Proofs and Disproofs of Christianity

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I think it would be interesting to have everyone who chooses to reply to this thread reply with one instance where history and the bible match up and one instance where history doesn't match up. I realize the entire idea of belief to a scientific person is pretty ridiculous but lets see if we can't come up with some interesting facts.

Well lets start at the very beginning. The bible says the universe was created some 5-7 thousand years ago. Scientists have lots of proof that suggest the universe was formed over billions of years. The one thing that neither Christian nor scientist can explain is where God or The Big Bang came from.

[FojeJC]

Actually scientists can explain where the big bang came from.
Anyway, according to Biblical genealogy, the creation date for mankind would be somewhere around 3,760 BCE or 4,004 BCE. This is also the earliest date in the Jewish calendar but the earliest date in the Egyptian calendar is 4,236 BCE.
We know that agriculture first was developed around 7,000 BCE from our nice archaeology.
The first domesticated dog was found in Idaho, USA dated from 8,400 BCE.
All these things are in history and happened well before the Bible says that God created the Universe.
In 2,350 BCE, God supposedly covered the entire Earth with a flood (according to the Biblical time-line) but Egyptians never saw any flood.

So, yeah, the bible is wrong again.
1 point for science
0 points for Christianity

[Rage of the Menace]

To Foje. I'm a progressive creationist, I believe that most of the old testament is metaphorical.

[Donkey]

Christianity is a matter of faith as opposed to hard evidence, whereas science is based on observations and theories. The two don't even have to complement each other in order for someone to be supportive of both. No one needs proof to believe in God, and if you try to disprove Christianity using science you won't get anywhere, since Christianity never says that it is based from science or that indeed science is reality. There's the whole testing your faith issue too. A lot of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally; instead for its historical and metaphorical context, so any arguments are almost always entirely useless and irrelevant.

Why try to disprove somebody's faith to somebody anyway? If it makes them happy, it works for them and they're not hurting anyone then you should mind your own business. You may be right or they might be, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't actually matter. There are issues out there that actually affect people and what should be discussed is the way some Christians (> Westboro Baptist Church) go about their business.

[Rage of the Menace]

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
1.If there is no God, knowledge is not possible.
2.Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
3.Therefore God exists.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Big Bang does not have a specific origin as you clearly implied. It's a misnomer for gravitational stretching, and no we can't explain where the big bang came from because the traces have nearly all but disappeared. They're theories for a reason, because they we will most likely never know the truth about it. It happened so long ago and we won't be here to see another one, I can assure you.

I'm a Progressive Creationist, i believe most of the old testament was metaphorical. I actually can back up my views much more strongly than you, especially in the astronomy and cosmology fields.

The Flagellum is also proof. Some say that a virus' flagellum evolved into that of a cells. But a cell is living and a virus is non living. A virus does have DNA yes, but it is not classified as a living organism since it cannot conduct mitosis.

Pandas. Yes. Pandas. Look that one up.

[Yer_Maw]

Actually scientists can explain where the big bang came from.
Anyway, according to Biblical genealogy, the creation date for mankind would be somewhere around 3,760 BCE or 4,004 BCE. This is also the earliest date in the Jewish calendar but the earliest date in the Egyptian calendar is 4,236 BCE.
We know that agriculture first was developed around 7,000 BCE from our nice archaeology.
The first domesticated dog was found in Idaho, USA dated from 8,400 BCE.
All these things are in history and happened well before the Bible says that God created the Universe.
In 2,350 BCE, God supposedly covered the entire Earth with a flood (according to the Biblical time-line) but Egyptians never saw any flood.

So, yeah, the bible is wrong again.
1 point for science
0 points for Christianity

The bible was stories passed down from word of mouth until someone wrote it down so not everything is completely true. Try playing Chinese whispers. The end result is not always the same as the beginning

[Thunduhbuhlt]

This is long I know, but it makes sense if you read it all.

For example, if you observe a discussion between two people regarding whether the Bible’s creation account or the theory of evolution is correct, they will not be debating whether a species of clam can develop larger ridges in its shell! (A microevolution topic.) They will be discussing “where did life come from?” and “did we descend from apelike ancestors?” These are abiogenesis and macroevolution topics, respectively. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution. So, the person supporting evolution will typically turn the argument around to microevolution, where some evidence exists. Please be aware that if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, they are changing the topic on you and not proving anything.

This is where it can be found. (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml)

[Jupiter]

well...

why? why do we have to prove each other wrong? why can't we just.. believe what we would like to? just go with it, ya know?

