Bible. Thats why we do research and GASP scientific studies and methods and the scientific method itself to see if it is correct and the bible is often proved correct.

People that go out and prove the bible true or false are several many hundred times better than the ones that just follow like sheep.

You wont even entertain the idea of God being real because he convicts you.

You do know that there is more than one monotheistic God, right?

And by the way Newton was a Christian.

So?

Christianity was not made as it is impossible to fabricate. And even still you cannot deny that science owes religion its existence.

Heh, it's possible to fabricate any sort of story as long as you have an imagination.

The bible does support alot of science. When most of the early secular scientists "discovered" that earth was round the bible already said it was.

Okay then... how come the church actually threatened to excommunicate Galileo for saying the earth was round?

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22).

People used to think the earth was a flat circle. That line supports both archaic and contemporary knowledge of the earth's shape, if you'll forgive that the earth is actually a sphere, not a circle.

Thus science was supported by biblical fact. Even a thousand years later the bible is proving trustworthy and true. Not only on the big things but even the small things in life.

It's easy to go and take something vague and cryptic and say that it relates to something in the present. That's actually the main argument against Nostradamus.

You are now trying to defame God's character, I feel sorry for you.

He's actually trying to disprove God, which is actually impossible.

Just because he does'nt go down chimneys does'nt mean he did'nt exist.

But he isn't alive, which is what MSBB meant.

Just because God does'nt cure every sick person doen'nt mean He does'nt exist.

God may or may not exist, may or may not be a woman, may or may not interfere in the lives of humans. I personally believe that if S/He/they exist, S/He/they don't/doesn't interfere.

Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism was not the evolution of Science.

Heh. If Christianity fulfilled Judaism, why does Judaism still exist?

The bible says humans are alive.....and humans are alive.....and not to mention the bible says:

So what? I could have told you that humans are alive.

The Earth is suspended in nothing - "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7).

People used to believe that the earth was a flat disc supported on pillars in the middle of nowhere. Again, the bible is being vague and supports both archaic and contemporary knowledge.

The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.

Please clarify on "springs and fountains in the sea," this is moderately interesting.

The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas - "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8).

Heh, that means any path in/through the seas, not specific ocean currents. Again, Nostradamus.

The Hydrologic Cycle - "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8).

- "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28)

- "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

That is certainly interesting.

Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

But see, that's only parts of the bible.

The bible is more trustworthy than most things in the world It has stood the test of time were as other things have withered away into the dust of History.

The theory of gravity has stood the test of time, but Einstein still proved Newton wrong on some things.

And so I still point out to you that you are not a completly trust worthy scource of information. Because you are a human being who is subject to not having all knowledge, you lie just like the rest of man kind, you have biases just like the rest of man kind, and thus you are not a completly trust worthy scource. God on the other hand is a completly trust worthy scource. And the Bible is God breathed.

You... do know that the church actually held a conference to decide what was and was not to be included in the bible? The bible is as much a human creation as science.

The point being that the bible is trust worthy because even a thousands of years ago the bible has stood the test of time and has things in it which are indeed confirmed to be true.

Thousands of years ago, people didn't have the understanding of the universe that we do today. The bible exists because of its moral stories, not because it's absolute hard fact.

Are you kidding? That stuff doesn't even taste like it has real fruit in it. I mean, is that a Skittle in there?

Fruitcakes have a particular taste to them. I suppose I like fruitcakes now (I didn't when I was younger), but Skittles taste better than them anyways.

What other words would they be? So what if I am human, humans are the smartest things we know of.

Mollusks (such as octopi, cuttlefish) are pretty intelligent. They just don't have the knack for tools that humans do.

And the law of metamorphosis is born.

Um... metamorphosis isn't a law, it's a process.

science wants to absolutley destroy the very thought of creation being correct.

No, it wants to absolutely destroy the question around it, whether that means proving it true or false. For the most part, creation seems to be false.

The world is round - Mesopotamians

The Greeks also knew this. They actually approximated the earth's diameter using that fact (and got it head on, considering how they did it).

 

[Eleandor]

Of course, I never said Greek didn't know it. What I meant was that, AFAIK, the Mesopotamians were the first in known history

 

[Elenai]

Creationism is just as viable as any other theory.

