I don't understand...

[Snake75]

[



















QUOTE=LastSeven;65333417]Let me guess. English class is not your best subject. Try reading my post again, and this time try to understand what I'm telling you.[/QUOTE]

I understood your post well. And I would appreciate if you stop trying to insult me because you don't know me. Are you suppose to take the bible literally? Yes or No?

 

[Snake75]

Examples please.

You were just given one with Joshua....

Why confuse the issue? God's purpose was to give Joshua's army more hours of sunlight to win the battle, and this is what he did. It would hardly be useful to give Joshua (or the scribe) a lesson on astronomy. What would be the point?

Nothing is being confused. You seem to be confusing yourself. Stopping the sun would do nothing. The Bible is a book inspired by the word of God. God is supposedly all knowing. So why didn't he say he stopped the earth?

 

[LastSeven]

You did not understand my post well because if you did you would not have said "The bible clearly says God stopped the sun".

As for taking the Bible literally, some parts are literal and some parts are symbolic, but in the strictest sense neither is the case with the story about the sun. That's why I gave you the example of the sun setting and rising. To say the sun stopped in the sky is simply the best way to describe what happened, whether it is scientifically accurate or not. That's why I said this is not a science lesson. This is about describing what happened.

Do you take it literally when somebody says "the sun is rising"? Do you take it literally when somebody says "the moon is really big tonight"? Do you take it literally when somebody says "I saw a falling star"? Do you take it literally when somebody says "the wind is biting"? Of course not. These are all examples of speech that describe something without being scientifically accurate but they get the point across and everybody understands that.

I honestly can't believe I had to explain that to you, again.

You are really going to unreasonable lengths to try to find fault with the Bible. Why don't you just admit that, despite your opening post, you're not looking for understanding at all. You're just looking to prove that you're right and we're wrong.

 

[LastSeven]

Nothing is being confused. You seem to be confusing yourself. Stopping the sun would do nothing. The Bible is a book inspired by the word of God. God is supposedly all knowing. So why didn't he say he stopped the earth?

BECAUSE THE SUN APPEARED TO STOP IN THE SKY!!!!

Are you really this dense? If they had written "God stopped the earth from spinning" it would've confused a lot of people at that time who didn't understand the structure of the cosmos. Would that have served God's purpose? To confuse people? The point was that they were given extra hours of sunlight and that's the only point that matters and that point came across very well the way it was written.

IN OTHER WORDS IT WAS WRITTEN EXACTLY THE WAY IT SHOULD'VE BEEN WRITTEN. And that's my last post on this stupid subject. If you still don't understand it, then come back to this thread maybe ten years from now when you've matured a little and a light might go on for you.

 

[aiki]

Read my above post.

The book of Joshua was written in about 1450 B.C.E

The heliocentric model wasn't accepted until the 16th century.

Right. No one was thinking about the solar system and whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun, or vice versa, at the time of the writing of the Book of Joshua. The modern concept of a solar system did not exist in the time of Joshua nor did the idea of geocentricity. You cannot, then, assert that Joshua and his contemporaries were geocentrists.

Selah.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I don't understand why people believe in some supreme being. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no evidence at all of its existence. Science has found the answers to almost everything that was once thought of as Gods doing.What keeps you believing in this?

Let me asks you this honest question What prove (if any) are you looking for to prove God?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I don't understand why people believe in some supreme being. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no evidence at all of its existence. Science has found the answers to almost everything that was once thought of as Gods doing.What keeps you believing in this?

There is evidence.

For example, nothing in nature moves without being moved.

Who moved first?


Check this book out by Gerald Shroeder, a Phd nuclear physicist from MIT.

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth: Gerald L. Schroeder Ph.D.: 9780743203258: Amazon.com: Books

 

[aiki]

If god can do incredible things why not tell the scribe who first wrote the account of joshua's sun that he stopped the earth, instead of telling him only what he could see.

