A challenge for Christians

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

All you get from science are theories about the origin of the universe.   And those change over time.  Science doesn't know how the universe began.

 

Stranger

 

Neither do you. You have an old book that has a creation story. Many old cultures have creation stories. We can trace the genesis one back to cultures before the Israelites. Their God - Elohim - has the same name as the chief Cannanite god.

 

Science can back up the theories of beginning of the universe - you can't. To back your theory up you'd have to show there is, not just a god, but THE GOD of the bible. All you have is faith.

 

This common accusation "Science changes over time" is one of the most asinine comments I get from christians. Yes, because unlike bible thumpers who want their 2500 year old book not to change, science updates its theories as new information comes available, as new things are learned. If we stuck with never changing anything we'd still be dying of toothache, thinking the earth was flat, and stoning our rebellious sons as the bible commands.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

As I said, the prophets are prophets.  They see things both future and in the past.  It is common in Scripture.  

 

Another asserted belief, completely unfounded, and held against all evidence to the contrary.

 

Care to show that 'prophets' can see the future and the past?

 

Also care to explain why God felt prophetic abilities had to stop some 2000 years ago?

[Stranger]

 

 

*facepalm*

 

All you have is a hypothesis based on an anthology of foreign folk tales purporting to be the word of a god.

 

A very, very stupid god.

 

I, for one, am going to stick with science, as it regularly updates its knowledge base as new data comes in.

 

Well, I would disagree that the Bible is based on foreign folk tales.   

 

I understand your animosity towards God. 

 

So you want to stick with science instead of God.  OK.  Does science tell you what happens when you die?   Does science provide the way to eternal life?   Just something to think about.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Science grows and adapts to new information. It's an ongoing, self-correcting field. It improves over time.

 

The Bible, on the other hand, is still the same ignoramous nonsense that it's been for millennia.

 

Thus, it's pretty obvious which one is a much better path to truth.

 

 

Well, that is my point.  What science says today is true may not be true ten years from now.   They don't know.  They are learning.   

 

When science has the truth, let me know.

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

What science says today is true may not be true ten years from now.   They don't know.  They are learning.   

 

This is a strawman of science, built to justify your steadfast belief in a book written by people, that while creative, didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

 

"Well, I would disagree that the Bible is based on foreign folk tales."

 

Facts are a real pain when it comes to cherished beliefs like the holy word of god aren't they? The fact is that we can trace the stories back, the fact is that the 'laws handed down from Moses' are simply rewrites from Hammurabi's code centuries before the supposed exodus took place.

 

And archaeology is also punching massive holes in the bible narrative. The consensus now is there was no mass exodus out of Egypt. It now appears that the Israelites largely evolved out of a cultural change from the local Canaanites, while absorbing various other peoples with their own stories along the way.

 

This is why Christians ignore facts and stick to fantasy.

 

 

[Stranger]

 

The very interesting thing about much of what you have stated in this quote is that you have assumed much. You assume they understood what death was. But the bible makes no indication of this. You assume that they understood they were not to eat of the tree. But its one thing to know not to do something, but something different to understand why. You are essentially advocating that God wants to be loved by mindless drones by stating that he just wanted them to obey without understanding why.

 

Your statement that "Adam and Eve were not toddlers.   They were mature and perfect, without sin." is very problematic. How did they achieve maturity? If they were created as adults, where did they get the information that they had? When you and I reached adulthood, we had 18+ years of experience in making mistakes, learning, education, experiences,etc. Did Adam and Eve have this? How did they gain maturity? How did God determine what to "download" into their brains that made them "mature"?

 

Based on the handful of lines you have typed out here, you are essentially saying that God wants mindless, uneducated, robots to love him and do his bidding. Then you essentially are saying that the whole thing was designed by him to fail, because they weren't mindless and ignorantly obedient. That makes no sense and I have trouble understanding how you don't see the foolishness in what you believe.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I believe I was clear that Adam and Eve did not know the full extent of death.  

 

Adam and Eve knew they were not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  That is not an assumption.  Of course they understood.  God plainly told them.  As to why, it didn't matter.  God plainly made His will known.  

 

It is not necessary that God be loved by man for God to exist and function in eternity.   He will exist and function anyway.  But it is to the benifit of man to love God.  But, that love will not be produced by man.  It is a product of God loving us.  (1John 4:19)

 

God created Adam and Eve in maturity.    When Adam and Eve were created they didn't have a lot of things which we do.  Sin being the main one.  