[Gothicdeer]

Why can't you accept the fact Christians are Christians and quit with these kind of threads? It just makes us go in circles...I don't question other peoples belief...I accept It and respect them...not disprove it...my dearest friend at school Is atheist and he doesn't try to disprove Christianity

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Why can't you accept the fact Christians are Christians and quit with these kind of threads? It just makes us go in circles...I don't question other peoples belief...I accept It and respect them...not disprove it...my dearest friend at school Is atheist and he doesn't try to disprove Christianity

I personally don't debate to prove people wrong... I debate to organize my thoughts and improve my argument. If I end up winning someone over to my side, great but that's not what I'm trying to do. Questioning people's beliefs is the best way to help them. When you openly question them they understand why people think what they do about them and can develope a means of defending themselves. In other cases people realize they are wrong and acknowledge it. I respect your beliefs but don't agree with them. This thread was geared towards learning arguments that christians use and arguments atheists use. In doing so we can learn from both sides arguments. I apologize if I seem harsh or disrespectful just trying to sort out my ideas.

On another note, two inconsistencies:
1.) Nylon Eating Bug
It just so happens there is a bug that eats nothing but nylon. Why would God put a creature on the earth that eats nothing btu man made material that was only recently developed? What did they eat back in "Bible Times"?
2). Farthest Star from Earth
The farthest know star is 15 billion light-years away. That means it took 15 billion years for that stars light to reach us. That doesn't quite match up with the Christian idea of a universe that is only a couple thousand years old.

Ok your turn introduce a valid argument that would make me question these two things.

[Rage of the Menace]

On another note, two inconsistencies:
1.) Nylon Eating Bug
It just so happens there is a bug that eats nothing but nylon. Why would God put a creature on the earth that eats nothing btu man made material that was only recently developed? What did they eat back in "Bible Times"?
2). Farthest Star from Earth
The farthest know star is 15 billion light-years away. That means it took 15 billion years for that stars light to reach us. That doesn't quite match up with the Christian idea of a universe that is only a couple thousand years old.


I adressed these in my comment above, it wasn't answered. Please refer to it.

[DerBear]

well...

why? why do we have to prove each other wrong? why can't we just.. believe what we would like to? just go with it, ya know?

Because it would not be a proper debate. + People like to disprove or prove facts against myths.

[Truth]

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
1.If there is no God, knowledge is not possible.
2.Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
3.Therefore God exists.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Big Bang does not have a specific origin as you clearly implied. It's a misnomer for gravitational stretching, and no we can't explain where the big bang came from because the traces have nearly all but disappeared. They're theories for a reason, because they we will most likely never know the truth about it. It happened so long ago and we won't be here to see another one, I can assure you.

I'm a Progressive Creationist, i believe most of the old testament was metaphorical. I actually can back up my views much more strongly than you, especially in the astronomy and cosmology fields.

The Flagellum is also proof. Some say that a virus' flagellum evolved into that of a cells. But a cell is living and a virus is non living. A virus does have DNA yes, but it is not classified as a living organism since it cannot conduct mitosis.

Pandas. Yes. Pandas. Look that one up. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Knowledge is not possible with god? Knowledge comes from perception, perception is always possible as long as there is a being that exists. This means a god is not nessecary in order to gain knowledge from what you perceive.

[Gothicdeer]

Religion is a touchy debate...one thing you have to realize is the bible never says numbers and never bluntly stated how old the earth is...most of it is metaphorical to get a point across

[TBJohnston]

Religion is a touchy debate...one thing you have to realize is the bible never says numbers and never bluntly stated how old the earth is...most of it is metaphorical to get a point across

Not that there is any specific 'guidelines' to follow as to what verses should be considered metaphorical, symbolic, allegorical or whatever considering everyone has their own interpretation of the book. By the way you've worded the question, it seems as though you've only chucked in 'metaphorical' to try and give yourself a reason to believe in the book. If that's a completely misjudgement on my behalf please let me know after you've read what's below.

The age of the earth isn't the issue I'm trying to raise though, considering anyone an unbiased knowledge of the book would acknowledge the fact that the age of the earth isn't mentioned once in the book. It's really annoying when someone tries to make an argument against the Bible asserting that it claims the earth is 6000-10,000 years old which isn't based of scripture, but the genealogy of the people in Genesis. Bet you get that argument a lot around here huh? I would presume there're a few teenage parrots just repeating what others have told them.


Anyway, you say 'most of it is metaphorical' which is fair considering we're all open to interpret the book in whichever fashion we prefer. The problem I find with that though is that people tend to twist the book in any way possible. Which to me, seems like a desperate attempt to keep its validity up to date with modern times and scientific understanding.

