Why There Most Certainly Is No God

[phoenixbyrd]

BB: but for a cat to evolve into a dog or whatever that's what has NEVER been seen.

 

Well considering that this isn't how evolution works, I'm not very surprised it's never been seen. In fact, if that ever did happen, we'd have to throw the theory right out the window and figure out what the hell just happened! Along with everything we know about genetics as well.

[Boerseun]

And riddle me this:

1. God is kind and merciful

2. Most people on Earth haven't been behaving too well.

3. God has the power to do ANYTHING, including changing the attitudes of humans.

4. God is omniscient, so he saw this coming.

5. God has a plan, so he planned this.

6. God needs a solution to the bad behavior problem

7. God kills EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD except Noah and his family.

5 and 1 are mutually exclusive. Recent history, like WW2, is testament to this.

If you take it together with #4, then it turns out that if God exists, he must be a calculating, murderous, evil God. Which, when brought together with #1, will make either God, or the above 7 points, 'disappear in a puff of logic'.

 

God is, or God isn't. It's up to you to decide. But trying to prove God's existence either logically or scientifically, is doomed to fail. You can bring any argument in favour of God's existence here, and it will be coldly, heartlessly, logically destroyed. But if you're inclined to believe in such a concept or not, is your prerogative, and your prerogative alone. Nobody can tell you any different, for both sides of the argument.

 

Good luck.

[phoenixbyrd]

wsa watching an episode of star trek enterprise and heard the best quote ever.

 

"There's a difference between keeping an open mind and believing something because you want it to be true."

[Agememnon]

Bible Believer,

 

I took a look at this website that you threw out and I was stopped here:

 

"The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles."

 

The people at this site, seems like, just picked the best meaning that would fit their explanation!

 

The very next sentence says this:

 

"Noah did not need to take sea creatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood."

 

But this is COMPLETELY against what GOD decreed! He said:

‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee;

 

There is NO room for interpretation here. It is extremely clear what God wanted.

[Agememnon]

BibleBeliever Also many insects wouldn't get wiped out in a flood so they wouldn't have to have been saved.

 

You're kidding, right? Think about this: according to your bible, there were 40 days of torrential downpour, so much so, that it made the ENTIRE WORLD flood! That is some serious rain! You think that insect could survive that? Even if they did manage to, there were supposedly many more days after that where the waters were supposed to recede. Believing this story would be throwing science out the window anyway, but I'm just going to say, it took 40 days for the waters to recede. (In reality, I think it would take A LOT longer for the ENTIRE WORLD to work off all that water, but I'll factor in your God to be fair.) That is a total of 80 days for these insects to live without, food or rest. There are few insects who live that long in the most hospitable of climates!

 

 

 

Also, what about that material that Noah used on the Ark. All that wood had to come from somewhere! Do you know:

 

A. How much wood/other materials?

B. Where ALL that wood came from?

[Agememnon]

I though of something else, BibleBeliever, if ALL animals were on the ark, I'm talking reptiles especially here, there would need to be some MAJOR temperature variations between habitats. 75 F is a dangerous temperature for reptiles. Any lower and there becomes a risk of hibernation and then malnutrition. I'm not sure how he kept the reptile cages warm enough. Is this one of those "God must have performed a miracle" things?

[phoenixbyrd]

But this is COMPLETELY against what GOD decreed! He said:

 

‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee;

 

There is NO room for interpretation here. It is extremely clear what God wanted.

 

 

That's kinda what I was trying to get BB to answer. Two of every kind. Yet, and here is where the contradiction is BB ...

 

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

 

Now, how do we go from two of EVERY LIVING THING and then seven of only clean and two of unclean?

[phoenixbyrd]

BB: Why would Noah put fish on the ark?

 

Do you normally put your salt water fish in fresh water or fresh water fish in salt water?

 

The torrential downpour as described in the bible as covering ALL the mountains in the world would have literally killed every marine species on this planet. EVERY one of them. Such a massive insurgance of fresh water dumped into the oceans like that would have changed it's chemistry causing an imbalance in temperature, salt content, currents, etc. We're worried as all hell about greenland melting into the ocean and you want us to accept that every mountain on earth was covered with no effect on our ocean going freinds?

 

And please, let's no invoke the invisible boogeyman and claim he .. idk, made half of it fresh water and the other half salt water and then made a bunch of different regions with different temperatures and set up magical barriers to keep fish alive.

