We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → [necro]Jehovah Witnesses
| 46 | 7654 |
This is something that I've learned today about (you guessed it) Jehovah witnesses.
-They do go door to door and leave pamphlets.
-God counts days differently than we do. For example one of God's days could be millions of years for us, so Jehovah witnesses can believe in dinosaurs and Adam & Eve with all of them being created in the first seven days (even though it isn't mentioned in the bible).
-I also learnt that Jehovah witnesses don't believe in an after life where people goto heaven or hell, but believe that they'll be resurrected on a paradise earth that God will make.
-God's real name is Jehovah like the Devil's name is Lucipher.
-They've memerised a very large portion of the bible and can flip to it pretty quickly when asked to.
-Jehovah witnesses are a branch of Christians (I thought they were Jewish lol)
Just as an fyi there were three questions that I've asked that they didn't answer very well;
1. Why doesn't God create this paradise earth for everyone now to get rid of all this cruelty and injustice on this earth?
2. Since God is allegedly all knowing and all powerful why did he create Eve knowing she'd eat that apple?
3. How could God have been here for all time without ever being created?
P.S. I learnt this because they came to my door today and as a fyi I believe there is a creator, but don't know which creator created everything. I believe this because I CAN'T believe that everything we see around us was created by a big hot dense universe just expanding (the Big Bang Theory I think) because how can a universe be created from nothing? Then again how could the first creator have been created from nothing?
As you can see I digress lol
- 46 Replies
It turns into a gasHypothetically there's a 10ft tall room, at the very top of it is a trapdoor, I drop an ipod in it then I close the door seal it completely up so it's air tight, nothing gets in and nothing gets out. I open a different door at the very top of it and hot lava goes into the box filling it completely. Then close the latch just as it becomes full so it gets air tight. How could the ipod turn into smoke then.
If you accept it then why are you trying to argue, by saying things like? "Who said I believe this"
Accepting or believing in the Big Bang theory is not contingent on how the matter/energy got there int he first place. Your statement was this
"Christians believe that God was never created and was always here. If you think about it Christians and atheists are very alike in irrational beliefs of how the universe was created."
This was in direct response to my statement on where the matter/energy comes from, where I stated
"Our observations of indicate that matter/energy might not require being created as it violates conservation of mass"
How matter/energy existed or got there "before" the Big Bang is completely irrelevant to the theory. All I have put forth in regards to where the fuel for the Big Bang came from is just one hypothesis based on observable evidence. That is not saying it's believed to be so nor the only one and at this point it might not even be the dominant hypothesis.
The length of time I'm talking about is when matter/energy created the universe.
Considering you've been arguing over where this matter/energy came from to do this in the first place this statement makes no sense what so ever.
Idk about that, I think there was probably time, but people don't call it time because there was no way to record it and it probably differed from ours jumping forwards in years then backwards with no apparent diffirence.
In is treated as a dimension along with space creating a four dimensional model known as spacetime. In essence time and space are unified so that you can't have one without the other. In a singularity space becomes non existent, thus no time. In this sense there isn't such a thing as a before the Big Bang in the sense of how time is perceived now.
It has nothing to do with it being under a different name or us not recording it.
When so many people (millions upon millions) believe in something it must have a hint of truth in it at least. Or it's the best f___ing lie out there lol
No it doesn't. Yes lies can be that pervasive. For example many people once believe bloodletting was a cure or preventative measure from many illnesses. Millions upon millions of people believed this through out history but this is simply not the case.
I thought you might say that lol, but perhaps you didn't read the whole bible or misconstrued some of it. Secondly such as?
Nope it does contradict itself numerous times.
Here is a list of some of them.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions
Ok then if you incinerate something what becomes of it?
It changes states from one form to another. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.
Especially when no one knows how the universe first began, it's all theories. You said it yourself, we don't know how it did.
Your confusing theory with hypothesis. We have a working theory (an explanation based on evidence) of how the universe began. We have hypotheses (proposed rational explanation based on an observation) as to how the singularity the universe spawned from came from.
