-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
God vs Science
- Thread starter Fuzznip
- Start date
This thread is wayyy tl:dr
So If I'm repeating what some else said, bare with me but I doubt it because there are some Christians here that are really ignorant of their own religion and aren't suited for defending it. I'm no expert myself but I know enough trump any Atheist in an argument
One huge question in the topic is Why do Christians believe in God just because the Bible says so? Its really REALLY simple. Because the Bible is absolutely 100% Credible. In other words, nothing in the bible has been discredited and a majority of the events have been proven.
The Ark? They've recently found a piece of the type of the wood that the Ark was built as described the Bible. That wood has been extinct for long, long time.
Jesus' Resurrection? There has never been an account ever recorded that contradicted Jesus' resurrection. A matter of fact, there were several accounts outside of the ones written in the Bible that claim to have seeing Jesus after his burial. The Catholic Church actually tried to destroy/hide a majority of these records because they needed to keep Jesus' Resurrection hidden in order to keep control over the Israelites.
Even recent events have been recorded in the Bible. One prophesy predicted that a certain Star would explode causing ridiculous amounts of Damage. When the Bible was translated into Ukrainian language, "Star" was translated as "Chernobyl". Remember the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, considered the worst nuclear disaster to date? And did I mention the Ukrainian Bible translation was completed between the 16th and 17th century?
Columbus didn't have to sail to the New World to prove the World was round. It was already written in the Bible.
All world locations described the Bible (i.e. distance, coordinates) are still accurate to this day.
There's so much more things that I can't begin to list them all.
Hey, if you can show anything in the bible that is wrong or inaccurate then you automatically win because once something is proven wrong, the whole thing has to be thrown out basically. Just ONE, that's it. Wait, why haven't they proven anything wrong yet? Oh, maybe because the Bible is 100% accurate.
Therefore, if nothing has been proven wrong, and the Bible says God exists and is all powerful then more than likely, this is true.
Just remember.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God..."
gg bros
So If I'm repeating what some else said, bare with me but I doubt it because there are some Christians here that are really ignorant of their own religion and aren't suited for defending it. I'm no expert myself but I know enough trump any Atheist in an argument
One huge question in the topic is Why do Christians believe in God just because the Bible says so? Its really REALLY simple. Because the Bible is absolutely 100% Credible. In other words, nothing in the bible has been discredited and a majority of the events have been proven.
The Ark? They've recently found a piece of the type of the wood that the Ark was built as described the Bible. That wood has been extinct for long, long time.
Jesus' Resurrection? There has never been an account ever recorded that contradicted Jesus' resurrection. A matter of fact, there were several accounts outside of the ones written in the Bible that claim to have seeing Jesus after his burial. The Catholic Church actually tried to destroy/hide a majority of these records because they needed to keep Jesus' Resurrection hidden in order to keep control over the Israelites.
Even recent events have been recorded in the Bible. One prophesy predicted that a certain Star would explode causing ridiculous amounts of Damage. When the Bible was translated into Ukrainian language, "Star" was translated as "Chernobyl". Remember the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, considered the worst nuclear disaster to date? And did I mention the Ukrainian Bible translation was completed between the 16th and 17th century?
Columbus didn't have to sail to the New World to prove the World was round. It was already written in the Bible.
All world locations described the Bible (i.e. distance, coordinates) are still accurate to this day.
There's so much more things that I can't begin to list them all.
Hey, if you can show anything in the bible that is wrong or inaccurate then you automatically win because once something is proven wrong, the whole thing has to be thrown out basically. Just ONE, that's it. Wait, why haven't they proven anything wrong yet? Oh, maybe because the Bible is 100% accurate.
Therefore, if nothing has been proven wrong, and the Bible says God exists and is all powerful then more than likely, this is true.
Just remember.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God..."
gg bros
If that's the case, you should define "free will" first, if you're the one who is going to argue for a "better" free will. Secondly, better relative to what? What is it improving on? "Less people getting hurt"? Could you prove that? If we all simply follow economic rule and are homo economicus rather than homo sapien, is that really "free will" even? Free will allows irrational actions.
