Notifications
Clear all
Small Talk
142
Posts
30
Users
0
Reactions
17.1 K
Views
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by Satanic4
Was it by random chance that god was made?
Nope, God has always existed. Which might sound hard to fathom, but then, time didn't exist until God created it, so that's far less of a conundrum for our finite minds.
The very fact we are here demonstrates that something unlikely happened in our past. Perhaps it's just a question of which is the most likely.
You would never assume that my previous posts had no author and were the product of random chance. Why? They look strongly as if they were designed. When you consider our universe in depth you see the same.....yet we are to presume it is the result of random chance?
The bible also constitutes proof of a creator. It is historically, scientifically, and prophetically accurate and is ultimately far more useful in determining the truth about our origins than wild speculation on a subject we do not have the ability to comprehend.
Ok .. that is funny. You can't believe that by random chance you were created, but you can believe that you were created by an all powerful god that has always existed?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
Religion has been questioned since it was created; hopefully someday the human race will just look upon it as a joke. If not then sooner or later there will be no human race to believe in a god - therefore it will no longer exist 
"The bible also constitutes proof of a creator. It is historically, scientifically, and prophetically accurate and is ultimately far more useful in determining the truth about our origins than wild speculation on a subject we do not have the ability to comprehend. "
Your arguments had been respectable upto this point
Originally posted by Satanic4
Ok .. that is funny. You can't believe that by random chance you were created, but you can believe that you were created by an all powerful god that has always existed?
As I said, one of the two had to happen, it's just a case of which is the most likely. I'd imagine forum etiquette involves actually reading the post you quote in its entirety.
Originally posted by StoneJ
Your arguments had been respectable upto this point
If you take exception to something I've said perhaps you'd grace us with the benefit of your wisdom rather than resorting to ignorant one-liners.
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by Satanic4
Ok .. that is funny. You can't believe that by random chance you were created, but you can believe that you were created by an all powerful god that has always existed?
As I said, one of the two had to happen, it's just a case of which is the most likely. I'd imagine forum etiquette involves actually reading the post you quote in its entirety.
You start your post off with "Nope, God has always existed." which sounds like to me that you believe that god has always existed. Am I wrong?
The theory that "god created the universe in 7 days" has absolutely zero empirical evidence; and a book written thousands of years ago does not count as evidence. However science based creation theories (big bang theory) do have empirical evidence such as being able to actually see back into time via telescopes.
However, theories grow and change with time (something religion does not) and most science is not absolute (something religion thinks it is). I believe a world based on rationality (science) will push the human race a lot farther then one based on religion.
Originally posted by Satanic4
You start your post off with "Nope, God has always existed." which sounds like to me that you believe that god has always existed. Am I wrong?
I'm just pointing out the alternate theory, which is that God has always existed NOT that "God appeared out of nothing". You are correct, I do not believe anything can appear out of nothing.
Originally posted by Satanic4
The theory that "god created the universe in 7 days" has absolutely zero empirical evidence; and a book written thousands of years ago does not count as evidence.
The evidence I refer to is the scientific, historical, and prophetic accuracy of the bible, which can be verified to an extent, and therefore can be considered empirical. Although, I'm assuming you've never actually read the bible, so verifying the information contained within may prove difficult.
Originally posted by Satanic4
However science based creation theories (big bang theory) do have empirical evidence such as being able to actually see back into time via telescopes.
True, we can look back in time with telescopes. Do we see the creation of something out of nothing this way?
Peering in to the past in such a manner leads scientists to the prediction of a singularity. I.e, the universe is expanding therefore at one point it must have been infinitely dense.
No amount of telescopes allow for the prediction of events preceding this singularity and thus any theories regarding this remain science fiction.
We can conclude from this that speculation regarding these events will get us nowhere and that in order to solve the mystery we must turn to other sources.
This is in essence what I have already been saying, and I strongly get the impression you aren't actually bothering to read my posts before replying.
The Quran has far fewer flaws and contradictions than the bible, and instead of being a collection of human writings it is actually the word of God. Why don't you believe in Allah instead of the christian God?
Originally posted by ihufa
The Quran has far fewer flaws and contradictions than the bible, and instead of being a collection of human writings it is actually the word of God. Why don't you believe in Allah instead of the christian God?
A fair question, although by now I suspect you are trolling me once again.
There may be certain things that appear contradictory at first glance, but if you subject them to further scrutiny/research you will find there are no real contradictions in the bible despite being composed by over 40 different penmen under inspiration.