I said evidence that it created the universe. Sure we see it all around, but that doesn't mean it created the universe.
Physical space is made up of three linear dimensions a singularity is so dense there you don't have this. It's only after it started to expand that we get these dimensions.
You're right it's not an unreasonable theory just like God isn't.
God isn't any sort of theory.
For something couldn't have always just been here, something would've had to creare the matter/energy. But there's the same paradox with God.
No it's not the same paradox as with God because we are not starting with something more complex. It's starting from a most basic form and building from it.
I'm not using wishful thinking to determine reality, just wishful thinking that there might be an afterlife.
Since we have no evidence or irrefutable proof I'd rather hope I have an undisclosed bank account containing billions of dollars instead of deny it.
What one hopes to be real has no baring. We can say that an afterlife likely doesn't exist based on our observations of how living things function and what happens to a living thing when it dies. Just like how I can observe my bank accounts to see that I don't have a multi-billion dollar one. All searching for such a thing has shown no sign of it's existence. My stating that I hope I have one in a conversation about money situations would be pointless.
Doesn't make sense though does it? Why care about the survival of your species if you could live awesomely during your life time and there's no afterlife to reprimand you (or as the Jehovah witnesses believe a resurrection).
Yes it does make sense. As a species that requires a group as a means of survival our personal ability to live 'awesomely' would require the group to be strong. If we didn't care what happened to the group and just focused on ourselves with these same requirements we as a species would die out.
I'm saying there is an equal amount of evidence that God, gods, or matter/energy created everyone. Does that clear it up?
You would first need evidence that God, gods exist to even consider the possibility.
This isn't the first thing you said, but I want to start off with your link. Is it safe to assume you read all of genesis, that you agree 100% that these are all contradictions in your link? And you know that it can't be proved that anything on that page is incorrect? I don't think so, I think you probably googled 'Bible Contradictions' or something similiar then took a peak at it and decided it would do well for your arguement. Which you shouldn't do because it would take pages upon pages taking hours perhaps to disprove those contradictions. You should list a few at a time. I took one example from your link to show you that it isn't really a contradiction, but a misunderstanding.
Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.The bible never actually says rested per se, I believe the genesis was translated from hebrew. So the word they translated it from meant ceased, or stopped. Or at any rate that's what it implies. It's more meant to mean he stopped creating after the seventh day.
Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.Do you or do you not believe that matter/energy created the universe that then did all that Big Bang Theory stuff? If not sorry I misconstrued, but if you do believe that then why are you arguing? It makes as much sense to say that an omnipotent God created everything as saying matter/energy was never created and was always here and created everything else.
Considering you've been arguing over where this matter/energy came from to do this in the first place this statement makes no sense what so ever.I thought where matter/energy came from to the Big Bang Theory were labeled under one time (no time as you say). That's why I said what I did.
Why I say no time I mean there was no time as we know it.
In is treated as a dimension along with space creating a four dimensional model known as spacetime. In essence time and space are unified so that you can't have one without the other. In a singularity space becomes non existent, thus no time. In this sense there isn't such a thing as a before the Big Bang in the sense of how time is perceived now.Ah I see, so the whatever you call it between how matter/energy were created/formed to the time the universe was created can fall under the same 'time' if you know what I mean?
It has nothing to do with it being under a different name or us not recording
No it doesn't. Yes lies can be that pervasive.Well science has been proven wrong many times. And 'facts' has changed alot also, so it doesn't mean it's a lie. Sometimes a mistake like scientists make.
Millions upon millions of people believe in the Big Bang Theory, doesn't mean it's true or even has a hint of truth in it like you think there's no God.
Do you see what I mean? Your arguement here can be turned around right back at you.
It changes states from one form to another. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.Quite so. I find matter/energy to be slightly difficult to grasp at times.
Your confusing theory with hypothesis. We have a working theory (an explanation based on evidence) of how the universe began. We have hypotheses (proposed rational explanation based on an observation) as to how the singularity the universe spawned from came from.Christians also have a working theory (based on what they percieve to be evidence) of how the universe began. There hypothese is that God has always existed which is as rational as saying matter/energy always existed. Even with your observations on how matter/energy are. It is equally rational.