Yes it does. If we cannot do evil, then it's no longer free will.
comments in bold
why is it free will when we cannot walk through walls but not free will if we cannot do evil? by your logic if anything was impossible to do then it would not be free will, then we would not have free will now
I can walk through walls. I just need to break the wall down. </cheap>
Meanwhile, if we cannot do evil, then we are forced to abide by "rules", with no other possibilities. This is not free will - free will comes with the possibility to be irrational. It cannot be changed like the environment (despite the environment having rules such as physical laws, they are simply, physical laws. We work around it do accomplish our goal, not through it. Physical laws are what keeps us from being omnipotent)
Basically, Physical Laws are constraints that we calculate in our heads. We optimize according to certain values and make our decisions. "Evil" is the possibility that we might not optimize according to these rvalues and able to put our own values in there. This possibility is free will. Constraints are simply - constraints, and have nothing to do with free will.
Yet the Bible states numerous times that God is omnipotent. So clearly there is a contradiction here. Therefore the Bible is not 100% credible.
Really? 100% accurate? Rabbits do not chew their own cud.
Do not make ridiculous claims like that ever again. And don't claim to have enough knowledge to thwart every Atheist argument. Clearly you don't. You only believe that you do because you probably never read them (ie. "this thread is all tl;dr")
You know, I had a whole paragraph describing how one could remove most evil in the world by making it physically impossible, i.e. part of the environment, precisely. If everyone was invincible, a lot of evil would be prevented. And that would simply be an environment, not a rule.
Evil is not irrational. Furthermore, as I stated, there is an astonishing number of choices that are not evil and many of them are irrational (or irrelevant to rationality). Seriously, it's not by adding a small "do no evil" rule that we're negating free will. That's basically saying that the ability to choose from good or evil is more fundamental than any other kind of choice and I don't see how you could possibly justify that.
It stands to reason that different people have different talents. The great majority of people cannot choose to become great scientists. They just don't have the cognitive ability needed to carry out that profession. Furthermore, there exist many people who are extremely talented to perform some extremely complex tasks and completely unable to perform some extremely simple tasks. Some extremely rational people become completely irrational when some topics are brought up. So it's not like being skilled at something necessarily entails being skilled at other things. Given this, it seems perfectly reasonable to imagine a world where nobody has the cognitive capacity to be evil, even if being evil was simple. Just like almost nobody can compute square roots in their heads, almost nobody would be able to be evil. And that's all there is to it. You don't need "rules", you just need to pick the talents you give to people.
If I'm afraid to speak in public, making me effectively unable to do so, does that remove my free will? No. For the same reason, making everybody mortally afraid of doing evil would not remove their free will.
I'm not sure what you mean here. "Evil" describes the set of actions such that they go against a generally, though not always explicitly agreed upon function of the well-being of people at large. Evil has nothing to do with rationality or irrationality and in order for free will and evil to have anything to do with each other, one would basically have to be defined with respect to the other. If that's what you do, I think I'm just going to throw the towel there because there's no way we'll ever understand each other if one's definitions are outlandish for the other.
Informally, free will is very simple: there is a bunch of possible courses of action and you choose one of them, for some definition of "you". Free will is free will irrespective of whether one of these actions is evil or not.
Actually you are wrong. http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm If you read the verse in the original language and get he original meaning of the word, you are incorrect. http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-064/rabbits-chew-their-cud
I'm not actually going to participate in the current debate as of now, but can we change the title to "Science vs. Religion"?
All of the arguments that I have read aren't contesting with God himself, just the Christian ideal of God. The problems that you guys are showing are problems with the faith itself and its beliefs, not of God
All of the arguments that I have read aren't contesting with God himself, just the Christian ideal of God. The problems that you guys are showing are problems with the faith itself and its beliefs, not of God
While I understand the urge to assault complete strangers over their beliefs in order to feel better about oneself, I must ask, what's the point.
What can these arguments here accomplish, really? There's a reason that people choose a religion, or lack thereof, it's a coping mechanism, it gets that person through the day. Throughout history, religion was, and still is, a way for us to satisfy our need to belong, and to feel safe.
Now, let's assume that someone manages to shake another's beliefs, to get them to change, to somehow show them "the error of their ways", as unlikely as that is through in internet argument. Now what? That new person may well have lost a bit of hope, or worse, become estranged from his community (as unlikely as that is, though definitely plausible) for changing beliefs.
tl;dr
This is a bunch of wasted time and carpal tunnels over a stupid argument that's been beaten to death. There's no real good that can come out of it, except perhaps enlarging a few people's e-peens at the cost of others. Also I'm a hypocrite for wasting time here, I know that.
Also, one who trys to force their beliefs upon others or "enlighten them", is just as bad as the organization that he or she opposes. Christians trying to "enlighten" athiests are just as bad as the athiests griping about Christians.