Let me give you an example of why the symbolic interpretation or metaphorical if you will of Genesis sounds completely ridicules. (To myself, at least) Lets look at Adam and Eve, its been awhile since I last read the Bible but from memory the whole point of the story is mainly based around man's sin against god for eating the forbidden fruit. Obviously as a Christian one of the fundamental beliefs is in Christ. To be more specific his Crucifixion; in which he either sacrificed himself to himself (Depending on your belief) or god sent down his only son to forgive us for all our sins. Hopefully by now you see where I'm getting at. If the story of Adam and Eve wasn't written literally, and they didn't actually exist this means that Jesus has sacrificed himself all for a metaphor which is completely absurd.

[Waiting anxiously for a response] Oh and also, it's spelled 'Nietzsche' for your signature quote. ;-)

[erik_moran999]

blah

[TBJohnston]

Must of missed the post.

"Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
1.If there is no God, knowledge is not possible.
2.Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
3.Therefore God exists."

You haven't given any reason as to why we should accept the premise. Please, next time you copy and paste from Wikipedia at least find a reasonable argument that might require some effort to refute and at least make the effort to understand it yourself.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics"

The Second Law states that in enclosed environments things get worse over time due to nothing new being added and resources being used up. The arguments flawed due to a lack of understanding of both field of study. Earth isn't an enclosed system; We have light from the sun, heat from the earths core, the moons gravitational pull etc. All of these things add to and effect everything on earth and drive, along with adaptation, evolution.

This arguments been used repetitively for the last 30 years or more to such an extent that I didn't even need to ask you to elaborate. Its been refuted as clearly pointed out above due to a complete misconception of the law our just plain dishonesty.

"The Big Bang does not have a specific origin as you clearly implied. It's a misnomer for gravitational stretching, and no we can't explain where the big bang came from because the traces have nearly all but disappeared. They're theories for a reason, because they we will most likely never know the truth about it. It happened so long ago and we won't be here to see another one, I can assure you."

The Big Bang is a theory due to the evidence that supports it, not because it's just some guess like you've clearly implied. Yeah it did happen quite some time ago, and while you're just using an expression stating we won't see another one what does that even mean? I certainly hope you aren't suggesting the big bang is somewhat unconvincing. As claimed you can support your views around astronomy and cosmology, it would be absolutely delightful to hear what you have to say about this.

[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html]

"I'm a Progressive Creationist, I believe most of the old testament was metaphorical."

Please refer to my previous post above. It would be interesting to hear as to why you believe most of the OT was metaphorical, yet defend it.

"The Flagellum is also proof. Some say that a virus' flagellum evolved into that of a cells. But a cell is living and a virus is non living. A virus does have DNA yes, but it is not classified as a living organism since it cannot conduct mitosis."

You've stumped me their as that's the only thing I don't have an answer for. (Ironically considering I'm studying biology at the moment!) At the moment, the best information I can offer you rather than my own would be this link that I've just scanned through myself and found it to be somewhat reliable; and fascinating.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-where-did-viruses-come-fr]

Also I thought I should add that you've only made arguments for a deity as opposed to Christianity. It's left me wondering why Christ happens to be the one you believe in? Get back to me on that one too if you like, I'm always up for a healthy discussion/debate. :yes:

[Gothicdeer]

As you said you interpret the book as you want to...Ive read the bible many times and I can't answer all 6our burning questions...and as I tell many people...not all the Christians are the same

[PerpetualImperfexion]

The age of the earth isn't the issue I'm trying to raise though, considering anyone an unbiased knowledge of the book would acknowledge the fact that the age of the earth isn't mentioned once in the book. It's really annoying when someone tries to make an argument against the Bible asserting that it claims the earth is 6000-10,000 years old which isn't based of scripture, but the genealogy of the people in Genesis. Bet you get that argument a lot around here huh? I would presume there're a few teenage parrots just repeating what others have told them.


Ha ok. You could argue that the genealogy in the Bible doesn't prove anything. You could argue that those ages, etc are a complete lie. Either way the genealogy part of the bible is true and according to it the Earth is only couple thousand years old or the genealogy mentioned in the Bible is false and the Bible is proven wrong again. And we all know the earth is not a couple thousand years old, according to science. Either way the Bible is wrong.

[TBJohnston]

Ha ok. You could argue that the genealogy in the Bible doesn't prove anything. You could argue that those ages, etc are a complete lie. Either way the genealogy part of the bible is true and according to it the Earth is only couple thousand years old or the genealogy mentioned in the Bible is false and the Bible is proven wrong again. And we all know the earth is not a couple thousand years old, according to science. Either way the Bible is wrong.

That wasn't exactly directed at you but I think you misunderstand. I wasn't trying to support the bible, but merely point out that arguing about what the bible has to say about the earth's age isn't based on scripture therefore pointless.

"..or the genealogy mentioned in the Bible is false and the Bible is proven wrong again"

The bible doesn't mention any 'genealogy'.