Both are irrational to be saying that neither were created, but always existed.
God isn't any sort of theory.The theory is that there is a God.
No it's not the same paradox as with God because we are not starting with something more complex. It's starting from a most basic form and building from it.I disagree, how was the most basic form created then? Don't you tell me it always existed and we can determine that by the way matter/energy interact. Christians can say that God always existed, and we can determine this from Gods nature.
Since we have no evidence or irrefutable proof I'd rather hope I have an undisclosed bank account containing billions of dollars instead of deny it.We have no evidence or irrefutable proof that matter/energy created the universe. A thoery not a hypothese as you think. A theory. Hypotheses can be proven, this can't. Wishful thinking is always better than denying it. A wishful thinking that you have an undisclosed bank account containing billions of dollars is better than denying it as long as you don't act on it seriously. It's very unlikely, 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1 that you do. Just like God existing or an afterlife existing or matter/energy creating the universe.
Yes it does make sense. As a species that requires a group as a means of survival our personal ability to live 'awesomely' would require the group to be strong. If we didn't care what happened to the group and just focused on ourselves with these same requirements we as a species would die out.If I decided to act corruptly for my life time, I decided to do everything evil and terrible to benefit my, you think the human species would die out in my life time? If it wouldn't the why do I care what happens for future generations?
You would first need evidence that God, gods exist to even consider the possibility.There is evidence you just don't accept it as evidence. There's Jesus, God the miracles of previous years, (like Noah and the Arc) and theres a bible from all different types of generations of people that never contradicts itself etc... (if you want to say it does list 2-3 at a time so I can properly attack them, not a link like you did that would take way to long to discuss).
Accepting or believing in the Big Bang theory is not contingent on how the matter/energy got there int he first place. Your statement was thisDo you or do you not believe that matter/energy created the universe that then did all that Big Bang Theory stuff? If not sorry I misconstrued, but if you do believe that then why are you arguing? It makes as much sense to say that an omnipotent God created everything as saying matter/energy was never created and was always here and created everything else.
"Christians believe that God was never created and was always here. If you think about it Christians and atheists are very alike in irrational beliefs of how the universe was created."
This was in direct response to my statement on where the matter/energy comes from, where I stated
"Our observations of indicate that matter/energy might not require being created as it violates conservation of mass"
How matter/energy existed or got there "before" the Big Bang is completely irrelevant to the theory.
Sorry for double quote, misquoted the first time...
I'll just try and touch on a few things here.
Is it safe to assume you read all of genesis, that you agree 100% that these are all contradictions in your link?
I have read through the Bible. I haven't read through that entire list on that site, but I have read most of it.
I don't think so, I think you probably googled 'Bible Contradictions' or something similiar then took a peak at it and decided it would do well for your arguement.
Nope, I'm quite familiar with this guys work and his background in religion. I obtained the link after watching a number of his podcasts, I didn't just pull it out of my Google search.
But if you want one that I did just pull out of my Google Search here you go.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
You should list a few at a time. I took one example from your link to show you that it isn't really a contradiction, but a misunderstanding.
That just shoots down the whole site now doesn't it?
The bible never actually says rested per se, I believe the genesis was translated from hebrew. So the word they translated it from meant ceased, or stopped. Or at any rate that's what it implies. It's more meant to mean he stopped creating after the seventh day.
Yep it does mean this, "to rest, desist (from labour)" But we also have to get into what happened after he "ceased". We find this in Exodus.
Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
He was refreshed? This still leaves us with the same problem posed on the site.
The Gospels get fun with contradictions.
We have no evidence or irrefutable proof that matter/energy created the universe. A thoery not a hypothese as you think. A theory. Hypotheses can be proven, this can't.
You completely fail at understanding what a theory and hypothesis is.
Hypothesis; A prediction based on an observation. This proposes a rational explination for the observerved phenomenon, but has not yet been verified.
Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers. We can never say a theory is proven as it's main attribute is that it's falsifiable, meaning it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experimentation.
There is evidence you just don't accept it as evidence. There's Jesus, God the miracles of previous years, (like Noah and the Arc) and theres a bible from all different types of generations of people that never contradicts itself etc... (if you want to say it does list 2-3 at a time so I can properly attack them, not a link like you did that would take way to long to discuss).
This is just using the Bible to prove the Bible. These are the claims where is the evidence that these things took place?
Do you or do you not believe that matter/energy created the universe that then did all that Big Bang Theory stuff? If not sorry I misconstrued, but if you do believe that then why are you arguing? It makes as much sense to say that an omnipotent God created everything as saying matter/energy was never created and was always here and created everything else.
I'm kind of doing this on the fly so I'm not sure if you addressed EmperorPalpatine's post or not. We have the evidence that energy could have been around and no indication it would have been created at that point. We have evidence of the universe not only expanded but is still expanding. We simply roll the clock back which we can do to where the universe measures at a planck length. Given the nature of matter/energy we can take it back further than that and we get ourselves a singularity.
What evidence of the big bang theory does exist?
This is what I accept as accurate. Now do I believe we are accurately interpreting the data? Since I can't fully understand the underline mathematics I have to leave this answer a blank.
I have read through the Bible. I haven't read through that entire list on that site, but I have read most of it.You shouldn't post it unless you did read all of it (in my opinion)
Nope, I'm quite familiar with this guys work and his background in religion. I obtained the link after watching a number of his podcasts, I didn't just pull it out of my Google search.Ah, that's good.
But if you want one that I did just pull out of my Google Search here you go.Why would I want that lol?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
That just shoots down the whole site now doesn't it?It was an example that the site is flawed I wasn't saying it shot down the whole site (although it could most probably be).
You can't expect me to argue every point here do you?
Yep it does mean this, "to rest, desist (from labour)" But we also have to get into what happened after he "ceased". We find this in Exodus.Why can't Gods become refreshed? Sure they don't need it, just like we don't need a computer or book etc... But it's nice.
Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
He was refreshed? This still leaves us with the same problem posed on the site.
The Gospels get fun with contradictions.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rest.html
You completely fail at understanding what a theory and hypothesis is.The point remains neither are facts. Therefore it is not real evidence just hypotheses and theories as to how the universe was created. Only theories and hypotheses by scientists and Christians (although you disagree with the facts and evidence Christians present).
Bibles from different generations with no contradictions (any contradictions you can find is probably already answered on a different site just google 'bible contradictions answered and you'll find most if not all answered). You have Jesus, Moses, Noah etc... Is the facts and evidence (in the eyes of Christians).
This is just using the Bible to prove the Bible. These are the claims where is the evidence that these things took place?http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
I'm kind of doing this on the fly so I'm not sure if you addressed EmperorPalpatine's post or not. We have the evidence that energy could have been around and no indication it would have been created at that point. We have evidence of the universe not only expanded but is still expanding. We simply roll the clock back which we can do to where the universe measures at a planck length. Given the nature of matter/energy we can take it back further than that and we get ourselves a singularity.God could have created matter/energy with all it's properties that then created the Big Bang Theory. Making it that the Big Bang Theory is true and making it that God still created everything through matter/energy.
What evidence of the big bang theory does exist?
Facts are proven wrong all the time. Like how we once knew the earth was flat and that the universe was 500 miles long. These properties of matter and energy can be proven wrong like many things have been.
I still don't see why you said "Did I ever say I believed that".
The point remains neither are facts
So...The THEORY of Gravity is...well, unfounded? Same goes for the THEORY of Evolution, and the Big Bang THEORY? There's a reason they are all called theories.
God could have created matter/energy with all it's properties that then created the Big Bang Theory. Making it that the Big Bang Theory is true and making it that God still created everything through matter/energy.
Which is essentially a cop-out answer. You have no proof that God caused it, so why assume that he did?