~Ciao
What can these arguments here accomplish, really? There's a reason that people choose a religion, or lack thereof, it's a coping mechanism, it gets that person through the day. Throughout history, religion was, and still is, a way for us to satisfy our need to belong, and to feel safe.
Now, let's assume that someone manages to shake another's beliefs, to get them to change, to somehow show them "the error of their ways", as unlikely as that is through in internet argument. Now what? That new person may well have lost a bit of hope, or worse, become estranged from his community (as unlikely as that is, though definitely plausible) for changing beliefs.
tl;dr
This is a bunch of wasted time and carpal tunnels over a stupid argument that's been beaten to death. There's no real good that can come out of it, except perhaps enlarging a few people's e-peens at the cost of others. Also I'm a hypocrite for wasting time here, I know that.
Also, one who trys to force their beliefs upon others or "enlighten them", is just as bad as the organization that he or she opposes. Christians trying to "enlighten" athiests are just as bad as the athiests griping about Christians.
~Ciao
Instead of taking the verse out of context, read the whole chapter. If you read down further, Joshua chastises the people for their disbelief that God could conquer the inhabitants. They could have beaten the men with iron because God was with them but their lack of faith prevented them. It isn't until after Joshua tells them to dispel their disbelief and their idols, that they finally conquer the enemy.
Good try though
EDIT:
Still waiting for you to show me.
Its funny about the Ark thing. You know the Bible supports the Continental Drift Theory right? So lets say all the continents were one "Pangea". Noah spent decades (more than likely multiple centuries but I don't 100% remember) building the Ark and gathering 2 of every species. Then one day after the Ark was completed and the animals gathered, Rain began fall and the foundations of the earth opened. A majority of that water actually came from underground. The Flood affected so many things too, like the lifespan of Humans or the changing of animals to adapt to their new surroundings (sounds familiar?)
I forgot to mention the relation Evolution and the Bible. Christians are ready to shoot down the theory because "Humans came from Apes". While that is not true, species definetly changed so Natural Selection does happen.
Well, I suppose before arguing with DK, I should say what I think about the debate in this thread. However, I instead will quote DK, as it fits my opinion perfectly.
Now I get to debate with idiots like HeroMasaki. Responses will be bolded!
BG bra.
Also, I'll be back later to combat DK.
EDIT: Luduan, have you watched Zeitgeist? After seeing your comment about Apollonius of Tyrana, I can tell you would thoroughly enjoy the section about religion.
And Lexite, how the hell would Moses know that? At least attempt to be sensible.
Now I get to debate with idiots like HeroMasaki. Responses will be bolded!
BG bra.
Also, I'll be back later to combat DK.
EDIT: Luduan, have you watched Zeitgeist? After seeing your comment about Apollonius of Tyrana, I can tell you would thoroughly enjoy the section about religion.
And Lexite, how the hell would Moses know that? At least attempt to be sensible.
This is possibly the most fallacy-ridden post I have encountered in a while.
Asides from the fact that this is not true, it is also thoroughly irrelevant. Whether or not a book is reliable on physical information bears no relevance to its claims about the supernatural. If I were to write a book containing nothing but true propositions, and then concluded with "Leprechauns certainly exist in physical reality", would you believe me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_earth
Also, did you really just link to Answers in Genesis, Lexite...
Asides from the fact that this is not true, it is also thoroughly irrelevant. Whether or not a book is reliable on physical information bears no relevance to its claims about the supernatural. If I were to write a book containing nothing but true propositions, and then concluded with "Leprechauns certainly exist in physical reality", would you believe me?
An unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. Whether a certain type of wood existed has no bearing on the Flood myth itself. They also discovered the remains of Troy; does that mean the Greek pantheon exists and Homer's Iliad is infallible in its chronicling of historical events?
The last sentence in this is one of the oddest and most idiotic things I have read recently. Let's play a game: I was purportedly born of a virgin, I allegedly performed miraculous deeds, after my death followers claimed to have seen me risen from the dead. What is my name? If you guessed Apollonius of Tyana you are correct!
Asides from proving nothing and being an utterly ridiculous case of forcing modern contexts onto (misreadings of) ancient texts, this is also not true, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Bible_connections. This sounds like something ripped wholesale from an unctuous prophecy peddler like Tim LeHaye or Hal Lindsey.
You are correct that Columbus did not 'prove' the world is round, as it was already accepted for centuries previous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_earth
...What?