"Genealogy is the study of families and the tracing of their lineages and history. Genealogists use oral traditions, historical records, genetic analysis, and other records to obtain information about a family and to demonstrate kinship and pedigrees of its members. The results are often displayed in charts or written as narratives"

The numbers 6,000-10,000 came about as some scholar (Lost for his name) added up the amount of years each person mentioned in genesis lived for and concluded that it somehow transferred to the age of the earth. Completely oblivious to the fact that there isn't any mention of a date as to where life begun since creation. (The Hebrew word 'Yom' I believe, doesn't translate to what's now known as day in today's Bible) The original idea of a young earth must of been off by a couple of hundred, because according to this source the numbers don't even reach 6000. It makes you wonder why creationists argue a young earth when it isn't exactly biblical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis

To sum everything up, trying to disprove the Bible based on the current understanding of the earth's age is just showing ignorance. Don't let that get you down though, the book is basically self-refuting for anyone that actually reads it from an open-minded and objective perspective! (Hey, that rhymes ;))

[Rage of the Menace]

Must of missed the post.

"Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
1.If there is no God, knowledge is not possible.
2.Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
3.Therefore God exists."

You haven't given any reason as to why we should accept the premise. Please, next time you copy and paste from Wikipedia at least find a reasonable argument that might require some effort to refute and at least make the effort to understand it yourself.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics"

The Second Law states that in enclosed environments things get worse over time due to nothing new being added and resources being used up. The arguments flawed due to a lack of understanding of both field of study. Earth isn't an enclosed system; We have light from the sun, heat from the earths core, the moons gravitational pull etc. All of these things add to and effect everything on earth and drive, along with adaptation, evolution.

This arguments been used repetitively for the last 30 years or more to such an extent that I didn't even need to ask you to elaborate. Its been refuted as clearly pointed out above due to a complete misconception of the law our just plain dishonesty.

"The Big Bang does not have a specific origin as you clearly implied. It's a misnomer for gravitational stretching, and no we can't explain where the big bang came from because the traces have nearly all but disappeared. They're theories for a reason, because they we will most likely never know the truth about it. It happened so long ago and we won't be here to see another one, I can assure you."

The Big Bang is a theory due to the evidence that supports it, not because it's just some guess like you've clearly implied. Yeah it did happen quite some time ago, and while you're just using an expression stating we won't see another one what does that even mean? I certainly hope you aren't suggesting the big bang is somewhat unconvincing. As claimed you can support your views around astronomy and cosmology, it would be absolutely delightful to hear what you have to say about this.

[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html]

"I'm a Progressive Creationist, I believe most of the old testament was metaphorical."

Please refer to my previous post above. It would be interesting to hear as to why you believe most of the OT was metaphorical, yet defend it.

"The Flagellum is also proof. Some say that a virus' flagellum evolved into that of a cells. But a cell is living and a virus is non living. A virus does have DNA yes, but it is not classified as a living organism since it cannot conduct mitosis."

You've stumped me their as that's the only thing I don't have an answer for. (Ironically considering I'm studying biology at the moment!) At the moment, the best information I can offer you rather than my own would be this link that I've just scanned through myself and found it to be somewhat reliable; and fascinating.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-where-did-viruses-come-fr]

Also I thought I should add that you've only made arguments for a deity as opposed to Christianity. It's left me wondering why Christ happens to be the one you believe in? Get back to me on that one too if you like, I'm always up for a healthy discussion/debate. :yes:

Why of course.

1. The Big Bang is based on evidence, yes, and i personally do thing the universe began in a similar manner.

2. Christianity is the faith i choose because it's the only religion that makes sense to me, I personally like the morals.

3. I accept Evolution under the label, Creative Evolution.

4. I already told you why i think the old testament's mostly metaphorical, the priests at the time when enslaved in Babylon wrote in such a fashion. Also, Someone said it was like a game of Chinese whispers, hence it cannot be taken literally.

5. I'm throwing arguments at you. So far you're the only one that bothered answering.

6. D.N.A's origins. Every living thing on this planet has it, how and why?

[TBJohnston]

Why of course.

1. The Big Bang is based on evidence, yes, and i personally do thing the universe began in a similar manner.

2. Christianity is the faith i choose because it's the only religion that makes sense to me, I personally like the morals.

3. I accept Evolution under the label, Creative Evolution.

4. I already told you why i think the old testament's mostly metaphorical, the priests at the time when enslaved in Babylon wrote in such a fashion. Also, Someone said it was like a game of Chinese whispers, hence it cannot be taken literally.

5. I'm throwing arguments at you. So far you're the only one that bothered answering.

6. D.N.A's origins. Every living thing on this planet has it, how and why?

"Christianity is the faith i choose because it's the only religion that makes sense to me, I personally like the morals."

