God vs Science

[Alex Practice]

Clearly biased and flawed but certainly the only remotely respectable argument in favor of god's existence I've ever read.

 

[HeroMasaki]

Guys. All you're arguments are still opinion based. "Absence or Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence" We could argue this back and forth but the fact is, of all theories and statements in the Bible that can be proven true or false, none have been proven false. Now whether or not that makes you believe is not in my control, but you can't throw out the Bible until you prove at least one thing false. One theory contradicting the Bible is not suitable evidence.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

.... *facepalm*

One word - Orbit.

Adding to what LMPL said, we also have the movement of the solar system through the Milky Way, and the Milky Way's movement through the universe.

I think we've sufficiently proven the earth's movement trough space-time.

 

[Lexite]

LMPL, it does not have to be referring to actual physical movement, as i said, it is a metaphor. Context is everything so try reading the rest of the chapter.

 

[.//enigma]

Guys. All you're arguments are still opinion based. "Absence or Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence" We could argue this back and forth but the fact is, of all theories and statements in the Bible that can be proven true or false, none have been proven false. Now whether or not that makes you believe is not in my control, but you can't throw out the Bible until you prove at least one thing false. One theory contradicting the Bible is not suitable evidence.

Who said the Bible was 100% wrong?

I said some parts of the Bible were wrong, like Adam and Eve, and Noah, and the Revelation part. Because none of that can be proven. Nothing else can be proven in the Bible, but at least its stuff that can possibly happen and isn't COMPLETE FICTION.

The reason they have not been proven false is because no one was there at the time. I can tell you, however, using factual information, there is a 99.999% chance that Adam and Eve is a bunch of bull.

Also:

Oh and I confirmed that Noah spent at least 500 years building the Arc and gathering 2 of every species (On land).

lolwut?

500 years is more than 30 days and 30 nights, or 40 days and 40 nights or whatever.

 

[Thisaccountwashackedlol]

Guys. All you're arguments are still opinion based.

The Earth not being stationary is not an opinion. The Earth does spin on its axis, and it does travel in an orbit around the Sun.

I would also not call germ theory an opinion. It is a pretty credible theory and I am sure you have seen it in effect numerous times. It is highly unlikely that spirits and demons are the cause of all disease.

I showed you two factual errors in the Bible. You said that if I could show you at least one factual error that you would concede.

LMPL, it does not have to be referring to actual physical movement, as i said, it is a metaphor. Context is everything so try reading the rest of the chapter.

Even if it does not refer to physical movement then it is still wrong. The Earth is constantly changing. It is not the same as it was millions of years ago. You already know how I feel about your "oh no! they disproved something in the bible. the bible can't be wrong, therefore it must be an overly complex metaphor, a mistranslation, or a misinterpretation!" cop out.

 

[HeroMasaki]

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Can the Earth be moved from its orbit? I didn't think so.

I'll let LMPL post the response to the pm he sent me with the same argument.

Who said the Bible was 100% wrong?

I said some parts of the Bible were wrong, like Adam and Eve, and Noah, and the Revelation part. Because none of that can be proven. Nothing else can be proven in the Bible, but at least its stuff that can possibly happen and isn't COMPLETE FICTION.

The reason they have not been proven false is because no one was there at the time. I can tell you, however, using factual information, there is a 99.999% chance that Adam and Eve is a bunch of bull.

Where is this factual information? I'm still waiting

Also:

Oh and I confirmed that Noah spent at least 500 years building the Arc and gathering 2 of every species (On land).

lolwut?

500 years is more than 30 days and 30 nights, or 40 days and 40 nights or whatever.

*facepalm* Enigma, bro, just stop. You're embarrassing your Atheist colleagues. The Rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights. The Ark was completed before the Rain started.

Seriously, LMPL, post that response.

 

[Oddish On Fire]

Can the Earth be moved from its orbit? I didn't think so.