Here are a few interesting facts -
- The Qu'ran was also written by a human, the prophet Mohammed
- The name "Allah" is not a name, but simply means "God"
- Muslims believe the first 5 book of the bible are inspired of God and also accept Jesus as a prophet.
So apparently Muslims worship the same God? The only problem is, there are prophecies in the pentateuch (first five books of the bible) that indicate the lineage through which promised Messiah would come, and it doesn't fit with the lineage of the prophet Mohammed. There are numerous other prophecies in the old testament which also were not fulfilled with Mohammed.The Qu'ran was also composed at a much later date than the Christian Greek scriptures; it was composed between 610 and 632 AD.
In short I do not believe Mohammed was an inspired prophet. Despite the claim of Muslims to accept the pentateuch the Qu'ran contradicts it on a number of levels. I'm no big authority on the finer points of the Qu'ran, but I do know The Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 16, 1907 edition, discusses the literary weaknesses of the Qu'ran in length, including:-
-violation of spelling
-interruption of thought to gain rhyme
-the rhyming of such indelicate subjects as that relating to woman’s menstrual periods
-omission of indispensable links
-superfluous verbiage and grammatical errors
Originally posted by w34z3l
We can conclude from this that speculation regarding these events will get us nowhere and that in order to solve the mystery we must turn to other sources.
So you are saying we should turn to a the bible; a book filled with nonsensical stories to fill in knowledge of the universe which we are currently lacking? There is nothing empirical about that its just silliness.
em·pir·i·cal/emˈpirikəl/
Adjective: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (religion lacks logic)
Originally posted by w34z3l
No amount of telescopes allow for the prediction of events preceding this singularity and thus any theories regarding this remain science fiction.
Who knows someday humans may have another tool that may help them find out answers to a question which is not possible to answer right now: I'm sure its not a book either.
Bible =/= reality/rationality
And does it matter that I have not read the bible? And how is the bible above any other religious scripture? And for your bible being reliable since it can be tied to real people - is BS and being "verified to an extent" is never good enough for science. No one can verify "adam and eve" or even prove that they were alive/lived. No one can prove that woman were made from adams rib (sexism in the bible).
Just because someone wrote a story about bigfoot being real and that he saw him; doesn't mean the story is reliable does it?
Stop trying to say your religious scriptures are fact; they are far from it.
The bible has most of those aswell and i don't think it should change anything. Im just asking what makes u sure the bible is the truth while the Quran isn't. What's a concrete piece of evidence that the bible has it right?
And im not trolling why would u say that
Originally posted by Satanic4
So you are saying we should turn to a the bible;
It certainly can't do any harm to at least consider the source when it claims knowledge of our origins.
Originally posted by Satanic4
a book filled with nonsensical stories to fill in knowledge of the universe which we are currently lacking? There is nothing empirical about that its just silliness.
Words on paper do not constitute "empirical", obviously. The empirical nature of our analysis comes in when when we examine how the three areas I mentioned (history, science, prophecy) match up to what is written.
Originally posted by Satanic4
Who knows someday humans may have another tool that may help them find out answers to a question which is not possible to answer right now: I'm sure its not a book either.
It sounds ridiculous that a book may hold the answers to our lives because you refuse to even tentatively consider the idea that a higher power might be the author. You also refuse to read my posts properly, which is slowing down any sort of progress immensely.
Originally posted by Satanic4
And does it matter that I have not read the bible?
Well, it probably doesn't matter to you. But if you wanted to verify the accuracy of the three areas I mentioned, it would probably be required, yes.
Originally posted by Satanic4
And how is the bible above any other religious scripture?
See my above thread for a beginning to this. I see no need to word a more complete answer at this stage, since I perceive that you don't really care what I have to say anyway.
Originally posted by Satanic4
And for your bible being reliable since it can be tied to real people - is BS and being "verified to an extent" is never good enough for science.
Most of the science can be verified completely and large amounts of the prophecy, much of which is being fulfilled currently in our time.
As for history; I'm afraid this is the nature of archaeology; we can only draw the strongest conclusions we can from the evidence available.
Originally posted by Satanic4
Stop trying to say your religious scriptures are fact; they are far from it.
Huge amounts of the history in the bible ARE demonstrably fact, as historians and archaeology will attest to. The question in your case is, where does one draw the line between fact and fiction?
Originally posted by ihufa
Im just asking what makes u sure the bible is the truth while the Quran isn't. What's a concrete piece of evidence that the bible has it right?
There is no single piece of concrete evidence as far as I'm concerned.