You really need to read up on modern biblical critical methodology, not to mention modern theology and philosophy (and historiography, and religious studies....) Your views are woefully outdated and easily demonstrated to be false. Your parochial Philistine belief in biblical inerrancy serves only to embarrass the more reasonable of your coreligionists.
Also, did you really just link to Answers in Genesis, Lexite...
littlemc, thanks for providing an example of what an asshole athiest is, but we have enough already, there's a fair number of asshole Christians too, so can we try different points of view now, let's get a Buddhist in here? Oh, right, no other religions care about this crap because they know that words don't work as an argument for these matters.
These were the passages used to convict Galileo of heresy. The world is not stationary. Therefore the Bible contains a factual error. In other words, it is not 100% accurate.
All of these passages seem to imply that the Earth is indeed flat.
Last time I checked spirits and demons do not cause injuries and disease.
No, I haven't seen Zeitgeist and don't plan to. I am familiar with and somewhat like Robert M. Price, whom I believe was in the film, but I am not a conspiracy theorist. The point of Apollonius was merely to show that claims of miracles mean nothing, especially in the context of the Ancient Mediterranean, when and where such stories were commonly circulated. The well-publicized and -attested 'miracles' of Sathya Sai Baba would work as well.
The verse says nothing about the worlds position in the universe as in physically. It says nothing about the world not moving. Again this is a great example of words being taken out of context. The word moved does not have to mean a change in position. If a person is of an opinion and is strong in that opinion it is correct to say that that person cannot be moved. Same goes if a person is deeply touched by a movie or speach or book or etc. it is said that they have been moved. Moved in the case of this verse is that the world cannot be changed, it has been established.
All these verses you are pullting up are metaphors that we still use today even though we know the world is not flat. The bible does not suggest that the world it flat.
Pangaea had disassembled hundreds of millions of years before humans existed, and regardless even counting all the water under the ground there is not nearly enough water to fill the whole earth with water to the tops of the mountains like the bible says
Yeah, I'll agree with this. Typically, when idiocy rears it's ugly face, I get angry. Someone can feel free to be a Christian, but that guy just spouted shit out of a megaphone. I don't even bother debating with Christian's who make good points and retain their faith while also maintaining their common sense. Otherwise, I seriously doubt I would have any friends.
The part about 9/11 is complete bullshit, and isn't even worth watching. However, the religion section is basically a comparison of Christianity to other religions, with the basis that Christianity is just a compilation of other previous religions. Yet, when it makes the jump to the other religions being based off of the months (or something like that) it begins to get iffy, yet still remains interesting with a touch of plausability.
If you get the chance, watch the banking part though, as it is the best, even if it ends up hypothesizing that all of the bankers want to take over the world.
That's true, if Evil only referred to actions. And you said it yourself - "a lot" of the evil will be prevented. In such a situation, people will find other ways to do evil. Your "solution" doesn't actually solve anything. Your other examples fall under the same boat.
Given perfect information about the world, you would not do evil (if you have perfect information, you do not have free will - given perfect information, your values will be perfect). This is the point. It is because we are not perfectly rational, we can be evil. I admit that calling evil irrational is wrong. The possibility of evil lies within free will (and the fact that we can't know everything and work with imperfect information to base our values), and free will is to be able to maximize or minimize constraints to what we consider important (ie, we choose the values we want to maximize/minimize/decide whatever). You cannot have free will without the possibility of evil, you cannot have evil without free will. It's as simple as that.
Your definition of free will is a weaker version of mine. You cannot simply constrain things until no evil is possible - that is simply impossible. There will always be a way to do evil in the world, and that's why either evil exists and there is free will, or neither exists. These are the only two options.
After reading all the posts on page 8, it doesn't seem like this thread has evolved any further than on page 6.
The Bible is a fiction book. Let me give you a hypothetical example:
It is written in a book that "water will evaporate if exposed to sunlight". Being the science geek you are, you decide to test this. As of this point, you can either believe this is true, or believe this is false.
You put a glass of water outside and mark it. Three days later, the water is halfway gone. Being skeptical, you say to yourself that maybe someone drank it. Or it got spilled over.
You put another glass of water outside and mark it. Five days later, 3/4 of the glass is gone. Again, someone could have drank/spilled it.
You put another glass of water outside and mark it. This time, you stay outside all day and all night, making sure no one drinks or spills the water. 10 days later, the water is all gone.
You either believed evaporation was true or false. After you had tested it, multiple times, you came to the conclusion that evaporation IS true. Whether you like it or not, you now know evaporation is true, compared to believing.