The church is not against science you are taking past suspicions and applying them to today's church.

Science doesnt declare that God exists but they will bend over backwards to prove he does'nt to this day they have failed.

There is but one God and he is the Biblical God.

It is impossible to fabricate Christianity.

And scientific academies threaten to fire and strip titles from Professors that believe in Creationism.

sphere and circle = same thing in the ancient world.

The barbarians destroyed alot more than the church ever did and it was still the church that kept at least some glimmer of scientific knowledge alive.

The facts still stand.

God does exist and he does "interfere" but we don't always notice it.

Judaism still exists because many Jews don't accept Christ and they still think the law is the way to Heaven.

And yet the circle of the earth clearly implies a sphere where as most people thought it was held by Atlas or some other creature. And being suspeded in nothingness still means that pillars were not present.

The water table and springs that are in the ground came up.

What else could a sea path be. An ocean current ofcourse.

I agree it is fascinating.

1st the entire ancient Isrealite history is in the bible. Backed up by archeaological evidence thats 3/5 true. Then you have scientific facts about the universe in it that matches todays scientific reasoning thats 1/5 proven true. Then you have moral advice and moral things in general thats another 1/5 (this is the pure moral and life advice found in psalms and proverbs) also proven applicable to life. Seems the bible is true enough on all counts of it.

And so The bible has stood the test of time.

The books included were God breathed. The books were merely compiled.

Most of the bible seems to be HARD FACT as proven when I showed you the facts found in it. And you still dont understand the universe in comparison to all the universes knowledge you have and estimated .00000000009 % understanding out of 100%

I agree fruit cake is good when you acuire the taste.

By law I mean its an absolute fact.

Creation is just as viable as any other theory.

Of course the point being people think the bible is untrustworthy because they say it never has scientific facts.

 

[Eleandor]

half of your arguments try to prove God's existence. First of all you cannot prove whether God exists or not, and it's not to the point if he does or doesn't. Neither can you prove there is only 1 God and neither can you prove that it's the Christian God. Theoretically speaking, in fact the Muslim God is the only "true" god because he's more advanced as it's an update of Christianity just like Christianity is an "update" of the judaism.

I don't care if you BELIEVE in God or not. Therefor stop saying things like "There is only 1 God" like you're a preaching priest.

Also stop repeating yourself and your arguments we already crushed away. if you want to discuss (and apparently you say you like discussing), then people expect you to be open minded and not just repeat your arguments over and over without listening to others. saying we're not right without saying why we're not right doesn't make us wrong. Saying what you believe is also not on-topic. I have respect for what you believe and I don't actually care if you don't want to change your beliefs, but if you say something like "creationism is as viable as any other theory", I'd like to see a little bit more support instead of just a statement. I mean I didn't even read your post because it's full of bullshit like "It is impossible to fabricate Christianity." or "
And so The bible has stood the test of time.".
If you just keep on saying stuff you heard somewhere without even having SLIGHT criticism to what you say yourself, you're saying bullshit and nobody will ever take you seriously.

Again, no offense intended but if you keep on shooting "facts" without proves on us like a preacher, I'm not even going to read your posts anymore. There's a difference between a debate and a preach.

 

[Elenai]

Perhaps.

I tell as I see it.

You never crushed my argumants you have yet even to dent them.

I am perhaps preeching God, you do the same when you preech science.
....don't tell me thats different because you do preech science just as much as we preech God.

 

[Eleandor]

I'm sorry but I can't crush your arguments if you have none. You just post some statements and some things YOU take as the truth. the very few arguments you posted have already been crushed although you don't want to admit it because you simply believe in it too hard.

And no I don't preach science. I believe in a God myself, so why would I try to prove he doesn't exist or something. if I say the Greek already knew about atoms, it's not preaching. It takes 5 seconds of googling time to find out yourself that that's not preaching but giving facts that are proven and thus to be considered arguments.

 

[Elenai]

I have an argument you just refuse to entertain it because it supports creation and God.

And you also post statements you take as true dont even dare try and make me the only one who did. And you never crushed my arguments not even once. You simply posted a statement that was opposite of mine YOU NEVER PROVED your point. Thus my argument has not been crushed.

You might not specifically, but I am not the only one who preeches points of view.

