Arguments for God Fail Specific Religions

[The Grand Nudger]

oh he doesn't? ok maybe you can explain how God can be 3 people but one person at the same time, how a part of him can know something the other does not cuz not even i understand that and it's my religion not your's. you don't even care therefore you never thought about it so of course he seams simple it's a possibility we can overlook cuz it's stupid.

Religious tradition is rarely simple. How god accomplishes his feats of magic is. We write them into the narrative. You've been sold a bill of goods.

[chi pan]

"So, you acknowledge people's critics that shot down your argument and just put it behind your back, moving your argument elsewhere? Is this what you call a debate? Its a fucking monologue. Anyway, since you didn't provide a source for your claim about mt st Helens, I decided to search for it and surprise surprise, here is the first 3 links:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...adiodating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ting-prove
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

Yeah, no bias on those sites. But here, here is an article with actual scientific sources(I could search for more, but I suspect you will just deflect it and move the goalpost):
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_...ite_kh.htm

I guess lying is ok as long as you do it for jeebus"

well actually someone from that site just listed were the ones who contacted them to explain their results. and again with experiment. also "if an experiment fails, it's wrong. it doesn't matter who does the experiment or how much the person knows if it fails it's wrong." a quote from the video you posted a while back about the scientific method. and the fact that i agknowlaged that point and moved on is to say that i believe both origins, big bang and creation, are a matter of faith, not proof. therefore aithism being a faith itself is a religion.

"Are you serious? That is not the scientific method, the scientific method is as follows:
1- You have a problem.
2- You search for literature about that problem.
3- You create a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
4- You test that hypothesis, if fails, return to step 2.
5- If the test proves the hypothesis submit it in a paper in a scientific venue to be analysed by your peers, so that they can repeat the processes you used to prove your hypothesis.
6- If all goes ok, hope for a nobel prize nomination

Besides, in order to get to understand the future, you should analize the past, also this is not an atheist scientists conspiracy, I know of many theist scientists that accept evolution, and that doesn't impede their belief in god. Its just a YEC stupidity manifest. Infact I live in a country 90% catholic and they accept evolution.

One more thing, do you realise that even if evolution isn't true, you did nothing to prove your fabled delusion of a sky-daddy? Wanting very much for it to exist won't do, and the bible is only proof of bronze-age ignorance."

good point, it's good to anylize the past but not to the point where we are making a guess, not being able to prove it but move along and make a guess built on that and another built on that. that is not science, that turns into a bunch of guesses that could all be wrong.
yes there are many scientists who are christian and many christians who believe in evolution but they do not take God's word in the bible literally but i believe it is essentual to do so or all it's credability falls apart. i'm not against progress but whether you believe those cosmology theories is a matter of faith not evidence. that's all i'm trying to proove. i very well know it won't bring people to christianity b/c it's about faith.

---

"Religious tradition is rarely simple. How god accomplishes his feats of magic is. We write them into the narrative. You've been sold a bill of goods."

yes it is simple b/c back then they couldn't understand such a complicated process of how it actually happened so he sums it up. the bible wasn't written to prove what's in it, but to tell about what happened and whether you believe it or not is your choice. God did many miricles back then but he doesn't do then much anymore b/c he let his way of life come and die and rise again so it's all up to us now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another point where you should have googled the claim before you made it. At the time that the bible was written down, and by the time of the new testament specifically it would have been very easy for any god to have explained the cosmos or our origins in a manner that would be both intelligible to the audience of the time and recognizable to science of our time (this says nothing of the ability an omnipotent god would have to convey a message regardless of what anyone understood before the attempt was made..way to make your god incompetent). The bible is a collection of fairy tales. It does not contain anything about "what happened" the people who wrote it had no idea "what happened". What little they did seem to know was so heavily laced with myth, outright deceit, and political propaganda that any information the narrative drew from has been rendered useless. Nothing is "summed up" in the bible, it's fiction. God didn't do any more "miracles" then then god does now. The grand total of "miracles" that can be chalked up to god is exactly zero. The bible has no credibility to begin with, so you probably shouldn't worry to much about tarnishing that reputation.