Fair enough, although could you please give me an honest answer to these questions. Is Christianity the only faith you've looked into or have you compared it with others to a acceptable standard? And was your upbringing based around Christianity?

The morals I have nothing much to say about. My knowledge of the bible isn't great but I can certainly say without hesitation there's quite a lot of hostility towards things like Homosexuality, gender and other things which you can consider bad morals to hold. Not to mention the complete absurdity that biblical god is apparently responsible but we're the ones that're blamed.

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates 'faulty' Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”

"I accept Evolution under the label, Creative Evolution."

As in theistic evolution which holds the belief that a god was the one that set evolution into motion as opposed to natural cause?

"I already told you why i think the old testament's mostly metaphorical, the priests at the time when enslaved in Babylon wrote in such a fashion. Also, Someone said it was like a game of Chinese whispers, hence it cannot be taken literally."

Might of missed that but it certainty isn't a good enough reason for me to accept as to why you interpret most of the book metaphorically. The book interpreted literally doesn't leave much room for divine inspiration, let alone metaphorically; what's the point of Jesus' sacrifice if it wasn't for a real sin?

The Chinese whispers thing sounds ridicules, sure the stories might of be passed throughout but comparing a children's party game to the supposed work of god is just laughable. Surely if this book was divinely inspired the stories wouldn't change, by saying this you're admitting that the 'word of god' has been changed over the years. Which is fact, but then why believe it?

"D.N.A's origins. Every living thing on this planet has it, how and why?"

I'm trying to be as subtle here as you've actually lowered your arguments down to the level of "If god didn't do it than what did" which is something I hear over and over again and it's really starting to become annoying. You're placing a humans irrational ideology based on nothing more than faith before an attempt to understand something, this by anyone with a rational mind is simply out of the question. When you make this type of argument, all that people get from it is that you would rather go with a more simple answer rather than trying to understand something and find an explanation. Saying "if pixies didn't cause the big bang, what did? is the exact same argument, but considering the belief in god is rather popular and actually a thought out belief, arguments like the one you've just made have more effect on people.

Unlike some questions DNA's origins does have a relatively decent answer at the moment, with quite a few theories surrounding it. It's currently believed by most scientists that living organisms arose from non-living materials. This is called Abiogensis. If you have a look at the Wikipedia page for it, you will find a heap of information that might answer some of your questions. Keeping in mind though it isn't actually recognized as fact yet due to there not being enough evidence, but not having a reliable answer to our questions certainly isn't a good reason to point the figure at a divine creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Gothicdeer]

The bible does NOT say HATE homosexuals...it says love thy neighbor no matter who the man...it tells us we're in no position to judge...leave that to God...

[TBJohnston]

The bible does NOT say HATE homosexuals...it says love thy neighbor no matter who the man...it tells us we're in no position to judge...leave that to God...

I didn't mean to say that he hated them though some verses do clearly imply that, but the Bible is very clear about what god thinks of homosexuals. It would be wrong for me to say he hates them due to his apparent 'all loving' nature but he certainly doesn't approve of them and considered it an abomination. (Leviticus 20:13). It doesn't make sense as to why an omniscience and omnipotent god, would create homosexuals but then forbid them for being themselves and suggest that they should be put to death.

Surely gods contradictory nature is becoming clear enough for you. It's time to grow up.

[Gothicdeer]

I'm saying calling it an abomination is different than saying HATE it

[TBJohnston]

I'm saying calling it an abomination is different than saying HATE it
An abomination is generally great dislike, but arguing over this all day isn't going to get us anywhere.

[Gothicdeer]

I'm just trying to defend Christians...we don't hate gays

[TBJohnston]

I'm just trying to defend Christians...we don't hate gays

I never said you did..

Try reading the bible for crying out loud, if you're going to try defend Christianity you might want to make yourself familiar with the text that's the foundation of your faith. Seeing as you haven't responded to anything else I have said, it appears as though that you're actually rather ignorant of what you actually believe in!

Free free to prove me wrong. If you do make an effort to read the book which I'm certain you haven't read you will be a disbeliever by the time you finish. :yes:

[Gothicdeer]

With all due respect...you're an ass...I've read the bible many times..and I just chose to argue about gays seeing that typing responses on this phone Is hard...if you REALLY want a debate...wait till after tennis season and ill use the school's computer...then youll see my bible knowledge

[TBJohnston]

With all due respect...you're an ass...I've read the bible many times..and I just chose to argue about gays seeing that typing responses on this phone Is hard...if you REALLY want a debate...wait till after tennis season and ill use the school's computer...then youll see my bible knowledge

"With all due respect...you're an ass"

Don't worry I know :lol:

[Rage of the Menace]

"Christianity is the faith i choose because it's the only religion that makes sense to me, I personally like the morals."