And indeed I have also given facts to support my argument that have yet to be crushed. They have only been ridiculed and attempted to be silenced.

 

[Eleandor]

so what's your argument then? (oh, and that also implies I expect a decent ground on which you base your argument) I'm curious.

 

[Elenai]

My argument is that God and the bible are indeed correct.

The archaeological evidence to support the old and new testament.
The testimonies of thousands of Christians.
The fact that the bible remains applical even now.
The fact that the bible remains intact and remains true.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Of course, I never said Greek didn't know it. What I meant was that, AFAIK, the Mesopotamians were the first in known history

I was merely saying that it was very common knowledge, even if it became less so during Europe's feudal era.

Creationism is just as viable as any other theory.

Wait... I meant intelligent design, not creationism. Sorry, my mistake. Intelligent design is the stupidest etc. Creationism is just that God created the universe, and everything in it. It states neither what "everything in it" is or was, nor does it say that "everything in it" is or is not allowed to change. When put in that light, I certainly agree with creationism.

The church is not against science you are taking past suspicions and applying them to today's church.

"Modern science" was for the most part established while the church was anti-science.

Science doesnt declare that God exists but they will bend over backwards to prove he does'nt to this day they have failed.

Most scientists don't believe in God, but they certainly don't go out of their way to prove him.

There is but one God and he is the Biblical God.

Huh. Let's say I'm as strong a Hindu as you are a Christian, there are many gods, each one providing something essential to existence. Denying them is to invite hordes of ill fortune upon yourself (by putting yourself into their ill favour), you had better set up an altar and proper offerings fast.

It is impossible to fabricate Christianity.

No? The church held a conference to decide what stories should be included and excluded from the New Testament, that sounds pretty close to fabrication to me.

And scientific academies threaten to fire and strip titles from Professors that believe in Creationism.

o rly? I'd like to see where you heard this.

sphere and circle = same thing in the ancient world.

Fair enough, I said it was a slight misgiving. Still though, a circle in the middle of emptiness definitely promotes the archaic concept that the earth is a flat circle standing on pillars in the middle of nowhere. You have to at least acknowledge that it could have been tailored to that belief.

The barbarians destroyed alot more than the church ever did and it was still the church that kept at least some glimmer of scientific knowledge alive.

Hmm. Weren't you telling me not to confuse the "old" church with the "new" one? The times of barbarians ransacking and destroying would definitely be within the time period of the "old" church. Older than the one that was against science, because barbarians were feudal, the anti-science church was renaissance.

God does exist and he does "interfere" but we don't always notice it.

Not really. You see what you want to see. Devout Christians see miracles, nonbelievers see luck.

Judaism still exists because many Jews don't accept Christ and they still think the law is the way to Heaven.

And yet the circle of the earth clearly implies a sphere where as most people thought it was held by Atlas or some other creature. And being suspeded in nothingness still means that pillars were not present.

"The circle of the earth" implies, to the average layman, a flat circle. Also, being suspended in nothingness does not mean that pillars are not present, because those pillars could be what is suspending the earth in nothingness.

The water table and springs that are in the ground came up.

Do you mean geysers and aquifers? It's still a little vague.

What else could a sea path be. An ocean current ofcourse.

A path could be any sort of way you find your way across the ocean.

I agree it is fascinating.

Verily.

1st the entire ancient Isrealite history is in the bible. Backed up by archeaological evidence thats 3/5 true. Then you have scientific facts about the universe in it that matches todays scientific reasoning thats 1/5 proven true. Then you have moral advice and moral things in general thats another 1/5 (this is the pure moral and life advice found in psalms and proverbs) also proven applicable to life. Seems the bible is true enough on all counts of it.

The bible is also full of inconsistencies, which is at least -1/2 truth. After Cain slew Abel, God banished Cain to wander the earth. Cain was fearful of being slain by other men. Adam and Eve were the first humans, they had three children. Also, he had children. Where do the other "men" come from? Where did Cain's wife come from? Did God make them just for the little traitor?

And so The bible has stood the test of time.

Not really...

The books included were God breathed. The books were merely compiled.

You do know that they have located the Gospel according to Mary? That it was found with several other stories that were omitted from the bible? It was certainly compiled, in a rather picky manner.

