Utopia Temple Forums

Utopia Temple Forums (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/index.php)
-   Religious Discussions (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/forumdisplay.php?f=68)
-   -   Faith based arguments. (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/showthread.php?t=78254)

Mars II 20-Aug-2010 21:17

Faith based arguments.
 
I thought I'd try to revive the religious forum with some classic debate.

What do you say to someone in a religious argument over the existence of higher power who is using faith as their argument? Isn't that just saying that you have no reason to believe in a higher power other than the fact that you want to?

DHoffryn 23-Aug-2010 08:40

That's actually the best argument there is. The whole point of religion is faith. If you build a case for beleif based on scientific or whatver arguments then it's faith or religion anymore. It's just a scientific law or whatver

Mars II 24-Aug-2010 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1688482)
That's actually the best argument there is. The whole point of religion is faith. If you build a case for beleif based on scientific or whatver arguments then it's faith or religion anymore. It's just a scientific law or whatver

My friends and I were discussing it and they seemed to agree that you can't argue with someone using faith as their reason. I think faith is a poor reason to believe for my previously stated reason. It is like answering the question "why?" with "because!"

DHoffryn 24-Aug-2010 13:21

Can you give me a better reason to believe when it comes to things like this? To me this seems like well for a lack of better world the only logical reason to beleive

Mars II 25-Aug-2010 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1688532)
Can you give me a better reason to believe when it comes to things like this? To me this seems like well for a lack of better world the only logical reason to beleive

It may work somewhat for a general "there is a higher power" argument but once you have a specific religion in mind it falls to shit. For example, you can't use this argument for Christianity because Judaism or Islam are just as solid using that logic.

DHoffryn 25-Aug-2010 14:45

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars II (Post 1688558)
It may work somewhat for a general "there is a higher power" argument but once you have a specific religion in mind it falls to shit. For example, you can't use this argument for Christianity because Judaism or Islam are just as solid using that logic.

Actually it's the opposite. You can try using experiences,proofs and whatver for a random higher power. But when it comes to specific religion the ONLY things I see making sense is faith. Pure blind faith. Not proofs, not logic but faith

But I am open to ideas as I said. Can you give me a better reason then this? This is the only one that makes at least a little sense to me

Roxtin 25-Aug-2010 16:23

I'm probably a little biased since I'm an atheist, but faith does not belong in an argument - arguments are based on proof, logic and reasoning. Faith is the exact opposite of those three. Then again, with no proof of a higher power, it's not exactly like there can be any logical, rational argument for the existence of one - so faith-based reasonings are all that's left for a religious debate.

Blind Seer 26-Aug-2010 20:44

Lack of proof does not equal proof of lack. People who believe in evolution wholeheartedly tend to use this argument too. Much like we can't completely prove God's existence to everyone scientifically*, we can't say much about where we came from otherwise either. Both sides have to take their stance purely based on faith.

*What I mean by that statement is that there are things around us in this universe (big bang, human and animal anatomy, ecosystems, etc.) that are proven scientifically. I believe that many branches of science are explorations into the way that God's creations work. However, such things sometimes are not enough to prove to some who just can't see the connection. Of course, this is my belief and you are welcome to yours.

Greeney 26-Aug-2010 23:00

Is it really faith when people just believe whatever their parents tell them to believe?

Kyleesha 27-Aug-2010 14:38

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greeney (Post 1688595)
Is it really faith when people just believe whatever their parents tell them to believe?

Like santa until you are about 8?

I got into this debate with my sister a short while ago. She is a devout christian and I am a firm atheist. And she used faith and the fact that good things happen in her life to show as the proof of god. (I believe in god, I do what he says to do, good things happen in my life, there for god must exist)

I tried to point out to her that she was using correlation and trying to make it become causation, that it should have been two separate tracks (I believe in god, I do what he says to do) and (because Im an adult in a career, with a husband who is also in a career, and we have two kids, and a nice house other good things also come to me)

She however because of her faith refused to see it that way and "knew" that it was gods influence in her life.

When people of faith get into an argument over something like that usually their faith is so tied up into their life that any extrication of it is nearly impossible. As an argument they are not capable of it because it is ingrained in who they are and their entire world view. Its not just a "because I want to" its turned into a because I have no other way of seeing my world.

Black Oranje 27-Aug-2010 16:09

These days I'm less inclined to start arguments about religion with religious people. There's simple no arguing with some of em.

A nice angle I sometimes use is the multitude of different religions around the world. Which one is right? How do you know that "your" God is the actual God out there?

This often leads to pointing out that even Christianity is just a human guess at things: in the early days there were different sects of christianism, each with a different view on things and a different version of Christ's story. The 4 books of the new testament were selected from over 25 different scriptures. Some aspects of the Christian religion were impleented for not so religious reasons.

but eventually there's always the argument that science can't explain all, there's always certain things science assumes, and the fact that I can't explain on the spot the full evidence, math or reasoning for stuff like quantum physics, big bang theory etcetera. From there on it gets more philosophical and vaguer and ultimately leads nowhere. One thing that never happens though is a believer saying: "you're right, it actually seems that there is no god!"

Greeney 27-Aug-2010 19:18

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyleesha (Post 1688606)
Like santa until you are about 8?

I got into this debate with my sister a short while ago. She is a devout christian and I am a firm atheist. And she used faith and the fact that good things happen in her life to show as the proof of god. (I believe in god, I do what he says to do, good things happen in my life, there for god must exist)

I tried to point out to her that she was using correlation and trying to make it become causation, that it should have been two separate tracks (I believe in god, I do what he says to do) and (because Im an adult in a career, with a husband who is also in a career, and we have two kids, and a nice house other good things also come to me)

She however because of her faith refused to see it that way and "knew" that it was gods influence in her life.

When people of faith get into an argument over something like that usually their faith is so tied up into their life that any extrication of it is nearly impossible. As an argument they are not capable of it because it is ingrained in who they are and their entire world view. Its not just a "because I want to" its turned into a because I have no other way of seeing my world.

Nah. What I mean is, these people who are so sure about their faith would be making the exact same statements from another religions perspective if both of their parents had decided to be another religion. Christians, for example, who constantly use faith as an argument would have never decided to be Christian if they were born into an Islamic family. So what good is their faith when they would have been devoutly loyal to a different religion if they were born elsewhere in the world? I don't particularly think less of people who believe in a God even to the point of delusional, but I don't like listening to someone who is only sure about something because their parents repetitively filled their head with that crap.

In regards to the correlation part of your post, it reminds of something I once read. Something like: The 99% of bad things that happen in the world are tests, the 1% of good things that happen to you is proof that a God exists.

Blind Seer 27-Aug-2010 21:52

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greeney (Post 1688612)
Nah. What I mean is, these people who are so sure about their faith would be making the exact same statements from another religions perspective if both of their parents had decided to be another religion. Christians, for example, who constantly use faith as an argument would have never decided to be Christian if they were born into an Islamic family. So what good is their faith when they would have been devoutly loyal to a different religion if they were born elsewhere in the world? I don't particularly think less of people who believe in a God even to the point of delusional, but I don't like listening to someone who is only sure about something because their parents repetitively filled their head with that crap.

I will have to disagree with you on this. I know someone who grew up in a christian household, but when his mother remarried to a Jewish man, he himself decided to convert to Judaism. I have a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, but am a Christian. Not because someone beat it into me. I became one by choice. Sure you might say, "Oh sure it's easier to make that choice because they both believe in God" and I'll have to stop you right there. I was at one point Agnostic because of my internal conflict between the two faiths, and had no direction. I was once a full believer in evolution, however that is something that has been proven less and less true as time goes on. However, again as I stated in an above post, that does not mean I reject all sciences.

Greeney 27-Aug-2010 21:57

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Seer (Post 1688623)
I will have to disagree with you on this. I know someone who grew up in a christian household, but when his mother remarried to a Jewish man, he himself decided to convert to Judaism. I have a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, but am a Christian. Not because someone beat it into me. I became one by choice. Sure you might say, "Oh sure it's easier to make that choice because they both believe in God" and I'll have to stop you right there. I was at one point Agnostic because of my internal conflict between the two faiths, and had no direction. I was once a full believer in evolution, however that is something that has been proven less and less true as time goes on. However, again as I stated in an above post, that does not mean I reject all sciences.

Which is why it's possible to have a discussion with you without wanting to bang my head against a wall.

Balfron 03-Oct-2010 09:50

"but faith does not belong in an argument - arguments are based on proof, logic and reasoning."

Yet you asserted that without using any proof, logic or reasoning. It may be that religion involves a leap of faith (although many dispute that, for example C S Lewis writes entertainingly that Christianity is perfectly rational). Why are arguments based on the belief that God is real and good irrational, but arguments based on the belief that it is wrong to harm others (for example) rational? Once you have the foundation of (for example) liberalism you can build systematically on that to make more complex arguments, but you still took that initial leap of faith to say that liberalism is good, just like you accuse religious people of doing.

I think there is a space in public debate for religious beliefs, and I think it's quite wrong to give views less weighting (or their own forum!) simply because they stem from a belief in a supernatural being.

izazul 10-Nov-2010 03:07

I think everyone bases their arguments on faith. Its just that some people have their faith founded on religion, others base their faith on science and others still that base their faith on their own self-perceived wisdom.

adam332 04-Mar-2011 00:44

If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.

What if the murder had happened 250 yrs ago, and there were over a hundred recorded accounts of that murder, would you believe that it occurred.

So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?

DHoffryn 04-Mar-2011 09:07

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693001)
If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them?

That depends on different factors. First we have to see how reliable the witnesses are and what is their attitude towards the murdered and the killer. Then we have to see if there is proof that there was an actual crime. It's not that hard to stage a murder.

Quote:

By what standard would you believe them, faith?
What was the exact term in English? Empirical proof I believe it was is usually the best. However this does lend a degree of credibilty



Quote:

What if the murder had happened 250 yrs ago, and there were over a hundred recorded accounts of that murder, would you believe that it occurred.
Again to a degree. The credibility of an event grows less reliable with time.

Quote:

So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?
You cna ask this about any religion, mythology. If you go by this logic all gods and mythological creatures are real. So why believe only in the Bible and not in the others?

adam332 04-Mar-2011 14:10

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1693003)
That depends on different factors. First we have to see how reliable the witnesses are and what is their attitude towards the murdered and the killer. Then we have to see if there is proof that there was an actual crime. It's not that hard to stage a murder.

What was the exact term in English? Empirical proof I believe it was is usually the best. However this does lend a degree of credibilty

Again to a degree. The credibility of an event grows less reliable with time.

You cna ask this about any religion, mythology. If you go by this logic all gods and mythological creatures are real. So why believe only in the Bible and not in the others?

I believe in the second sentence, which you happened to omit in your quote of my inquiry, I defined them as credible. Which happens to answer your first remark about the reliability of said witnesses. If you think that it's not hard to "stage" a murder witnessed in broad daylight by more than a hundred credible witnesses....well we are on completely different wavelengths.

Simply put; with the factors I mentioned such a comment is ridiculous.

No, you can't say that about any religion. You may want to look at current population numbers of said religions before making such a claim.

If you consider that as of year 2000..... statistics show there were more Christians on the planet than any other religion. If you then consider that combined with Judaism, and Islamic believers. We are talking a majority of the entire planets population.

Why would I include all three of those major religions as a single populous? Just ask a Christian, an Israelite(Jew), and a Muslim if they believe in the God of Abraham.

All were founded on essentially the same group of writings. It was only less than 2000 yrs ago that the Christians broke off from Judaism based on their belief that the current events they had witnessed were indeed proof of a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Then it was hundreds of years after that in which the Islamic believers were formed based on their belief that Muhammad was the latest prophet in a continuation of the base religion.

To act as if those who believe in the God of the old testament are just the same as any piddly religion is a incredibly huge understatement. In actuality, they make up the majority of the entire planet.

So, when I say that those who have faith that all those Biblical events that are recorded(for arguments sake just the Old Testament) should be counted as credible as those who say Napoleon existed is very fair indeed.

DHoffryn 04-Mar-2011 14:40

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693004)
I believe in the second sentence, which you happened to omit in your quote of my inquiry, I defined them as credible. Which happens to answer your first remark about the reliability of said witnesses.

No it doesn't. You can't just define someone as credible. They are many factors and this essentially undermines your whole point. Credibility comes from the amount of information we know about the witneses and the situation. The further we go back the less information we have about all these factors

Quote:

If you think that it's not hard to "stage" a murder witnessed in broad daylight by more than a hundred credible witnesses....well we are on completely different wavelengths.
As long as you have the expertise it's really not that hard. Any second hand movie studio can do it. Stage magicians, con man and pretty much anybody who put's a little effort and can organise a few people

Quote:

Simply put; with the factors I mentioned such a comment is ridiculous.
Your comments are indeed ridiculous

Quote:

No, you can't say that about any religion. You may want to look at current population numbers of said religions before making such a claim.

If you consider that as of year 2000..... statistics show there were more Christians on the planet than any other religion. If you then consider that combined with Judaism, and Islamic believers. We are talking a majority of the entire planets population.
I might as well copy paste it
Your comments are indeed ridiculous

Quote:

All were founded on essentially the same group of writings. It was only less than 2000 yrs ago that the Christians broke off from Judaism based on their belief that the current events they had witnessed were indeed proof of a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Then it was hundreds of years after that in which the Islamic believers were formed based on their belief that Muhammad was the latest prophet in a continuation of the base religion.
That lowers the credibility actually

Quote:

To act as if those who believe in the God of the old testament are just the same as any piddly religion is a incredibly huge understatement. In actuality, they make up the majority of the entire planet.
Your comments are indeed ridiculous

Quote:

So, when I say that those who have faith that all those Biblical events that are recorded(for arguments sake just the Old Testament) should be counted as credible as those who say Napoleon existed is very fair indeed.
Only in your mind

adam332 04-Mar-2011 23:09

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1693006)
No it doesn't. You can't just define someone as credible. They are many factors and this essentially undermines your whole point. Credibility comes from the amount of information we know about the witneses and the situation. The further we go back the less information we have about all these factors


As long as you have the expertise it's really not that hard. Any second hand movie studio can do it. Stage magicians, con man and pretty much anybody who put's a little effort and can organise a few people


Your comments are indeed ridiculous


I might as well copy paste it
Your comments are indeed ridiculous


That lowers the credibility actually


Your comments are indeed ridiculous


Only in your mind

It's a hypothetical situation. I can define them as credible for the sake of the point being made, without explaining what makes them credible. Perhaps you may want to look up the concept of "hypothetical".

My hypothetical situation did not include a staged murder, just as it DID include credible witnesses. You seem to want to redefine my scenario to nit pick on factors that weren't included in the first place.

Does it lower the credibility when one esteemed scientist has a theory based on huge amounts of solid data, and another esteemed colleague has another theory which is based on the same data? What if these theories created a rift in the scientific community, and half of the greatest minds on the planet found one more plausible and the other half thought the other theory was? Are all these people less credible because they believe one theory over another very plausible theory? Does this rift make their original solid data, which was used by both, void?

The same concept can be applied to the Old Testament being the solid data that all 3 of these major religions use.

BTW I love your thorough comments to most of my post, I say the majority of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham. You simply dismiss it as ridiculous. Great comeback!

Call my comments ridiculous if you like but with out explaining why just shows that your ability to have well thought out conversation is found wanting. I respect your beliefs no matter how opposed or ridiculous I think they are. But, I would be mature enough to explain why I feel that way.

Failure to do so lowers your credibility, and makes you look like a guy without answers..... who resorts to quick little insults in lieu of a reason why.

DHoffryn 05-Mar-2011 20:10

Quote:

It's a hypothetical situation. I can define them as credible for the sake of the point being made, without explaining what makes them credible. Perhaps you may want to look up the concept of "hypothetical".
Unless you want your hypothetical situation to go into the realms of fantasy they are always degrees of credibility for anybody

Quote:

My hypothetical situation did not include a staged murder, just as it DID include credible witnesses. You seem to want to redefine my scenario to nit pick on factors that weren't included in the first place.
I am defining it to apply to human beings. Because we are not gods. We can't be completely certain. And the more are involved the less certain we become because the less information we have. This goes a million time for historic events

Quote:

Does it lower the credibility when one esteemed scientist has a theory based on huge amounts of solid data, and another esteemed colleague has another theory which is based on the same data? What if these theories created a rift in the scientific community, and half of the greatest minds on the planet found one more plausible and the other half thought the other theory was? Are all these people less credible because they believe one theory over another very plausible theory? Does this rift make their original solid data, which was used by both, void?

And now you are jumping from one wild example to another and as always missing the point

Quote:

The same concept can be applied to the Old Testament being the solid data that all 3 of these major religions use.
Nope it can't. You can't just say one thing applies like this. One has to take in account the context, the thousands of small details.

Quote:

BTW I love your thorough comments to most of my post, I say the majority of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham. You simply dismiss it as ridiculous. Great comeback!
It's not a comeback. It's depressuion due to how you can't seem to grasp basic logic

Quote:

Call my comments ridiculous if you like but with out explaining why just shows that your ability to have well thought out conversation is found wanting. I respect your beliefs no matter how opposed or ridiculous I think they are. But, I would be mature enough to explain why I feel that way.

Failure to do so lowers your credibility, and makes you look like a guy without answers..... who resorts to quick little insults in lieu of a reason why.
Explaining why your comments are ridiculous is like explaining that the sun rises everyday. It's so obvious that it's pointless to waste time. However fine here you go


Your situation with the murder has all the flaws I pointed out. You ignore them because you haven't reached your through a logical path frbut you have already the answer that in your mind is right and therefore you are simply trying to prove it. In this case by making up a fantasy scenario then try to claim it's identical to a historical scenario even thought everybody who has brain cells can see that it's not and claim this as proof

As for your numbers point do I really need to explain to you why it's stupid? Because that would be just sad.

adam332 06-Mar-2011 08:52

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1693018)
Unless you want your hypothetical situation to go into the realms of fantasy they are always degrees of credibility for anybody


I am defining it to apply to human beings. Because we are not gods. We can't be completely certain. And the more are involved the less certain we become because the less information we have. This goes a million time for historic events


And now you are jumping from one wild example to another and as always missing the point


Nope it can't. You can't just say one thing applies like this. One has to take in account the context, the thousands of small details.


It's not a comeback. It's depressuion due to how you can't seem to grasp basic logic


Explaining why your comments are ridiculous is like explaining that the sun rises everyday. It's so obvious that it's pointless to waste time. However fine here you go


Your situation with the murder has all the flaws I pointed out. You ignore them because you haven't reached your through a logical path frbut you have already the answer that in your mind is right and therefore you are simply trying to prove it. In this case by making up a fantasy scenario then try to claim it's identical to a historical scenario even thought everybody who has brain cells can see that it's not and claim this as proof

As for your numbers point do I really need to explain to you why it's stupid? Because that would be just sad.

Good grief are you serious? I'm not trying to convert you. I am simply trying to give an example. But you don't like where that example takes you, so you want so desperately to redefine it so you can defend your position.

Just consider for one moment, that it is a real murder, and the witnesses are all credible by your standards. Can you do that? Assume that any doubts about either have been established so firmly that there is no doubt.

It is hypothetical!!! All you have to do is add your thoughts on the situation that is already established!!

If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some. I know your type, the guys who think they know alot but when you ask them a question they don't answer. Instead they ask you a question back.

I don't play those games. If you want a serious, thoughtful discussion on the these theological subjects it has to be tit for tat.