---

I'm glad you decided to retract the bits of your post I responded to, my response is going to stay though. Our cosmology theories are based on evidence, not faith. Your criticisms of these theories is based on ignorance, not knowledge.

[chi pan]

"The bible has no credibility to begin with, so you probably shouldn't worry to much about tarnishing that reputation"

really? then why is it so historically accurate it's often used by archaeologists? it's one of the most historically accurate texts written at the time. it's not all about religion, but historical events.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not, and it isn't. That's just another one of your bullshit claims. It is all religion, history slips through by accident (and it's rarely anything even remotely resembling the "history" that they're attempting to peddle). Sorry to burst your bubble. It's called a prophetic cycle, and it's a common religious narrative. Essentially, it is the notion that history repeats itself elevated to the status of religion.

[KichigaiNeko]

"The bible has no credibility to begin with, so you probably shouldn't worry to much about tarnishing that reputation"

really? then why is it so historically accurate it's often used by archaeologists? it's one of the most historically accurate texts written at the time. it's not all about religion, but historical events.

It REALLY (the babble) is SO wildly in accurate and relys soley on fantasy that any one who supports it is supporting a house of cards with the bottom row missing.

You really do need to do more than just limit yourself to subjects that confirm your bias mate.

[chi pan]

look i'll tell you a bit about myself. i grew up christian and had a love for physics since i was little. when i was 13 i went to an answers in genisus ceminar and since then i've been fascenated with that subject as well. i've learned about many religions and debated about them and for the first time i've come here basically jumping in the fire to start a debate with many people to learn more about it. the thing i don't like about this site is all the personal attacks that don't belong in a debate. i'm a person trying to learn more about something by getting both sides to it so don't call me one sided. yes most of my information is from christian sources but i'm trying to change that by looking everywhere. just wanted to let you know.

[LastPoet]

the thing i don't like about this site is all the personal attacks that don't belong in a debate.

Insults are a good way to measure a person's argumentative integrity, if you are paused by them it shows alot about the strenght of your position. Go ahead, give me your worse insult, I have +1000 insult armor. Besides, its fun to watch xtians all riled up because of them.

look i'll tell you a bit about myself. i grew up christian and had a love for physics since i was little. when i was 13 i went to an answers in genisus ceminar and since then i've been fascenated with that subject as well.

We already knew that you've been indoctrinated, by simple analisis of your arguments. What we didn't know its the AIG seminar, but I guess it shows where you get your bullshit from. Typical. So, ken ham and his ilk have no bias huh? Perhaps the loads of money they gather from bullshitting sheep like you...

Another thing, about science, I'll let the professor answer you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6p...plpp_video

[chi pan]

i perfer looking at debates to fing the truth b/c they have both sides presented 2 different biases going against one another. if both are about equal in intelegance then the one who has the truth on their side has the advantage. here's a debate i'm looking at right now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbny2tipr8

[The Grand Nudger]

Chip, AIG is a faith based ministry, not a scientific organization. Like I said, you've been sold a bill of goods. If you are fascinated by physics then you should have gone to a seminar that dealt with physics and science, not a church. If this subject fascinates you then perhaps you should stop doing the subject (and yourself) such a disservice and learn some physics, learn some science, rather than regurgitating religion repackaged as either? You've been putting forward apologetics in place of science in these posts.

If a complete moron was holding evidence and a genius was trying to sell me on something without it, guess what, the moron takes the gold. It has nothing to do with the presenter of the theories, the "sides". There is only one side in science, evidence. Bad evidence is no evidence at all (when it comes to science), before you even ask. The "evidence" that AIG likes to peddle falls under this category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

Now, which of the two are we dealing with below?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis