Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wordsmyth · 06-13-2003, 01:52 AM

What would it take to make me believe in God(s)?

an act of God(s).

Kat_Somm_Faen · 06-13-2003, 02:24 AM

Quote:

an act of God(s).

Hahah - short and to the point

:notworthy

That was good .. geeewd*

*Man I hated Bruce Almighty - last 20 minutes induces womiting... I was the only guy laughing at certain blasphemous scenes

There was a cute a** girl laughing at the same stuff but she seemed to have a guy with her...

malookiemaloo · 06-13-2003, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starseyer
If the divinely inspired scriptures contained verifiable truth that couldn't have been humanly known at the time, then I would be a whole lot closer to believing. (I haven't found "prophecies" that are specific enough to fit the bill. And trust me, I was digging for them back when I was a believer.)
Or if the worldview presented in the bible was just consistent with the modern scientific view of the universe I probably wouldn't have started down this road of doubt to start with. I mean, if god created the universe, what he says about it should be consistant with what we have learned thus far, shouldn't it?

You raise an interesting point.

You say God's revelation should be consistent with what we have learnt THUS FAR (my capitals).

Therein lies the weakness in relying on science, knowledge etc IMHO. We only have part of the picture!! If we ever reach the point when we can sit back and say 'that's it we now know everything' and if ALL the evidence points to the absence of a deity, I would be prepared to listen. But as we only have part of the picture, surely we are skating on thin ice by making bold assertions viz. there is no God because the evidence says so? 'A little (or anything short of absolute) knowledge is a dangerous thing.'

This is the one area where the Bible scores over science. Scientifically we are still learning but the Bible is God's revelation complete.

m

Stephen T-B · 06-13-2003, 04:17 AM

The Bible scores over Science because it says the Earth is the flat bottom half of a sandwich, with Heaven as the filling and a lot of water on top?
It tells us daylight is possible in the absence of the sun?

Well, if you can believe that you might well think the Bible scores over Science.

malookiemaloo · 06-13-2003, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
The Bible scores over Science because it says the Earth is the flat bottom half of a sandwich, with Heaven as the filling and a lot of water on top?
It tells us daylight is possible in the absence of the sun?

Well, if you can believe that you might well think the Bible scores over Science.

I've heard the flat earth thing before. Can you give me chapter and verse?

M

malookiemaloo · 06-13-2003, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
The Bible scores over Science because it says the Earth is the flat bottom half of a sandwich, with Heaven as the filling and a lot of water on top?
It tells us daylight is possible in the absence of the sun?

Well, if you can believe that you might well think the Bible scores over Science.

Sorry forgot to respond re light/sun.

Yes, there is such a thing as uncreated light. Furthermore light was created before the sun.

M

Asha'man · 06-13-2003, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by malookiemaloo
You say God's revelation should be consistent with what we have learnt THUS FAR (my capitals).

Therein lies the weakness in relying on science, knowledge etc IMHO. We only have part of the picture!! If we ever reach the point when we can sit back and say 'that's it we now know everything' and if ALL the evidence points to the absence of a deity, I would be prepared to listen. But as we only have part of the picture, surely we are skating on thin ice by making bold assertions viz. there is no God because the evidence says so? 'A little (or anything short of absolute) knowledge is a dangerous thing.'

This is the one area where the Bible scores over science. Scientifically we are still learning but the Bible is God's revelation complete.

At this point in time, I don't believe that science is ever going to turn around 180 degrees on a subject, everything it tells us is approximately correct. The only thing that science will do is refine the model, reduce the imprecisions, and provide cleaner explanations.

Look at one of the most momentous theoretical breakthroughs in science: Relativity. This theory didn't invalidate Newtonian physics (as is clearly demonstrated by the behavior of cars on the freeway!). Relativity only allowed us to have an understanding of things that were further away from us, outside the bounds of applicability of Newtonian physics.

The bible is clearly in conflict with things that we already know for certain (or as certain as things ever get). While science is not done learning, it is more than complete enough to reject the accuracy of the bible.