[Lancaster]

All this is irrelevant to most of Christianity. Most non-fundamentalist Christians take much of the Bible symbolically. Noah is a lesson to them, just as Genesis is. I'm still trying to comprehend why anyone would try to rationalize any part of the Old Testament scientifically. Just a message to put out there:

 

It cannot be done. Under no circumstances should the story of Noah's ark be taken literally.

[BibleBeliever]

Let me try to have a go at all the issues you've brought up, knowing full well that you are not going to change your minds, but hey, I'm learning a lot here, it's making me study and dig deeper into the bible...

 

post #85: Genesis 7:2 says take 7 of the clean beasts and 2 of the unclean, where clean means religiously clean like sheep.

 

#86, and there I was thinking that one type of animal evolved into another type monkeys to man, that sort of thing, is that not what Darwin says, the tree of live picture that we see in textbooks? see Tree of Life Structure

 

#87 i think the key here is God's plan, He didn't CAUSE it he planned FOR it cos He knew it would happen, remember free will, if He stops people doing bad things thats not allowing free will.

 

#88 I agree, but to believe something first and then to look for reasurance or evidence that that is true is standard scientific practice. Again I don't blindly believe the bible, it's just that I give God more credit than you do. These answers require me to dig for an explanation that you may accept, they reassure my faith but without them I still believe.

 

#89 a) maybe so, but we're all trying to find out how the Noahs ark system worked and this definition fits, it's only like a scientist saying 'we think that Lucy's hands looked like this, as they were not on the skeleton we found' (see the image on Thea keeps Painting the Planet: June 2005)

#89 :) Flesh and fish is seperate in the bible, clarified by God's command in Gen 6:19,20 He doesn't tell Noah to take anything that lives in the water.

 

#90 maybe I spoke too soon, in my response I understood that many insect eggs can keep 'alive' for years before hatching and I was refering to this, but in the article this is written which nulifies what I said;

Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3

And the wood, where's the issue there, it's a lot of wood but there used to be a lot more trees than there are now, so I guess Noah lived by a forrest.

 

#91 yes, interesting point, however you don't realise that the earth was different before the flood - we don't know how different - as it had never rained (Gen 2:5,6) so animals only adapted to the environment we have today after Noah's flood. This point also applies to #93, we don't know how salty the sea was, if it's been getting saltier then the fish have been getting used to it over the last few thousand years.

 

#92 answered before

#93 see #91

 

To save me some cutting an pasting have a look here:

Noah’s Ark Q&A

[phoenixbyrd]

BB: post #85: Genesis 7:2 says take 7 of the clean beasts and 2 of the unclean, where clean means religiously clean like sheep.

 

How you missed it is still unclear to me. Although a common tactic is to just ignore the glaring contradiction, I would hope however that you are above such tactics.

 

The issue is, in 6:19 is was two of EVERY living thing, making absolutley no distinction between clean nor unclean. The explicit wording was EVERY LIVING THING. And then the rules abruptly change without any prior warning whatsoever to seven and two respectivley.

 

To brush up on our definition of what a contradiction is;

 

Broadly speaking, a contradiction is when two or more statements, ideas, or actions are seen as incompatible.

 

Now, the number of every living thing being of two different counts in two different chapters of the book of genesis would be a very clear contradiction with the given definition.

 

BB: #86, and there I was thinking that one type of animal evolved into another type monkeys to man, that sort of thing, is that not what Darwin says, the tree of live picture that we see in textbooks? see Tree of Life Structure

 

That is not what Darwin says at all. I've noticed that most religious folk who've never really bothered to delve into the inner workings of what evolution is, current theories on how it works, all seem to think that it means one species magically transmutes into another species. All I can offer you is abit of advice, learn about it some more. It would require another thread to try and explain it in detail to you.

 

BB: #87 i think the key here is God's plan, He didn't CAUSE it he planned FOR it cos He knew it would happen, remember free will, if He stops people doing bad things thats not allowing free will.

 

Which god? Your god? the hindu god? etc. There are lots of religions who all claim to have the truth and proofs to back it up that are on par with the proofs you think you have, which in reality amounts to nothing.

 

BB: #88 I agree, but to believe something first and then to look for reasurance or evidence that that is true is standard scientific practice. Again I don't blindly believe the bible, it's just that I give God more credit than you do. These answers require me to dig for an explanation that you may accept, they reassure my faith but without them I still believe.

 

No, it is not standard scientific practice to believe something and then try to find proof in it. For instance, both you and I believe in gravity. Niether of us doubt it's existance and both of us would think someone insane for doubting that gravity exists. Yet, how does gravity work is the issue. How does evolution work is the issue. Science doesn't believe, for example that... Oh hell idk.. that a magical elf steals your socks durring the spin cycle and then set's out to prove it. Another tidbit of advice, learn more about the scientific method and how it's applied to discovery.