I'll be waiting if you ever decide to respond to my first post as it stands. In a formal debate you would have failed. Trying to reword your opponents question to suit what answer you want to give is absurd, and such behavior wouldn't be fit for even a high school level debate team.

adam332 06-Mar-2011 13:02

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693026)
If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some.

Mistype on this sentence...

"If you can't do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some."

DHoffryn 06-Mar-2011 14:16

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693026)
Good grief are you serious? I'm not trying to convert you. I am simply trying to give an example. But you don't like where that example takes you, so you want so desperately to redefine it so you can defend your position.

Just consider for one moment, that it is a real murder, and the witnesses are all credible by your standards. Can you do that? Assume that any doubts about either have been established so firmly that there is no doubt.

It is hypothetical!!! All you have to do is add your thoughts on the situation that is already established!!

If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some. I know your type, the guys who think they know alot but when you ask them a question they don't answer. Instead they ask you a question back.

I don't play those games. If you want a serious, thoughtful discussion on the these theological subjects it has to be tit for tat.

I'll be waiting if you ever decide to respond to my first post as it stands. In a formal debate you would have failed. Trying to reword your opponents question to suit what answer you want to give is absurd, and such behavior wouldn't be fit for even a high school level debate team.

Oh dear god man how many times do I have to tell you your entire foundation is flawed? it doesn't matter how credible your witneses are. Hell it doesn't matter if I myself am a witness. Nothing is perfect(the closest you can come is if you are the murdered yourself. If you experienced it. Hence why faith comes from withing and not from false logic). It's still a degree of credibility not perfect. That's what I am trying to explain to you. Faith is not a degree of credibility.

And do you honestly can't see how bad it is try and compare to a historic event which due to it's nature has even less credibility. Yes we can agree that well doumented people like Napoleon existed but there is still a lot of arguing about the details of their life

Same with your Bible. One can easily agree that parts of it are historical in nature but that is NO proof for the supernatural part.

And if it was it was(and it isn't) then the SAME would apply to other religions and their myths. And no please don't evne mention numbers. If you stop just for a second you will realise how idiotic this argument makes you sound


So do you finally get it are you still going to try and limp with your horribly mispalced and illogical comparsions?

adam332 07-Mar-2011 03:37

If I said the sky was blue, you would argue that it's actually light blue.
If I said what if you and I were on the moon who do you think could jump higher?. You would argue on how two civilians like us could never go to the moon and that since it's not realistic I won't answer.

Like I said, if you can't answer a hypothetical scenario as it stands then I have nothing to say to you. You are a little nitpicker who wants to argue, not talk.

Toodles Noodle.

DHoffryn 07-Mar-2011 13:01

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693031)
If I said the sky was blue, you would argue that it's actually light blue.
If I said what if you and I were on the moon who do you think could jump higher?. You would argue on how two civilians like us could never go to the moon and that since it's not realistic I won't answer.

Like I said, if you can't answer a hypothetical scenario as it stands then I have nothing to say to you. You are a little nitpicker who wants to argue, not talk.

Toodles Noodle.

Do you really have such a hard time accepting that your examples suck? You truly are a child. I already answered all your arguments point by point on why they don't work when it's concerning faith. And instead of trying to actually give some solid arguments in return you simply whine, whine some more and then for final whine evne more. Either man up or get out

adam332 07-Mar-2011 22:53

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Seer (Post 1688594)

*What I mean by that statement is that there are things around us in this universe (big bang, human and animal anatomy, ecosystems, etc.) that are proven scientifically.

How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.

xfrodobagginsx 07-Mar-2011 23:30

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693001)
If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.

What if the murder had happened 250 yrs ago, and there were over a hundred recorded accounts of that murder, would you believe that it occurred.

So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?

I agree. Well put.

xfrodobagginsx 07-Mar-2011 23:35

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693004)
I believe in the second sentence, which you happened to omit in your quote of my inquiry, I defined them as credible. Which happens to answer your first remark about the reliability of said witnesses. If you think that it's not hard to "stage" a murder witnessed in broad daylight by more than a hundred credible witnesses....well we are on completely different wavelengths.

Simply put; with the factors I mentioned such a comment is ridiculous.

No, you can't say that about any religion. You may want to look at current population numbers of said religions before making such a claim.

If you consider that as of year 2000..... statistics show there were more Christians on the planet than any other religion. If you then consider that combined with Judaism, and Islamic believers. We are talking a majority of the entire planets population.

Why would I include all three of those major religions as a single populous? Just ask a Christian, an Israelite(Jew), and a Muslim if they believe in the God of Abraham.

All were founded on essentially the same group of writings. It was only less than 2000 yrs ago that the Christians broke off from Judaism based on their belief that the current events they had witnessed were indeed proof of a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Then it was hundreds of years after that in which the Islamic believers were formed based on their belief that Muhammad was the latest prophet in a continuation of the base religion.

To act as if those who believe in the God of the old testament are just the same as any piddly religion is a incredibly huge understatement. In actuality, they make up the majority of the entire planet.

So, when I say that those who have faith that all those Biblical events that are recorded(for arguments sake just the Old Testament) should be counted as credible as those who say Napoleon existed is very fair indeed.

There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well. It is supported by secular history, the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, the testimonies of those who have converted, the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history, the manner in which is was preserved, the manner in which the books were compiled, the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.

adam332 08-Mar-2011 01:56

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx (Post 1693064)
There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well. It is supported by secular history, the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, the testimonies of those who have converted, the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history, the manner in which is was preserved, the manner in which the books were compiled, the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.

One could also point out the extreme measures they went through to preserve their lineage. They placed huge importance in tracing the ancestors back to the original twelve tribes and ultimately to Abraham himself.

Which puts these accounts found in the Old Testament in a very different light. To doubt their validity would be the equivalent of calling their ancestors liars. They thought lying was a sin worthy of damnation and took that even more seriously than their meticulous record keeping.

Dusk Illz 08-Mar-2011 02:26

To answer the thread's initial question;

"beliefs held without evidence, may also be dismissed without evidence"

adam332 08-Mar-2011 05:03

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz (Post 1693070)
To answer the thread's initial question;

"beliefs held without evidence, may also be dismissed without evidence"

Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?

Dusk Illz 09-Mar-2011 16:44

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693072)
Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?

You're wrong, it isn't. In fact, the entire notion of evidence presupposes that it isn't: if evidence was subjective we could never establish the truth of any assertion, hence never know anything. Yet we obviously do. How do we do so? By providing evidence, which can be checked by others, who can repeat the tests you did to see if they arrive at the same conclusions.

Having to provide evidence for your claims is common-sense in all domains of human knowledge; and for very obvious reasons. It is what has allowed us to learn over the millennia, to slowly build up a body of knowledge, collectively, not subjectively. There is no good reason to exempt religious and spiritual experiences and their resultant knowledge from that common-sense requirement whatsoever.

adam332 10-Mar-2011 10:00

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz (Post 1693098)
You're wrong, it isn't. In fact, the entire notion of evidence presupposes that it isn't: if evidence was subjective we could never establish the truth of any assertion, hence never know anything. Yet we obviously do. How do we do so? By providing evidence, which can be checked by others, who can repeat the tests you did to see if they arrive at the same conclusions.

Having to provide evidence for your claims is common-sense in all domains of human knowledge; and for very obvious reasons. It is what has allowed us to learn over the millennia, to slowly build up a body of knowledge, collectively, not subjectively. There is no good reason to exempt religious and spiritual experiences and their resultant knowledge from that common-sense requirement whatsoever.

So every person on this planet no matter what the subject will always agree with what is and what isn't evidence? Obviously the answer is no. Therefore evidence is subjective.

One laboratory may have certain standards and another lab may have a completely different rules before they consider something evidence.

In courts what evidence is can vary from state to state, country to country, etc.....

filcher 14-Mar-2011 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332
If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.

It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief in this instance. Ask an investigator, and almost every one will tell you that no witness sees the same as the other witnesses, so we cannot base the facts on witness testimony alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332
We are talking a majority of the entire planets population.

Again, truth is not based on the popularity of an event or idea. If you look at the work of the early christian missionaries, they commited some heinous crimes on the heathens to make conversions. Due to the European love of imperialism and colonialism we spread our religion across the World and forced conversion of peoples, not something I am particularly proud of.

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332
So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?

You may as well as ask that about the early worship of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Celts, Norse, and all other religions. They were founded on the same platform as Judaism, Christianity and Islam; stories and legends that were passed along and believed by the populace.

The accounts of the existence of Napoleon are many fold, and his legacy is still with us today. The evidence beyond credible witnesses is that he lived and was a conqueror of most of Europe. There is too much evidence that Napoleon was an actual historical figure to dismiss as non credible.

The same can not be said for God, or Jesus or Mohammed. We can make a case that Jesus and Mohammed were actual people, but especially in the case of Jesus, there is no way we can verify the truth of the gospels, they were written after his death and in some cases only based on the stories of the Apostles, not written by the Apostles themselves. Again dealing with Christianity, there have been times when various Gospels have been suppressed as contrary to the will of the Church, and there are even writings considered as the word of God (so they cannot be destroyed) that are not in the average bible.

Quote:

How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.
The 'Big Bang' theory is the best conjecture scientists have to explain the formation of the Universe. Based on the evidence they have at hand. As for altering the theory over time, all theories evolve as more evidence is uncovered and evaluated. It does not mean the theory or the scientists are wrong, just that they are uncovering more evidences they can use to reach a conclusion. I have yet to see a scientist totally reject the concept of the Big Bang and have the evidences to challenge the basic concept as we know it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xfrodobagginsx
There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well.

I will take these one at a time.