Fair enough, although could you please give me an honest answer to these questions. Is Christianity the only faith you've looked into or have you compared it with others to a acceptable standard? And was your upbringing based around Christianity?

The morals I have nothing much to say about. My knowledge of the bible isn't great but I can certainly say without hesitation there's quite a lot of hostility towards things like Homosexuality, gender and other things which you can consider bad morals to hold. Not to mention the complete absurdity that biblical god is apparently responsible but we're the ones that're blamed.

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates 'faulty' Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”

"I accept Evolution under the label, Creative Evolution."

As in theistic evolution which holds the belief that a god was the one that set evolution into motion as opposed to natural cause?

"I already told you why i think the old testament's mostly metaphorical, the priests at the time when enslaved in Babylon wrote in such a fashion. Also, Someone said it was like a game of Chinese whispers, hence it cannot be taken literally."

Might of missed that but it certainty isn't a good enough reason for me to accept as to why you interpret most of the book metaphorically. The book interpreted literally doesn't leave much room for divine inspiration, let alone metaphorically; what's the point of Jesus' sacrifice if it wasn't for a real sin?

The Chinese whispers thing sounds ridicules, sure the stories might of be passed throughout but comparing a children's party game to the supposed work of god is just laughable. Surely if this book was divinely inspired the stories wouldn't change, by saying this you're admitting that the 'word of god' has been changed over the years. Which is fact, but then why believe it?

"D.N.A's origins. Every living thing on this planet has it, how and why?"

I'm trying to be as subtle here as you've actually lowered your arguments down to the level of "If god didn't do it than what did" which is something I hear over and over again and it's really starting to become annoying. You're placing a humans irrational ideology based on nothing more than faith before an attempt to understand something, this by anyone with a rational mind is simply out of the question. When you make this type of argument, all that people get from it is that you would rather go with a more simple answer rather than trying to understand something and find an explanation. Saying "if pixies didn't cause the big bang, what did? is the exact same argument, but considering the belief in god is rather popular and actually a thought out belief, arguments like the one you've just made have more effect on people.

Unlike some questions DNA's origins does have a relatively decent answer at the moment, with quite a few theories surrounding it. It's currently believed by most scientists that living organisms arose from non-living materials. This is called Abiogensis. If you have a look at the Wikipedia page for it, you will find a heap of information that might answer some of your questions. Keeping in mind though it isn't actually recognized as fact yet due to there not being enough evidence, but not having a reliable answer to our questions certainly isn't a good reason to point the figure at a divine creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

1. I'm seeing how you're going to react to specific questions.

2. A mix of Theistic and Natural Cause.

3. I don't believe in words, I believe in God. The Bible is a guide to me, hence contradicting the Bible can only do so much to further your cause against a person who only follows the 10 commandments and the 4 gospels.

4. Please read my replies again, i choose my words carefully, analyzing them more deeply would answer most of your questions.

5. And when i meant it was like Chinese whispers, the Old Testament was written over 4 times, each by different classes and in different regions over thousands of years.

Proof for a divine Being?

Look up Dr. Amit Goswami.

[TBJohnston]

1. I'm seeing how you're going to react to specific questions.

2. A mix of Theistic and Natural Cause.

3. I don't believe in words, I believe in God. The Bible is a guide to me, hence contradicting the Bible can only do so much to further your cause against a person who only follows the 10 commandments and the 4 gospels.

4. Please read my replies again, i choose my words carefully, analyzing them more deeply would answer most of your questions.

5. And when i meant it was like Chinese whispers, the Old Testament was written over 4 times, each by different classes and in different regions over thousands of years.

Proof for a divine Being?

Look up Dr. Amit Goswami.

"I'm seeing how you're going to react to specific questions."

:>_>:

"I don't believe in words, I believe in God. The Bible is a guide to me, hence contradicting the Bible can only do so much to further your cause against a person who only follows the 10 commandments and the 4 gospels."

You don't believe in words, but then follow up with the bible is a guide to me? Your beliefs are awfully confusing and you aren't giving me a fair chance by mentioning most of these things after I've answered your question. Could you at least give me an answer as to why that is, instead of avoiding the question by suddenly generating another random belief?

"Please read my replies again, i choose my words carefully, analyzing them more deeply would answer most of your questions"

You haven't given me much to analyse. At least put some effort into your 'answers' so we can have a reasonable discussion because at the moment it feels like I'm just talking to myself while having a few arguments thrown in here and there that make little to no sense.

"Want proof of a divine being? > Look up Dr. Amit Goswami."

Firstly I must raise the question as to why you believe in a god when there is apparently proof for his existence? If there was proof, belief wouldn't be required. Considering that you seem to be doubting the 'evidence' yourself it's making Goswami's proof rather unappealing, let alone if it was actual proof it would be spread world wide, all over the media, in-ignorable to the extent tha9t this man would be known world wide. Though it's rather doubtful, I will make an effort to have a read what this man has to say about god.

