One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

[quote='BadWriterSparty' pid='479925' dateline='1374204018']

---

The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct. Though we know much about how gravity works, we won't even pretend to say that we know everything about it. Not only is that arrogant, but we will undoubtedly be proven wrong if we persist in that manner. The mistake that religion makes is that it claims to be right, no matter what. Even though the Holey Babble states that there was a flood that covered the earth, geologists have discovered that this never has been the case in the history of life being present on earth. Though geologists might learn new things all the time about the properties of the earth, knowing how floods affect certain areas of the world is mere childsplay to them.

---

You’re proving my point though; science can never be used to prove the Bible isn’t what it claims to be, because as you have conceded science isn’t inerrant. As for the flood, I do not see how sedimentary rock covering the entire globe isn’t consistent with the flood account.
[/quote]



Here's some light reading for you:

Talk Origins: Problems with the Flood

---

They never tell the world to trust them, though I'm sure they appreciate people like you running around spouting off what you think they say. They (scientists) just think it's cool that they can go about calculating the age of the universe. I think you're just mad that the calculations have never been close to what the Bible has said about the earth's age. For me, it's just more lemon juice squeezed in the eye of the almighty invisible and grouchy Yahweh.

---

That’s not the case at all, a person must make anti-Biblical assumptions to arrive at such long ages, of course assuming the Bible is wrong in order to argue that the Bible is wrong is begging the question. If the events in the Bible took place it’s easy to arrive at young ages for the Earth and the cosmos. Not all scientists believe in an old earth and cosmos, you seem to be forgetting that.

You mean you think they were out to prove the Bible was wrong when they were dating the earth? Do you know how many creationists out there won't even touch the Young Earth Theory with a 10 foot pole? It's simply ludicrous to think that the Earth is only 6000 years old. You're allowed to believe it, but I can't take you seriously if you haven't done the research on the facts.

Even though humankind can 100% trace their lineage back to Homo Erectus without any error, that's fallible? You need to work on that one, and I'll keep using my "fallible" resources and evidences in the meantime.

Again, tracing your lineage in that manner assumes that common traits are due to common ancestry; that’s an assumption that cannot be proven and yet without it you cannot trace anything. One hundred percent? Didn’t you just say above that nothing in science is absolute?

One hundred percent. And I never said nothing in science is absolute. Sitting at my computer desk, I know for a certainty that gravity will cause a pen to fall to the ground every time I release it from my grip. That's an absolute in science. That fact will never change. The only future changes in the physics of gravity we will ever get are going to be supplemental; they won't rewrite the entire science book.

---

Unless God used a giant desklamp to light the sunless earth, then where is that light coming from? That's what I'm asking. You can have days without the sun, granted, but what about that light he created? Was he saving it in a plastic bag until he could channel its glow into the sun?

---

An omnipotent God cannot create light without the Sun? We’re not told where it’s coming from, it could be coming from God Himself; all we know is that it was there on day 1 of creation week.

You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.

I'm supposed to take you seriously when you tell me the Bible is true when you don't even hold other scripture up to the same light of scrutiny? I'm afraid you're a little biased in your claims.

I do not think you’re following what I am saying; why should I hold other books up to the same degree of scrutiny when they already failed when I held them to lesser degrees of scrutiny?

According to what we know about standards of evidence, you are doing quite the opposite. Think of a standard like a threshold. Once that line has been crossed, then it's okay for that individual to believe in whatever claim was on the other side. You have not crossed the thresholds of Al-Quran, for instance, because you still do not believe in it. My standards of evidence are very high for outrageous claims; this is why I still do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.

I hope that clarifies what I was a talking about. (I'm saying it's not a bad thing that you have a high standard of evidence for the other holy books, but that you should have that same standard for the Bible. If you think you do, that's all well and good -- I simply don't agree that you do, is all.)

But at the same time, Katy Perry doesn't commit genocide against people she doesn't like. We could do this all day.

It’s not her prerogative to do so, God can destroy His creation if He pleases can He not?

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory – - Romans 9:20-23 (ESV)

Um...first of all, that's a passage about predestination. More on that later if you feel the need to discuss it. However, what I really want to say is that it's scary how you're okay knowing that God is cool with murdering his creations.

You think these numbers are supposed to mean something to me, as if having more believers collectively will create god out of thin air, kinda like believing in Fairies in Neverland will keep the little buggers alive.