Yes. When the sun eventually dies and explodes/implodes, the Earth will be moved from its' orbit. So, once again, the bible is 100% wrong due to your argument. I'm beginning to suspect you're a troll though.

Seriously, HeroMasaki, post responses to what I say.

Oh, and .//enigma's argument was massively flawed. I considered taking the other side just to bash it.

 

[Thisaccountwashackedlol]

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Can the Earth be moved from its orbit? I didn't think so.

Rotating objects have momentum, called angular momentum. For the Earth, that amounts to about 5.9 x 1033 kg-m2/sec. Now imagine an asteroid hitting the earth a grazing blow right on the equator. That would be the most effective way an asteroid could change the earth's rotation, either speeding it up or slowing it down. The asteroid has angular momentum relative to the center of the earth, equal to its mass times its velocity times the distance to the center of the earth. Typical impacts in the inner solar system involve velocities of about 30 kilometers per second, and for a grazing impact the distance from the center of the earth will be 6400 kilometers. In meters, those figures are 30,000 and 6,400,000, respectively. So to have angular momentum comparable to earth's we have mass x 30,000 x 6,400,000 = 5.9 x 1033, or mass = 3 x 1022 kilograms. Since the earth itself has a mass of 6 x 1024 kilograms, we're talking about something with 5 per cent of the mass of the earth, or about 4.5 times the mass of the moon. This is way bigger than any known asteroid.

So yes the Earth's orbit can be changed.

The Earth's orbit would also change if something happened to the Sun. Like say, the Sun becoming a Red Dwarf. The Sun will eventually burn out and expand into a Red Dwarf. Scientists estimate that it will happen in about 5 billion years. Remember that the Sun is just a star, and all stars eventually burn out.

Also the PM I sent you was just a c/p of my previous post a page back. Anyone can already see it so I don't know why you want me to post it twice.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

Can the Earth be moved from its orbit? I didn't think so.

Of course it can! All you need is another body in space with sufficient inertia to dislodge it from orbit. Although, something like that would probably destroy most of it...

I would also not call germ theory an opinion. It is a pretty credible theory and I am sure you have seen it in effect numerous times. It is highly unlikely that spirits and demons are the cause of all disease.

Here's proof:
1) http://www.hubtesting.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/bacteria.94120838_std.jpg
2) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Cholera_bacteria_SEM.jpg
3)http://srs.dl.ac.uk/Annual_Reports/AnRep01_02/anthrax-bacteria.jpg

 

[.//enigma]

It was sarcasm. Another reason why intelligence is so much more needed now more than ever, especially in THIS debate.

This is actual turning into a "lol" topic now. We already proved something in the Bible wrong; that the Earth is not stationary.

Then you give us some bull about metaphors and Earth's orbit. Dude, the Bible was wrong. Get over it.

If you are too blinded by faith (4th time I've said that) to understand what a fact is, I have no point in continuing this debate any further.

LMPL made a perfect statement:

"oh no! they disproved something in the bible. the bible can't be wrong, therefore it must be an overly complex metaphor, a mistranslation, or a misinterpretation!"

EDIT: Please tell me how my arguement is flawed. I would like to be enlightened by my flaws.

 

[crynts]

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

Of course the Bible is flawed. . . If you don't take into account the rest of Genesis. Creationists believe Pangaea disassembled VERY rapidly about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Something like feet per second rapidly. The massive amounts of friction friction would heat up the water already on earth and in turn the sea level would rise a few thousand feet. All the water on earth would already rise 5 miles above the crust if the continental crust was at the same level as the seafloor.

 

[HeroMasaki]

Yes. When the sun eventually dies and explodes/implodes, the Earth will be moved from its' orbit. So, once again, the bible is 100% wrong due to your argument. I'm beginning to suspect you're a troll though.

That's completely hypothetical. Scientists have never witnessed or proven it can happen. I'm the troll huh? Heh that's really funny.

*sigh* I guess LMPL doesn't want to post that response. I wonder why.

