NOTE: This is not an anti religion post, simply a philosophical and age old debate.
Ok, so very very basically, here is an issue with the typical Christian view of God, a view shared by other religions, aside, however.
God is all good God is all powerful (omnipotent) God is all knowing
If God is all good, then why does he make evil things happen? Why does he create murderers and tsunamis?
Some say God creates us with the choice to do good and bad that we may have free will.
So, in this case God creates us without knowing if we'll choose to be good or bad people, or even if we will believe in him/her.
So God doesn't know if we're going to be good or bad, so God is not all knowing.
BUT - Imagine we still want to hold that he his all knowing, i.e he knows everything about everything. This means God creates us knowing that we're going to be good or bad people, this means that he condemns those he creates bad to a life of sin and ultimately hell, so he can't be all Good.
BUT - if we want to still hold that he is all good, then there must be another reason murderers and tsunamis exist, but what? Maybe God created the world, and is not powerful enough to intervene. Then God is no longer all-powerful. Either that or he is powerful enough to intervene, and simply doesn't want to, in which case he is not all good. What do you think about all this?
The only place the word for "cud" is used in the Bible is in the passages about unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Instead of forcing the modern idea that "chewing the cud" refers only to rumination, it makes sense to let the word translated "cud" mean partially digested food. Then the alleged contradiction disappears.
I'm sorry rumination and refection are not equal. The word use in the Bible heard refers to "scraping the throat" as it's root. So cud as it's meant today would have been the same as it was meant in the Biblical times.
I never said without sin. However, I do not think that most of those things you listed are wrong to do.
Then that is the problem. You have changed the standard of what is right and wrong in order to suit you. There's a story about a liar, a thief, and a murderer who can't agree on where the line between good and evil is; they each move it a little past themselves.
Without the Bible, you have no proof for any of your claims. You're certainly using the Bible and what is in it for all of your arguments.
Yes, I am using the Bible in all of my arguments. There is nothing fallacious about this; a soldier can stand on a hill while defending the hill.
I'm sorry rumination and refection are not equal. The word use in the Bible heard refers to "scraping the throat" as it's root. So cud as it's meant today would have been the same as it was meant in the Biblical times.
In the Bible, the word gerah is used. The definition of a word is determined by context. In context, partially digested food seems to be the common element; not regurgitation.
can some1 please make it clear to them that using the bible as proof for god is stupid?
Partydevil, there is nothing fallacious about using the Bible in argument. The Bible claims that everyone has enough evidence for God's existence; so to start an investigation with the premise that you will believe if you see enough evidence is to start your investigation from the position that the Bible is wrong.
I do believe every part of the Bible. If God is the Creator of the universe, then it shouldn't be hard to believe in any miracle in the Bible.
See that's exactly what I'm talking about. There is no logical explanation for Noah's ark. At least not if you use the direct bible story. You could say that the many civilizations had floods and if this happened they could have assumed the world was flooding. But there is no way to prove the entire world was flooded. The only "roof" is the bible. And to use the bible as proof you need other pieces of evidence to go with it. No other pieces of evidence go with the story of Noahs ark. Therefore it is not proven, and can't be used as proof.
I also think that I would be upset if I made you and you denied it. What would I have to do to prove myself to though? Should I make a imprint on you? Or a little sticker that says made by god. If Jesus did come do all this then that should have been enough proof back in the day. So what should he do now to prove himself?
In the Bible, the word gerah is used. The definition of a word is determined by context. In context, partially digested food seems to be the common element; not regurgitation.
I just told you what the root word means which you seem to be completely ignoring.
gerah; from gerar, meaning: scraping the throat
But to further complicate the argument that it referring to a **** eating bunny, the behavior of refection is a nocturnal one. This is something that even some breeders are unaware of. So it would be unlikely for it to be common knowledge for when this line was written , which would make it a very obscure reference. However there is another possibility to why one would think a rabbit chews cud. That's because their behavior and motions of their mouths are similar to true ruminants.
Now it would serve you some good to stop practicing refection of apologetic claims and regurgitating them later.