 

You ask how did God do it?   He did it because He is God and can do it.   And so did do it.

 

You ignore that it is right to worship God and Christ.  You reject them, so in your mind it is wrong to worship them.  But, if indeed, They are Who Scripture says They are, then it is right to worship them and only them.  

 

Stranger

 

 

[disillusioned]

 

 

So you want to stick with science instead of God.  OK.  Does science tell you what happens when you die?   Does science provide the way to eternal life?   Just something to think about.

 

 

What makes you think that there is such a thing as eternal life? On the face of it, it sounds like a complete fairy tale to me.

[Stranger]

 

 

Neither do you. You have an old book that has a creation story. Many old cultures have creation stories. We can trace the genesis one back to cultures before the Israelites. Their God - Elohim - has the same name as the chief Cannanite god.

 

Science can back up the theories of beginning of the universe - you can't. To back your theory up you'd have to show there is, not just a god, but THE GOD of the bible. All you have is faith.

 

This common accusation "Science changes over time" is one of the most asinine comments I get from christians. Yes, because unlike bible thumpers who want their 2500 year old book not to change, science updates its theories as new information comes available, as new things are learned. If we stuck with never changing anything we'd still be dying of toothache, thinking the earth was flat, and stoning our rebellious sons as the bible commands.

 

But, the Bible is 'absolute truth'.  It is not a theory.  It is rejected by you, but it is not presented as a theory.  It is presented as absolute truth.

 

Backing up a theory doesn't change the 'fact' that it is a theory.

 

Well, here again, you prove my point.  Science is always learning.   Whcih means it changes, which means what are you going to believe?

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Another asserted belief, completely unfounded, and held against all evidence to the contrary.

 

Care to show that 'prophets' can see the future and the past?

 

Also care to explain why God felt prophetic abilities had to stop some 2000 years ago?

 

It is not unfounded.  I showed you examples in the Scriptures.  I can't help it if you don't believe them.

 

Read the prophets.  If I  were to show you examples where God;s prophets read the future and past, you would just say it is not true.  Prime example is (Gen. 1:1).  What do you say?

 

Who said prophetic abilities stopped 2000 years ago?

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

All you get from science are theories about the origin of the universe.   And those change over time.  Science doesn't know how the universe began.

 

Stranger

 

Sorry Stranger, but the onus is on you (as the claim maker) to justify your claim with evidence.

 

Nobody here is obliged to accept your assertion without evidence, otherwise we would then be doing so on faith.

 

So, I'll ask again.

 

Please cite where you heard that science doesn't know how the universe began.

 

Thank you.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I do not ignore reality of the physical world.  Neither do I ignore the reality of the spiritual world.

 

Stranger

 

Then is this an official statement from you, Stranger?

 

That you proceed both by faith (without evidence) and you also proceed by evidence?

 

I ask because if you do not ignore the physical world, then you must accept it as evidence, yes?

[Storm]

 

God created Adam and Eve in maturity.    When Adam and Eve were created they didn't have a lot of things which we do.  Sin being the main one.  

 

You ask how did God do it?   He did it because He is God and can do it.   And so did do it.

How do you know they were created mature? Where does it say this in the story? 

 

And this leads to the next obvious question, which is: if God created them as mature adults, why the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why not just create them with that knowledge? What purpose does it serve to withhold that from man? 

 

You have to assume that they were mature, or else it would be the work of a malevolent God to create an immature being, then punish it and all of the rest of its kind forever for making a decision based on their immaturity. 

 

Your answer of "God did it" is not acceptable to me. It's nothing more than a way to explain away something difficult that we are actually capable of understanding if we put some thought into it. I'm thinking about it, and I'm thinking that they were not mature, clearly unable to understand right and wrong, which I believe is something that a mature person would understand. 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

 

What makes you think that there is such a thing as eternal life? On the face of it, it sounds like a complete fairy tale to me.

 

What makes you think things are not eternal?   When you die does the universe go on?   Is that eternal?

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

1.)  Indeed, there must be an evil to know.  The only answer I have, and I can only go back this far,  is that God had the knowledge of good and evil.  (Gen. 3:22)   Which means there was an evil to know.     One might say anything outside the will of God is evil.  

