An atheists world (2)

[toolmanjantzi]

What?

One more time in English please.

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Sight is not our only sense. And we can see things fall, we can feel the wind, all of the things that science treats as correct can be observed in one fashion or another.

Yet you cannot provide objective evidence for your god.

So if you see things fall, yet you do not fall explain to me why some are believers and others are not believers yet neither can see God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am going to chime in here. I am not going to highlight any comments in the discussion but comment in regard to several ideas presented previously.

First, it has been said that Creation has no evidence. What does the creation narrative predict and what does science tell us that supports those predictions?

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist. That God was indeed the Creator and designer of the universe.

Science: According to the Big Bang Theory which is the most popular theory today the universe began and did not always exist. Evidence provides support to the creation narrative.

2. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
The prediction of the creation narrative is that earth did not exist at this time and that there was "waters" that God hovered over. There was total darkness. There would be liquid present at the time of creation. Knowing that people of the time of writing the Bible would have not have any concept of any other liquid other than water it is rational to believe that God would provide water as the descriptive element in this stage of creation.

Science:
Once thought as impossible due to the heat of the event, water would not be present. However, the "perfect liquid" was indeed found to exist at this exact moment in the creation of the universe. Discover Brookhaven: A "Perfect" Liquid at RHIC

3. And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
The prediction of the creation narrative is that the next event is light.

Science: Evidence shows earliest light. Planck telescope maps light of the big bang scattered across the universe | Science | The Guardian

4. And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven
The prediction of the creation narrative is that there was some sort of separation of the so called waters. This then was called a firmament according to the narrative.


Will continue later.

Science: Transition from a quark-gluon plasma in the presence of a sharp front - Springer

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought the other side was supposed to be neutral?

(And for the record, I won't EVEN tell you what "atheist" anagrams to! )

Responding in kind would technically be a "neutral" response.

Actually we are after the truth. If one side can post foolish acronyms so can the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Sight is not our only sense. And we can see things fall, we can feel the wind, all of the things that science treats as correct can be observed in one fashion or another.

Yet you cannot provide objective evidence for your god.

And you still are not making a lick of sense.

Do you have some sort of question that you are trying to ask or not?

 

[lasthero]

"Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules (the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases the earth's atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity."

"Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun hay have been up to 100,000 times greater than today."

"How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile environment? According to our calculation, there was virtually no ozone in the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the evolution of life on earth."

Now this one was tricky. Not because I think it holds merit, but because I can't find a full article anywhere, just the abstracts. However, I think it's extremely telling that it's chopped into several parts, and that it has editing mistakes that wouldn't get past an elementary school teacher, much less an editor in a scientific journal.

It's also extremely telling that this is the name for it.

"New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,"

Call me crazy, but I doubt this article that you're quoting from is speaking against evolution. Just my take. I'd also add that the article in question is some thiryt years old. In fact, a lot of your quote mines are ridiculously old, at least by scientific standards. What's up with that?

 

[Belk]

Yet you can not see energy, consciousness, gravity, wind,etc yet you believe they exist. Your funny; you don't believe in the devil, yet you serve him faithfully.

I can show empirical evidence for each and every one of those things except God.

Is there empirical evidence for God or is his existence supposed to be taken on faith?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to chime in here. I am not going to highlight any comments in the discussion but comment in regard to several ideas presented previously.

First, it has been said that Creation has no evidence. What does the creation narrative predict and what does science tell us that supports those predictions?

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist. That God was indeed the Creator and designer of the universe.

Science: According to the Big Bang Theory which is the most popular theory today the universe began and did not always exist. Evidence provides support to the creation narrative.

2. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
The prediction of the creation narrative is that earth did not exist at this time and that there was "waters" that God hovered over. There was total darkness. There would be liquid present at the time of creation. Knowing that people of the time of writing the Bible would have not have any concept of any other liquid other than water it is rational to believe that God would provide water as the descriptive element in this stage of creation.

Science:
Once thought as impossible due to the heat of the event, water would not be present. However, the "perfect liquid" was indeed found to exist at this exact moment in the creation of the universe. Discover Brookhaven: A "Perfect" Liquid at RHIC

3. And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
The prediction of the creation narrative is that the next event is light.

Science: Evidence shows earliest light. Planck telescope maps light of the big bang scattered across the universe | Science | The Guardian

4. And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven
The prediction of the creation narrative is that there was some sort of separation of the so called waters. This then was called a firmament according to the narrative.


Will continue later.

