Whoever said the Bible was supposed to be scientific? I don't think anyone has tried to argue that point.
It's a series of historical accounts.
:dw:
:dw:
:dw:
Documentary: The Unbelievers (Official Trailer)
- Thread starter wurd2
- Start date
Whoever said the Bible was supposed to be scientific? I don't think anyone has tried to argue that point.
It's a series of historical accounts.
:dw:
:dw:
:dw:
creation isnt scientific? adam and eve? all our animals are here due to Noah? the flood?
the planets age?
youve never had the pleasure of speaking to some real bible thumpers huh?
let the southern boys come on in this thread.
I am one of those "Bible Thumpers". A fundamentalist or 'extreme' Christian. The Bible is a series of historical accounts, it never makes the claim that it is the scientific authority. It is not a book about science, and you seem to be the only person that can't grasp this.
It's "God's word" which is truth. Either you take it all %100 or not. You cant say well " that parts bs but I like this part".
Where did human beings come from? How old is the planet? Did Noah really build an Arc with 2 of every animal? Was Jonah swallowed by a whale? Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead?
Your answers to those few questions..
FYI I was raised in a Born Again Christian household and have ( thanks to myself ) educated myself.
Show one first hand written text from one person who was with Jesus...
I can debate this all day and will win..dont bother.
The bible may not explicitly claim itself as a scientific series of documents, but the problem is that it makes supernatural claims that overtly trespass on scientific domains.
A simple example is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This literally goes against everything we understand about the body and the natural laws that govern its constituents.
Another example is the creation story of how God made light and visible matter. A literal interpretation of Genesis is wholly incompatible with science. If one is to loosen his or her interpretation of this creation account so as to seem compatible with our current cosmological understanding, he or she might as well just discard it for lack of focus.
.
A simple example is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This literally goes against everything we understand about the body and the natural laws that govern its constituents.
Another example is the creation story of how God made light and visible matter. A literal interpretation of Genesis is wholly incompatible with science. If one is to loosen his or her interpretation of this creation account so as to seem compatible with our current cosmological understanding, he or she might as well just discard it for lack of focus.
.
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at with this comment.
Are you saying:
A) - That you disagree with the great majority of secular (& Biblical) Scholars who believe in the Historicity of Jesus?
or
B) - That you disagree that Jesus was Divine?
Not looking for an e-debate, just trying to gain clarity on you statement.
Thx
I think it's ridiculous that a wedge is still trying to be driven between science and the belief in creation/I.D./divine beings.
No doubt man made religion can/has been/will be perverted further and further but that doesn't mean that the belief in a divine being/beings is that far out there.
The way I see it, as intricate as so many things are, it's hard to imagine things just "happened" or "evolved" but do not dispute that small scale evolution is a possibility. I believe it to be another of many vast facets of intelligent design.
To me, science (to some extent) and my beliefs go hand in hand.
Have fun going back and forth everyone :thumbsup:
No doubt man made religion can/has been/will be perverted further and further but that doesn't mean that the belief in a divine being/beings is that far out there.
The way I see it, as intricate as so many things are, it's hard to imagine things just "happened" or "evolved" but do not dispute that small scale evolution is a possibility. I believe it to be another of many vast facets of intelligent design.
To me, science (to some extent) and my beliefs go hand in hand.
Have fun going back and forth everyone :thumbsup:
Last edited:
T.Man said:
I would tread carefully here. By way of thought process, you should not assume that the capacities of what nature can produce by natural laws alone are somehow restricted to the extent of your imagination. As quantum mechanics has made abundantly clear to us, the universe is far, far stranger than our imaginations.
To base an argument on the limits of imagination is to execute the infamous personal incredulity logical fallacy—I can't imagine how X came from Y, therefore X didn't come from Y! It is tempting to reason in this manner, but it represents faulty logic for sure.
.
In 1970, a mathematician named John Conway put himself on the map by creating a breakthrough digital simulation that demonstrates how simplicity can produce complexity. He called it the Game of Life. Here's a 3 minute and 30 second video that explains the simulation and shows a run in progress:
[youtube_browser]CgOcEZinQ2I[/youtube_browser]
This blew my mind.
It takes place on an infinite grid of squares similar to tic-tac-toe. Each square is either lit (alive) or dark (dead). There are 3 *simple* rules:
I salute you Mr. Conway.
:rockon:
.
[youtube_browser]CgOcEZinQ2I[/youtube_browser]
This blew my mind.
It takes place on an infinite grid of squares similar to tic-tac-toe. Each square is either lit (alive) or dark (dead). There are 3 *simple* rules:
- If a living square is surrounded by dead squares, it dies.
- If a living square is surrounded by more than 3 living squares, it dies.
- If a dead square is surrounded by 3 living squares, it is born.
I salute you Mr. Conway.
:rockon:
.
Last edited:
i find this ironic. so let me get this straight....
a CREATOR, designs a "simulation" with RULES to abide by and "life" ensues.
weird, its seems like ive seen and heard this before somewhere....cant put my finger on it though.
the notion of total dismissal of a creator is the epitome of human arrogance. the big bang happened, who says this wasnt a tool used by God to start creation. kinda like someone designing a grid and putting little green squares on it.
Editing had nothing to do with him being a douche. It was in the way he responded. In his tone and facial expressions. It was like he had this holier than thou attitude about him.