 

2.)  I don't see the Gap Theory as non-literal.   I see it as literal.  I know it was used by some Christians to explain the age of the universe, but that is not why I hold to it.  I believe the Bible teaches it.   I believe I can prove it in the Bible, or at least it as a possibility,  but then I don't think that is what you want.  If so, let me know.  It would be somewhat lengthy.  

 

To take the Bible literally is to allow for symbolic language, metaphors, allegories if they are being used.  When Christ says He is the door, we know He is not saying He is a 7X3 piece of wood.   But we do not interpret the Bible symbolically.  In other words not everything is a symbol.  And just because something is spiritual or supernatural that is being spoken of is not a reason to symbolize it.    Just like with the serpent in the garden.  There is no reason to symbolize it just because it is supernatural.   The Bible deals with the supernatural.  So we should expect it.

 

Concerning the light question first consider that the light brought forth on the first day was not light from the sun.  That would not appear until the fourth day.  The light on the first day was the light of God.   Though man may be some 6000 years old, the creation I believe is much, much older.   

 

Stranger

 

By 'the creation' do you mean only that which we observe to exist or do you mean everything we infer from the evidence to exist?

 

Please think carefully before answering, Stranger!

 

Since you said that you do not ignore physical reality, you've permitted us to use evidence from that reality in our discussions.

 

Physical reality cannot be narrowly defined as only that which we observe, because nobody has observed the core of the Earth - yet from the evidence, we infer that the core exists.

 

Proceed very, very carefully, Stranger!

 

Physical reality is much more than we can directly observe.

 

Here's the question again.

 

By 'the creation' do you mean only that which we observe to exist or do you mean everything we infer from the evidence to exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

 

 

What makes you think things are not eternal?   When you die does the universe go on?   Is that eternal?

 

Stranger

 

They way I see it, my life is finite in the past. It had a definite beginning. Why should I think that it will not be finite in the future?

 

Also, you seem to have a habit of "defending" your positive truth claims by asking others to defend their scepticism. This is poor form logically. When you assert something, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You assert that my life is eternal. I want to know why you think this is the case.

 

My opinion is that my life is not eternal, and I believe this because 1) I have no reason to think that it is eternal, 2) as stated above, my life is finite in one dimension and I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be finite in both, 3) I can't think of an example of anything which is eternal, save perhaps for the quantum vacuum, and I don't *know* if that is eternal or not and 4) the notion of eternal life seems, quite literally, like a fairy tale.

 

Everyone dies. This we know. The assertion that death is not the end requires quite a bit of justification. I'll take that justification now, please.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Well, I would disagree that the Bible is based on foreign folk tales.   

 

I understand your animosity towards God. 

 

So you want to stick with science instead of God.  OK.  Does science tell you what happens when you die?   Does science provide the way to eternal life?   Just something to think about.

 

Stranger

 

Stranger,

 

Scientific evidence informs us that reality is more than we can observe.

Since you have declared that you do not ignore physical reality and since science investigates only this physical reality, science has nothing to say about anything outside of it remit.  Therefore science cannot be used to say anything meaningful about non-physical events or phenomenon.  But equally, whatever science tells us about physical reality cannot be ignored by you.  You have opened yourself up to scientific evidence about what we can directly observe and also what we infer to exist.

 

This is very tricky territory for Christians.

 

Tread carefully!

 

 

 

  

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Well, that is my point.  What science says today is true may not be true ten years from now.   They don't know.  They are learning.   

 

When science has the truth, let me know.

 

Stranger

 

Sorry Stranger, but you cannot place that restriction on science.

 

Science deals with evidence and with facts.

 

Since you are on record as saying that you do not ignore physical reality, then neither can you ignore scientific evidence and facts.

 

Unless you retract what you said about not ignoring physical reality, you are obliged to accept what science tells us about reality.

 

That is what science's remit is - to inform us about physical reality.

 

And you are now on board with that.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

But, the Bible is 'absolute truth'.  It is not a theory.  It is rejected by you, but it is not presented as a theory.  It is presented as absolute truth.

 

Backing up a theory doesn't change the 'fact' that it is a theory.

 

Well, here again, you prove my point.  Science is always learning.   Whcih means it changes, which means what are you going to believe?

 

Stranger

 

 

 

At this point I need to preface my response with a face palm. We are backing this gnostic theist into a corner where all the flaws of Strangers beliefs are shown to the world.