 

BB: #89 :) Flesh and fish is seperate in the bible, clarified by God's command in Gen 6:19,20 He doesn't tell Noah to take anything that lives in the water.

 

And as the result of such an immense oversight, our oceans, lakes, and rivers should be literally dead.

 

BB: #91 yes, interesting point, however you don't realise that the earth was different before the flood - we don't know how different - as it had never rained (Gen 2:5,6) so animals only adapted to the environment we have today after Noah's flood. This point also applies to #93, we don't know how salty the sea was, if it's been getting saltier then the fish have been getting used to it over the last few thousand years.

 

For starters, it has rained before Noahs flood. It's always rained. You must remember, natural history records events much differently then the bible records them. I wonder, are you a young Earth creationist?

[Lancaster]

#87 i think the key here is God's plan, He didn't CAUSE it he planned FOR it cos He knew it would happen, remember free will, if He stops people doing bad things thats not allowing free will.

 

Wait. God cannot stop someone from doing bad things, right?

 

Would you not consider killing the perpetrator of bad deeds stopping them from preforming them? Remember: God killed everyone in the entire world, with the exclusion of Noah+friends. Did he not interfere with the free will of those people by ending their lives? Bam! God contradicts himself by violating the laws he created, and in doing so, proves that he is not omnipotent.

 

And once again, God disappears in a puff of logic.

 

#88 I agree, but to believe something first and then to look for reassurance or evidence that that is true is standard scientific practice.

 

Since when? How do these scientists come to believe in something without proof?

 

Scientific Method

1. Observation

2. Description

3. Prediction

4. Control

5. Falsifiability

6. Causal Explanation

 

No where does a scientist believe before these steps. What you described is the religious method where blind belief is required.

 

#91 yes, interesting point, however you don't realise that the earth was different before the flood - we don't know how different - as it had never rained (Gen 2:5,6) so animals only adapted to the environment we have today after Noah's flood.

 

Are you saying that there was no rain prior to the flood? Can you please explain how, scientifically, the Earth was able to sustain human life without rain? Also, how did Adam, Eve, Cain, little pals, etc. harvest crops or drink without rain?

[BibleBeliever]

So Gen 6:19 and Gen 7:2 contradict? Well if you read that then there's nothing I can do to convince you. I don't see it as a contradiction, but as a clarification, ie 'you must take two of each, male and female so they can reproduce, and the clean animals, take seven' Sorry maybe I'm stupid, but it makes sense to me.

 

If evolution has nothing to do with animals changing from one type to another (like a lizard changing into a bird) then I'm sorry I was mis-informed. I thought evolution says life came from non life and that we all came out of some soup via fish, voles, monkeys and everything inbetween.

 

I only ever refer to God as the God of the bible, you're introducing other religions for no reason. If you think Bhudists are wrong talk to them about it.

 

you know the scientific principle I obviously don't there's no issue here, I'm wrong. I was just pointing out that it's not a case of me wanting 'it' to be true, I would love for annihilation to be true, or everyone goes to heaven because God is so loving, but I don't see that in the bible, and that's what I accept as truth. Why would I want the bible to be true? what do I gain if it is? But if it is true I have a lot to gain by following what it says.

 

I don't understand your point about the dead fish.

 

It's always rained? Natural history records events? Are we talking geology here and fossil layers? If you are then all we have is a pile of rocks with dead stuff in them, to extrapolate from that what happened and when is guesswork at best. you can assume things from what you find but to say the bible is wrong because what you assume to be true from the rocks you find is lame. It comes down to believing something because you want to.

 

And yes, of course I'm a Young Earth Creationist, that's what the bible says, about 6,500 years old. If you want to question that then I'll only be cutting and pasting my answers from the answersingenesis website, so spare us the effort and look up all the questions you want there. Though I guess you don't want answers, you just want to mock.

 

Can I ask you a question? why is it that you think you must disprove the bible? I don't think the Koran is the truth, but if a Muslim wants to live and die by what it says, then I think it's a shame but it's his choice. I don't agree with whatever Darwin wrote in the origin of the species, but I wouldn't want every copy burned. The point of Christianity is to tell people the Truth, if you don't believe us, or don't like it, fine, we won't hate you, kill you or try to silence you if you speak out against us. We just don't think the general public should be given only one viewpoint ('there is no God') but they should be entitled to make their own choice given all the necessary details. If 90% of the people want to reject God, that's up to them, as long as they've been given the correct discription of the God they're rejecting. Let them read the bible if they want, don't tell them what it says and what they should think. We say it's the truth, it either is or it isn't, what we think won't alter what it is. If they read it and see it as full of contradictions, OK, if they have questions then they'll ask whom they want to for help. All we as Christians can do is point them in the right direction, they have to make their own decisions. (climbing down off soapbox now).