That’s not what I am doing at all, I am pointing out that your analogies are faulty because they are trying to compare very unordinary and fringe beliefs (alien abductions) with a very ordinary and mainstream belief (God exists), the reason I do not believe someone when they claim to have been abducted by aliens is because it’s not something many people claim happens to them. You believe your Tom (or whatever his name was) ate a sandwich because people claim to eat sandwiches for lunch all the time.[/claim]

Sandwiches are demonstrably real; that's the kicker here. That's why the analogy works. (And the man's name was Jimmy, thank you. At least I remembered your boys Science and...well, whoever that other guy was, I remember him .)

Also, I think you'd be surprised at how many normal people in mainstream society believe in aliens, ghosts, and other things that are unseen but talked about.

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='480296' dateline='1374269465']

Mormons are tough because they do this: for just about everything, and then proceed to talk at you, thinking you are always in need of teaching. Remnants of my past still come up to bite me in the ass from time to time.

They’re under a lot of pressure from family and friends because they lose such relationships if they become apostates (not to mention they become sons of perdition); so I can see why they refuse to hear opposing viewpoints.

Too true I was ostracized by my father for a time after I resigned...until he was found committing adultery and got ex-communicated from the Mormon Church! Oh the irony.

---

Absolutely. I've never been to Sydney, Australia, but there's no reason for me to disbelieve its existence. The proof that it exists is demonstrable: I've seen pictures, movies, met people from Sydney, and there's a robust, verifiable history associated with the place that is well-documented.

---

So is a Christian allowed to believe God exists because they have no reason to disbelieve in His existence? I am just trying to understand your position.

Yes. You're allowed to believe in whatever you want. But realize though that even if there's no reason disbelieve his existence (that is, the idea that having a belief, even if it's false, won't hurt anyone but yourself) there's also no good reason to believe it. I'm a little more extreme, being an Anti-Theist, in that I believe there is a very many good reasons to disbelieve god. I can't demonstrably prove that he's not real, but I have reason to believe that society could potentially be better off without religion. There are many working models as to how a society bereft of religion might look, but I don't subscribe to any one model at the moment as what truly might happen if there were fewer systems of belief (or none at all) in the world.

---

On the other hand, you'll be hard-pressed to find a person who has been to the Pearly Gates to shake hands with St. Peter, so we cannot verify with demonstrable evidence that the place is real. Same goes for Mt. Olympus and the River Styx.

---

I’ve never been to Pluto or any of Jupiter’s moons, nor have I met anyone who has.

Have you seen pictures? Do we have telescopes? The evidence for the existence of the above-named celestial bodies is still demonstrable.

Yeah, the remarkable thing is that billions of people would be claiming something they have no evidence for...oh, wait, that already happens!

Well I do not agree with you on there being no evidence for God’s existence, I think that’s an oversimplification, but if that were true why do you believe so many people would believe in such a thing?

Just as there's no one way to eat a Reeses (yuk yuk) there's no one reason for why people believe in God. People may claim to have evidence to support their beliefs, and some people may be able to accept that evidence, but just don't see it as demonstrable. Huge numbers is not demonstrable...it just means there are a lot of believers in something that's not seen. I just want to be more responsible with my beliefs before I jump off the lemmings' cliff (or sit on that rotten tree branch of yours).

---

Your made-up boy science may have a high possibility of being wrong...though I'm not so certain you're correct in regards to natural science or the observable world. Sometimes there isn't a possibility of being wrong...sometimes there's just a lack of evidence that hasn't been found yet to supplement what's already known.

---

Pick up a science text from the 19th Century, or even just the 1950s, the vast majority of it is plain wrong by today’s scientific understanding, why do you think it will be any different 50 years from now when people read early 21st Century scientific works?

I’ll give you another example (let me know if I am boring you); the Bible claims the Universe has a beginning, if I were a Christian living in the early 1920s, and I took the view that we ought to use science to disprove the Bible, I would have rejected this claim and concluded the Bible is not inerrant because it claims the Universe had a beginning and since steady state theory is the popular view of the time period we know the Universe had no finite beginning! So I would have abandoned my faith because of a scientific view that would be completely replaced less than 50 years later; now scientists believe the Universe in fact did have a finite beginning. Science cannot disprove the Bible, and Christians who lose their faith because of it are looking at the whole thing backwards. Science is a wondrous God-given tool, I love it, it’s what I have chosen to do for a living, but scientism is dangerous.

I can see that you have a lot of reason to mistrust science (and thank you for providing good, valid reasons). But the differences/changes you are talking about that will occur 50 years ago do not render all science invalid.

I think what's not being said here is that my atheism actually isn't based in science at all. My atheism is based in doubt. Scientific theories help me understand the world better, but my doubt remains. (Doubt is also what helps improve science, believe it or not.) I can give you scientific evidence that proves the Bible wrong all day long, but I don't need that in order to disbelieve the Bible. I simply don't see a reason to believe it, the same as I don't believe in the tale told by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.