Facts are proven wrong all the time. Like how we once knew the earth was flat
People didn't "know" the earth was flat, it was just a widespread belief. I think there were a few civilizations that didn't think the earth was flat.
that the universe was 500 miles long.
I've never heard of this one actually...
These properties of matter and energy can be proven wrong like many things have been.
Yes, which is why everything must remain falsifiable. Unlike the Church, which claims absolute truth and then trys to shove new findings into its past proclomations so as to make itself not look stupid.
The point remains neither are facts. Therefore it is not real evidence just hypotheses and theories as to how the universe was created. Only theories and hypotheses by scientists and Christians (although you disagree with the facts and evidence Christians present).
Theories are built on evidence. I would recommend learning some basics in science.
As for Christians they don't have facts, they have faith. That's a belief without facts.
God could have created matter/energy with all it's properties that then created the Big Bang Theory. Making it that the Big Bang Theory is true and making it that God still created everything through matter/energy.
We would need evidence of God existing first to make this claim, but I'm pretty sure I pointed this out if one insists on inserting God.
"Now as to not accepting the beginning of the universe starting from a singularity, like it or not this is where the evidence currently leads us to. Even if you want to insert a God somewhere into the process."
So...The THEORY of Gravity is...well, unfounded? Same goes for the THEORY of Evolution, and the Big Bang THEORY? There's a reason they are all called theories.You see this is different from the Big Bang Theory, where as the Big Bang Theory happened countless amount of years ago you can still see the effects of gravity every day and see similiar genetic and dna similarities between humans and chimps. Where as you can't see what happened that created the universe.
And not an overwhelming amount of people believe in the Bing Bang Theory considering how many people believe in religions and that a creator created us.
Which is essentially a cop-out answer. You have no proof that God caused it, so why assume that he did?Never said I believed that, never said I assumed, never told anyone to assume that.
The key word is my sentence was could. Just saying it was a possibility.
People didn't "know" the earth was flat, it was just a widespread belief. I think there were a few civilizations that didn't think the earth was flat.People thought they knew the earth was flat and that they'd fall off the planet when they came to the end.
Christians believed the planet to be round as well.
Nonetheless 'facts' are still proven wrong numerous times.
I've never heard of this one actually...I've heard of it somewhere, but I forget where
Theories are built on evidence. I would recommend learning some basics in science.How many times do I have to say thre are facts, but you don't accept them?
As for Christians they don't have facts, they have faith. That's a belief without facts.
We would need evidence of God existing first to make this claim, but I'm pretty sure I pointed this out if one insists on inserting God.There is evidence (for Christians) of a God, but you don't accept it.
I feel like I'm repeating myself...
There is evidence (for Christians) of a God, but you don't accept it.
That's where the problem lies. You fail to see that there is on one side, objective evidence, that is evidence independent of the individuum looking at it.. and then there's religious 'evidence' which is evidence for the people who believe, but not for those who do not share the same belief, because those 'evidences' require that belief as basic assumption. Evidence has too avoid pre-requisite assumptions in order to be real objective evidence.
You see this is different from the Big Bang Theory, where as the Big Bang Theory happened countless amount of years ago you can still see the effects of gravity every day and see similiar genetic and dna similarities between humans and chimps. Where as you can't see what happened that created the universe.
We do still see the effects of the Big Bang today.
Nonetheless 'facts' are still proven wrong numerous times.
Does that mean you think we should ignore facts? A fact in science is still not an absolute. It only means it's something that has been objectively verifiable observed many times to the point it would be unreasonable to withhold provisional consent.
The belief the Earth was flat was not based on this. This was a belief not based on objective evidence.
How many times do I have to say thre are facts, but you don't accept them?
In what way is it a fact?
There is evidence (for Christians) of a God, but you don't accept it.
One can claim subjective evidence for their beliefs but this useless as it can't be evaluated, it just has to be accepted or rejected based on what the person making the claim says. Accepting such evidence requires the person being told to accept this claim without anything backing it up beyond a claim.