Edit: Could you give me a link regarding the specific evidence for a divine being? Just telling me to look him up hasn't given me much of an idea of what exactly I should be looking for. Most websites so far have something to do with consciousness and the soul which isn't relevant to this somewhat of an argument about god. I'm just starting to read it, but it would help if you provided me with a link for the specific 'evidence' you want me to see.

I'll hopefully get back to you on this one. :eek3:

[ZackLolXD]

i cant stand religion. People take it personaly sometimes. Im personaly agnostic. But leaning on the atheist side. Life is complicated.

[Magus]

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
1.If there is no God, knowledge is not possible.
2.Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
3.Therefore God exists.

1. If there is no God, there is no porn.
2. There is porn.
3. Therefore God exists.


Second Law of Thermodynamics


Second law of thermodynamics states that you cannot take energy from a non energy source.

[TBJohnston]

This is long I know, but it makes sense if you read it all.

"For example, if you observe a discussion between two people regarding whether the Bible’s creation account or the theory of evolution is correct, they will not be debating whether a species of clam can develop larger ridges in its shell! (A microevolution topic.) They will be discussing “where did life come from?” and “did we descend from apelike ancestors?” These are abiogenesis and macroevolution topics, respectively. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution. So, the person supporting evolution will typically turn the argument around to microevolution, where some evidence exists. Please be aware that if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, they are changing the topic on you and not proving anything."

This is where it can be found. (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml)

It's the same process which any honest person would admit, but with the general dishonest nature of creationists it isn't a wonder why they haven't distinguished the difference between the two. The entire paragraph can be successfully refuted with genetic drift, which something they haven't taken into consideration being that incredibly deceitful and dishonest to themselves and others.

First of all lets distinguish the difference between Micro and Macro:

Micro - This means that evolution occurs within a species but that species won't ever eventually evolve into something else.

Macro - This means that evolution occurs within a species but a certain species has the possibility of breaking off into a subspecies over a lengthy period of time.

Now onto Genetic drift. This occurs when a gene pool gets separated mainly due to environmental changes. The best way for me to explain this would be to set up a hypothetical situation. Firstly get a picture of 100 monkeys into your head. Imagine these monkeys were divided into two groups of 50 and placed on two different islands, the twist is that one of the islands environment is slightly more cold than the others. Now picture time has skipped ahead like 10,000 years and both populations are live and well, if we now compared the monkeys from each island there would be noticeable differences between the two due to slight environmental change. Eventually the two would become different enough to be considered two separate species of monkey.

This probably isn't entirely accurate but if you wish to further your understanding make sure you're getting your information from a credible and unbiased website, that doesn't bring god into the picture. Creationists ignore things like this and pray on peoples lack of understanding, selling their false information all in an attempt to validate their religion. Which remind's me that I should assure you that accepting evolution doesn't mean you can't believe the bible, some of the parts might need to be viewed in other figures of speech but overall evolution and god are two completely unrelated subjects. AND hypothetically, for future reference if evolution did happen to be disproved that wouldn't automatically make god the answer, so as you can see this wasn't a very strong argument to begin with!

Here's a great source of information on evolution: (Enjoy learning about this amazing process)
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

:fish:

[JackShephard]

Let's assume that God exists. Going back to the scientific theory and the biblical belief on how old the earth is supposed to be, is it so hard to imagine that the writers of the bible where told something they could understand at the time? Thousands of years might be what they could only comprehend. Maybe even, they substituted what they believed where god did not actually inform them of that sort of thing. Does the age of the universe have a place in a book that is supposed to be about the teachings of God? Think about it. How many places in the bible tell you to do things that sound redicolus? And anyone who wrote a book in the bible could very be so corrupt that they where not actually transcribing a message from God. Who wouldn't want to be a part of the most powerful influence at the time? Not to mention how old the original texts are and how many times they have been translated. This is why I question the bible in some areas. I don't place my spiritual faith in people or their recordings. Who knows how flawed it really is?

[Rage of the Menace]

"I'm seeing how you're going to react to specific questions."

:>_>:

"I don't believe in words, I believe in God. The Bible is a guide to me, hence contradicting the Bible can only do so much to further your cause against a person who only follows the 10 commandments and the 4 gospels."

You don't believe in words, but then follow up with the bible is a guide to me? Your beliefs are awfully confusing and you aren't giving me a fair chance by mentioning most of these things after I've answered your question. Could you at least give me an answer as to why that is, instead of avoiding the question by suddenly generating another random belief?