Science: Transition from a quark-gluon plasma in the presence of a sharp front - Springer

There are several problems to this approach. First the Bible gets several items out of order. Second you are reinterpreting the Bible in light of scientific discoveries. You are changing what the firmament was according to the writers. You are making changes in the original meaning of the scripture since its vague somewhat poetic nature allows you to do so.

The problem with reinterpreting the Bible after the fact is that it could be reinterpreted several different ways. In fact when it was thought that the Earth was the center of the universe that was supported by interpreting the Bible pretty much as it was written.

Different interpretations different results. The Muslims are past masters of this. You should see what they do with the Koran.

 

[CarlosTomy]

Yet you can not see energy, consciousness, gravity, wind,etc yet you believe they exist.

I didn't realize that SIGHT was the only measurement that counted!

Your funny; you don't believe in the devil, yet you serve him faithfully.

The Devil gives me a new toaster with every successful year of service.

Puhleeze.

I'll tell you what I "serve": I serve the search for understanding of what is going on around me the best that I can. I can do no other.

Don't DARE tell me who or what I serve until you understand a fraction of what I do and know.

Thankyouverymuch.

 

[CarlosTomy]

So if you see things fall, yet you do not fall explain to me why some are believers and others are not believers yet neither can see God?

Some people interpret things as if they are supernatural. Others are not prone to that.

At one time many of the effects we see and know are purely natural were once considered supernatural.

God of the gaps theology ultimately leads to a very tiny and constrained God.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Oh my goodness, no wonder you believe evolution over God, your ignorance is astounding. You should learn about something before commenting on it, you look very silly indeed. So, allow me to go over the faults of your comments.

Right-ho, go ahead.

Firstly, YES a creation can be wrecked, but God knew one family would remain faithful. The Father of that family was Noah, and EVERYONE else basically turned against God to worship the fallen Angels which were teaching them agriculture, architecture, metallurgy etc etc, even the wheel.

Hang on, backtrack. Do you believe in an ominiscient god who knew what would happen ahead of times?

If you turn against God, he will not force you to worship him, it's your choice. So, this is the point of the sacrifice.

The sacrifice? What sacrifice? You mean your god's suicide gesture? Nobody actually died.

Either you are thankful for a way out, back to eternal life, or you are egotistic and choose to ignore God. Simple.

Or one regards the whole thing as a loony story invented a couple of thousand years ago and is more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

Yes God is intelligent, he created all things.

Except there is no actual evidence your intelligent god exists, but lets not worry about that.

I am intelligent too, because I can see that with my own eyes.

This might be a sign of something other than intelligence.

Oh and by the way, perhaps you can show me where an APPLE was the forbidden fruit? I would love to see that.
It was the best looking fruit in the garden as a temptation, and I hardly believe an apple would fit the bill.

Lol, banana, mango, grapefruit, whatever tickles your fancy. I used apple because it's traditional. I mean, is it really important? It's just a story. It never actually happened you know.

Now, the only interesting bit is whether you think god knows beforehand what will happen. If he does then the garden of eden and the subsequent unfolding events in the story are nothing to do with anyone else but him. If you don't then your god is not omniscient.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are several problems to this approach. First the Bible gets several items out of order.

We can discuss this when those items are presented.

Second you are reinterpreting the Bible in light of scientific discoveries. You are changing what the firmament was according to the writers. You are making changes in the original meaning of the scripture since its vague somewhat poetic nature allows you to do so.

I remember a time when much of what the Bible narrative held was completely impossible according to scientific discoveries. It is more accurate to say that scientific discovers are shedding light on the Bible. The writers wrote as inspired and it is to be interpreted in our age.

The problem with reinterpreting the Bible after the fact is that it could be reinterpreted several different ways. In fact when it was thought that the Earth was the center of the universe that was supported by interpreting the Bible pretty much as it was written.

Knowledge increases both in Science and in the Bible.

Different interpretations different results. The Muslims are past masters of this. You should see what they do with the Koran.

I am aware.

 

[nuttypiglet]

so agriculture, architecture, metallurgy and the wheel are all gifts from hell?

Ooooookkkkaaaaaayyyyy...

I mean they all are pretty awful things, but I didn't realize they were SO evil.



I'm not entirely certain that is much of a "choice". According to some versions of Christianity you get a short time to make a choice (~70+ years) and if you make the wrong choice you will spend ETERNITY in torment.

So that works out to about 70/infinity...that's a ratio pretty close to ZERO for choiceunishment.