Because the point of the account was not to offer a discourse on the solar system but to show God's favor toward Israel.

Well, again, why couldn't the Creator of the universe stop the sun if He wished?
​

The same reason he never stops someone without a seat belt flying through their car windshield when they have a head on collision with another car.

You didn't answer my question. Your response is a deflection that merely vents antipathy toward the Christian worldview. So, again, why couldn't God stop any planetary body from moving if He wished? Certainly, a God who could create a universe does not lack the power to do so, right? Why, then, is it so hard to acknowledge this?

Why couldn't God so arrange it that no ill effects resulted from this event? Why couldn't God have only made it appear that the Sun stood still in its normal daily course? Perhaps God altered the perceptions of those who witnessed the stopping of the Sun. Who knows? Regardless, ignorance of how God did what He did is not proof that He didn't do it.
​

So god uses deception and trickery.

See, here you aren't even trying to understand what I'm saying. You haven't the least interest in acknowledging that it is entirely possible that the Creator of the universe could exert control over any of its parts. You simply made your response an opportunity to insinuate the worst thing you could about the God of the Bible. This is not respectful to me, a believer in God, and it exposes how little you actually desire to understand the Christian viewpoint.

Think about this for a minute, why was god changing all those natural laws? Thats right! to slaughter people.

You mean the enemies of Israel who had set themselves to attack a city under Israel's dominion and protection? You mean the armies of the five kings of the Amorites who had assembled to slaughter the people of Gibeon?

God has no trouble suspending the laws of physics so the killing gets done, but ask him today to suspend those same laws to save life and the results you get are laughable.

How do you know what God does each day to protect people from harm? There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet today. Are you aware of all that God may be doing for them through each day to keep them safe from injury or disease? I don't see how. You make a massive negative assumption here that speaks volumes about your hatred of the God Christians worship and serve. This forum is for people who don't know God to come and discuss their struggles with Christians and obtain spiritual support from them. Clearly, this is not your purpose in posting here.

Selah.

 

[Snake75]

There is evidence.

For example, nothing in nature moves without being moved.

Who moved first?


Check this book out by Gerald Shroeder, a Phd nuclear physicist from MIT.

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth: Gerald L. Schroeder Ph.D.: 9780743203258: Amazon.com: Books

That is not evidence. That is an assumption.

 

[Snake75]

Let me asks you this honest question What prove (if any) are you looking for to prove God?

What proof you mean? I'm looking for anything. Which there still fails to be any evidence.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What proof you mean? I'm looking for anything. Which there still fails to be any evidence.

that is what I was asking what would you consider to be evidence?

 

[LastSeven]

Check this book out by Gerald Shroeder, a Phd nuclear physicist from MIT.

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth: Gerald L. Schroeder Ph.D.: 9780743203258: Amazon.com: Books

Added to my wish list. Thanks

 

[LastSeven]

What proof you mean? I'm looking for anything. Which there still fails to be any evidence.

And clearly you still don't understand the difference between proof and evidence.

 

[Snake75]

that is what I was asking what would you consider to be evidence?

Scientific evidence. For something to exist it has to be able to be measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities. God has none of this. Therefore he does not exist.

 

[LastSeven]

Snake, let me ask you something. Is there anything considered to be supernatural that you believe may be true? Ghosts? Aliens? Out of body experiences? Poltergeists? Communicating with the dead? Mind reading? Near death experiences?

And related to that, have you ever heard stories of people who claimed that they went to heaven and came back and said that they met long dead relatives in heaven who they didn't even know existed? Like grandparents or stillborn siblings for example. Have you ever heard any of these types of stories? And if so, how do you explain these things?

 

[Snake75]

Snake, let me ask you something. Is there anything considered to be supernatural that you believe may be true? Ghosts? Aliens? Out of body experiences? Poltergeists? Communicating with the dead? Mind reading? Near death experiences?

