We all know the Bible is full of weird things. This thread is mainly to discuss the unbelievable portions of the Bible, and why you believe them.
For a side not, if you are going to state "They are just metaphors!" then could you pleas also put what parts are not metaphors as well, as that differs from person to person... Also, if you are going to answer "CONTEXT!" please either back it up or go in a dark room and hit your head against the wall repeatedly.
7 was an important number to the Hebrews. You must understand that the Old Testament is the Torrah which is the book the Jewish faith bases their creed off of. Historically however, 7 was a number of power for many cultures.
Stop taking the bible scientifically, cuz its not a science book.
It's when people start claiming these things are real or the supernatural being had a physical effect on the world that we can then examine those claims scientifically.
Most stories are fable, but its what you learn from the stories that is what teaches you.
What are your thoughts on what I asked at the start. If the Bible is mostly metaphor, or as you said fables, Then why can't we say God is just one of those fables?
Is God powerful enough to create a stone that he cannot lift?
Not to dump all over your argument, I love you too, but . . . this argument is a steaming pile of fallacy. God is supposedly omnipotent, meaning that he can do all that is logically possible. It is as logically possible for God to create a rock he can't lift as it is for him to draw a square circle. If God couldn't lift something, he would not be omnipotent, and therefore not God. This question is basically asking if God can create a situation where he is not God - this is logically impossible, and therefore not in the realm of omnipotence.
Another good reason that it's a fallacy is because it's asking if God's power can defeat his own power - it is logically impossible for something to be stronger than itself. God is one being, and therefore cannot be more powerful than himself. It's also a loaded question - no matter how you answer the question, you are conceding to the false assumption that God is not omnipotent, when that if he exists, he is omnipotent. It begs the question by immediately assuming God is not omnipotent. It's fallacious in multiple ways.
God is supposedly omnipotent, meaning that he can do all that is logically possible.
This depends on how omnipotence is defined. By some definitions omnipotence is in itself a paradox. By others such as the one you provide here, it does not create contradiction.
There are several resolutions of this paradox: The first is that omnipotence is logically meaningless. We make the supposition that we cannot describe omnipotence with words or that our logic cannot be used to understand it. This means that he can create a stone that's too heavy to lift, nonetheless he can still lift it. An other resolution to the omnipotence paradox is having a God that is accidentally omnipotent.
Another good reason that it's a fallacy is because it's asking if God's power can defeat his own power - it is logically impossible for something to be stronger than itself. God is one being, and therefore cannot be more powerful than himself. It's also a loaded question - no matter how you answer the question, you are conceding to the false assumption that God is not omnipotent, when that if he exists, he is omnipotent. It begs the question by immediately assuming God is not omnipotent. It's fallacious in multiple ways.
I thought he was three/seven people, witch means he could be stronger than himself.
Theist: God created everything. Atheist: There was nothing and then nothing suddenly bursted and created everything from which mater mysteriously rearranged itself to form planets, dinosaurs and primates from which humans evolved.
I'll stick with the first story.
Thiests: There was nothing except a supernatural being somewhere and then everything was created out of nothing and then god made a man and a wife and they met a talking snake and then god got mad at everyone so he killed all of humanity but built a super huge boat to hold all the animals and then he had a zombie son who performed miracles.
This depends on how omnipotence is defined. By some definitions omnipotence is in itself a paradox. By others such as the one you provide here, it does not create contradiction.
The paradox of the stone is a fallacy no matter which definition of omnipotence you use. It's just that some definitions beg a more complex explanation as to why it is so.
I thought he was three/seven people, witch means he could be stronger than himself.
The trinity is described as being just facets or states of god; they're both the same and different at the same time, or something like that. That means that no, god is one being, and therefore cannot defeat himself. The definition of the trinity itself is as fallacious as the paradox of the stone, so let's just throw them both out of the window for now.
What are your thoughts on what I asked at the start. If the Bible is mostly metaphor, or as you said fables, Then why can't we say God is just one of those fables?
Well to be honest... You could say many things are fables... For instance saying that the world came from nothing into something, creating planets, and one perfect planet, in the perfect position, with the perfect atmosphere, and perfect oxygen levels allowing life and plant life...(earth) All of this with the perfect neccesities to maintain life.... And then of course magically creating beings from microscopic chemicals found in the bottom of the earth, of which turning into fish and continuosly evolving into monkeys and then humans.... Basically creating the perfect "being".... I mean really... It basically sounds as far fetched as the idea that God created Adam from his earth, and creating his wife.... Then from there allowing life to continue on... One requires alot of Perfectly resulting coincidences, that in any day and age never happens. And then the other requires faith.
I mean sure you can see God as a fable, and you can even see this big bang theory a fable. For all we know... How did the universe come to exist. Something had to create something right? If thats the scientifical way of viewing things.
For instance saying that the world came from nothing into something, creating planets, and one perfect planet, in the perfect position, with the perfect atmosphere, and perfect oxygen levels allowing life and plant life...(earth) All of this with the perfect neccesities to maintain life.... And then of course magically creating beings from microscopic chemicals found in the bottom of the earth, of which turning into fish and continuosly evolving into monkeys and then humans.... Basically creating the perfect "being".... I mean really... It basically sounds as far fetched as the idea that God created Adam from his earth, and creating his wife.... Then from there allowing life to continue on... One requires alot of Perfectly resulting coincidences, that in any day and age never happens. And then the other requires faith.
I agree all that does sound as far fetched as Adam and Eve. Good thing we only have theists stating fallacies of what scientific theories state making such claims.
I mean sure you can see God as a fable, and you can even see this big bang theory a fable. For all we know... How did the universe come to exist. Something had to create something right? If thats the scientifical way of viewing things.
That rambling above isn't even close to what the scientific theories state. Matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. If you regard the vacuum of space as nothing then we are really looking more at the idea that everything created nothing. Since that space is the result of the expansion of all matter/energy.
Also we don't regard a theory as a fable because we actually have evidence supporting it. In other words they're grounded in facts and are the best explanation of what we see. God, Adam and Eve, global flood, magic pixies... are not and have no evidence. Further more on varying points even goes against observations.
History of the universe: Theist: God created everything. Atheist: There was nothing and then nothing suddenly bursted and created everything from which mater mysteriously rearranged itself to form planets, dinosaurs and primates from which humans evolved.
I'll stick with the first story.
Maximum rofl
Some non existent particles woke up one day and said, I feel like existing today?