But is it really a "choice" then? Kind of like a mafia boss saying you can pay him or you can be killed.

That's not what I would call a "choice".




What if I'm ok with a regular life? What if I'm not interested in living forever? What if I just want to be happy in THIS life that I KNOW I have?




Maybe for some of us it isn't egotism. Did you ever consider that? Perhaps some of us cannot force ourselves to worship that which doesn't appear to be there to us.

If God wants worship then why hide from some of us?

If God simply wants to play a game in which he holds all the cards and I am powerless then why not jump straight ahead to the torture NOW?

You see, it is hardly "egotistical" to ignore that which doesn't appear to be there to some of us.

Oh dear, so much confusion in your head Let me clear these things up for you. First off, it is nothing like a mafia boss scenario. IF you have children, you should be aware of the kind of relationship we have with God. If you tell a child "Don't touch that, it will burn you", invariably some will eventually touch it. Why? because they don't know what 'burn' means. Adam had never heard lies told before, so this is how he was tricked. It isn't "follow my rules or end up in an eternity of torture". There is no eternity of torture, the soul is destroyed for some people. What God is trying to teach you is "I am the life, the way, the truth, without me there is no life". He warned Adam of this, which is why he died, and why we all die. We all have a part of God in us, called LIFE and without God this dwindles away and dies. We are part of God, created in his image. Yes if you deny God, then you will live this life only, but you seem to imply or fear that living with God must be a terrible thing? Who knows your needs better than your creator? I would rather live under God than any Earthly Government any day. He is the only one who ACTUALLY CARES.
As for metallurgy, advanced agriculture techniques and the wheel being gifts from Hell, this again is wrong. There is no hell, just Sheol, a place where dead souls lay. "weep not for the dead for they know nothing". So, how are they in Hell being tormented when they know nothing? The Angels were there at the creation, they know a lot about the Universe. However, God said "I did not reveal all mysteries to them". Metallurgy was not only used by people for tools, but also weapons.
If God is a being which will stand over his followers using a whip all the time, then I would prefer eternal death. However, God is not like that. He offers you an eternal life with peace and no more sorrow, sickness or death. The way to look at it is, this isn't your real life. Your body is simply a vessel for your soul to live on the Earth. Your REAL home which hopefully you will return to, is with God, your loving creator. He will welcome you home with open arms and treat you well, just like you would to your children if they were lost and found their way home.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Those monsters! How dare they...teach us things!

They didn't teach us those things for our own benefit, but to sustain the fallen angels and their many children (Nephilim). The human race had become a slave race.

 

[lasthero]

They didn't teach us those things for our own benefit, but to sustain the fallen angels and their many children (Nephilim). The human race had become a slave race.

Evidence?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Science stole the best evidence

 

[Davian]

I am going to chime in here. I am not going to highlight any comments in the discussion but comment in regard to several ideas presented previously.

First, it has been said that Creation has no evidence. What does the creation narrative predict and what does science tell us that supports those predictions?

I wouldn't say that "creation" has zero evidence. What it needs is evidence that does not have far more parsimonious explanations.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist. That God was indeed the Creator and designer of the universe.

Science: According to the Big Bang Theory which is the most popular theory today the universe began and did not always exist. Evidence provides support to the creation narrative.
...

No, the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. - wiki

It is about the origin of this current instantiation of the cosmos, but does not speak to events prior to the expansion of the cosmos, or even if such questions even make sense.

SZ dealt with the rest of your post.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why are there so many grammatical errors in your quotes? Are you typing them all our yourself, or are you copying and pasting from elsewhere?

I am typing, I did spell check but can't get all of it out.

not very accurate typer

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually it is considered a lie if you substantially change what the speaker said by editing.

That is extremely dishonest.

And we don't have nor need the full transcripts of the original interview.

Why do you ask these foolish questions when you refused to watch the video that explains how Ben Stein's movie was a lie? Watch Potholer's very short video and you should be able to understand.

so what was changed? All I seen was that part of the question was removed. Whats the big deal about that? Is not the answer the same? What I mean is that the whole answer is given....

 

[createdtoworship]

"No one has commented on this in the day or so since I posted it, even though the other things three things I posted were shown to be false. Victory!"

In what universe is being 25% right a win?

so you admit it's correct! Thats a start.

Thanks

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's edit your response and remove a few major parts, shall we?



Are you starting to see the creationist strategy at work?

what parts were actually removed from the interview, no one has answered this. Is the information not there? Is it misinformation? This is the third time asking this question.