And related to that, have you ever heard stories of people who claimed that they went to heaven and came back and said that they met long dead relatives in heaven who they didn't even know existed? Like grandparents or stillborn siblings for example. Have you ever heard any of these types of stories? And if so, how do you explain these things?

Ghost:No, Aliens: Possible, Out of body:No, Poltergeist:No, Talking to Dead:No, Mind reading: No, Near Death experiences: Of course.

I have heard them. Your brain does amazing things. Havnt you heard of dreaming?

 

[aiki]

Scientific evidence. For something to exist it has to be able to be measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities. God has none of this. Therefore he does not exist.

Again, you're not thinking through what you're saying. How much does love weigh? Is integrity hard or soft? Is courage heavy or light? Can you boil love in a test tube? Can you weigh courage on a scale? None of these things are directly accessible to scientific evaluation yet they all exist. You may observe the results of love, integrity and courage, you see these things expressed in the conduct of other people (and perhaps in your own) but you can't taste courage, or smell integrity, or hold love in your hands and study it. Regardless, no one denies that these things exist. And if they can exist as intangible things, things inaccessible to empirical testing, why can't God?

Selah.

 

[Snake75]

Again, you're not thinking through what you're saying. How much does love weigh? Is integrity hard or soft? Is courage heavy or light? Can you boil love in a test tube? Can you weigh courage on a scale? None of these things are directly accessible to scientific evaluation yet they all exist. You may observe the results of love, integrity and courage, you see these things expressed in the conduct of other people (and perhaps in your own) but you can't taste courage, or smell integrity, or hold love in your hands and study it. Regardless, no one denies that these things exist. And if they can exist as intangible things, things inaccessible to empirical testing, why can't God?

Selah.

Love and other emotions are just a word we use to describe what our brain does and our brain is measurable.

The idea of a god gets smaller and smaller as science gets larger. Basically called "god of the gaps". What ever science doesnt know. Therefore equals God!

 

[aiki]

Love and other emotions are just a word we use to describe what our brain does and our brain is measurable.

Well, I don't agree. Your brain and your mind are linked but they are not identical. You might want to read up on Mind-Body Dualism before you try to argue this area with me.

In any case, I could offer you other examples of intangible yet real things. Try numbers or sets of numbers. Where exactly does the number 7 exist? How much does the number 7 weigh? Can you boil the number 7 in a test tube? Is the number 7 hard or soft, heavy or light? THe number 7 is not a tangible thing; it cannot be subjected to empirical testing. Nonetheless, it exists (as do all numbers or sets of numbers). And as I said before, if such things can exist intangibly, so can God.

The idea of a god gets smaller and smaller as science gets larger.

How does obtaining an explanation of the mechanical nature of physical things rule God out? You might want to consider the experience of Antony Flew, perhaps the most prominent and vociferous atheist of the twentieth century, before you answer. When asked in an interview about the reasons for his abandonment of atheism he responded:

"There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical."

It was the increasing body of data concerning the vast complexity and information present in our DNA that provoked Flew to a deistic belief. The advancement of science did exactly the reverse for him that you claim it does. It did not push God out of view but brought Him to the fore!

Basically called "god of the gaps". What ever science doesnt know. Therefore equals God!

See, this is the sort of thing you write when you don't really understand what you're talking about. It is a myth that theism and science are mutually exclusive. Some of the greatest scientists of the last two centuries have been theists. They did not find that the advancement of science excluded God but rather revealed Him. The atheist God-of-the-gaps gambit is an old and thoroughly refuted one. What atheist sites are you using as a resource for your assertions? You might want to find another, better one.

Selah.

 

[Snake75]

Our mind is what our brain does for us. Simple.

The number 7 does not exist scientifically.


There are really only small amounts of atheist turned theist. Plenty of priest and pastors have turned atheist because of science.

I understand. Example would be when we once thought the world just sorta popped into exist. Now we have the big bang theory. So many Christian changed there ideas and said "Well science doesn't know what caused the big bang. Therefore God!!!!"