[Lancaster]

So Gen 6:19 and Gen 7:2 contradict? Well if you read that then there's nothing I can do to convince you. I don't see it as a contradiction, but as a clarification, ie 'you must take two of each, male and female so they can reproduce, and the clean animals, take seven' Sorry maybe I'm stupid, but it makes sense to me.

 

If evolution has nothing to do with animals changing from one type to another (like a lizard changing into a bird) then I'm sorry I was mis-informed. I thought evolution says life came from non life and that we all came out of some soup via fish, voles, monkeys and everything inbetween.

 

I only ever refer to God as the God of the bible, you're introducing other religions for no reason. If you think Bhudists are wrong talk to them about it.

 

you know the scientific principle I obviously don't there's no issue here, I'm wrong. I was just pointing out that it's not a case of me wanting 'it' to be true, I would love for annihilation to be true, or everyone goes to heaven because God is so loving, but I don't see that in the bible, and that's what I accept as truth. Why would I want the bible to be true? what do I gain if it is? But if it is true I have a lot to gain by following what it says.

 

I don't understand your point about the dead fish.

 

It's always rained? Natural history records events? Are we talking geology here and fossil layers? If you are then all we have is a pile of rocks with dead stuff in them, to extrapolate from that what happened and when is guesswork at best. you can assume things from what you find but to say the bible is wrong because what you assume to be true from the rocks you find is lame. It comes down to believing something because you want to.

 

And yes, of course I'm a Young Earth Creationist, that's what the bible says, about 6,500 years old. If you want to question that then I'll only be cutting and pasting my answers from the answersingenesis website, so spare us the effort and look up all the questions you want there. Though I guess you don't want answers, you just want to mock.

 

Can I ask you a question? why is it that you think you must disprove the bible? I don't think the Koran is the truth, but if a Muslim wants to live and die by what it says, then I think it's a shame but it's his choice. I don't agree with whatever Darwin wrote in the origin of the species, but I wouldn't want every copy burned. The point of Christianity is to tell people the Truth, if you don't believe us, or don't like it, fine, we won't hate you, kill you or try to silence you if you speak out against us. We just don't think the general public should be given only one viewpoint ('there is no God') but they should be entitled to make their own choice given all the necessary details. If 90% of the people want to reject God, that's up to them, as long as they've been given the correct discription of the God they're rejecting. Let them read the bible if they want, don't tell them what it says and what they should think. We say it's the truth, it either is or it isn't, what we think won't alter what it is. If they read it and see it as full of contradictions, OK, if they have questions then they'll ask whom they want to for help. All we as Christians can do is point them in the right direction, they have to make their own decisions. (climbing down off soapbox now).

 

I totally agree that anyone should be able to read whatever they want. I don't mind if you read the Bible, I don't care what way you take it. What I do care about is the truth. I want it to be heard.

 

Also, can you address the puff of logic that God disappeared into in my last post? Does God not interfere with free will, and thus, become logically nonexistent?

[BibleBeliever]

Wait. God cannot stop someone from doing bad things, right?

 

Would you not consider killing the perpetrator of bad deeds stopping them from preforming them? Remember: God killed everyone in the entire world, with the exclusion of Noah+friends. Did he not interfere with the free will of those people by ending their lives? Bam! God contradicts himself by violating the laws he created, and in doing so, proves that he is not omnipotent.

 

And once again, God disappears in a puff of logic.

 

 

 

Since when? How do these scientists come to believe in something without proof?

 

Scientific Method

1. Observation

2. Description

3. Prediction

4. Control

5. Falsifiability

6. Causal Explanation

 

No where does a scientist believe before these steps. What you described is the religious method where blind belief is required.

 

 

 

Are you saying that there was no rain prior to the flood? Can you please explain how, scientifically, the Earth was able to sustain human life without rain? Also, how did Adam, Eve, Cain, little pals, etc. harvest crops or drink without rain?

 

 

No, to take a person out of the loop is not a violation of free will, it's saying 'I've had enough, out you go' God gives life, He takes it away when He wants, that's His authority, but as long as we are alive, He alows us to do what we want.

