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?
No civilization predates the global flood approximately 4,500 years ago.
There were certainly many civilizations in 2500 BCE.
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.
Double standard much? You're basing everything on the Bible which can not be proven unless God comes and shows himself, which he has not. Nor have any miracles occured that cannot be explained since the end of when 99% of the population was uneducated and superstitious
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.
The major problem with this is the given time frame. This amount of change in even a million years would be absurd, and you're claiming it happened 4500 years ago?
However, I know there was a global flood, regardless of which scientific model will eventually describe it most accurately, because the Bible says so.
The Bible has no evidence supporting it. To go off of something in the Bible simply because it says so is just plain idiotic.
If the Bible were not true, science would not be possible.
This is so far from the truth I'm trying not to laugh right now. How exactly would the Bible not being true make science impossible? Science is the observation and experimentation of the world around us. All it does is state what is.
No civilization predates the global flood approximately 4,500 years ago.
So then Noah came from where? And he had the tools to make the ark how? And he warned the people of which town? If there was no civilization how did he do all this? THe most likly answer is, he didn't.
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.
You're kidding right? This can be proven. A huge part of science is that people are able to make these experiments yourself and duplicate the results. If you were a scientist you could really do these exact experiments with the same results.
because the Bible says so. If the Bible were not true, science would not be possible.
How does that make any sense? Lets say it wasn't true, and science was real. The big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, all that. Then our world would be the same, except there wouldn't be Christians. Lets say it is true, if it was then science would state that it is. All science does is observe the universe and explains it. So if the world was made thousands of years ago, and there was no evolution that would be what science would state.
There were certainly many civilizations in 2500 BCE.
Just want to clarify,
"There were certainly many civilizations in and before 2500 BCE." and I'll also add, "I believe that the oldest civilization known to us started around 4000 BCE, 6000 years ago."
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 problem is the word is related to how the food is expelled not how digested it is. Quite frankly I didn't think I would run into a fundie as dumb as you, capable of using the internet and that is saying a lot. Anyway this thread is clearly derailed.
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
Then that's exactly what you're implying. Radio carbon dating is based on the rate at which an element decays, it is a constant, it doesn't change, it can be proved, it has been proved, and should you say that it hasn't, that will bring you back to my original claim of implying that the basic particles of the universe simply don't exist.
1) If you do believe and he doesn't exist, big deal, you've lost nothing.
Sure, if God exists. If in fact Christianity is correct. There's over 7000 religions in the world. So, you have a 1.43 x 10^-4 chance of being correct.
2) If you don't believe and he does exist, you better become a believer real quick.
"If you don't believe in Santa he won't bring you presents, you better become a believer real quick."
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
All science relies on direct experience, and controlled by experimental verification. It's objective and repeatable. What it does not do is rely on pure assumption nor does it claim as fact that which can not be prove. Basing things on pure assumption and unprovable claims is what religion does just as you have been doing this whole time.
Then that's exactly what you're implying. Radio carbon dating is based on the rate at which an element decays, it is a constant, it doesn't change, it can be proved, it has been proved, and should you say that it hasn't, that will bring you back to my original claim of implying that the basic particles of the universe simply don't exist.
Radio carbon dating is not the radiometric dating system used in determining things as old as the Earth. While the principle is the same, we use elements with much longer half lives.
Not that the original topic was really going anywhere but do you think we should get back to that?
1) If you do believe and he doesn't exist, big deal, you've lost nothing.
You mean other than my sanity?
And as Kasic pointed out, should we assume that Christianity is correct, that would mean that anywhere from 60% to 75% of the world would be suffering eternal torment. It strikes me that this God is not so much loving and benevolent, as vicious and sadistic.
God is not so much loving and benevolent, as vicious and sadistic.
What he said.
Also, my parents say that God is perfect, and he an do anything, including dying, and coming back to life. To which I replied: "Can God lie? Can God cheat? Can God instantly stop sin? He's 'erfect' therefore he cannotm lie nor cheat. SO you would be lying to say he can do everything. And since he can't do everything, he therefore is not perfect." To which my dad said: "You're twisting what I said and using mind games to change what I said. Anyways, who are YOU to judge God?" I reply: "Right. I'm ME to judge God, and I'll judge him whenever I **** well please. I mean, I'm gonna judge whether i want to believe in him or not, therefore I GET TO JUDGE HIM." Then he says, like a good lil' christian would: "Watch your mouth, son! blah blah blah-dee-blah, don't curse, blah blah blah...."
Get the idea? And if christianity is the TRUE religion, how come most denominations although all "loving" and stuff, ex-communicate Jehova's Witness? Don't they bgelieve in the same God? (I can understand about mormonists....)