It doesn't matter if we cannot prove that the Bible is false. What matters is that you cannot prove it true. So you believe that the Bible is true? Fine, I'll give you that.
But wait. What if I told you that I could prove certain things in the Bible as false. Like Adam and Eve. If I proved (through my statements about inbreeding, other religious, etc.) that Adam and Eve was bull, would you believe in the Bible? Yes. Okay, fine. Would you believe in Adam and Eve?
This is where the problem begins. When you are blinded by faith, you tend to ignore all the facts thrown your way, and hang on as tightly as you can to your belief.
For me to prove that Adam and Eve were not real, I would have to be born during there time. But using facts, I can tell you that it is a miniscule possibility that Adam and Eve were real. Miniscule meaning one tenth of one hundreth of a percent. Nothing is 100% certain, unless you are discussing beliefs. I am discussing facts.
I am giving you a 99.999% chance that Adam and Eve were not real. But you decide to throw away facts and believe that they are real.
That is the only problem I have with people who believe in God. If you could tell me with 99.999% certainty that, if I give you proof of the nonexistance of God, that you would stop believing in God, this debate would end right here, right now.
You were shoved messages from God and the Bible just like I was when you were 1, and 2, and even older. The difference is that I questioned it.
The Bible is a fiction book. Let me give you a hypothetical example:
It is written in a book that "water will evaporate if exposed to sunlight". Being the science geek you are, you decide to test this. As of this point, you can either believe this is true, or believe this is false.
You put a glass of water outside and mark it. Three days later, the water is halfway gone. Being skeptical, you say to yourself that maybe someone drank it. Or it got spilled over.
You put another glass of water outside and mark it. Five days later, 3/4 of the glass is gone. Again, someone could have drank/spilled it.
You put another glass of water outside and mark it. This time, you stay outside all day and all night, making sure no one drinks or spills the water. 10 days later, the water is all gone.
You either believed evaporation was true or false. After you had tested it, multiple times, you came to the conclusion that evaporation IS true. Whether you like it or not, you now know evaporation is true, compared to believing.
It doesn't matter if we cannot prove that the Bible is false. What matters is that you cannot prove it true. So you believe that the Bible is true? Fine, I'll give you that.
But wait. What if I told you that I could prove certain things in the Bible as false. Like Adam and Eve. If I proved (through my statements about inbreeding, other religious, etc.) that Adam and Eve was bull, would you believe in the Bible? Yes. Okay, fine. Would you believe in Adam and Eve?
This is where the problem begins. When you are blinded by faith, you tend to ignore all the facts thrown your way, and hang on as tightly as you can to your belief.
For me to prove that Adam and Eve were not real, I would have to be born during there time. But using facts, I can tell you that it is a miniscule possibility that Adam and Eve were real. Miniscule meaning one tenth of one hundreth of a percent. Nothing is 100% certain, unless you are discussing beliefs. I am discussing facts.
I am giving you a 99.999% chance that Adam and Eve were not real. But you decide to throw away facts and believe that they are real.
That is the only problem I have with people who believe in God. If you could tell me with 99.999% certainty that, if I give you proof of the nonexistance of God, that you would stop believing in God, this debate would end right here, right now.
You were shoved messages from God and the Bible just like I was when you were 1, and 2, and even older. The difference is that I questioned it.
EDIT: To Enigma
So, are you saying that you proved that Adam and Eve never existed? You sir are a Genius. You claim that we ignore the facts that the Bible is false. What Facts?. Its funny how Scientists have proved over and over the credibility of different events and theories in the Bible, yet never has anyone discredited the Bible. Not once. So who's ignoring the facts? Remember, not being able to prove something and proving something wrong are two completely different things. If God is all powerful as the Bible says, naturally he'd be able to do things that aren't natural. Seriously guys, I'd make a better Atheist. At least I'd bring up the talking donkey :P
Oh and I confirmed that Noah spent at least 500 years building the Arc and gathering 2 of every species (On land).
Thank you. The Earth is orbiting around the Sun. Therefore it is not stationary. The Earth also spins on its axis. Why did you feel the need to assert the fact that I was right?
I'm fairly confident that microorganisms are responsible for disease. Do you not believe in the germ theory?
heromasaki said:
The words "compass" and "circuit" do not describe three-demensionality. Instead, they describe circles or ovals which are NOT three demensional. So, had God sphere, you would be correct.
My main question about this statement is this; What was the point in translating circle to a word that means almost the same thing in the context which it is used?