 

Observation is the first premise of science, do you agree to this statement:

 

 

 

Real Science is based upon what you see. Indeed, the first premise in the

scientific method states that we begin with an "observed" phenomenon.

Thus, if that which is under investigation is not observable to the eye, it

may or may not be true but, by definition, it is not science. It will be

immediately noted that as no one alive today has actually physically seen

God, the scientific method places God beyond and exterior to the realm of

science. However it also places many supposed scientific hypotheses and

theories outside the same realm for no mortal "observed" the origin of the

universe or the solar system. Neither has anyone "seen" any organic

evolution occur. Hence it must be recognized and acknowledged that the

advocates of these views are not practicing real science; they, like the

adherents of the opposing side, are engaged in a philosophic belief

system. Such practices of faith have long been defined by a well known

term – and that appellation is "religion". Thus both sides are going

through life practicing their beliefs and in so doing are being "religious".

One side honestly admits this; the other is self-deceived and does not so

concede.

Floyd Nolan Jones

'which version is the bible'

http://www.bbaptist.org/which_version.pdf

 

A note about Mr Jones 'Having previously been employed as a paleontologist and geophysicist over a 14 year career,... years of study and training in the scientific method as well as its accompanying discipline in logic and mathematics...'

 

Genesis 2:5,6 answers your question about the rain.

[Zythryn]

You know, I am fine with anyone believing in anything they want to. However this argument has always really bugged me.

 

...if He stops people doing bad things thats not allowing free will.

 

Isn't he not allowing free will by KILLING them?

 

edit, sorry, Lancaster beat me to it. And I see BB's answer.

 

However, as a follow up question to BB, you state that god killing someone is not equivalent to god stopping someone from doing something bad. I would ask you to take another look at that.

After all, isn't god preventing people from behaving badly by killing them?

[phoenixbyrd]

BB: So Gen 6:19 and Gen 7:2 contradict? Well if you read that then there's nothing I can do to convince you. I don't see it as a contradiction, but as a clarification, ie 'you must take two of each, male and female so they can reproduce, and the clean animals, take seven' Sorry maybe I'm stupid, but it makes sense to me.

 

Two of EVERY LIVING THING. If you can't see the glaring contradiction right there then... I'm worried for you. It doesn't make any sense at all to say EVERY LIVING THING and then in the next chapter it changes the numbers. Taking seven clean is NOT read the same as taking TWO OF EVERY LIVING THING.

 

If evolution has nothing to do with animals changing from one type to another (like a lizard changing into a bird) then I'm sorry I was mis-informed. I thought evolution says life came from non life and that we all came out of some soup via fish, voles, monkeys and everything inbetween.

 

Seriously, study up on evolutionary theory. If you'd like I'd be more then happy to start a new thread explaining evolution as best I can along with the misconceptions your showing here and others that are commonly held with religious folk.

 

I only ever refer to God as the God of the bible, you're introducing other religions for no reason. If you think Bhudists are wrong talk to them about it.

 

Actually, there's a very good reason for bringing other religious beliefs into any religious discussion, they all hold the same amount of proof collectively. There's no logical reason to choose one over the other except through cultural norms and nurture. For instance, you follow the biblical god, so it's a safe bet that your not from India, else you'd be hindu.

 

Why would I want the bible to be true? what do I gain if it is? But if it is true I have a lot to gain by following what it says.

 

Why you'd want it to be true is beyond me. That's like trying to answer why would someone believe in fairies and dragons when we know they are myth despite the rich history surrounding them. People are just into wierd crap, some take it much furthur then others.

 

I don't understand your point about the dead fish.

 

If the flood happened then there should be NO marine life at all. Period. I've already explained why. The fact that this explanation has alluded you speaks volumes.

 

Though I guess you don't want answers, you just want to mock.

 

Your right, I don't want answers. Certainly not the wrong ones. I want you to QUESTION. You don't learn anything by just faith. We did not attain our level of sophisitcation seperating us from the rest of the species on this planet because we just walked around neked listening to the ramblings of some hopped up drug addict. No, we got here because WE ASKED QUESTIONS AND LOOKED FOR ANSWERS. I haven't even gotten to the mockery yet, and if your lucky, I won't.

 

All we as Christians can do is point them in the right direction, they have to make their own decisions.

 

Learn about your christian history. Christians have NEVER let people just make they're own descisions. The only reason christians are around today is through war and utter destruction. Christians were on the bottom of the food chain once upon a time, they were nothing. They were no better then the jihadists of today. And you christians still do it, not as bad, but you still do it.