Quote:

It is supported by secular history,
In what way is it supported? Please explain this claim.
Quote:

the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies,
It is easy to have a fulfilled prophecy, there are millions of them everyday in the astrology columns. We have fulfilled prophecies in all religions, how are the prophecies of the Bible anny different?
Quote:

the testimonies of those who have converted
This cannot be used as an argument of the existing of a God, as many of these people may have existing problems at the time of conversion, and many more that converted have reported no difference in their feelings about it.
Quote:

the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history
Again, not a measure of truth but a sign of fanaticism towards their religous belief. There have been heathens put to death by other religions, who refused to renounced their gods. That does not make their religions any more credible.
Quote:

the manner in which is was preserved
Again, there was a growing vaccuum for a religion that could fill the depravity of the present religions in Rome. Christianity was a religion that grew to become what the population desired, especially in Council of Nicena, where even killing was sanctioned by the Church leaders at the time.
Quote:

the manner in which the books were compiled,
The books were compiled by men who chose what to add and take away based on their own interpretation of the message of Jesus. That is why Jesus's message of "Love your Neighbor" has so many caveats to it..like... as long as it is not same sex... inter racial.. other religions...
Quote:

the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well
Again you lose me. In some things the Bible does talk about things that border on scientific truths as we understand them, but many of the parables of the Bible are far removed from being supported in any measure by science. Science fictinj writers of the 1800's have a much better prophetic measure than the Bible in this regard, and I see no religion celebrating Verne, or Wells
Quote:

and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.
It does contradict itself numerous times though. There are 2 accounts of the creation, for instance. There are thousands of Christian sects, and many Christian sects that have different beliefs, that are all based on the biblical writings. The evidence is that it does quite strenuously contradict itself, numerous times.


Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332
One could also point out the extreme measures they went through to preserve their lineage. They placed huge importance in tracing the ancestors back to the original twelve tribes and ultimately to Abraham himself.

As evidence of truth in religion, this has no weight. It also shows the xenophobia and racism of the early Jewish tribes. The chinese can trace their ancestry back thousands of years also. Are you making the claim their religion is as credible as the religions based on the Abrahamic God?

Quote:

Which puts these accounts found in the Old Testament in a very different light. To doubt their validity would be the equivalent of calling their ancestors liars. They thought lying was a sin worthy of damnation and took that even more seriously than their meticulous record keeping.
Accounts of the earliest portions of the Bible were by word of mouth and memorization. It wasn't until the first four books were compiled that there was an actual account of the religion, or the genealogy of the peoples.

Quote:

Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?
What physical form or manifestation, what mathematical equationn, what chemical or magnetic abnormality exists that we can examine and test the theory that God exists or that the Bible is divine? Scientific theories are based on an interpretation of various evaluations that can be tested and proven in a classroom or under laboratory conditions, the theories can be tried numerous times without deviation from already detailed conclusions. Observed deviations in the minutest form create scientists to observe and research why there are abnomalies in the calculations, which result in a more precise understanding of the theory being tested and at times a new belief and theory being generated. The ability to observe the physical, or observed measured magnetic, gravitational or energy forces, chemical balances and other measurable phenomena in the world around us constitutes evidence.

Quote:

So every person on this planet no matter what the subject will always agree with what is and what isn't evidence? Obviously the answer is no. Therefore evidence is subjective.
No, you are talking about interpretation of evidence, which does create schism between opposing views.

Quote:

One laboratory may have certain standards and another lab may have a completely different rules before they consider something evidence.
No. the scientific community is very strict about what constitutes evidence and what is allowed and what isn't allowed. If a result cannot be duplicated by other laboratories, then the result claimed by the one laboratory is dismissed as an anomaly.

Quote:

n courts what evidence is can vary from state to state, country to country, etc.....
Only to a certain degree. Evidence cannot be disallowed, but interpretation of what the evidence means must be presented IIRC.

adam332 18-Mar-2011 10:19

Filcher, you have written quite a bit but fell incredibly short of answering the gist of the points I was making.

You said;
"It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief..."


The criteria for ones belief that something occurred, could easily be said that it is the criteria that one has faith that something occurred. The words are interchangeable to an extent, unless you are just arguing semantics. If that's the case then just assume that everywhere I wrote faith, I actually wrote belief. That should satisfy any semantics issues you have with the word "faith".

You said;
Again, truth is not based on the popularity of an event or idea.


Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly? I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.

You said;
"You may as well as ask that about the early worship of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Celts, Norse, and all other religions."


Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived? I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.

About your comments on Napoleon, where is the cut off line? How far back does one have to go to before you doubt the recorded existence or events of a person. Constantine? Alexander the Great?

I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.

At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?

Was it in 1906, when the Hittite Empire was discovered as being more than a Biblical myth?
Maybe it was the discovery of the City of Ur which Abraham was said to have lived.
Perhaps the city of Pithom that was found to be real.
Or the city of Neta'im.

Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.

So much so that scholars use the Bible as a road map to help them locate these formerly non-existent events and places. So who gets to claim that one passage by a writer is historically accurate, but the very next passage by the same author isn't? Does the minority get to choose?

Sorry, that just doesn't sit well with me. Yet it seems that some allegedly logically thinking people would do just that.

I have to go, and don't have time to address every counter-point you said. Perhaps that will give you a little to chew on in the meantime.

Saint Sinner 18-Mar-2011 12:15

Quote:

Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived?
I can answer that
Cause early Christians went to war with and killed anyone that opposed their beliefs and as it was the last religion to arise in such a way right before our age of industry and enlightenment ... its the one we got stuck with

filcher 18-Mar-2011 20:38

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693286)
Filcher, you have written quite a bit but fell incredibly short of answering the gist of the points I was making.

I will try to answer your questions, then.

Quote:

You said;
"It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief..."


The criteria for ones belief that something occurred, could easily be said that it is the criteria that one has faith that something occurred. The words are interchangeable to an extent, unless you are just arguing semantics. If that's the case then just assume that everywhere I wrote faith, I actually wrote belief. That should satisfy any semantics issues you have with the word "faith".
You misunderstand my position. When I talk about evidence to support a bdelief, especially as regards a criminal investigation or to support scientific theories, I am discussing evidence we can relate to physical interpretation. It does not matter if a hundred people say that I killed my friend, without physical evidence to support the accusation I am relying solely on evidence I cannot prove or disprove in any physical form. With bloodstains, a body, a murder weapon, then we can rely on the belief I killed my friend is accurate.


Quote:

Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly?
I am breaking your quote up to explain what I mean. If one laboratory does an experiment and gets a different result, using the same process and same types of processes as all the other labs, than any other lab that did that experiment, then it is an anomaly. If it continues to get that same result, even under different researchers, then it is capable of creating a new theory or explanation of why.

Quote:

I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.
It is a reason to dismiss them if you want to explain in any scientific terms the existence of God. There is no way that stories and tales of God's existence can be credited any more than the stories of Ghosts and spirits, of Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, or any other legend can be credited as real. I do not doubt that those who believe in his existence feel the stories should be considered true, but without additional information we cannot make a judgement call on whether they actually are true or not.

Quote:

Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived? I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.
I think you may be under a misrepresentation here about lengths of time . I think that the worship of animals pre dates the Abrahamic religions and has existed in a greater area for a longer time, than has Judaism, and it grew not just in one corner of the World, but in all areas of the World. They have cave paintings that would suggest a worship of various animals, as well as totems and carved images from all over the World. It only lost popularity at the hands of the Christian missionaries, who converted at the point of a sword.

Quote:

About your comments on Napoleon, where is the cut off line? How far back does one have to go to before you doubt the recorded existence or events of a person. Constantine? Alexander the Great?
We have no "cut off" line in terms of what is and isn't factual. we have numerous books and archaeological discoveries that exist beyond the popular writings of people like Alexander the Great, and we can use secondary sources to also prove he was a real person. We cannot prove Robin Hood was a real person, despite the popularity of legends simply because there are no records that support the accounts often told of him. It is not a question of when, but a question of what; what records are there, who has written of them, what physical evidence of his life remains?

Quote:

I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.
It merely went through what any other new religion went through since the dawn of history. That it survived does not mean that it is true or Divine, it merely means that it was a religion the largest group of people were able to feel comfortable with.

Quote:

At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?
When we are able to verify what is written in it. The old testament is a history of the Jewish peoples, and as such it can be verified; the religion doctrine shows the religious beliefs but it does not show that the God of Abraham exists.

Quote:

Was it in 1906, when the Hittite Empire was discovered as being more than a Biblical myth?
Maybe it was the discovery of the City of Ur which Abraham was said to have lived.
Perhaps the city of Pithom that was found to be real.
Or the city of Neta'im.

Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.
You are describing a history book. No one has ever said that the Bible is not an account of the history of the Jewish race. What it is not is evidence of a Divine being.

Quote:

So much so that scholars use the Bible as a road map to help them locate these formerly non-existent events and places. So who gets to claim that one passage by a writer is historically accurate, but the very next passage by the same author isn't? Does the minority get to choose?
No, we should let common sense tell us. If there is physical evidence relating to the passage, then we should say that is proof. So far it has shown several historical facts with physical proof, but no divine ones.

Quote:

Sorry, that just doesn't sit well with me. Yet it seems that some allegedly logically thinking people would do just that.
Unfortunately I have never seen physical evidence of God that you can actually use to prove his existence. The Bible is a human compilation of many writers and story tellers that. The Church is an organization that was created by human beings, and the Church Doctrines were created amongst great debate and controversy.

All the evidences that you have presented rely on hearsay evidences and circumstantial evidences, there is no evidence that you have bought forth showing God exists.
Quote:

I have to go, and don't have time to address every counter-point you said. Perhaps that will give you a little to chew on in the meantime.
The main problem is that you know what you know, but you do not see that others have a hard time accepting evidences that cannot be proven or verified by physical evidences or by secondary reports. I am definitely not saying you are wrong in your beliefs, I am saying that others may not see as clearly as you do in some ways.

Greeney 18-Mar-2011 22:33

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly? I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.
There have also been lots of people who have claimed God told them to do psychotic things. There's no guarantee that any of these people had anything more than delusions or lies.


Quote:

Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived?
That's like arguing that people should be Jewish because Jews have been around longer... not really the most convincing argument.

Quote:

I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.
Not logical at all.