Many times in Christianity this sort of "evidence" comes in the form of a subjective feeling. The person experiencing it and more so others have no way to tell if what is being experiences is what they claim it is.
Furthermore such methods have repeatedly shown itself to be riddling with error when used to gauge reality.
Science on the other hand uses (as strictly as possible) objective evidence. This is evidence that can be independently verified by a third party. In other words we don't just have to take a persons word for it we can look at the same thing they are looking at and get the same results.
For a theory to be a theory a hypothesis has to go through this process.
That's where the problem lies. You fail to see that there is on one side, objective evidence, that is evidence independent of the individuum looking at it.. and then there's religious 'evidence' which is evidence for the people who believe, but not for those who do not share the same belief, because those 'evidences' require that belief as basic assumption. Evidence has too avoid pre-requisite assumptions in order to be real objective evidence.It is evidence, not subjective, the bible is a big history book, with prophicies already completed (and future predictions made).
Assuming right now God showed up and everyone believed it was him (stay with me here and just pretend you me and everyone else believed it was him) and then someone recorded it into a new bible. In a 1000 years from now people would be saying the same thing as you. "What's in the bible isn't evidence or facts just beliefs and subjective evidence".
We do still see the effects of the Big Bang today.Not like gravity, we see gravity all around us. We don't see with our own eyes universes being made by the Big Bang Thoery.
Does that mean you think we should ignore facts? A fact in science is still not an absolute. It only means it's something that has been objectively verifiable observed many times to the point it would be unreasonable to withhold provisional consent.The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact...
The belief the Earth was flat was not based on this. This was a belief not based on objective evidence.Which Christians recognized too.
In what way is it a fact?Let me rephrase that "there is evidence, but you don't accept it".
One can claim subjective evidence for their beliefs but this useless as it can't be evaluated, it just has to be accepted or rejected based on what the person making the claim says. Accepting such evidence requires the person being told to accept this claim without anything backing it up beyond a claim.Considering how many people get these feelings of there being a God, (millions of people) how can you just deny it and say it's impossible and refuse to even accept it as a likelihood? Even though it is subjective there are quite a bit of people getting these feelings and accepting God as a creator of the universe.
Many times in Christianity this sort of "evidence" comes in the form of a subjective feeling. The person experiencing it and more so others have no way to tell if what is being experiences is what they claim it is.
Science on the other hand uses (as strictly as possible) objective evidence. This is evidence that can be independently verified by a third party. In other words we don't just have to take a persons word for it we can look at the same thing they are looking at and get the same results.To bad the Big Bang Theory isn't a fact though. You seem to forget that. No matter how much you want it to be it isn't.It probably never will be, there might be semi reasonable hypotheses as to how the Big Bang was created and how it happened but it still isn't a fact. Just a theory. Like Christianity.
For a theory to be a theory a hypothesis has to go through this process.
It is evidence, not subjective, the bible is a big history book, with prophicies already completed (and future predictions made).
A history book from a bunch of third+ hand accounts which originated with uneducated farmers/sheperds. Not what you'd call "a reliable source."
As for the prophecies already completed, you have to admit they are quite vague. Throw any of them at me that you think have been proven, most likely they could fit any number of situations.
In a 1000 years from now people would be saying the same thing as you.
Quite possibly, however, it would be FAR better documented and would be worldwide, not region wide. There would be video footage, audio, many, many, many, many, many, many, many different records that would all correlate due to interconnection of the internet and so on.
Not like gravity, we see gravity all around us
You can't see gravity, just its effects
The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact...
Even if it's not a "fact" it's far better than claiming something entirely unfounded and untestable. It may or may not be correct, the thing is, if it is ever found to be incorrect, it will not be shoe-horned into the new finding so as to look like it was correct all along.
Let me rephrase that "there is evidence, but you don't accept it".
1) You already said that.
2) It's not evidence if you must first believe in something without evidence. That's like saying, "Water goes up if you don't believe in gravity."
Considering how many people get these feelings of there being a God, (millions of people) how can you just deny it and say it's impossible and refuse to even accept it as a likelihood?