It doesn't take a PhD in higher mathematics to reject the idea that 1 + 1 = 3.

malookiemaloo · 06-13-2003, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man
At this point in time, I don't believe that science is ever going to turn around 180 degrees on a subject, everything it tells us is approximately correct. The only thing that science will do is refine the model, reduce the imprecisions, and provide cleaner explanations.

Look at one of the most momentous theoretical breakthroughs in science: Relativity. This theory didn't invalidate Newtonian physics (as is clearly demonstrated by the behavior of cars on the freeway!). Relativity only allowed us to have an understanding of things that were further away from us, outside the bounds of applicability of Newtonian physics.

The bible is clearly in conflict with things that we already know for certain (or as certain as things ever get). While science is not done learning, it is more than complete enough to reject the accuracy of the bible.

It doesn't take a PhD in higher mathematics to reject the idea that 1 + 1 = 3.

I do not come from a science background therefore I cannot comment on Bible/science conflicts.

But how do you KNOW that science will not turn round 180 degrees on anything? So far you are simply adopting a faith stance-the very thing I get criticised for!!

m

Stephen T-B · 06-13-2003, 06:42 AM

Hello malookiemaloo.
Genesis 1 gives a very clear account of the Earth, Heaven (or the "Firmament") and the water above it.
It also states that Life was created on the Earth BEFORE God created the sun and the moon, the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.
The authors of Genesis 1 quite naturally assumed the Earth was flat - why should they think otherwise (unless God were to have told them?) And because we have daylight in the absence of the visible sun - ie at dawn and dusk and during stormy weather - they thought the sun was an ornament.
Strange, but equally primitive belief systems elsewhere at least recognised its unique importance, the people holding them becoming very very agitated when it vanished during an eclipse.. The creation myth embraced by the Hebrews and now by modern-day Creationists failed to recognise the sun's crucial significance, which I think suggests a certain lack of discernment.

malookiemaloo · 06-13-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Hello malookiemaloo.
Genesis 1 gives a very clear account of the Earth, Heaven (or the "Firmament") and the water above it.
It also states that Life was created on the Earth BEFORE God created the sun and the moon, the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.
The authors of Genesis 1 quite naturally assumed the Earth was flat - why should they think otherwise (unless God were to have told them?) And because we have daylight in the absence of the visible sun - ie at dawn and dusk and during stormy weather - they thought the sun was an ornament.
Strange, but equally primitive belief systems elsewhere at least recognised its unique importance, the people holding them becoming very very agitated when it vanished during an eclipse.. The creation myth embraced by the Hebrews and now by modern-day Creationists failed to recognise the sun's crucial significance, which I think suggests a certain lack of discernment.

Sorry but I think I'm missing the sun's crucial significance too.

Life before the sun? What's the problem?

m

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

06-13-2003, 01:52 AM	#91
wordsmyth Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Des Moines, Ia. U.S.A. Posts: 521	What would it take to make me believe in God(s)? an act of God(s).

06-13-2003, 04:17 AM	#94
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	The Bible scores over Science because it says the Earth is the flat bottom half of a sandwich, with Heaven as the filling and a lot of water on top? It tells us daylight is possible in the absence of the sun? Well, if you can believe that you might well think the Bible scores over Science.

06-13-2003, 06:42 AM	#99
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Hello malookiemaloo. Genesis 1 gives a very clear account of the Earth, Heaven (or the "Firmament") and the water above it. It also states that Life was created on the Earth BEFORE God created the sun and the moon, the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. The authors of Genesis 1 quite naturally assumed the Earth was flat - why should they think otherwise (unless God were to have told them?) And because we have daylight in the absence of the visible sun - ie at dawn and dusk and during stormy weather - they thought the sun was an ornament. Strange, but equally primitive belief systems elsewhere at least recognised its unique importance, the people holding them becoming very very agitated when it vanished during an eclipse.. The creation myth embraced by the Hebrews and now by modern-day Creationists failed to recognise the sun's crucial significance, which I think suggests a certain lack of discernment.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.