There is no logical explanation for Noah's ark. At least not if you use the direct bible story. You could say that the many civilizations had floods and if this happened they could have assumed the world was flooding. But there is no way to prove the entire world was flooded. The only "roof" is the bible. And to use the bible as proof you need other pieces of evidence to go with it. No other pieces of evidence go with the story of Noahs ark. Therefore it is not proven, and can't be used as proof.
Actually, I would argue that there is extraordinary evidence for a global flood. We find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and that's precisely what we would expect if there had been a global flood. However, the nonChristian interprets the same evidence differently; you would likely attribute the fossil record to millions of years of deposition, either gradually or by smaller, interspersed catastrophes.
We interpret this differently because we have different starting assumptions to make up for our lack of knowledge. We do not have the past to examine, only the present. We cannot prove empirically through scientific observation how those rock layers were deposited. However, we normally answer a history question with science, anyways. If I were to ask you when World War I occurred, you wouldn't fly to Europe, collect a few artifacts/samples, and test them for their age; you would consult a history book. Most of what we know about the past we know because the events were recorded in accounts that we consider more or less reliable. The Bible claims to be an eyewitness report from the most reliable source: God.
What would I have to do to prove myself to though? Should I make a imprint on you?
The Bible says God has done just that (and more):
"For since the creation of the world Godâs invisible qualitiesâ"his eternal power and divine natureâ"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)" Romans 2:14-15
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1
The Bible says that God is obvious from creation, the skies proclaim his handiwork, and His law is written on the heart of every person. On top of that, we now know that every cell in our body contains information, and in our experience, information can ultimately only come from an intelligent mind.
If Jesus did come do all this then that should have been enough proof back in the day. So what should he do now to prove himself?
Indeed, it should have been enough proof. However, even those who witnessed Jesus' miracles did not all believe. They attributed His miracles to demons and sorcery. Seeing is not believing.
While Jesus was teaching, He told a story about a rich man and a beggar. The beggar sat outside the gate of the rich man's estate each day, but the rich man did not have mercy. Eventually, both men died, the beggar going to Heaven, and the rich man to Hell. The rich man begs father Abraham to let the beggar to return to earth to warn the rich man's family.
âAbraham replied, âThey have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.â 'No, father Abraham,â he said, âbut if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.â He said to him, âIf they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.ââ
God has given us everything we need in His word, the Bible. If someone does not believe what God has said through His messengers, they he will not believe even if shown a miracle (like someone rising from the dead). Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appearing to over 500 people before he ascended to Heaven. Yet, many still did not believe.
I just told you what the root word means which you seem to be completely ignoring.
gerah; from gerar, meaning: scraping the throat
This does not necessarily restrict the meaning of the word to cud in the modern sense. It would not be entirely accurate to say that rabbits eat their dung, because it is not just dung that they eat; it is partially digested food. So it shouldn't be hard that the word simply refers to partially digested food, not necessarily regurgitated food.
the behavior of refection is a nocturnal one.
Most of the time. It is not beyond reason to think that ancient pastoral people would have known about refection.
Yes, I am using the Bible in all of my arguments. There is nothing fallacious about this; a soldier can stand on a hill while defending the hill.
False analogy.
The Bible is claiming that God exists. You then use the Bible to back up the Bible saying God exists. You're using the same source twice to prove itself, when that single source is not proven or even non-contradictory.
And again, Sir_lla, it's obvious that you are just going to attribute everything to God and unless we can definitively prove one way or another that God does/does not exists, you will just keep doing this. Since we cannot do this, as you cannot 100% disprove something that does not exist as there is no evidence for or against it other than logical reasoning, this is just a pointless endless circle.
Now, we can argue the Bible and its interpretations and translations and use this as a basis to provide the logical reasoning that there are flaws in the religion, but you just say those are not flaws at all in blind denial.
The Bible is claiming that God exists. You then use the Bible to back up the Bible saying God exists. You're using the same source twice to prove itself, when that single source is not proven or even non-contradictory.
I do presume that all the claims of the Bible are true, and the Bible claims that God exists. In fact, I accept this before interpreting evidence or beginning other chains of reasoning. The Bible claims that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. Therefore, you must decide to accept or reject the Bible on a presuppositional level. If you believe you can determine the truth of the Bible starting from autonomous human reasoning (leaving the Bible out of it), then your starting assumption is that the Bible is false. I, on the other hand, accept the Bible as true from the outset, and argue that the Bible must be true in order for knowledge to be possible.
