Common self contradiction of the religious

[Freedom of thought]

Read the section under the heading "Do the Bible and Science Disagree?"
Here is a list of predictions the Bible made that has been confirmed by science:

Do the Bible and Science disagree

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Looks like Mr Slick doesn't know what a circle is. A circle is a 2 dimensional object, not a 3d sphere. And here the bible talks of the heaves as if it is a 'tarp', which stretches across the sky. If you went off the bible, you'll be believing the earth is a flat circle with a physical 'dome' stretched across as the sky:

This is what you should be believing if you follow the bible.

Funny how they are trying to find scientific facts in a holy book. If you look hard enough, you will find something that agrees with modern science, but you have to ignore all of the scientific falsehoods, which is an exercise of confirmation bias. I've seen the same thing done with the quran. Not to mention, the bible also talks about the heavens as 'water'. "So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so." Popular to bronze age beliefs, space consists mostly of empty space, not water. Most scholars agree that this is the cosmology of the bible.

As for this: "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."

Is contradicted by the various other passages stating that say the earth is supported by pillars.

"He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

This is an observation anyone can make with their bare eyes.

"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils."

Again, nit picking a passage that closely resembles what we know now is confirmation bias. Just because you can find an odd passage that vaguely agrees with our current understanding of the world doesn't even begin to establish anything. You still have countless other passages that say things AGAINST what we know. Not to mention, in this same passage it does just that: Foundations of the earth? What are these foundations? Oh, the pillars holding up the flat earth!

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

Again, this doesn't show anything. This is a vague passage, and the fact the heavens aren't filled with water, but empty space.

"The Concept of Entropy--"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded." "

Entropy, in the bible! Wow, maybe we should have studied the bible instead of doing experiments! But seriously, analyzing this text doesn't go anywhere to show anything. It seems to me the writer was trying to get across the idea of god's eternal nature. That the world will 'wear out' like a garment, but god will remain. But, even entropy could be observed by a peasant back then. When you break an egg, you observe entropy. When your garment wears out, you observe entropy. Entropy can be observed by anyone. Everyone knows things break down, and decay.

Just out of curiosity, how would a person know the difference between the universe spontaneously 'beginning to exist' and the universe spontaneously 'beginning to exist' through God?

Well, one has a solid mathematical, empirical and observational grounding, and the other doesn't. One is created by people who didn't even know the word was a sphere, and the other wasn't, but arrived at by careful mathematical analysis, with a true understanding of the world, and by experiment, observation, not to mention open questioning. One came out of ignorance, and the other came out of real, tangible understanding.

Don't know anything about that so I couldn't comment.

Well I have to congratulate you for not pretending to know a lot about this subject.

I would expect scientific models by definition to exclude God. A model that would include God would not be falsifiable and therefore not scientific.

I guess so. But this is actually an argument against god, from the success of science. If god existed, why does our most successful empirical models work best off of naturalism? Surely, if god played an integral part in the universe, we would be able to find evidence of his existence through science.

Please address the premises, or the conclusion in your counterargument:

Pr. If the universe is expanding it cannot be infinite.
Pr. The universe is expanding
/:. The universe cannot be infinite.

I pretty much already said why. I would contend with the first. Just because something is in expansion, does not imply it existed for a finite time. Like I said before, you're paraphrasing the BVG theorem, but even that doesn't prove a beginning. All it shows is that relativity breaks down at a finite point in the past.

The 'then' in a conditional isn't always concluded in modern language. I summarized your argument above (from post #49) as:

If you are willing to grant an infinite God, then there is no reason you can't grant an infinite universe. In other words: If there is an infinite God, then there is an infinite universe. You''re claiming an infinite God, therefore there must be an infinite universe.(to clarify the language, the 'you' in these statements refers to me, ex: "I am willing to grant an infinite God", "I'm claiming an infinite God", etc.

If I have misrepresented your argument then I am sorry and I retract my statement calling it a fallacy of affirming the consequent. And if I have misrepresented it, please clarify your meaning to the above quote.

Well, I kind of think you did misrepresent it, but actually I am sorry because I mislead you with poor language. When I said 'willing to grant', I meant if you allow an infinite god, you should be able to allow an infinite universe on the same terms. In doing this, I hoped to point out that you cannot say infinities cannot be real, while saying god exists and is infinite. This kind of arguing is easily misinterpreted, for example the "who created god" argument, which people like Lennox interpreted literally as in atheists are claiming that god is created, which wasn't the point of the argument. It was to ask "if things must have a cause, what is the cause of god?", which brings out an infinite regress. And if god doesn't have a cause, then the same could be said to the universe. That argument is very very old.

I agree it would be.  I'm not making the argument that infinities cannot exist.

Alright, then there is no issue.

Isn't time a requirement for a mind to be able to think?

Not an argument one way or another.

Yes it is. I am saying that minds require time in able to function, an atemporal mind is by definition non functional.