I never claimed the Germ theory to be false, but I do believe viruses cause disease too, don't they? Now just because someone has never purposely become possessed by a spirit to see if they can cause disease or injury doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, that's all hypothetical.

Still looking for those hard cold facts that would utterly destroy my faith. Just one people.

 

[Polis4rule]

I didn't attack you at all, though. I attacked free will. What you've said, I've seen countless times and the questions I ask I have never seen answered in a satisfactory manner. Your post was a good starting point to ask them since it seemed to offer free will as an explanation to evil as if it didn't need to be justified - but it could have been any other similar post from any other user. Your reaction is both disproportionate and confusing. If you believe that it does not matter what you say, then by any means, save yourself the trouble and don't say anything at all. Anyone can respond to my post, I don't care if it's you or not. And really, if you aren't going to make an effort then I'd rather it not be you.

In my opinion, it appeared very "attackish," and you did appear to be attacking me. I do apologize though, since it was not your intent.

So then, given a history of the behavior of someone, how do you tell whether that person has free will or not? If there is no way to tell, then where is the worth in the concept of free will?

Until you can know if a person is being influenced by an "outsider" and not capable of making his or her own decision, then there is no way to know. One would have to be able to determine whether or not a person is only deciding on things depending on rules or other people, or whether it's just based on the preferences of one person. A highly complex experiment, no? So to answer your original question, there really is no way to externally know whether or not a person has free will. It's dependent on what happens "on the inside," if you could say. Until we can determine what a person thinks and his or her lead up to a decision, we can not know.

Look can you chillax a little? Nobody's flaming you. I think free will is bullshit, I want to incit a rational discussion about it and that's all there is to it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

This is more directed to the community in general, as it seems that if there's any reason to believe that a person is religious, notably Christian, that person seems to get flamed. I do not want that, so I throw it out there; it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Cool. Some people do. But I'm glad you don't, really!

I can rationally think too, you know.

So if I told you that natural disasters hardly seem to have anything to do with free will despite the great harm they do to many people

What does this have to do with what I said? Natural disasters strike and hit generally everyone the same. However, they have little relevance to your original question in with you were focused mainly on economic and social issues. Natural disasters have little relevance and affect only a minority of the people who you were referring to.

and I called you out on higher classes having a tendency to gravitate towards "evilness" (do they?)

How one describes "evilness" affects your answer.

I would be flaming you?

No, you have every right in the world to respectably disagree with me.

If you are not enough of an "expert" to answer these, it seems that the right way to go about this would be to withdraw your arguments and accept mine.

No one is an expert, but people think that if you aren't an expert on the subject matter at hand, then it's a right of way to go in, attack and flame the person. This is what I was talking about the flaming above.

Ok so once again, given that by your own admission you are not an expert, if I made a compelling case that free will, nonwithstanding the fact that it is essentially unintelligible, does not necessarily entail the possibility of evil, would you listen?

Yes I would listen, as I agree with you. It still gives you the option to commit "evil" or choose "evil" things.

Read the following as my attempt to amiably convince you that free will, should it exist, would be no excuse for evil to exist and thus that God would still be to blame for this whole mess:

Let's say that we meet. I would have many choices as to what to do once we meet:
1) I could choose a game for us to play (good)
2) I could choose a topic of conversation (good)
3) I could choose a weapon to bludgeon you to death with (evil)
4) I could choose a witty insult to ridicule you with (evil)

As free will only entails the ability to "choose what to do"

You're right. With free will, you do have the ability to "choose what to do," thus choosing any one of the above options or any plethora of other options/things to do.

, it stands to reason that even if I could not do anything evil, I would still have free will. Indeed, I would still have many choices available from 1) and 2). I could still choose what to study, where I want to work. I could choose what I want to eat for dinner. I could do no evil, but that hardly matters because I would still have many, many important choices to make. If I could give up the ability to do evil while keeping the free will to do anything I want as long as it is good, I would do so in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you?

