Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That I reject a conclusion drawn, does not mean I reject science.
The conclusion comes from science. So yes, you are rejecting one aspect of science.
Scientists to God: " Given enough time we can make a man out of dirt too."
God to Scientists: "Get your own dirt."
All of these arguments assume that there was material present in some form in the beginning. God says that he created the material universe out of invisible things, and upholds them by his word. Isn't 'string theory' the study of really sub atomic composition of matter? If science discovers that everything is made of pure energy that spontaneously generates itself, what happens to all other theories concerned with matter?
If no one here has an answer it's ok. No one else does either.
And if a Christian agrees with all of those scientific theories, what then? Would you still show him disdain?
... and just because scientists can explain it doesn't mean God didn't do it. "God of the gaps" completely misses the point of the Judeo-Christian God. It's wierd that some Christians go to such great lenghts to defend a view of God that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition.You have a "god of the gaps", scientists cant explain it therefore god did it.
Sorry just cos scientists cant explain it doesent mean that scientists wont explain it.
... and just because scientists can explain it doesn't mean God didn't do it. "God of the gaps" completely misses the point of the Judeo-Christian God. It's wierd that some Christians go to such great lenghts to defend a view of God that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yep. You know - Creator dude. Made everything.GOD???
You assume that I'm trying to prove something about God. I was simply observing that "God of the gaps" is as much about bad theology as it is about bad science.Those that make the positive assertion hold the burden of proof,
Not always true. In lots of cases it's the negative that could be proven and the positive that could not - hence the idea of falsifiability.it is impossible to prove a negative.
God's existance (or not) is not dependent upon whether or not you see reason to believe in him.Christians cannot prove their god, and god hasnt proven him/her self. No one can disprove god, so where is god, does he exist, if so prove it, otherwise there is no god or any reason to believe in god.
GOD???
Those that make the positive assertion hold the burden of proof, it is impossible to prove a negative.
Christians cannot prove their god, and god hasnt proven him/her self. No one can disprove god, so where is god, does he exist, if so prove it, otherwise there is no god or any reason to believe in god.
You should use the same care in reading the bible that you use studying science. Because you deny literary devices in scientific writings doesn't give you the right to deny the bible of it ( of course you can, but you are the loser). God's word is rich in these, and they are purposeful: So that the wise and prudent (scientists) won't understand, but the weak and despised of the world will (that be us).Hmm, some interesting responces so far.
I find it worrying that Christians cannot tell the difference between a "theory" and a "hypotheisis" and an "established fact" and that some christians indeed think that there is a scientific coverup when it comes to Darwinian natural selection. if it werent so worrying i would laugh.
As for the bible being historically accurate and showing things like the air has mass, that the world is a sphere, and gravity. there are sites that show the biblical inaccuracies and absurdities but i am not allowed to post the link.
there are verses in the bible sending people to the four corners of the earth, corners cannot exit on a semi eliptical sphere, therefore the world is flat. on the building of a temple there are verses that where the diameter of a circle is one third of the circumference, therfore Pi = 3.
In Genesis 1 beasts are made before man and in genesis 2 beasts are made after man.
Gen 1 man and woman are made at the same time, Gen 2 woman is made from mans rib at different times.
In Mathew jesus rides into Jeruselem on an ass and a colt, in Mark and Luke he rides only on a colt, and in John he rides only on an ass.
there are only 388 contradictions listed, but lets not be picky.
The conclusion comes from science. So yes, you are rejecting one aspect of science. I'm wondering how you decide which science to reject and which to accept.
I suppose the fact that negative statements can be proven goes to show that the usual atheist line on burdens of proof (and the second most popular one on pink unicorns) is simply a means to avoid the fact that they have no proof of their religious belief.
I dont have a religious belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god and therfore no supernatural forces and therfore cannot be designated as a religious belief.
Just type it in manually and remove the prefix, we can navigate to it manually ourselves. It's a silly rule which annoys me. >_>As for the bible being historically accurate and showing things like the air has mass, that the world is a sphere, and gravity. there are sites that show the biblical inaccuracies and absurdities but i am not allowed to post the link.
That's a large leap of logic there, when sending people to the four corners of the earth is a commonplace phrase to mean, 'scatter'. I don't know why you would wish to take that literally and assume that it truly meant the earth had real literal sharp corners.there are verses in the bible sending people to the four corners of the earth, corners cannot exit on a semi eliptical sphere, therefore the world is flat.
Again, this isn't true. The passage you are referring to ison the building of a temple there are verses that where the diameter of a circle is one third of the circumference, therfore Pi = 3.
No this isn't true either. Genesis 2 doesn't speak of the order of creation from the same persepctive as Genesis 1. In Genesis one we are related the events as from God, in Genesis two we are related things as from Adam. Adam was not created when the animals were created, and so after his creation, it is written that God brought forth the animals he HAD created on day four. It doesn't say he made them after Adam at all. A simple reading will tell us this much, and I fail to see how logical people buy this story of two different creation accounts.In Genesis 1 beasts are made before man and in genesis 2 beasts are made after man.
Same again, the second account does not differ from the first. Man was made first and then woman in both accounts, the focus simply changes. Just like in many narratives in stories, we have the "In a galaxy far far away..." part which gives the overall picture, and then we zoom down to the individual accounts of Princess Eve and Adam Skywalker. It's a common storytelling style used in present day narratives.Gen 1 man and woman are made at the same time, Gen 2 woman is made from mans rib at different times.
Again this is not correct. This one is slightly more difficult to work through, yet there are several explanations to it. The only way to arrive at the conclusion you do is to read the passages as literally as possible. There have been entire threads dedicated to this, if you are really interested I will research it again. Let me know.In Mathew jesus rides into Jeruselem on an ass and a colt, in Mark and Luke he rides only on a colt, and in John he rides only on an ass.
There are in 388odd wishful contradictions. Based on out of context readings, solid literal readings with no room for the narrators intent and those based off of translation errors. I put forward that there are in fact zero contradictions, and I can back that up. So if you want to begin working through them, lets go. PM me for my MSN if you will find that easier.there are only 388 contradictions listed, but lets not be picky.
From your other thread about God's literal word, you say you are open to the belief of God. Should you then not be Agnostic? Atheism is the polar opposite of Christianity, and there is no room for a divine foot in the door from my understanding.I dont have a religious belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god and therfore no supernatural forces and therfore cannot be designated as a religious belief.
there are only 388 contradictions listed, but lets not be picky.
This is where I feel the problem lies. As really, people claim their open-mindedness yet really all we do is go and find a few links from people in authority about such matters to help clear up the confusion on things we don't have personal experience with. Is this beyond their ability to do? As you say, a few minutes extra to read a contrasting view that puts it all in perspective and context? *sigh*
This is where I feel the problem lies. As really, people claim their open-mindedness yet really all we do is go and find a few links from people in authority about such matters to help clear up the confusion on things we don't have personal experience with. Is this beyond their ability to do? As you say, a few minutes extra to read a contrasting view that puts it all in perspective and context? *sigh*
It's a hard thing to do, as we've all been there I feel - unless we were raised Christian, but it's so very important.
Cheers,
Digit
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?