"Please read my replies again, i choose my words carefully, analyzing them more deeply would answer most of your questions"

You haven't given me much to analyse. At least put some effort into your 'answers' so we can have a reasonable discussion because at the moment it feels like I'm just talking to myself while having a few arguments thrown in here and there that make little to no sense.

"Want proof of a divine being? > Look up Dr. Amit Goswami."

Firstly I must raise the question as to why you believe in a god when there is apparently proof for his existence? If there was proof, belief wouldn't be required. Considering that you seem to be doubting the 'evidence' yourself it's making Goswami's proof rather unappealing, let alone if it was actual proof it would be spread world wide, all over the media, in-ignorable to the extent tha9t this man would be known world wide. Though it's rather doubtful, I will make an effort to have a read what this man has to say about god.

Edit: Could you give me a link regarding the specific evidence for a divine being? Just telling me to look him up hasn't given me much of an idea of what exactly I should be looking for. Most websites so far have something to do with consciousness and the soul which isn't relevant to this somewhat of an argument about god. I'm just starting to read it, but it would help if you provided me with a link for the specific 'evidence' you want me to see.

I'll hopefully get back to you on this one. :eek3:

1. You don't believe in a guide, you follow it.

2. Religion is based on faith because it cannot be proven definitively, if it was fact it wouldn't have to be faith.

3. He basically answers questions on consciousness. He's also not a materialist scientist.

4. Keep searching, i have no idea what you want to find.

5. Please bring up a historical subject.

[jackson94]

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
1.If there is no God, knowledge is not possible.
2.Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
3.Therefore God exists.


Considering God was made to fill up the scientific void in a simpler, more ignorant time, I'd think those rules should look more like this.

1) If there is knowledge, God does not exist.
2) A belief in God is still present, therefore, we are still an ignorant people.
3) ....
4) Profit?

[Smeagol]

Disproof. In the story where Abraham has to sacrifice his son, he is about to do it in the name of God. If God is supposed to be good and all loving, why would he send a baby to its death? However, God says that Abraham's willingness to kill his son is a good thing and he doesn't have to go through with it. Does that make Abraham a bad person? Apparently not, according to the bible, since Abraham is so revered...

[Rage of the Menace]

More atheists here than Christians. Well. Time for me to educate you.

Schema 2: Teleological Arguments.

1.Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are design-like (exhibit a cognition-resonating, intention-shaped character R)
2.Design-like properties (R) are not producible by (unguided) natural means—i.e., any phenomenon exhibiting such Rs must be a product of intentional design.

Therefore

3.Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are products of intentional design. And of course, the capacity for intentional design requires agency of some type.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

Also.

Argument IV: Moral Arguments 1.2

1.Moral facts exist.
2.Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural.
3.The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism.
4.Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

More Philosophy. Ontological Arguments.

1.God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.

2.I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

3.It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Malcolm 1960, Hartshorne 1965, and Plantinga 1974 for closely related arguments.)

4.[It is analytic, necessary and a priori that] Each instance of the schema “The F G is F” expresses a truth. Hence the sentence “The existent perfect being is existent” expresses a truth. Hence, the existent perfect being is existent. Hence, God is existent, i.e. God exists. (The last step is justified by the observation that, as a matter of definition, if there is exactly one existent perfect being, then that being is God.)

5.The word ‘God’ has a meaning that is revealed in religious experience. The word ‘God’ has a meaning only if God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Rescher 1959 for a live version of this argument.)

6.I exist. Therefore something exists. Whenever a bunch of things exist, their mereological sum also exists. Therefore the sum of all things exists. Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists.

7.Say that a God-property is a property that is possessed by God in all and only those worlds in which God exists. Not all properties are God properties. Any property entailed by a collection of God-properties is itself a God-property. The God-properties include necessary existence, necessary omnipotence, necessary omniscience, and necessary perfect goodness. Hence, there is a necessarily existent, necessarily omnipotent, necessarily omniscient, and necessarily perfectly good being (namely, God).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

Good website i sourced from.

[Rage of the Menace]

Considering God was made to fill up the scientific void in a simpler, more ignorant time, I'd think those rules should look more like this.

1) If there is knowledge, God does not exist.
2) A belief in God is still present, therefore, we are still an ignorant people.
3) ....
4) Profit?

Just.... No.

Please show proof for your statement, namely philosophical texts.

[JackShephard]

I don't think this is turning out how it was meant to...

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/abandon-thread-snail.gif

[TBJohnston]

5. Please bring up a historical subject.

I'm not very informed when it comes to history sorry to say. I can see where you're getting at though, trying to validate the bible through historical accuracy right? Because any atheist that's actually studied the bible would admit that there is historical relevance throughout the book. If my first presumption was correct the bible being party accurate according to history means just that, it doesn't account for all the other claims like Jesus raising people from the dead.

Someone else might be able to discuss that history stuff with you though. ;)