 

Excuse me while to go bash a wall

 

Do you have any evidence for this absolute truth? You keep asserting what is Truth, and you "Know" what is true, yet fail to provide anything other than Christian polemic, mixed with poor apologetics.

 

Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Obviously not, what a stupid question LF, if Stranger knew what a scientific theory wasy he wouldn't foolishly state "Backing up a theory doesn't change the 'fact' that it is a theory" thus displaying his total ignorance to the world, and proud of it!

 

Stranger, a theory in science is far different to one having a 'theory' about x y or z. "In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. ... " A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."  I provide a link for your education http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

 

On the other hand, nothing so far observed or tested in any way confirms anything in Genesis apart from a few historical mentions of peoples (Hittites etc)

 

And if science is so bad that you can ignore it what do you need a gap theory? The gap theory was created BECAUSE of science discovering the world wasn't 6,000 years old which put a huge dent in the creation story.

 

"Whcih means it changes, which means what are you going to believe?" I accept the best explanations science can provide to explain reality using available knowledge. I am fully aware of, and accept that these tentative positions are subject to change as new information comes to light. I look forward to, rather than fear, previous beliefs being shown to be wrong, and being corrected so they are in concordance with reality as best we can define it.

 

This is in stark contrast to you, who wants to hold onto a book as absolute truth, despite the fact it has been shown wrong in every possible way. Your belief is held against all evidence to the contrary and in spite of it. That is the definition of irrationality. The Quran also presents itself as the absolute truth. Why do you not believe it and worship Allah and follow Muhammad?

[Stranger]

 

 

Sorry Stranger, but you cannot place that restriction on science.

 

Science deals with evidence and with facts.

 

Since you are on record as saying that you do not ignore physical reality, then neither can you ignore scientific evidence and facts.

 

Unless you retract what you said about not ignoring physical reality, you are obliged to accept what science tells us about reality.

 

That is what science's remit is - to inform us about physical reality.

 

And you are now on board with that.

 

That is real sweet.  

 

No, I am not on board with that.  I do not have to accept what science says of physical reality as they are always learning.   So I am not obliged to your science. 

 

Tell me this, has or can science be wrong?

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

At this point I need to preface my response with a face palm. We are backing this gnostic theist into a corner where all the flaws of Strangers beliefs are shown to the world.

 

Excuse me while to go bash a wall

 

Do you have any evidence for this absolute truth? You keep asserting what is Truth, and you "Know" what is true, yet fail to provide anything other than Christian polemic, mixed with poor apologetics.

 

Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Obviously not, what a stupid question LF, if Stranger knew what a scientific theory wasy he wouldn't foolishly state "Backing up a theory doesn't change the 'fact' that it is a theory" thus displaying his total ignorance to the world, and proud of it!

 

Stranger, a theory in science is far different to one having a 'theory' about x y or z. "In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. ... " A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."  I provide a link for your education http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

 

On the other hand, nothing so far observed or tested in any way confirms anything in Genesis apart from a few historical mentions of peoples (Hittites etc)

 

And if science is so bad that you can ignore it what do you need a gap theory? The gap theory was created BECAUSE of science discovering the world wasn't 6,000 years old which put a huge dent in the creation story.

 

"Whcih means it changes, which means what are you going to believe?" I accept the best explanations science can provide to explain reality using available knowledge. I am fully aware of, and accept that these tentative positions are subject to change as new information comes to light. I look forward to, rather than fear, previous beliefs being shown to be wrong, and being corrected so they are in concordance with reality as best we can define it.

 

This is in stark contrast to you, who wants to hold onto a book as absolute truth, despite the fact it has been shown wrong in every possible way. Your belief is held against all evidence to the contrary and in spite of it. That is the definition of irrationality. The Quran also presents itself as the absolute truth. Why do you not believe it and worship Allah and follow Muhammad?

 

The Bible declares itself to be the Word of God.  I believe it.  I need no evidence. 

 

You can do you gymnastics with 'theory' all you want.  It is still a theory.   The Bible is not a theory.  It declares itself as truth as it is the Word of God..  You don't have to believe it.  Just understand the difference.  

 

The gap theory is a theory within Christianity.  Within the Bible.  Many do not hold to it.  I do.  It is not a scientific theory.  It is one of doctrine.   So within the Christian family there are many disputes.  The gap theory existed before any scientific disputes.   But it was used by  some to explain scientific disputes.