Actually, I would argue that there is extraordinary evidence for a global flood. We find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and that's precisely what we would expect if there had been a global flood. However, the nonChristian interprets the same evidence differently; you would likely attribute the fossil record to millions of years of deposition, either gradually or by smaller, interspersed catastrophes.
You failed to address the fact that the fossilized remnants discovered by science were found under different layers of sediment, layers so far apart that they spanned millions of years. A global flood, especially one caused by rain would cause the creation of a universal layer of sediment, one fairly close to the surface, everywhere on the planet. It would've been one of the first discoveries made by science. Also doesn't the bible also state that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? How do you explain the presence of fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old?
Also let's consider the flood using the understanding that the oceans were at their current capacity, or probably greater. The "flood" supposedly drained away, drained away where? A flood so great that it covered the entire surface are of our planet, just being absorbed by the land would've resulted in the majority of the surface becoming a bog or marshland.
You failed to address the fact that the fossilized remnants discovered by science were found under different layers of sediment, layers so far apart that they spanned millions of years.
Actually, the layers of sediment are assumed to millions of years old, based off of current deposition rates extrapolated into the past. However, modern catastrophes (like the Mt. St. Helens eruption) show that sedimentary layers are quite capable of forming rapidly.
A global flood, especially one caused by rain would cause the creation of a universal layer of sediment, one fairly close to the surface, everywhere on the planet.
Actually, creationists do not believe that the earth was covered with water in one sweeping advance. Rather, the waters advanced and retreated progressively, eventually submerging the entire earth. We do find sedimentary layers that span entire continents, and some layers (like Cretaceous chalk beds) can be found on multiple continents.
Also doesn't the bible also state that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? How do you explain the presence of fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old?
Yes, the Bible teaches that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. All methods used to date the universe, the earth, and fossils rely on certain assumptions that contradict the Bible. Therefore, it is not surprising that the conclusions of such methods also contradict the Bible. The earliest ideas of an "old" earth were not based on methods such as radiometric dating, but the philosophical assumptions of uniformitarianism, which are clearly unbiblical and designed to "free the science from Moses".
Also let's consider the flood using the understanding that the oceans were at their current capacity, or probably greater. The "flood" supposedly drained away, drained away where? A flood so great that it covered the entire surface are of our planet, just being absorbed by the land would've resulted in the majority of the surface becoming a bog or marshland.
Prior to the global flood, there would have been no high mountains (by today's standards) or low ocean basins. Catastrophic tectonic processes caused mountains to be pushed up and ocean basins to form near the end of the flood, allowing the water to drain, becoming today's oceans.
I do presume that all the claims of the Bible are true, and the Bible claims that God exists.
You have no reason or premis to do so. You are just accepting it as true because you want to. There is no evidence to back up the Bible.
In fact, I accept this before interpreting evidence or beginning other chains of reasoning.
No, you find out something and then mash it into the Biblical mold so that it fits your beliefs. Again, you have no reason to do this.
The Bible claims that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. Therefore, you must decide to accept or reject the Bible on a presuppositional level.
For the third time, the Bible is NOT evidence for itself. It is issuing the claims, and thus cannot be used to validate itself. Now, if you could find events or claims told withen the Bible and find them independently to be true, that would be different.
We have no reason to accept the Bible as true.
I, on the other hand, accept the Bible as true from the outset, and argue that the Bible must be true in order for knowledge to be possible.
You're just adding an unnecessary, unrelated component and claiming that that's God.
Prior to the global flood, there would have been no high mountains (by today's standards) or low ocean basins.
Proof? I want verses if you're going to reference the bible.
As for the few thousand years idea, how do you explain the civilizations that have been around for thousands of years? In India, Hinduism was common before Christianity was a whisper in the wind. The same applies to the Gods of the ancient Greek civilization, and those of the African civilizations. Let's not forget that the same applies to North and South America.
All methods used to date the universe, the earth, and fossils rely on certain assumptions that contradict the Bible. Therefore, it is not surprising that the conclusions of such methods also contradict the Bible.