Considering how many times it's been proven that these subjective feelings have a chemical cause and are attributed to one's specific belief and not just one thing is general, we can fairly well assume that they are just experiencing emotions/feelings that we all feel and saying it's caused by their God even though it's not. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be a supernatural being, just at this point in time there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that does not have a prerequisite to believe in and so is foolish to do so.
To bad the Big Bang Theory isn't a fact though. You seem to forget that. No matter how much you want it to be it isn't.
Too bad that even if the Big Bang Theory turns out to be incorrect, it doesn't mean God exists. It just means we were wrong. What would you require for it to be a fact?
Just a theory. Like Christianity.
A Theory is... and Christianity is not that. It's a random set of unfounded beliefs that have no backing.
It is evidence, not subjective, the bible is a big history book, with prophicies already completed (and future predictions made).
Much of it has no first hand extra-biblical accounts, leaving just the Bible making the claim these things happened. There are plenty of accounts that are clearly in contradiction to observable evidence. While we do have confirmed historical events in it, there is much that is clearly not an accurate historical telling of events.
Since much of it can not be confirmed objectively accepting the claims in it is a subjective view.
As for prophecies they are either extremely vague, self fulfilling or simply not prophecies at all. Not to mention many religions claim to have prophecies that have come true.
Assuming right now God showed up and everyone believed it was him (stay with me here and just pretend you me and everyone else believed it was him) and then someone recorded it into a new bible. In a 1000 years from now people would be saying the same thing as you. "What's in the bible isn't evidence or facts just beliefs and subjective evidence".
If people were left with the same level of evidence as we have with this Bible where it's required we first believe the accounts before seeing they are true they would be fully justified in not accepting it as true.
Not like gravity, we see gravity all around us. We don't see with our own eyes universes being made by the Big Bang Thoery.
We only see the effects of gravity all around us, just as we see the effects of the Big Bang all around us.
The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact...
I've consistently called it a theory, as in an explanation supported by facts. For us to ignore the explanation that best fits the facts we have to ignore the facts at hand.
Let me rephrase that "there is evidence, but you don't accept it".
Why should I accept subjective evidence?
Considering how many people get these feelings of there being a God, (millions of people) how can you just deny it and say it's impossible and refuse to even accept it as a likelihood? Even though it is subjective there are quite a bit of people getting these feelings and accepting God as a creator of the universe.
This is called an argument from majority, a fallacy stating that just because a bunch of people say it it must be true. I've already pointed out to you how this is not the case with the example of bloodletting to cure illness.
Just because a bunch of people feel this doesn't mean a thing for the validity of that religion. Many people have these same subjective feelings for many different religious views and I have eve heard of people experiencing this same feeling from a character in a movie or listening to a song. So all this shows us is someone is capable of having strong emotions towards something and that something doesn't even need to be real.
To bad the Big Bang Theory isn't a fact though.
Never said it was, only supported by facts.
You seem to forget that. No matter how much you want it to be it isn't.It probably never will be, there might be semi reasonable hypotheses as to how the Big Bang was created and how it happened but it still isn't a fact. Just a theory. Like Christianity.
You keep saying "just a theory" as if that somehow lessens it. In science a theory i the highest thing you can have as it is an explanation of the observable facts.
Christianity, no matter how much you want it to be, is not a theory of any sort. It does not provide us with an explanation of the observable events and even at times goes against them. It has not been objectively verified by anyone and at worst requires that we simply accept it at face value. it also has no predictive capabilities(no prophecies don't give it this ability), we can't use it to predict something of the natural world that is testable through experimentation.
At best we could call it a speculation since it doesn't even follow the requirements of a hypothesis.
To further explain the predictive power of a theory here's an example. Let's say there was another planet in the same orbit as earth just on the opposite side of the sun so we had no way to directly observe it exists without flying around the sun to see it. We could use the theory of gravity to predict it's existence based on it's gravitational effects before we ever go look. We have been able to use the Big Bang model to make such predictions as well, such as the current ratio of helium to hydrogen.
Thread is locked!