But if you give up the ability to choose something on your own account, you are giving away your free will. I did not argue that you must do something "evil" in order for it to be free will; I simply stated that with free will, you have the option of doing what's "good" and what's "evil." In relation to the bible, Eve did have the option of declining to eat the apple, but was persuaded to do so anyway, even though she knew what was "right" and what was "wrong." (And if I may speak out of line, who the fuck is persuaded by a serpent anyway?)

I can understand the value you see in free will, but I simply cannot understand the value you see in the freedom to do evil acts. There's already plenty of freedom in good acts and evil acts are punished and deterred as much as possible. So what's the point of allowing them?

Much the same way in defending freedom of speech whenever, even if the speech is somewhat hateful or not kosher. Though, I understand your point, but I value the freedom to do truly whatever you choose to do. I, myself, wouldn't mind one ounce if I could only do "good" acts, so I am similar to you in that case.

You can't argue that free will is the ability to make any choice, including evil, for the simple reason that right now, we don't have the ability to make any choice.

But free will is the ability to make any choice that is within our realm.

I cannot choose to fly, though that might be contrived.

Physically, that is impossible, so how is that a choice? If you had the ability to fly, then you could make that a choice. This is, of course, ruling out all of the assisted flying, in which you could in fact "fly."

A better example would be the ability to multiply numbers with hundreds of digits mentally. Some people can. Most (including myself) cannot. So technically speaking the people who can do it have more choices than I do.

No, it just means that other people have a specific skill that you do not. If you did have that skill, then you could make the concerted effort to actually do something with it. This is akin to playing an instrument.

So why is it that a neat, useful ability such as the one I described is unaccessible to most, whereas a harmful ability such as doing evil is so widespread? What is so "special" about evil that we should be able to do it? Why not give everybody all talents minus that of even conceiving of evil acts? Everybody would have free will. Evil would not exist. Why can't we have that?

Most people can not multiply large numbers in their heads, as that is a certain skill that is acquired. Being "evil" is no different, as it is a "skill" that unfortunately, we are all born with. We have the ability to do whatever we think is "evil," no? I know that I certainly can.

And that's not all. I just talked about how free will could be preserved while vanquishing evil in a situation where doing evil is physically possible. But as it stands, it's not clear why evil should even be physically possible. Consider the act of punching someone. Punching someone (usually) doesn't kill him and that is in no way an argument against free will - you can choose to punch someone, but it won't kill him. Fair enough. Now imagine that every human became bulletproof overnight. That would be irrelevant to free will - we just have harder skin, that's all, and now even guns can't kill us. Now imagine that every human on Earth becomes downright invincible - impossible to harm or kill. Free will would remain, yet all evil related to harming people would be rendered irrelevant simply because it would be impossible to harm people.

We could no longer harm people physically, but we can still do so emotionally through economic and social forms.

Furthermore, imagine that we are granted a way to enforce property rights absolutely in such a way that theft is rendered impossible. That has absolutely nothing to do with free will, yet now the evil of theft stops existing. Should everybody come with built-in lie detectors, lying would be rendered irrelevant. I guess that this leaves things like being a jerk. Regardless, you can remove an incredible amount of evil from the world without sacrificing free will in the slightest.

That doesn't mean that people are able to think and yearn to be able to do something outside of the rules and laws. Of course, some of these things would be a great way of enforcing the rules, albeit a bit Big Brother-ish. You have done nothing to diminish free will, correct. You've just made it so that if you choose to pick the "evil" choices you are immediately punished.

So right there I just gave you two loopholes which God could very easily use to have his cake and eat it too, i.e. have free will in a world where evil does not exist.

Evil would still exist, as we invulnerable humans still retain the ability to be emotionally harmed, to use your example. "Evil" still has not been destroyed.

The first loophole is that he could manipulate the set of choices that humans have access to. The second loophole is to make evil physically impossible. Either works. So this shifts the free will defense to trying to explain why these loopholes shouldn't be used - which looks like it would be pretty hard because I see no downside to them.

