Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrTunaFace · 05-17-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Question

If you believe that god created the universe then you must admit that god had to have a ton of scientific knowledge. He had to know about astronomy, physics, biology, etc etc.

If you have ever had a conversation with anyone who is highly scientific or an engineer or a geek you will hear a different conversation then if you were talking to a high school buddy. They all talk with a certain precision in their field and even when they are just having a casual conversation there is a certain precision to the words that they chose.

So here are my questions

When one reads the holy books, the translated words are very ambiguous and open to wide and many interpretations. This in my opinion is why there are many religions or sects within a religion. A scientist or engineer does not speak this way, so why aren’t the books written with a higher level of precision that would not be open to wide interpretations?

Why didn’t god just put in the books E=MC2, some scientific type would have wondered about that and maybe figured it out centuries before Einstein?

Why aren’t there any formulas in the holy books?

If you were running an experiment to see if you could get everyone on a certain planet to believe in just one god and you observed the mess we have now wouldn’t you show up and adjust some of the parameters that you started with and rerun it?

If you wanted everyone on a planet to follow the same rules wouldn’t you make the same copy for each population center?

Wouldn’t you carve them on the biggest stone you could find so it wouldn’t get lost or destroyed in a flood?

If an all knowing god was the source for the holy books and he knew that English would be the quasi world language wouldn’t he have written at least a portion in English?

:wave:

Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

Toto · 05-17-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTunaFace

...
Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

Then why didn't he put the preliminary steps in the Bible? Or even some more elementary science concepts, such as the germ theory of disease?

MrTunaFace · 05-17-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTunaFace

...
Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

Then why didn't he put the preliminary steps in the Bible? Or even some more elementary science concepts, such as the germ theory of disease?

Why doesn't peanut butter taste like steak? Why is the sky blue? Why am I not wearing a tie with a t-shirt? I don't know. Take it up with God.

Toto · 05-17-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTunaFace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then why didn't he put the preliminary steps in the Bible? Or even some more elementary science concepts, such as the germ theory of disease?

Why doesn't peanut butter taste like steak? Why is the sky blue? Why am I not wearing a tie with a t-shirt? I don't know. Take it up with God.

The taste of peanut butter vs. steak has a naturalistic solution, in terms of the chemical composition of the foods and the evolution of human tastes based on the diet of early man. The color of the sky has a naturalistic solution. Your fashion choices may also be explained using natural selection and cultural anthropology. No need for a god to explain things.

We can also explain the lack of valid scientific concepts in the Bible, if there is no god. But it seems incompatible with an omniscient god.

aa5874 · 05-17-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTunaFace

Why doesn't peanut butter taste like steak? Why is the sky blue? Why am I not wearing a tie with a t-shirt? I don't know. Take it up with God.

Take it up with God? You mean I must shout out loud with my eyes closed and God would answer me.

God, why is the sky blue? He is not going to answer.

Ask the scientist.

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering.

Toto · 05-17-2008, 06:23 PM

MrTunaFace derail

Agenda07 · 05-18-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Incidentally I have just seen the following article, indicating an attempt to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 13 (with some supposed caveats of the kind that we have seen so many times before; produced as excuses when these liberalisations go through, and are thereafter ignored). Still, gay groups are campaigning for a homosexual age of consent of 14, so I suppose it will soon happen.

If you want to hold that up an example of the decline of Christian morality (which I think Amaleq13 answered nicely) then surely you should consider the moral progress that has been made even as Christian belief declines as evidence against your claim?

To take just one example, it's only within the last couple of decades that it became illegal for a man to rape his wife (the House of Lords repealed the relevant law in 1991, ruling that marriage does not constitute irevocable consent to sex).

How does it fit into your scheme?

Question · 05-18-2008, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTunaFace

Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

I was using that as an example of how there is no "future" section of the bible, theres an old and a new(which is also old) but no future.....

If you where writing a book that was going to lead people for the next 2000 years the focus should have been the future not the past...

IE
This is how to prevent aids
This is where tsunami's will hit on these dates
This is where earthquakes are going to happen on these dates
This is how to prevent global warming

Just a few of the tidbits he could have included.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2008, 06:23 PM	#56
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	MrTunaFace derail

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.