Quote:

I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.
I'll go with Jews again. They've been around far longer, denounced far more, and have been far more oppressed. You should be Jewish?

Quote:

At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?
You do realize there are things in the bible that are inconsistent with science and technology?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

If you go to court and claim you saw someone murder someone else, when it can be proven that you were nowhere near the scene, even if the person your accusing did commit murder, your testimony on anything you have ever said in court counts as nothing and you deserve to be tried for perjury. The fact that there is so much in the bible that has been proven wrong makes it more than hard for a logical person to accept it as reliable.

Quote:

Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.
It can have a million facts, but it still has many things that are clearly wrong.

adam332 21-Mar-2011 05:19

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner (Post 1693289)
I can answer that
Cause early Christians went to war with and killed anyone that opposed their beliefs and as it was the last religion to arise in such a way right before our age of industry and enlightenment ... its the one we got stuck with

How does that explain me and millions like me? You can't just point to some events and say that it applies across the board.

No one used a sword to convert me. In actuality I was raised an atheist and never attended a Church. Yet I while sitting in my living room alone at age 28, I felt God and in a second went from completely sure there was no God to completely sure there was one and that he was the God specifically spoken of in the Bible.

DHoffryn 21-Mar-2011 05:58

Quote:

How does that explain me and millions like me? You can't just point to some events and say that it applies across the board.
That would be the part where it explains why Christianity lasted while others failed. It has to do with it's followers killing others and it being a very good social and political tool rather then some divine truth you are going for. At least that's what history points


Quote:

No one used a sword to convert me. In actuality I was raised an atheist and never attended a Church. Yet I while sitting in my living room alone at age 28, I felt God and in a second went from completely sure there was no God to completely sure there was one and that he was the God specifically spoken of in the Bible.
And this complete sureness is the reason why you stuff your ears and ignore every counter argument? And you seem to be getting worse. With me you seem repeated the same thing over and over. Now you seem to be afraid to even adress filcher's damn good arguments

adam332 21-Mar-2011 07:16

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
It is a reason to dismiss them if you want to explain in any scientific terms the existence of God. There is no way that stories and tales of God's existence can be credited any more than the stories of Ghosts and spirits, of Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, or any other legend can be credited as real. I do not doubt that those who believe in his existence feel the stories should be considered true, but without additional information we cannot make a judgement call on whether they actually are true or not.

It may be scientifically possible to prove God but it can never be scientifically possible to disprove Him. I've heard many try to dissect the Bible to show inconsistencies. However, not only has archaeology shown many Biblical things that were once myth to be fact but science has too.

For example, I've heard people ask how was there light(Gen. 1:3) before the sun was created(Gen. 1:14-19) in an effort to discredit scripture.

However it was science which explained it just in the last 80yrs.

Sonoluminescence is the ability of turning sound into light. It was first stumbled upon in 1934 by H. Frenzel and H. Schultes of the University of Cologne, Germany. Essentially, it is the ability of acoustical energy bombarding molecules of water. Here we have a scientific principal showing sound and water resulting in light.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The Bible records water and sound and then light. An amazing coincidence to say the least even for the biggest skeptic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
I think you may be under a misrepresentation here about lengths of time . I think that the worship of animals pre dates the Abrahamic religions and has existed in a greater area for a longer time, than has Judaism, and it grew not just in one corner of the World, but in all areas of the World.

I am not denying there were other religions before Abraham, but according to scripture the worship of Abraham's God existed before all others. Abraham and his offspring were simply given the job of being his ambassadors at that point in history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
We have no "cut off" line in terms of what is and isn't factual. we have numerous books and archaeological discoveries that exist beyond the popular writings of people like Alexander the Great, and we can use secondary sources to also prove he was a real person. We cannot prove Robin Hood was a real person, despite the popularity of legends simply because there are no records that support the accounts often told of him. It is not a question of when, but a question of what; what records are there, who has written of them, what physical evidence of his life remains?

Again, who gets to determine that an authors comments are true up until a particular subject is mentioned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
It merely went through what any other new religion went through since the dawn of history. That it survived does not mean that it is true or Divine, it merely means that it was a religion the largest group of people were able to feel comfortable with.

I never said it was proof of divinity because it had outlasted most and is currently the majority belief of the human race. I was pointing out it's uniqueness and that it should not be dismissed as just your average religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
When we are able to verify what is written in it. The old testament is a history of the Jewish peoples, and as such it can be verified; the religion doctrine shows the religious beliefs but it does not show that the God of Abraham exists.

That is incorrect. It does more than simply record their religious beliefs. It gives first hand accounts of how some of the writers saw miracles, spoke and touched God in the physical sense. Let me reiterate, who gets to determine that a Biblical author was speaking literally of a physical place or event in one sentence, then when recording that he literally touched God in the next sentence it is myth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
You are describing a history book. No one has ever said that the Bible is not an account of the history of the Jewish race. What it is not is evidence of a Divine being.

Let me get this straight, it can be evidence of cities that the author actually saw, but it is can not be evidence of a divine being who the author actually saw? A bit inconsistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
No, we should let common sense tell us. If there is physical evidence relating to the passage, then we should say that is proof. So far it has shown several historical facts with physical proof, but no divine ones.

Again that is subjective. To millions it has been able to confirm evidence of a divine being they have personally encountered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
Unfortunately I have never seen physical evidence of God that you can actually use to prove his existence.

That is not the standard for what many scholars call evidence. There are recorded accounts of places and events that have never been physically found. Yet, when other non-Biblical sources have recorded the same exact event or place they consider that evidence that the Bible was recording an actual physical place or event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
The Bible is a human compilation of many writers and story tellers that. The Church is an organization that was created by human beings, and the Church Doctrines were created amongst great debate and controversy.

Not much I can disagree with there, except the phrase "story tellers" which seems to imply fiction to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
All the evidences that you have presented rely on hearsay evidences and circumstantial evidences, there is no evidence that you have bought forth showing God exists.

So if the Bible records the existence of an empire and multiple other sources confirm the same it is simply hearsay and not evidence? I think there would be many archaeologists who disagree with your definition of evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693290)
The main problem is that you know what you know, but you do not see that others have a hard time accepting evidences that cannot be proven or verified by physical evidences or by secondary reports. I am definitely not saying you are wrong in your beliefs, I am saying that others may not see as clearly as you do in some ways.

Interesting. Just before this you indicated secondary reports as hearsay and not evidence, but here you clearly indicate that physical evidence and secondary reports are equal proof. It appears secondary reports of God is your exception to what you will call evidence. How convenient.

adam332 21-Mar-2011 07:57

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1693305)
That would be the part where it explains why Christianity lasted while others failed. It has to do with it's followers killing others and it being a very good social and political tool rather then some divine truth you are going for. At least that's what history points

Has nothing to do with my response.


Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1693305)
And this complete sureness is the reason why you stuff your ears and ignore every counter argument? And you seem to be getting worse. With me you seem repeated the same thing over and over. Now you seem to be afraid to even adress filcher's damn good arguments

Evidently you didn't read. I said I spent the first 28yrs an atheist. So you think I just stuffed my ears. Please tell me you have something real to contribute.

I'm not afraid of anyones comments. There is definitely a unfair advantage of time constraint when one person is having to answer many others. I'm so sorry that I don't have the time of 4 people to satisfy you. Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just gonna' mock someone for not having the time to answer somebody elses thoughts.

If you have something of substance to say then join in otherwise let filcher and I continue without your snide empty comments.

filcher 21-Mar-2011 09:55

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693307)
It may be scientifically possible to prove God but it can never be scientifically possible to disprove Him. I've heard many try to dissect the Bible to show inconsistencies. However, not only has archaeology shown many Biblical things that were once myth to be fact but science has too.

The problem with using the Bible to argue points is that it is does depend on faith, and not on physical evidence. Nobody AFAIK has said the Bible is not a historical accounting of the Jewish history and the tribes, we are saying that using the historical context as a proof of religious context is like comparing apples and oranges.

Quote:

For example, I've heard people ask how was there light(Gen. 1:3) before the sun was created(Gen. 1:14-19) in an effort to discredit scripture.

However it was science which explained it just in the last 80yrs.

Sonoluminescence is the ability of turning sound into light. It was first stumbled upon in 1934 by H. Frenzel and H. Schultes of the University of Cologne, Germany. Essentially, it is the ability of acoustical energy bombarding molecules of water. Here we have a scientific principal showing sound and water resulting in light.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The Bible records water and sound and then light. An amazing coincidence to say the least even for the biggest skeptic.
The interpretation of the Bible has resulted in many schisms within the church, and has led to very outlandish beliefs. There are at least 2 accounts of the beginning of the earth, they are contradictory to each other. In this instance you use a very liberal interpretation of scientific theory to try to explain how the Bible is not contradictory with science; unfortunately it is contradictory to itself.

If the Bible is the literal word of God, which creation story is the right one, and why is there a creation that is totally wrong?

Quote:

I am not denying there were other religions before Abraham, but according to scripture the worship of Abraham's God existed before all others. Abraham and his offspring were simply given the job of being his ambassadors at that point in history.
So in points of fact, as the worship of animals, and of pantheons of Gods were the norm, and I believe that Judaism was the first major religion that was monotheistic, God was originally worshiped as an animal or as one of several different beings in a pantheon.

Quote:

Again, who gets to determine that an authors comments are true up until a particular subject is mentioned?
You don't really have that choice, do you? You are arguing the Bible is factual. How can you say that this is false, this true, this is a story, this really happened, that is a parable when you argue the truth of the Bible.

When historians look at history they use records from that time, writings of authors, religious texts, folk tales and legends and myths. They examine ruins and landscapes. In extreme cases they will look at nature for clues of the historical record, tree rings, silt deposits, mines and quarries, etc They do not usually base their belief of events on just one source, but attempt to find as much information as possible on the subject.

No one determines the truth of a single person, it is determined by the historical record that is already surmised or known.