 

I haven't seen you or anyone else show that the Bible is wrong.   As to islam and the quaran it doesn't much to see that this is nothing but heresy, and a nationalistic religion bent on the destruction of all other peoples.  It has nothing in common with the Bible.

 

Stranger

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

That is real sweet.  

 

No, I am not on board with that.  I do not have to accept what science says of physical reality as they are always learning.   So I am not obliged to your science. 

 

Tell me this, has or can science be wrong?

 

Stranger

 

Ah... so you reserve the right to cherry pick only those parts of science that support your faith.

 

Thanks for making that clear.

.

.

.

If you had properly understood what science is and what it's remit is, then you'd realize that it is simply a method of describing physical reality according to the best data currently available.

Nothing more and nothing less.  But you cannot say that you ignore what it tells us about reality - because then you'd be lying.  You listen to and agree with what science tells us all the time.  Every day.  Right now.  Even as you are reading these words.

 

You are not reading them by faith and they are not appearing on your screen by faith.

You read them and they appear on your screen because science has made these things possible.  Your life is just as much defined by science as you believe it is by faith.  So Yes Stranger... you are obliged to science.  But it appears that you deny this fact.

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Stranger,

 

Scientific evidence informs us that reality is more than we can observe.

Since you have declared that you do not ignore physical reality and since science investigates only this physical reality, science has nothing to say about anything outside of it remit.  Therefore science cannot be used to say anything meaningful about non-physical events or phenomenon.  But equally, whatever science tells us about physical reality cannot be ignored by you.  You have opened yourself up to scientific evidence about what we can directly observe and also what we infer to exist.

 

This is very tricky territory for Christians.

 

Tread carefully!

 

 

 

  

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

The Bible declares itself to be the Word of God.  I believe it.  I need no evidence. 

 

You can do you gymnastics with 'theory' all you want.  It is still a theory.   The Bible is not a theory.  It declares itself as truth as it is the Word of God..  You don't have to believe it.  Just understand the difference.  

 

The gap theory is a theory within Christianity.  Within the Bible.  Many do not hold to it.  I do.  It is not a scientific theory.  It is one of doctrine.   So within the Christian family there are many disputes.  The gap theory existed before any scientific disputes.   But it was used by  some to explain scientific disputes.

 

I haven't seen you or anyone else show that the Bible is wrong.   As to islam and the quaran it doesn't much to see that this is nothing but heresy, and a nationalistic religion bent on the destruction of all other peoples.  It has nothing in common with the Bible.

 

Stranger

 

 

 

Stranger,

 

We cannot show you that the Bible is wrong because to do that we would need evidence.

 

But you declare that you don't need any evidence to believe that that Bible is the word of God.

 

So, if you don't need any evidence to believe, why would you need any evidence to disbelieve?

[Astreja]

 

So you want to stick with science instead of God.  OK.  Does science tell you what happens when you die?   Does science provide the way to eternal life?   Just something to think about.

 

Science -- specifically neurology, which I am somewhat familiar with  (I work in medicine) -- shows that consciousness is associated with certain frequency ranges of brainwaves.  Deep sleep is around 3 Hz, light sleep or daydreaming around 5 Hz, and conscious states 8 Hz and above.

 

When the body dies, the brain dies.  All wave activity ceases.  Consciousness is not possible with a dead brain.  (And if there's such a thing as a "soul," why can't it stay awake when the brain shifts into low-frequency dreamless sleep?  If it can't do that, why should I think it can do any better when all brainwave activity has ceased and the synaptic connections, deprived of oxygen because of cardiac arrest, have started to rot away beyond any possibility of repair?)

 

I believe that "eternal life" is pure myth.  I believe that you, Stranger, are destined to simply lose consciousness at the end of your life and immediately lose your sense of self, your personality, your memories, and your faith.  Five minutes after your death you won't even know that you, too have become an ex-Christian.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

The Bible declares itself to be the Word of God.  I believe it.  I need no evidence.

...

Stranger

 

As expected, Stranger's hubris and self-aggrandizing is becoming more and more revealed.

 

...

I haven't seen you or anyone else show that the Bible is wrong.   As to islam and the quaran it doesn't much to see that this is nothing but heresy, and a nationalistic religion bent on the destruction of all other peoples.  It has nothing in common with the Bible.

 

Stranger

Note how Stranger attempts to shift the burden of proof, a common and infantile parlor trick for those that have nothing else.  And, note the primitive tribalism.