If you want to manipulate the set of choices, you have to manipulate how humans think and act. The ways you suggested only make "evil" choices punishable immediately. The second "loophole" fails to realize emotional "issues."

As stated previously, free will does not entail, at all, the possibility for people to become that powerful. Free will doesn't allow me to fly, why would it allow me to kill people? I dare you to find anyone who would rather be able to kill people than fly.

Okay? It's physically impossible to fly with your current hands, but it's possible to kill someone with your hands. If we gain the ability to fly, then one can choose to fly.

Why would I associate you with some crazy ultra conservative branch of Christianity/Judaism for supporting free will? That doesn't make any sense. I mean, fuck, I could find non-theists that believe in free will.

Since I was discussing religion in a non-negative light, I was afraid that someone, not even you, would label me as that, as people have the tendency of doing that.

That's not what I see. What I see is that I attacked the idea of free will using one of your posts, which is fair. In return... you attacked me. You did answer some of the questions, though, so it's all cool.

I respect that you disagree and use my post as a stepping stone in getting your point across. However, my post was in no way an attack at you; in fact, it was very, very defensive as to protect me from potential flames, so I apologize now if it seemed like I was attacking you. I was not, I was just defensive to protect me from flames, like I said. And I hoped I now answered most of your questions :)

 

[.//enigma]

That's completely hypothetical. Scientists have never witnessed or proven it can happen. I'm the troll huh? Heh that's really funny.

*sigh* I guess LMPL doesn't want to post that response. I wonder why.

I never claimed the Germ theory to be false, but I do believe viruses cause disease too, don't they? Now just because someone has never purposely become possessed by a spirit to see if they can cause disease or injury doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, that's all hypothetical.

Still looking for those hard cold facts that would utterly destroy my faith. Just one people.

Do me a favor. Learn what statistics are. PM me back to this thread after you have enlightened yourself.

 

[Thisaccountwashackedlol]

That's completely hypothetical. Scientists have never witnessed or proven it can happen. I'm the troll huh? Heh that's really funny.

*sigh* I guess LMPL doesn't want to post that response. I wonder why.

No it isn't. If a big enough asteroid hits the Earth the Earth's orbit will change. That can be proven with complicated mathematical formulas like the one brought up in my previous post. An asteroid hitting the Earth is a hypothetical situation, but if it did occur it is a 100% proven fact that it would change the Earth's orbit (given that it was a large enough asteroid).

You don't need to witness something to prove that it can happen. I don't need to see a bowling ball drop to the floor before I believe that bowling balls are affected by the Earth's gravitational pull.

I never called you a troll.

Meanwhile the Sun is a star. All stars burn out. When stars burn out they expand. Therefore the Sun will burn out and the Sun will expand.

"Also the PM I sent you was just a c/p of my previous post a page back. Anyone can already see it so I don't know why you want me to post it twice."

That is why I don't want to post the response. My PM was a c/p of my original post. Why post it twice?

 

[Lexite]

You are still taking it out of context so your argument means absolutely nothing.

 

[Oddish On Fire]

Do me a favor. Learn what statistics are. PM me back to this thread after you have enlightened yourself.

Do me a favor and post them because you're full of shit. Don't make up silly statistics and expect people to take them for full value. Even Hero is smart enough to question something like that. Your previous posts were fairly decent, so please take this in a constructive manner, even though it sounds outright rude.

Basically, saying "there is a statistic that proves this, and since I have forgotten it, I'm going to post a random number" does not count as scientific proof.

That's completely hypothetical. Scientists have never witnessed or proven it can happen. I'm the troll huh? Heh that's really funny.

*sigh* I guess LMPL doesn't want to post that response. I wonder why.

I never claimed the Germ theory to be false, but I do believe viruses cause disease too, don't they? Now just because someone has never purposely become possessed by a spirit to see if they can cause disease or injury doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, that's all hypothetical.