It is definitely interesting to note however that the bible is the only religious text that addresses the subject of creation in a manner that isn't overtly mythological.
Muslims even claim to accept this part of the bible yet the Qu'ran contradicts it as mentioned previously.
When you read the entire bible in depth you begin to see that the overall harmony of the writing is staggering considering the variety of different authors working through a range of different dates.
The same cannot be said of the Qu'ran despite having only the one writer. There is little coherence between the suras; they are placed in order of length, beginning with the longest. The suras themselves often seem to be a conglomeration of verses, making the Qu'ran extremely difficult to understand correctly. The suras are overly repetitious in places and often do not match up well with their titles. It's commonly accepted that Mohammed was illiterate.
Perhaps the most valuable proof of the bible's authenticity however, is the prophecy we see being fulfilled in our time. The bible foretells the conditions we see today and also provides meaningful answers to why there is so much suffering and hatred in the world. Why do we grow old and die? What of our dead loved ones? What hope for the future?
Yet, what does the Qu'ran offer as proof of its divinity? "If the whole of mankind and Jinns [Spirits] were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur-an, they could not produce the like thereof". (Sura 17:88) It merely names it's own literary excellence as proof of it's divine origin. I consider this unsatisfactory when you realise that it arguably falls quite short of being a literary masterpiece.
I've read your posts; its all the same generalized crap about evidence for the bible about prophecies are coming true; which does not equate to evidence. It also was not written by any god it was written by men as you can tell by their sexism/racism in the book.
If it was written by woman maybe adam would have been made from eve's rib to serve her as eve was made to serve adam.
Anyways:
The End.
at first you might find the picture rude, but when you think about it it's 100% true
Shrug. The picture is 100% true.
Religion is definitely a force for evil in this world and responsible for some horrific things as I mention earlier in the thread. That's not even debatable.
Originally posted by Satanic4
its all the same generalized crap about evidence for the bible
You are pretty much saying, "Your evidence doesn't count, and therefore I am right", which is fascinating, seeing as you haven't considered any of the evidence I have to offer yet.
And need I bother going into more specific evidence given your attitude? I think we are done here.
thought provoking image...
"It is definitely interesting to note however that the bible is the only religious text that addresses the subject of creation in a manner that isn't overtly mythological."
Don't you think that Adam and Eve and the Serpent is not got strong mythological overtones??
Originally posted by buzzinace
Don't you think that Adam and Eve and the Serpent is not got strong mythological overtones??
In comparison to other creation accounts, I do not.
For example, consider the creation account according to Greek mythology.
"First Gaia (Earth) gives birth to Uranus (Heaven). First Uranus was supreme but he suppressed his children, and Gaia encouraged his son Cronos to castrate him. Cronos in turn devoured his own children, until his wife Rhea gave him a stone to eat in place of Zeus; the child Zeus was brought up in Crete, compelled his father to disgorge his siblings, and with them and other aid defeated Cronos and his Titans and cast them down into Tartarus." - The Oxford History of the Classical World
How about Chinese mythology taken from folk religion?
"We learn that Chaos was like a hen's egg. Neither Heaven nor Earth existed. From the egg P'an-ku was born, while of its heavy elements Earth was made and Sky from the light elements. P'an-ku is represented as a dwarf, clad in a bearskin or a cloak of leaves. For the 18,000 years the distance between Earth and Sky grew daily by ten feet, and P'an-ku grew at the same rate so that his body filled the gap. When he died, different parts of his body became various natural elements" - Anthony Christie - Professor of Oriental Art
In my opinion a talking serpent pales in comparison. And the bible later gives a reason why the serpent had the ability to talk; it was being controlled by the spirit creature Satan.
Notice also how these accounts do not specifically address the creation in any real depth. The bible, on the other hand, is very specific about the order in which the various stages of creation happened.
The creation account in Genesis is also supported by later events in the bible. In fact, without the events in the Garden of Eden, the bible would not be necessary. If you look back to earlier in this thread you will see I give scriptural reasons why the Garden of Eden should be considered a literal and not a figurative account. (page 2, 5th post)
Originally posted by w34z3l
the Garden of Eden should be considered a literal and not a figurative account. (page 2, 5th post)
Go inbreeding!
Religion is made up. It's there to control you so you become a "good human being" and go to "heaven".
Okay, I'm on board.
I believe that someone died, went to heaven, respawned and told us all about their wonderful ordeal.
And the same thing happened for hell as well.
Cool story bro.