Who were the ancient giants? Sons of Gods and mortal women? If you research about it you will find that most of the information has been swept under the rug. The topic is pretty interesting, multiple skeletons have been found and documented only for the museums to deny knowledge. Yes I know about the hoaxes but most have been real.
Just search for the Giant of Castelnau. I think the church/illuminati/government are keeping this a hidden secret.
Just search for the Giant of Castelnau. I think the church/illuminati/government are keeping this a hidden secret.
but there really isn't anything to say that it is not accurate in at least some of those claim. Our scientific understanding is still infantile in the grand scheme of things.
highlighted portion in red is the operative words. there are huge amounts of things we don't understand. As I said above our understanding is stil infantile in the grand scheme of things and there is much to yet be discovered by science. does that make everything of questionable scientific fact in the bible true? oh HELL no. but to say that things like this are NOT true because science hasn't proven it, when science is still expanding our understanding is short sighted and dumb, even for a non believer
incorrect. I believe in the creation, I do NOT believe in the literalaness of the story in Genisis. I have always made two points about the creation story.
1. The only real difference between Creationism and Evolution is a matter of time. The bible says God created, it does not expound on HOW he did it. evolution is as good an explination as any.
2. TIme - I believe that the time used in the bible was used because it was a concept that could be understood by those it was directed to. if the same was to be revealed today the description of how long it took would likely be quite different.
There does not have to be this great divide between science and religion in spite of what you and some of the athiests on this board seem to want. in the same token the bible literalists are deluding themselves when they say everything in the bible should be take litterally. it's not.
let me get my popping corn
HEMI LOL said:
I have to give you two responses because I don't know if you are a theist or a deist (they both apply if theist):
If you're a theist:
You *cannot* draw a parallel between John Conway and God because Conway does not interact with or influence the contents of his simulation whereas God absolutely interacts with and influences the contents of His universe. This is what it means to be a theist god!
If you're a deist:
Drawing a parallel between an entity that is sufficiently complex enough to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent who resides outside of space and time -and- a set of 3 simple rules that can be wholly described within 38 English words is utterly ridiculous. I don't think such a deity would appreciate the comparison. Plus, we have evidence of John Conway.
HEMI LOL said:
You don't get to invent a divine entity concept, real or not, and hold me accountable in the slightest manner for rejecting belief in that entity per insufficient evidence. As Carl Sagan famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheists bear zero responsibility in rejecting belief in God for lack of supporting evidence.
It would be a different matter if an atheist said he or she knows there is no god.
.
VNOMIS said:
I didn't mention the dishonesty of the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed film to defend Richard Dawkins' character. I did this to defend the content of his responses, which were miscontrued via cutting and editing, because his answers are based on good reason and I like defending and promoting good reason.
I don't care if Dawkins is the biggest asshole in the world. His work, writings, and arguments stand independently of his character.
.
wurd2 said:
RDJ said:
Let's suppose that a human resurrection is possible via the areas of biology for which we are still ignorant.
Why aren't resurrections common place?
Why aren't we observing and documenting them for study?
Why should we refer to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a miracle if natural laws allow for it?
RDJ said:
Evolutionary theory does not necessarily rule out a theist or deist creator, but the real difference between creationism and evolution is called supporting evidence. One has none, and the other has mountains. One is religious, and the other is scientific.
You're playing the apologist game where you determine which parts of the bible are literal or figurative based on our current scientific knowledge. If you and I had this conversation 150 years ago, you'd be telling me that creationism was literally true because the science that would eventually change your mind was only in its infancy stage at the time.
You can reverse engineer scientific understandings into the bible by flipping literal/figurative switches on verses until the cows come home. At the end of the day, science and religion represent two distinct methods of investigation. One is determined by observation, and the other is determined by authority. This is true despite whatever claims from both camps might be compatible.
As Lawrence Krauss said, science is us asking the questions and letting nature provide the answers.
The same cannot be said of religion because its claims are not falsifiable.
.
Looks interesting, can't wait for the release.
Deism and Theism are distinctly different concepts that should not be assumed equivalent. As a deist you don't face as many problems as theist but I doubt many believers typically fall into this category as opposed to believing in a personal benevolent god.
Also, as far as the idea that god/religion and science do not have to be mutual exclusive; this isn't really true. Religion is not about seeking knowledge which is exactly what science attempts. Religion is also intentionally unfalsifiable and inscrutable which should make any rationale person weary.
I also can't help but marvel over the dilemma faced by religious individuals that cherry pick portions of scripture. Does this prove human intellect must be used to discern morality, or is your god malevolent as opposed to benevolent?
Deism and Theism are distinctly different concepts that should not be assumed equivalent. As a deist you don't face as many problems as theist but I doubt many believers typically fall into this category as opposed to believing in a personal benevolent god.
Also, as far as the idea that god/religion and science do not have to be mutual exclusive; this isn't really true. Religion is not about seeking knowledge which is exactly what science attempts. Religion is also intentionally unfalsifiable and inscrutable which should make any rationale person weary.
I also can't help but marvel over the dilemma faced by religious individuals that cherry pick portions of scripture. Does this prove human intellect must be used to discern morality, or is your god malevolent as opposed to benevolent?
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