Quote:

I never said it was proof of divinity because it had outlasted most and is currently the majority belief of the human race. I was pointing out it's uniqueness and that it should not be dismissed as just your average religion
.


There is a reason that it is the majority belief, it was viciously spread amongst tribes that had to convert or be wiped out. There was nothing Christian about the European colonialists, although I do not doubt that many of the missionaries truly believed in what they were doing. I have never dismissed Christianity as just another religion, but I do not see long life and majority belief as a reason to feel it is any different from many other religions.

Quote:

That is incorrect. It does more than simply record their religious beliefs. It gives first hand accounts of how some of the writers saw miracles, spoke and touched God in the physical sense. Let me reiterate, who gets to determine that a Biblical author was speaking literally of a physical place or event in one sentence, then when recording that he literally touched God in the next sentence it is myth?
Which is the easiest to prove is real? The existence of God or angels? That a city was located on the bank of a known river at a time in the distant past?

Do you believe in fairies, leprechauns and bigfoot, because the World is full of people who have seen these creatures. There are also people who have talked with Elvis, Jesus, and most other historical figures from the past. Unless you think people should believe in these sightings also, because they are recorded I think the claim that people in the Bible saw things should be taken with a grain of salt.

Quote:

Let me get this straight, it can be evidence of cities that the author actually saw, but it is can not be evidence of a divine being who the author actually saw? A bit inconsistent.
No. It is evidence when combined with additional evidence that is discovered.

Quote:

Again that is subjective. To millions it has been able to confirm evidence of a divine being they have personally encountered.
The statistics say that 5% of the population suffers from some form of mental illness. It is not surprising that millions can report evidence of a being that science can find no proof of.

Quote:

That is not the standard for what many scholars call evidence. There are recorded accounts of places and events that have never been physically found. Yet, when other non-Biblical sources have recorded the same exact event or place they consider that evidence that the Bible was recording an actual physical place or event.
We are talking physical evidence to determine the accuracy of reports and not simply written accounts. There were many legends of Robin Hood and King Arthur, but historians do not believe these figures existed as there is no actual physical evidence they did. Same with Atlantis, generally ruled a myth by historians because of the lack of any physical evidence.

Now in the '50s Velikovsky showed that most cultures on the earth had similar legends and myths as far as cataclysms, they all recorded great floods, etc. It is not truly surprising as in local regions over hundreds of years there would be natural disasters which would give rise to myths and legends, and become popular as a sign from the Gods. Whether all the myths were centered on the same cataclysm, and at the same moment in history is not clear, but does point the problem with using old writings as a source to prove events. The book created lots of controversy and was even banned from some Universities, but many people still insist Velikovsky was not proven wrong.

Quote:

Not much I can disagree with there, except the phrase "story tellers" which seems to imply fiction to me.
Much of Jesus's teachings were by telling stories. It is not known if the stories were true, the most important point was the message that it conveyed. Many of the stories in the Bible are not verifiable, and written by people who had not personally witnessed the events described. The writings are hearsay tales, passed down until they were recorded.

Quote:

So if the Bible records the existence of an empire and multiple other sources confirm the same it is simply hearsay and not evidence? I think there would be many archaeologists who disagree with your definition of evidence.
You are misdirecting the argument. The confirmation of the place is by all the records and data, not just one writing. It is not based solely on the Bible, nor is it determined without the Bible. If it was just the Bible that recorded the place, then it would be hearsay and not evidence that the place exists. If some form of additional evidence is found, then we can say that the evidence is stronger.

You claim that the Bible is the only evidence we need to prove a place or event existed.

Quote:

Interesting. Just before this you indicated secondary reports as hearsay and not evidence, but here you clearly indicate that physical evidence and secondary reports are equal proof. It appears secondary reports of God is your exception to what you will call evidence. How convenient.
Convenient, no. You misrepresent every point I made.

Places and events can be determined to be factual if there is physical evidence to support the claims. Reports of what a person saw a thousand years ago can not be proved as factual through any means yet at our disposal. The existence of God cannot be proven by third hand writings or eyewitness accounts, or we would be forced to believe in fairies, leprechauns and bigfoot.

Based on what you are saying, the World of Mordor may well exist, as there is a book on it.

DHoffryn 21-Mar-2011 10:14

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693308)
Has nothing to do with my response.


Acxtually it has pretty everything to do with it
Quote:

Evidently you didn't read. I said I spent the first 28yrs an atheist. So you think I just stuffed my ears. Please tell me you have something real to contribute.
So? Is this supposed to mean something? From what I have seen the majority of self described atheists can be as pig headed as the most fanatical of christians.


Quote:

I'm not afraid of anyones comments. There is definitely a unfair advantage of time constraint when one person is having to answer many others. I'm so sorry that I don't have the time of 4 people to satisfy you. Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just gonna' mock someone for not having the time to answer somebody elses thoughts.

If you have something of substance to say then join in otherwise let filcher and I continue without your snide empty comments.
It has nothing to do with time but everything to do with how you just repeat the same stuff all over again and ignore every single rational response to your incredibly weak arguments. Seriously the way you write I am this close to thiking that you are simply a troll who is messing with us

filcher 21-Mar-2011 18:06

Quote:

Evidently you didn't read. I said I spent the first 28yrs an atheist. So you think I just stuffed my ears. Please tell me you have something real to contribute
I have always felt I was a Christian, not because I believed the Bible was infallible, but because I liked the message that Jesus had for us. That I can counter your arguments does not mean that I do not believe, it means my believe is based on something that cannot be proven, and to try to prove it in a logical or scientific manner is doomed to failure.

Quote:

I'm not afraid of anyones comments. There is definitely a unfair advantage of time constraint when one person is having to answer many others. I'm so sorry that I don't have the time of 4 people to satisfy you. Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just gonna' mock someone for not having the time to answer somebody elses thoughts
Answers should be natural, but they must be your answers.

Do you believe that God made heaven and earth in 7 days? Remember that the first day also defined what a day was.

Do you believe the earth and universe is only 6000 years old?

Do you believe Noah carried all those creatures on the Ark?

Man's knowledge says these are not possible. As we are reasoning creatures, why did God give us the power to think and act freely if not to solve these questions? He refuses to prove himself in any meaningful way to those who do not believe, and instead creates evidence that refutes his own Word. Does he get jollies from tricking people into a life time of torment when it would be so easy for him to make believers of all of us?

adam332 23-Mar-2011 13:15

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693322)
I have always felt I was a Christian, not because I believed the Bible was infallible, but because I liked the message that Jesus had for us. That I can counter your arguments does not mean that I do not believe, it means my believe is based on something that cannot be proven, and to try to prove it in a logical or scientific manner is doomed to failure.



Answers should be natural, but they must be your answers.

Do you believe that God made heaven and earth in 7 days? Remember that the first day also defined what a day was.

Do you believe the earth and universe is only 6000 years old?

Do you believe Noah carried all those creatures on the Ark?

Man's knowledge says these are not possible. As we are reasoning creatures, why did God give us the power to think and act freely if not to solve these questions? He refuses to prove himself in any meaningful way to those who do not believe, and instead creates evidence that refutes his own Word. Does he get jollies from tricking people into a life time of torment when it would be so easy for him to make believers of all of us?

First, you responded to things that were aimed at another's comments not your own.

Yes I do believe in a literal seven day creation. I also believe in a literal Sabbath day. Which is the 7th day not the first day(Sunday) that many Christians propose.

No I do not believe the Earth and the universe is 6000 yrs old, nor do I believe that the Bible indicates such. I will be happy to clarify myself and/or scripture if need be.

No, I do not believe that the Bible says Noah "carried" any animals onto the ark. But I do believe that 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal was led by God onto the ark.

filcher 23-Mar-2011 15:28

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693394)
First, you responded to things that were aimed at another's comments not your own.

The forum is a community, and hopefully everyone is respectful of everyone else's opinions. No one has the authority to limit disussion as long as we are on topic.

Quote:

Yes I do believe in a literal seven day creation. I also believe in a literal Sabbath day. Which is the 7th day not the first day(Sunday) that many Christians propose.
As the original calendar that was used has been changed at least once (in the 16oo.s IIRC) how are you sure even the saturday is the correct day?

The Big Bang Theory, as I understand it, does not claim the Heavens were created in a week, not the earth, but were a process involving billions of years. So was the creation of water molecules, the creation of suns and planets.

Quote:

No I do not believe the Earth and the universe is 6000 yrs old, nor do I believe that the Bible indicates such. I will be happy to clarify myself and/or scripture if need be.
The Bible claims the creation of heaven and earth and the animals and man took 6 days to make. Is Genesis wrong?

Quote:

No, I do not believe that the Bible says Noah "carried" any animals onto the ark. But I do believe that 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal was led by God onto the ark.
How did Noah fit all those creatures unto the Ark? Did Noah take insects, reptiles, amphibians? If not, how did some that cannot swim, survive?

Grashnak 23-Mar-2011 16:07

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693395)
How did Noah fit all those creatures unto the Ark? Did Noah take insects, reptiles, amphibians? If not, how did some that cannot swim, survive?

Surely a more important question is how did manage to have large enough salt water tanks and fresh water tanks to hold all the fish AND manage to divide them up so they wouldn't eat each other AND oxygenate those tanks?

Saint Sinner 23-Mar-2011 18:23

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Grashnak (Post 1693396)
Surely a more important question is how did manage to have large enough salt water tanks and fresh water tanks to hold all the fish AND manage to divide them up so they wouldn't eat each other AND oxygenate those tanks?

If it was me I'm not sure I would worry too much about fish during a giant flood :p

Grashnak 23-Mar-2011 19:02

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner (Post 1693398)
If it was me I'm not sure I would worry too much about fish during a giant flood :p

Hey, it does say every animal... if he left them all outside whichever the flood was fresh or salt water some fish species were doomed.

adam332 24-Mar-2011 04:16

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner (Post 1693398)
If it was me I'm not sure I would worry too much about fish during a giant flood :p

OK, on this you made me laugh and are correct in thinking. Of course people could argue about salt water VS. fresh water. However, in the grand scheme of things I too find it humorous that people would wonder how fish survived in a flood.

adam332 24-Mar-2011 06:33

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693395)
The forum is a community, and hopefully everyone is respectful of everyone else's opinions. No one has the authority to limit disussion as long as we are on topic.