Most of the bible seems to be HARD FACT as proven when I showed you the facts found in it. And you still dont understand the universe in comparison to all the universes knowledge you have and estimated .00000000009 % understanding out of 100%

Hard fact like people appearing out of nowhere so that biblical murderers can have families and found cities?

I agree fruit cake is good when you acuire the taste.

Until you do, fruitcake are teh sux.

By law I mean its an absolute fact.

...
Metamorphosis is not an absolute fact, it's a process.

Creation is just as viable as any other theory.

Completely my mistake, I meant intelligent design. If you would like to debate the plausibility of that, feel free.

Of course the point being people think the bible is untrustworthy because they say it never has scientific facts.

Eh... you've said that before. Care to prove it?

 

[Elenai]

hmmmmz and I leave you now with this. You will not budge and I will certainly not fall. The point being I could do this for eternity but I will just wait until you meet Eternity.

Again I leave you with this,

EGO subsisto rectus pro totus infinitio

 

[Teh_Ephy]

(Something) persisting until the end of all time. Anyways, do you have something to say about intelligent design, or are you just leaving with your tail between your legs?

 

[Elenai]

I am not leaving with my tail between my legs.

I am walking away kicking the scum of the ground at your face.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

It certainly looks like you're leaving with your tail between your legs. If you're pressed for time, maybe edit your posts to have some sort of content. As infuriating as it is debating with you, it certainly gets people thinking.

 

[Elenai]

I am not leaving with my tail between my legs I NEVER crawl away like a beaten Dog.

Thinking perhaps. But I am tired of trying to debate a view that you and others will only ridicule and scorn.

This is no debate you only see this as a chance to bash Christianity.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Not bashing Christianity, bashing the bible. While the two are closely related, bashing one is hardly bashing the other.

 

[Elenai]

To bash the bible is to Bash the very foundation of not only Christianity, but Judaism, and in essense Islam.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Mocking what something is based on is hardly mocking what it has become.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

To bash the bible is to Bash the very foundation of not only Christianity, but Judaism, and in essense Islam.

I leave you now with this

How about enforcing exits every once in a while? "Last time this" "It's over that"

 

[Hakeem]

Daelin:

Limited thoughts...

By themselves, probably, but my thoughts are anything but limited.

To yourself of course... you failed to see my point in the beginning, so you practically ignored to comprehend what I had wrote.

I understood it. It wasn't relevant to what I was saying.

Anyway, your narrow-mindness and overestimation of the human race matches that of my religion teacher. You two would get along really well... Don't get me wrong, everyone has his right to opinion. I'm expressing my opposite point of view. Don't take it any other way plz.

I doubt it.
To quote my original signature:

If I was not open to new ideas and willing to change my opinion, I would hire someone to kill me.

Two things:
1. Nobody can tell me science is wrong
2. Nobody can tell me logic is wrong

Both are fact. I still believe that something created us.
Religion and science can be one and the same.

You can't scientifically prove or disprove god. To be fair, science says that god doesn't exist because there is no proof.

I think science will never be able to prove that our brains make us have thought. There will always be people who say "They'll figure it out." and there will always be people who say "There is something beyond the brain."

Elenai, everything was created by the flying spaghetti monster. I will not give proof.
It doesn't make me look like I know what I'm talking about, does it?
GIVE US PROOF!!!

 

[FuryOfASquirrel]

flying spagetti monster, I've gone to that site XD

Proof?
PROOF??!

Everyone wants proof, even meeee ^^

Proof that everything was created from god, science says there isn't any proof that god exists, so, scientifically, there isn't any proof that everything was created from god.

I have something to say to science, i have a different way of proving things, my life. You cannot debate my life, becuase it's MY life. I felt god move in my when the congregation at the summer camp at Oklahoma said to stand if you want to give your heart to Christ. I stood.

I felt god move in me when the congregation at Collin Creek Churchi n Plano, Texas was talking about a leadership group, and i felt god move in me when my sunday school class teacher asked about a leader.

I FEEL god, i SEE god working in people's lives! People have DRAMATICALLY changed because of the god that is portrayed through the bible, which is his word, to change his word dramatically is HERECY.

My experiences, and others that have been shared with me, prove existence of angels and god. Nothing can disprove my experiences.