Challenge

[chatpilot]

In my view string theory is fascinating but I have to agree with lilphil on theories of infinity and with kyu on multi-verses.When it comes to creationism or ID or whatever they choose to call it these days my biggest problem is that they base this so called scientific theory on a myth.The bible in my view is not a reliable source for scientific truths no matter how you choose to interpret it.The very idea that the biblical God is infinite comes from the bible itself and therefore is invalid as an idea or concept of worth.
Revelations 1:8 KJV

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

God supposedly said this to John while he was hallucinating on mushrooms and as you can see it explains the infinity of God so clearly.IMO it's nothing more than mere self advertisement.Evolution by natural selection is a true scientific principle and as an explanation for beginnings it continues to be a work in progress.Although,quite frankly we might never know the full truth or find the end of this rainbow.

[Kyuuketsuki]

In my view string theory is fascinating but I have to agree with lilphil on theories of infinity and with kyu on multi-verses.When it comes to creationism or ID or whatever they choose to call it these days my biggest problem is that they base this so called scientific theory on a myth.The bible in my view is not a reliable source for scientific truths no matter how you choose to interpret it.The very idea that the biblical God is infinite comes from the bible itself and therefore is invalid as an idea or concept of worth.

I agree it isn't a reliable source for scientific truth but any claim can be investigated scientifically and by virtue of making the claims it does, that the theist does, it forces itself poorly into that arena ... in effect (assuming it has a meaningful message) that leaves us with 3 choices:

• The bible is all true.
  
• The bible is allegorical.
  
• Some of the bible is true some is allegorical.

Each has problems ... the first is rubbish because it obviously isn't all true (the universe was not created in six literal days, the Earth does not have 4 corners, there are no Windows in the dome of the sky and there could not have been a flood as described), the second is possible but (as you say) why believe at all if there are no hard facts? And the third, the option I think most intelligent theists take, is problematic because they are unable to define a method by which they can specify which is true and which is allegorical (all, without exception, appear to have some personal and ill-defined manner of choosing the bits they think are true and which are not).

This is one of the ideas I've been trying to get across to Frodo.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

What's not to like about multiple universes? It's the stuff of science fiction. That it also screws a major theistic dodge is just icing on the cake.

Multiverses fit theism very nicely thankyou

Where's Charles BTW? I was looking forward to his answer. So many tasty morsels *food*

---

@ chatpilot & Kyu: I agree it'd be better if the bit's that should definitely be factual were readily provable. Mostly the balance of opinion (as I see it), if that counted for anything, is on the bible's side, but it offers no real support.

.

[chatpilot]

The problem Frodo is that you will never find evidence to prove a myth.In the case of the bible, determining fact from fiction is a daunting task and once that is done there is the matter of interpreting those facts and those fictions properly.Allegorical,mythological and factual are the only three choices in my view and when it comes to scripture the easiest one to debunk is the factual claims which outside of the scriptures have no real historical support.And you are right,balance of opinion is as worthless of the bible itself.

[Tiberius]

The classical argument that Christians use is that God has always existed. The problem that we have is that since the Big Bang theory was proven it has given some weight to the argument that the Universe was in fact created.

Well, the Big Bang theory has only proven that the universe was once very very small and expanded very fast at one point back in time. It is predicted that the universe did exist before the Big Bang, but was perhaps timeless. It does nothing to the creation theory, since something that has always existed (without time) doesn't need to be created. There is no cause and effect without time.

[fr0d0]

The problem Frodo is that you will never find evidence to prove a myth.

I don't need to.

In the case of the bible, determining fact from fiction is a daunting task and once that is done there is the matter of interpreting those facts and those fictions properly.Allegorical,mythological and factual are the only three choices in my view and when it comes to scripture the easiest one to debunk is the factual claims which outside of the scriptures have no real historical support.

What factual claims?

[chatpilot]

Frodo if I stood here telling you what factual claims are found in the bible we would be here all day and accomplish nothing.So here is something to start with,ask yourself the question, where is?Related to everything you know about the bible.For example:Where is the garden of Eden,the ark of the covenant,the stones containing the original ten commandments,noahs ark not the blurry photo on top of mount Ararat that no one can get to or identify,where are the remains of Jesus,his robe or his sandals at least,his cross,tomb,and finally hard evidence that he ever existed as an historical figure outside of the N.T.As for the rest of the where is questions all I can say is have fun.

The catholic church were and probably still are horders of christian relics and closer to the time of the alleged existence of Christ and they have nothing.That is of course unless it's all hidden in a secret vault under the Vatican.

[Tiberius]

chatpilot has given an example of something that cannot be held as evidence (i.e. the blurry photo of a ridge -> Noah's ark), and I want to make sure you don't try and pull the "Shroud of Turin" crap as evidence for Jesus. Firstly it has been dated to the 1300's, and secondly it doesn't definitively prove the guy is Jesus.

[chatpilot]

All so called evidence for the existence of an historical Christ have been either proven to be false or forgeries, for example the shroud of Turin or the ossuary with the statement 'here is James the brother of Christ'.And the so called tomb that is traditionally beleived to be the tomb of Christ that millions of the faithful flock to each year is only symbolic since they still have not found the actual tomb,in fact they really have no idea where it is.

[fr0d0]

You seem to have misunderstood my point. My point is that there is no evidence, that the overwhelming evidence leads one to rationally conclude that those references could be non factual. That would support my argument.