I didn't attempt to limit anybody. I simply pointed out what he was responding to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693395)
As the original calendar that was used has been changed at least once (in the 16oo.s IIRC) how are you sure even the saturday is the correct day?

The original calendar was never changed. Some TRIED to change it at various points but it never took and always reverted back to the seven day weekly cycle. To think that people forgot when the Sabbath was, is perhaps the weakest of arguments that people try to use. In order to remember what day is the Sabbath all one has to do is be able to count to seven and then start over, etc...

To even consider that mankind lost track of the Sabbath is to imply that you actually think every single Israelite everywhere all forgot what day the Sabbath was, and at some later date they all somehow agreed to designate a specific day as the new Sabbath. Seriously, think about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693395)
The Big Bang Theory, as I understand it, does not claim the Heavens were created in a week, not the earth, but were a process involving billions of years. So was the creation of water molecules, the creation of suns and planets.

This appears to be a statement about a theory, and does not really ask me anything about my position. Nor does it establish itself as anything more than the most recent of scientific theories on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693395)
The Bible claims the creation of heaven and earth and the animals and man took 6 days to make. Is Genesis wrong?

No I don't think Genesis is wrong, I think your understanding of what it actually says is wrong.

Let's look at what it actually indicates is the first day.

Gen. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The scripture indicates that when he labeled the light as day and the darkness as light was the first day. It says nothing about the timing of the first four verses. It may include those verses as part of the first day but it doesn't specify.

For arguments sake let's assume that it does include those verses. If you read the rest of the creation account the you will notice that it records he made the trees, etc... and they were fully mature with the seed already in the fruit. There is no reason to think that he didn't also make the universe in a mature state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filcher (Post 1693395)
How did Noah fit all those creatures unto the Ark? Did Noah take insects, reptiles, amphibians? If not, how did some that cannot swim, survive?

That is a loaded question. There are many things which are not specified in scripture. Not just this, but also creation which I can only use my knowledge of the physical world as we understand it and Biblical details to surmise an answer. This in no way can account for that which we may consider miraculous nor does it need to, except for those who don't believe. However I will give it my best shot.

Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 18-inch cubit is long enough to show the size of the Ark. To put that in perspective Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.

Let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

There are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family.

___________
___________

Now let me ask you to respond to this info.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ation-research

Grashnak 24-Mar-2011 10:38

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693411)
OK, on this you made me laugh and are correct in thinking. Of course people could argue about salt water VS. fresh water. However, in the grand scheme of things I too find it humorous that people would wonder how fish survived in a flood.

That's because you haven't thought about it. The amount of water falling is truely huge. Look at this way, it rained so hard the entire world was covered in 40 days and night.

1,083,661,260 km^3/40 days

27,091,531.5 km^3/day
18813.564 km^3/minute
18,813,563,541,666,666.667 L/minute
36.889 L/m^2/minute

That is not rain, but a wall of water covering the globe. Any fish in small streams and ponds are not going to survive by just swimming through it. Your average goldfish in a small stream is going to be hit by that amount of water falling in his little stream is going to have a really bad day.

So once the flood has happened if the water is fresh then the waters of the earth are horribly diluted (in salt terms) and a vast number of species are going to die. If the water falling is salt water... good bye all fresh water fish.

So yes, Noah is going to need to take on fish on to his Ark or the fish of the world are going to be missing a large number of species.

Quote:

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.

Let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Then he is ignoring many problems. Firstly that calculation appears to show a cubic boat with no decks, ballast or a keel. If it is a pure cube, I'm sorry to tell you that a cube boat laden with a vast number of animals is going to have a tough time trying to float especially when so heavily laden. That volume is horrifically overblown.

Secondly - the animals are on board but they will need to eat & drink. So lets say Noah - who has no experience in either boat building or animal husbandry somehow rigs up means for them to drink from the rainwater for the first 40 days that still leaves months afterwards when all he is surrounded by is sea water - plus then you have all the food for the many months it takes for the rain to fall and waters to recede - this is a huge, huge volume needed.

If you cut down the animals to a couple (or seven) in that way does that mean you believe in rapid evolution so that the huge number of species formed from such a small base in just a few years ?

Lastly... where did all this water go and where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him ? If Noah can build such an absurdly large boat to hold such vast numbers of animals, water & food.... how come no one else managed survive - even people who spend their lives on the ocean ?

adam332 24-Mar-2011 13:15

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Grashnak (Post 1693423)
That's because you haven't thought about it. The amount of water falling is truely huge. Look at this way, it rained so hard the entire world was covered in 40 days and night.

1,083,661,260 km^3/40 days

27,091,531.5 km^3/day
18813.564 km^3/minute
18,813,563,541,666,666.667 L/minute
36.889 L/m^2/minute

That is not rain, but a wall of water covering the globe. Any fish in small streams and ponds are not going to survive by just swimming through it. Your average goldfish in a small stream is going to be hit by that amount of water falling in his little stream is going to have a really bad day.

So once the flood has happened if the water is fresh then the waters of the earth are horribly diluted (in salt terms) and a vast number of species are going to die. If the water falling is salt water... good bye all fresh water fish.

So yes, Noah is going to need to take on fish on to his Ark or the fish of the world are going to be missing a large number of species.



Then he is ignoring many problems. Firstly that calculation appears to show a cubic boat with no decks, ballast or a keel. If it is a pure cube, I'm sorry to tell you that a cube boat laden with a vast number of animals is going to have a tough time trying to float especially when so heavily laden. That volume is horrifically overblown.

Secondly - the animals are on board but they will need to eat & drink. So lets say Noah - who has no experience in either boat building or animal husbandry somehow rigs up means for them to drink from the rainwater for the first 40 days that still leaves months afterwards when all he is surrounded by is sea water - plus then you have all the food for the many months it takes for the rain to fall and waters to recede - this is a huge, huge volume needed.

If you cut down the animals to a couple (or seven) in that way does that mean you believe in rapid evolution so that the huge number of species formed from such a small base in just a few years ?

Lastly... where did all this water go and where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him ? If Noah can build such an absurdly large boat to hold such vast numbers of animals, water & food.... how come no one else managed survive - even people who spend their lives on the ocean ?

I suggest you read a little closer, the dimensions of the boat were already mentioned and nowhere did it indicate that it was a cube. It took the measurements established in the Bible and informed the reader how many cubic inches that would be. BIG DIFFERENCE.

My oh my, you really haven't paid attention to the Biblical story...have you? You actually said:"where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him".

If you had read the Bible before posting you would have realized that Noah had 120 yrs to build the boat with his family and perhaps alot of help. It doesn't specify how many actually worked on the boat just how long it took.

Just an idea, stop spouting off about a subject from a book you have obviously never read. You may have something more credible than "cube boats" and "short amounts of time" to offer if you try.

Where did the water go? You haven't thought this through at all have you? Please, after reading my response do yourself a favor and actually read the entire old and new testament from cover to cover before you type another word about it. You will be better armed if you actually know what the Bible says before you post.

I'll give you a couple of hints free of charge. The bible speaks of a planet that had waters above the waters, and that this planet had never rained prior to the flood rain.

During this pre-flood period it records incredible lifespans and also mentions giants as well as a leviathan that has the tail the size of a cedar tree.

But after the flood it quickly informs us that those life spans plummeted. Doesn't the fossilized record show ferns the size of trees and dragonfly's with wingspans the size of a great condor? So why did the older earth sustain animals so disproportionate and life spans so long compared to before the post flood world?

These are valid scientific questions that need to be answered, right? So before you just dismiss these items because you haven't an answer. Perhaps you should take your parcel of understanding about scientific precepts and ask yourself is there any known response that may satisfy all these at once.

I can't give you any bigger of a hint than that, if you can't figure it out from that point then maybe you should educate yourself on the science and the Bible before questioning others. Good luck.

adam332 24-Mar-2011 13:37

The last post wasn't edited in the proper time frame. So I will repost the whole thing since I have no idea what items it may have excluded or not.

The following should be enough to answer any ones questions without looking back at the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grashnak (Post 1693423)
That's because you haven't thought about it. The amount of water falling is truely huge. Look at this way, it rained so hard the entire world was covered in 40 days and night.

1,083,661,260 km^3/40 days

27,091,531.5 km^3/day
18813.564 km^3/minute
18,813,563,541,666,666.667 L/minute
36.889 L/m^2/minute

That is not rain, but a wall of water covering the globe. Any fish in small streams and ponds are not going to survive by just swimming through it. Your average goldfish in a small stream is going to be hit by that amount of water falling in his little stream is going to have a really bad day.

So once the flood has happened if the water is fresh then the waters of the earth are horribly diluted (in salt terms) and a vast number of species are going to die. If the water falling is salt water... good bye all fresh water fish.

So yes, Noah is going to need to take on fish on to his Ark or the fish of the world are going to be missing a large number of species.



Then he is ignoring many problems. Firstly that calculation appears to show a cubic boat with no decks, ballast or a keel. If it is a pure cube, I'm sorry to tell you that a cube boat laden with a vast number of animals is going to have a tough time trying to float especially when so heavily laden. That volume is horrifically overblown.

Secondly - the animals are on board but they will need to eat & drink. So lets say Noah - who has no experience in either boat building or animal husbandry somehow rigs up means for them to drink from the rainwater for the first 40 days that still leaves months afterwards when all he is surrounded by is sea water - plus then you have all the food for the many months it takes for the rain to fall and waters to recede - this is a huge, huge volume needed.

If you cut down the animals to a couple (or seven) in that way does that mean you believe in rapid evolution so that the huge number of species formed from such a small base in just a few years ?