A timeless mind, is by its very nature non functional. If a mind exists transcendent of time,

If a mind exists transcendent of time, then a mind exists transcendent of time. By definition the mind exists, and it does so independently of time.

And like I said, if this mind exists atemporally, its non functional.

I hardly see how it would classify as a mind.

Ignorance?

No, because it doesn't work. A mind needs to work in order to be a mind, and for it to work it needs to be subject to time.

A mind functions within time, one thought flows after another,

True. In an environment where time exists, a thought process can be measured by time. This does not mean that thoughts necessitate time, but rather time is a measurement of them. If you don't measure them do they still exist? Of course, they're just unmeasured.

A mind which is atemporal does not function, without a time dimension it is impossible for a mind to work, let alone think.

I hardly see how a 'transcendent' mind would even work in the slightest.

Ignorance?

No, I outlined the problems with an atemporal mind before.

It seems to me, and incoherent concept.

Personal opinion?

It seems to me incoherent from what I know about minds. And if I were to say "It seems to me a round square is an incoherent concept", it is not merely a personal opinion, but a valid point.

How could this kind of mind even do anything, like think, and let alone create a universe?

Good questions. If you don't know the answer to them, how is this an argument?

Well, this is the consequence of an 'atemporal' mind. Which is why I raised the question.

How does a mind create a universe anyway, have any evidence of this process?

Shifting the burden of proof

Shifting the burden? It was with you from the start mate, and rightly so. Where is your evidence for 'mind-universe-creation-out-of-nothing' anyway? Maybe you should consult the psychic community for some proof of being able to will things with a thought.

Again, your argument isn't a true argument from ignorance, simply walking close to that line. There's a lot of personal opinion and ignorance type statements in the argument.

Well even if it was 'close', its still not an argument from ignorance. Just because you 'come close' to something doesn't mean anything. Not personal opinion, anymore than "a round square is impossible" is an opinion.

Because Christ was crucified?

Hahaha. Well, just because the 'main prophet' isn't around, doesn't mean these sorts of things can't happen. If you remember the story of Moses, you'd know what I'm talking about.

They were 'observable' while Christ was God and man walking on the earth. He is no longer functioning as such. A miracle would be subject to study at the time of it's observance, not 2000 years later.

So its 'observable' but its not observable?

I agree the physical effects can be subject to scientific inquiry. 2000 years ago Jesus healed a blind man. What physical evidence remains today that are subject to study that scientifically prove that God does not exist?

Well, that wasn't the point. If god is interfering with the particles somewhere, we would have observed it by now. Its funny how all of these miracles stop happening after modern science... Its almost like all these things were just made up... And on the question of Jesus: Even if he was going around healing people, even if he was casting devils out of pigs, even if he were walking on water, it doesn't prove he's the son of god, nor he died for our sins, nor any of that.

On the question of the existence of god: Since we have no evidence of miracles, or divine intervention, we can conclude on the lack of evidence god doesn't exist. If god was messing around with the particles somewhere, or curing someones cancer, we would know about it, and would be able to test it through science.

There are many unanswered questions, but your 100% positive that of all the unanswered questions not one of them would point to the existence of God?

Pointing to god when you have an unanswered question, is truly an argument from ignorance. From what I do know, I don't have to propose a god to explain anything. Going by that logic, the rest will be going down the same path. If science has come this far without assuming a higher power, then its not to surprising in the future we'll see the other questions answered naturalistically too. These questions do have answers though, but at this stage they are bound to be incorrect. Going off the best guesses/theories/hypotheses of scientists, we won't need to invoke a god to do anything.

So your argument is that we know almost nothing, but we know for certain that God does not exist.

Well, I never said I was 'certain' god doesn't exist. I am an agnostic atheist, and I hold that god's existence is unlikely, although depending on what god we are talking about. If a god has self contradictory traits, it certainly cannot and doesn't exist. Overall though, I don't think anyone can know the answer to such questions with any great degree of certainty.

This was the point I was driving at. We don't know where the universe came from, but we know it didn't come from God. This statement isn't scientifically possible. You can certainly make a faith statement, that once science makes enough discoveries, it'll be proven that God doesn't exist. But again this is a faith statement and is not scientific proof of anything.

Well, this is a mischaracterization. From our best guesses it didn't come from god. The guesses that it did come from a god, seem to me to be invalid. It doesn't have to come from a deity. I don't think it did given I don't believe in a god, I haven't seen any good reason to think so. Its not a faith statement that science will provide answers, but extrapolating from its exemplary track record. I don't have a 'faith' in science, I have a high degree of certainty, but its not like I have a relationship or 'trust' in science, neither is it without evidence. Science is based on evidence. I don't have faith in inanimate objects, which are incapable of thinking or feeling. And science is just that, an inanimate object, a tool, which is used by us with great success. Nor am I betting god will be 'disproven'. I just don't think we'll ever need to invoke a deity to explain what we see around us, as god has had a poor track record, science has a good track record.

Why doesn't he prove it right now to all of us and end the debate?

is found in the text.

Well, it certainly didn't help anything.