This would imply that regardless of the science, you believe that the particles of the universe randomly shift how they are organized/work. Unless you're trying to say that you simply don't believe in the existence of atoms.
However, modern catastrophes (like the Mt. St. Helens eruption) show that sedimentary layers are quite capable of forming rapidly.
It doesn't matter how fast they can form, it matters how old they are.
Actually, creationists do not believe that the earth was covered with water in one sweeping advance. Rather, the waters advanced and retreated progressively, eventually submerging the entire earth
So what happened to the whole, "It rained for 40 days and 40 nights?" This still leaves the problem of where all that water came from and went to.
We do find sedimentary layers that span entire continents, and some layers (like Cretaceous chalk beds) can be found on multiple continents.
I don't know much about it but my bet would be it's related to ice ages. As more ice freezes, there's less water circulated and that caused an overall drop/rise of the ocean levels worldwide for a time, creating those layers. Of course, there has never been enough water on the planet to cover all of the land at once.
All methods used to date the universe, the earth, and fossils rely on certain assumptions that contradict the Bible. Therefore, it is not surprising that the conclusions of such methods also contradict the Bible.
And since the Bible has so far been shown only to be incorrect, logically any person who applied any thought what so ever would accept that our forms of dating and recording are far more accurate than any 2000 year old claim by sheepherders.
The earliest ideas of an "old" earth were not based on methods such as radiometric dating, but the philosophical assumptions of uniformitarianism, which are clearly unbiblical and designed to "free the science from Moses".
Sources?
Prior to the global flood, there would have been no high mountains (by today's standards) or low ocean basins.
Sources? This sounds like bull you're just pulling out of a hat to make a false logical assumption that will fit your beliefs.
Catastrophic tectonic processes caused mountains to be pushed up and ocean basins to form near the end of the flood, allowing the water to drain, becoming today's oceans.
Again, please, sources that show that during one time of the earth's history there was an insane amount of tectonic activity all at once globally.
Proof? I want verses if you're going to reference the bible.
Psalm 104:6-9.
As for the few thousand years idea, how do you explain the civilizations that have been around for thousands of years?
No civilization predates the global flood approximately 4,500 years ago.
This would imply that regardless of the science, you believe that the particles of the universe randomly shift how they are organized/work. Unless you're trying to say that you simply don't believe in the existence of atoms.
That isn't implied at all. What is implied is that any attempt to date the earth scientifically relies on assumptions that cannot be proven.
So what happened to the whole, "It rained for 40 days and 40 nights?" This still leaves the problem of where all that water came from and went to.
A prominent creationist model proposes runaway subduction as a driving mechanism for the Flood. Though I plan to understand the models at a more technical level eventually, the basics are this: before the Flood, earth's surface was smoother. The mountains at the time were relatively short and large ocean basins did not exist. Consequently, there would not have to be enough water to reach miles above the earth to cover modern Mt. Everest, for example. Freshly produced seafloor would be warmer and less dense, and the seafloor would rise, pushing global sea level up. Near the end of the Flood, the seafloor would begin to cool and sink, and sea level with it. Tectonic processes would cause mountains to rise and ocean basins to form, assisting in the draining of water.
However, the validity of the Flood is not tied to the success of scientific models attempting to explain it. It's likely that current models will have to be refined and reworked, possibly even thrown out and replaced. That's science. However, it would be absurd to deny the global flood, because biblical principles are what make science possible.
Sources?
Charles Lyell, in a letter to George Poulett Scrope, claimed that his ideas would free science from Moses. In other places he acknowledged that his ideas were "anti-Mosaical." Old-earth geology began with the premise of uniformitarianism, the idea that earth's geologic features were produced gradually by the same geologic processes that are operating today, at approximately the same rates.
Again, please, sources that show that during one time of the earth's history there was an insane amount of tectonic activity all at once globally.
Perhaps there wasn't. Catastrophic plate tectonics is but one prominent creationist model that attempts to examine the scientific processes involved in the Flood. However, I know there was a global flood, regardless of which scientific model will eventually describe it most accurately, because the Bible says so. If the Bible were not true, science would not be possible.