Lastly... where did all this water go and where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him ? If Noah can build such an absurdly large boat to hold such vast numbers of animals, water & food.... how come no one else managed survive - even people who spend their lives on the ocean ?

Actually when speaking of how much water it would take to cover every inch of the planet I suggest you calculate two things... and that is all.

1st) how much would the oceans rise if every cloud dropped every bit of water?
2nd) how much would the oceans rise if every molecule of frozen water were thawed?

See how easy it was to dispel your calculations.

I suggest you read a little closer, the dimensions of the boat were already mentioned and nowhere did it indicate that it was a cube. It took the measurements established in the Bible and informed the reader how many cubic inches that would be. BIG DIFFERENCE.

My oh my, you really haven't paid attention to the Biblical story...have you? You actually said:"where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him".

If you had read the Bible before posting you would have realized that Noah had 120 yrs to build the boat with his family and perhaps alot of help. It doesn't specify how many actually worked on the boat just how long it took.

Just an idea, stop spouting off about a subject from a book you have obviously never read. You may have something more credible than "cube boats" and "short amounts of time" to offer if you try.

Where did the water go? You haven't thought this through at all have you? Please, after reading my response do yourself a favor and actually read the entire old and new testament from cover to cover before you type another word about it. You will be better armed if you actually know what the Bible says before you post.

I'll give you a couple of hints free of charge. The bible speaks of a planet that had waters above the waters, and that this planet had never rained prior to the flood rain.

During this pre-flood period it records incredible lifespans and also mentions giants as well as a leviathan that has the tail the size of a cedar tree.

But after the flood it quickly informs us that those life spans plummeted. Doesn't the fossilized record show ferns the size of trees and dragonfly's with wingspans the size of a great condor? So why did the older earth sustain animals so disproportionate and life spans so long compared to before the post flood world?

These are valid scientific questions that need to be answered, right? So before you just dismiss these items because you haven't an answer. Perhaps you should take your parcel of understanding about scientific precepts and ask yourself is there any known response that may satisfy all these at once.

I can't give you any bigger of a hint than that, if you can't figure it out from that point then maybe you should educate yourself on the science and the Bible before questioning others. Good luck.

Grashnak 24-Mar-2011 14:11

Re: Faith based arguments.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693426)
The last post wasn't edited in the proper time frame. So I will repost the whole thing since I have no idea what items it may have excluded or not.

The following should be enough to answer any ones questions without looking back at the rest.



Actually when speaking of how much water it would take to cover every inch of the planet I suggest you calculate two things... and that is all.

1st) how much would the oceans rise if every cloud dropped every bit of water?
2nd) how much would the oceans rise if every molecule of frozen water were thawed?

1) Not very much, it cloud cover changes considerable - it would not raise by biblical flood proportions.
2) I believe it's been calculated at about 10m by folks who fear regarding global warmimg.

Not nearly enough to cover the mountains. Sorry chap.

Quote:

See how easy it was to dispel your calculations.?
You havn't. To cover the Earth beyond the height of the mountains in fourty days means a wall of water would need to fall. (The bible makes no mention of the ice melting and refreezing - have you read the Bible at all ?

Quote:

I suggest you read a little closer, the dimensions of the boat were already mentioned and nowhere did it indicate that it was a cube. It took the measurements established in the Bible and informed the reader how many cubic inches that would be. BIG DIFFERENCE.
My mistake, I had misread that section of your previous post.

Quote:

My oh my, you really haven't paid attention to the Biblical story...have you? You actually said:"where on earth did he get enough wood, nails and everything else needed to build the thing and complete such an enormas boat with the short amount of time God gives him".

If you had read the Bible before posting you would have realized that Noah had 120 yrs to build the boat with his family and perhaps alot of help. It doesn't specify how many actually worked on the boat just how long it took.
Have you read the Bible old chap ?

Genesis 7 : 4
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

7 : 10
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

He gives him a week. I think you are confusing when the Bible talks of his age when he has children (500) and when the floods happen when Noah is in his 600th year.

It also says:
7 : 5
And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Not

And Noah with his vast army of enslaved boat builders did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Quote:

Just an idea, stop spouting off about a subject from a book you have obviously never read. You may have something more credible than "cube boats" and "short amounts of time" to offer if you try.

Where did the water go? You haven't thought this through at all have you? Please, after reading my response do yourself a favor and actually read the entire old and new testament from cover to cover before you type another word about it. You will be better armed if you actually know what the Bible says before you post.

I'll give you a couple of hints free of charge. The bible speaks of a planet that had waters above the waters, and that this planet had never rained prior to the flood rain.
If you are trying to suggest that the clouds hold enough water to cover the entire Earth, you really are in denial about physics. Sure clouds do hold a surprising amount... but it's not THAT much.

Quote:

During this pre-flood period it records incredible lifespans and also mentions giants as well as a leviathan that has the tail the size of a cedar tree.

But after the flood it quickly informs us that those life spans plummeted. Doesn't the fossilized record show ferns the size of trees and dragonfly's with wingspans the size of a great condor? So why did the older earth sustain animals so disproportionate and life spans so long compared to before the post flood world?.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything related to this subject.

Quote:

These are valid scientific questions that need to be answered, right? So before you just dismiss these items because you haven't an answer. Perhaps you should take your parcel of understanding about scientific precepts and ask yourself is there any known response that may satisfy all these at once.

I can't give you any bigger of a hint than that, if you can't figure it out from that point then maybe you should educate yourself on the science and the Bible before questioning others. Good luck.
Lol - nicely done, dismissive without any meaningful answer ! You laugh and mock but without actually rebutting anything. It's sad to see since you are clearly intelligent, rather than just being dismissive and superior, why not try addressing the points made ?

Azure Dragon 21-Apr-2011 23:48

I've picked a few quotes out to debate, so here goes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balfron (Post 1690152)
"but faith does not belong in an argument - arguments are based on proof, logic and reasoning."

Yet you asserted that without using any proof, logic or reasoning. It may be that religion involves a leap of faith (although many dispute that, for example C S Lewis writes entertainingly that Christianity is perfectly rational). Why are arguments based on the belief that God is real and good irrational, but arguments based on the belief that it is wrong to harm others (for example) rational? Once you have the foundation of (for example) liberalism you can build systematically on that to make more complex arguments, but you still took that initial leap of faith to say that liberalism is good, just like you accuse religious people of doing.

I think there is a space in public debate for religious beliefs, and I think it's quite wrong to give views less weighting (or their own forum!) simply because they stem from a belief in a supernatural being.

This I find confusing. It's rather obvious to anyone that if you make an argument, you must have proof, logic and reasoning to convince others. Without them, you won't convince anyone you're right. The problem with arguments that use faith as a basis for reasoning is that religious faith, by definition, has no proof to it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693001)
If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.

What if the murder had happened 250 yrs ago, and there were over a hundred recorded accounts of that murder, would you believe that it occurred.

So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?

People arn't actually questioning faith in the Bible, they are questioning the faith in god. The Bible exists, is a historical account, some of which is false, some is true. The Bible was written by relatively few people. It's accounts of other people can only be viewed as being only as accurate as you can be about the feelings of the person nearest to you, and frequently less accurate than that. Beyond this, it must be remembered that the Bible has been heavily edited, as well as translated, with all the inherent fidelity loss in the meaning of words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693057)
How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.

You're right, it is a theory, and again a theory based on scientific evidence. If you were so inclined, you could consult a scientist of that field, and ask him to explain the theory. And provide you evidence as to why the theory exists. This evidence, should you wish to, you could independently verify by performing the research and experiments yourself. So could anyone.

Faith requires you to accept a theory, without question, without evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam332 (Post 1693072)
Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?


Evidence isn't subjective, how it is interpreted is, however. Belief is a word that is frequently used where the word "theory" should be used. A belief is something that a person feels, is entirely subjective and can be contradictory to evidence. Hence the need for some to feel their belief is "valid". A
theory is based on evidence, which is all it needs to be valid.

Voice of Reason 22-Apr-2011 08:33

Quote:

Now let me ask you to respond to this info.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ation-research
No problem.

1) "because 14C has a short half-life compared with other dating isotopes—“just” 5,730 years. Carbon-14 is limited to dating objects thousands of years old, but not millions or billions of years. For samples that are truly ancient, any initial 14C content should have completely decayed away."

Wrong... wrong.... wrong. These self-proclaimed 'scientists' don't know what a half-life is. A half life of 5,730 years doesn't mean that after that period it is all gone. It means *half* is gone, which is why it is called a half-life...

Obviously, if you keep chopping something in half, you will never gate to rid of it all, which is why C14 is found in rocks billions of years old.


2) "If a sample of granite is truly millions of years old, then most of the helium resulting from uranium decay should have escaped long ago from the rock. This follows because helium atoms are relatively small and mobile, and they do not combine with other elements."

Wrong... wrong... wrong. Helium content is *not* a dating method, for the very simple reason that in cool crystals the helium increases. This is because the rate of decay producing the helium is constant, but the diffusion varies with temperature. High temperature = high diffusion = net loss; cool temperature = low diffusion = net gain.


3)"The concept of accelerated nuclear decay was further explored by the RATE team. This is a radical idea because nuclear half-lives are assumed to be constant throughout history."

This one is a joke - "accelerated nuclear decay"?!

Nuclear decay is constant. Full stop. Why on earth would it suddenly accelerate because of a flood? If that where true, wouldn't it also accelerate under the oceans that cover 2/3 of the planet and hence be... you know... really, really obvious?

Also - "RATE scientists believe that these sedimentary rock layers formed rapidly during the Genesis Flood." Ever heard of a circular argument? They are starting out with an assumption of the conclusion, coming up with a crack-pot theory that defies all known laws of physics to explain it, saying that this cast doubt on all known laws of physics, and then implying that the doubt supports their conclusion.


This is exactly the kind of junk-science that makes creationist look like a bunch of clowns.


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 07:02.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.