Still looking for those hard cold facts that would utterly destroy my faith. Just one people.

Cold hard facts? You're the one who stated if you can't prove it's wrong, it's right, so why do you need facts? Regardless, we've presented facts, and you've ignored all of them! You ARE a troll at this point, even if you don't know it. Either that, or you're a DK at the age of 7.

And do you honestly want to tell me that the sun exploding and moving the earth off of its' current pattern is hypothetical? The sun IS going to explode, and when it explodes it WILL change the path of the Earth because the Earth will no longer revolve around the sun.

Plus, are you saying that you need scientific proof for this when there is none for God?

EDIT: Change explode/implode to expand. So, the Earth will change course due to it no longer existing, which counters the Earth standing still even better. Thanks Polis4rule <3

PS: I had a shitty Science teacher...

 

[Polis4rule]

When the sun eventually dies and explodes/implodes, the Earth will be moved from its' orbit. So, once again, the bible is 100% wrong due to your argument.

Um, since the sun is a medium star, it will not explode/implode. It will expand into a red giant and engulf Earth within it's surface. However, that is a few billion years along the road.

 

[crynts]

I understand why free will is such an issue, but, if you look at it from God's point of view, it makes sense.

God: I feel like making humans, and I will give them free will.

God's omniscience kicking in: If I give them free will, then some will sin against me, and some will have to go to hell. Then, I will have to sacrifice my son Jesus to save (some of) them.

G: However, creating humans with free will and having them willingly obey me is much better than creating robots programmed to obey. Sacrificing my son will be worth it.

God would rather create 100 billion people and have only a handful obey Him willingly than create 100 trillion people that obey Him because they are programmed to.

 

[HeroMasaki]

Do me a favor. Learn what statistics are. PM me back to this thread after you have enlightened yourself.

LOLOL0l0OL

Enigma, please, just stop. If you're going to go to statistics to prove the Bible wrong, you've already lost the debate.
I do believe statistics are used make a hypothesis, assumptions and projections. You're not going to prove the Bible wrong with a hyposthesis, assumptions or projections.

 

[.//enigma]

Who said I had statistics laying around? Assume, much?

What do stars do? What are stars proven to do? They expand-

I am just wasting my time with this. Obviously no one can break through to any of you, and most of the bases have been covered by me or others.

The next time any of you get into a debate, know that "well, you were interpreting it wrong, so you came to the wrong conclusion" is not going to prove anyone anything at anytime.

EDIT: My post about statistics had nothing to do with the Bible. You people obviously do not understand.

Also, a debate is not over until one side is proven wrong. This is a wrong, drawn-out, tl;dr stalemate. Understand that.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

Um, since the sun is a medium star, it will not explode/implode. It will expand into a red giant and engulf Earth within it's surface. However, that is a few billion years along the road

It will slowly shed its outer layers of gas and then whatever is left will become a compact ball of heavy elements. This will reduce the suns gravitational effect to almost nothing (Compared to what it was). So what's left of the Earth will no longer be bound in its orbit and drift through empty space.

 

[.//enigma]

It will slowly shed its outer layers of gas and then whatever is left will become a compact ball of heavy elements. This will reduce the suns gravitational effect to almost nothing (Compared to what it was). So what's left of the Earth will no longer be bound in its orbit and drift through empty space.

Technically, wouldn't it be pulled in to the next object larger than it with a gravitational field within Earth's range?

For example, if we were not bound by the Sun, and we drifted in --> direction, would we not be bound my Jupiter?

Just throwing that out there.

 

[HeroMasaki]

Guys, lets stop battling each other with assumptions of how the Earth may be destroyed or how the Earth may by moved from its Orbit.

A hypothesis on how the Earth may be removed from its Orbit is not fact.

Forget all those things that cannot be proven or tested, just find something in the Bible that can be proven or tested and prove it wrong. You never know, you guys could be the first to do so.