Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,484 comments
  • 1,120,152 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%

  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%

  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%
  • Total voters
    2,042
Pako
So you see, a "day" was early man's attempt at explaining a period of time. How can God, who is omnipresent, use the cycle of the sun as a calibration of what a day is? If He is truly the creator of the universe, the rotation of our planet would not constitute His day, but ours. So often I see man's limitation put on God, when He has no limitations.
Click to expand...

What language was the bible written in? The language of God? The word "day" has a meaning in that language (Hebrew). So often I see man's words interpreted as the word of God.
 
Pako
So you see, a "day" was early man's attempt at explaining a period of time. How can God, who is omnipresent, use the cycle of the sun as a calibration of what a day is? If He is truly the creator of the universe, the rotation of our planet would not constitute His day, but ours. So often I see man's limitation put on God, when He has no limitations.
Click to expand...

That's fine and i understand what you are saying. But like i sayd, that can not apply after 'day 3'.
The passage Gen 1:14-19 clearly defines what a day and a night are. heck, it even defines morning and and evening.

If there was no definition of what a day is in that passage, you were quite right (like i say, you can persist the days before were different, but that is not in context with the rest of genesis (1 and 2).
I see no way around the fact that there in the bible it is written exactly what a day is.
Day is when the sun shines (on a part of the world), and night when the moon "shines" (on a part of the world).
(i can feel a discussion on whether the bible suggests the earth is a sphere or is flat coming up, my 2 cents are on flat ;))

Even 'evening and morning are present.

It's right there 'Gen 1:19 ''Morning of the 4th day'', is it not?

I'm just venting my position as my position, and thanks for everyone's input, i like all the input.

Cheers,
 
mindwise
That's fine and i understand what you are saying. But like i sayd, that can not apply after 'day 3'.
The passage Gen 1:14-19 clearly defines what a day and a night are. heck, it even defines morning and and evening.

If there was no definition of what a day is in that passage, you were quite right (like i say, you can persist the days before were different, but that is not in context with the rest of genesis (1 and 2).
I see no way around the fact that there in the bible it is written exactly what a day is.
Day is when the sun shines (on a part of the world), and night when the moon "shines" (on a part of the world).
(i can feel a discussion on whether the bible suggests the earth is a sphere or is flat coming up, my 2 cents are on flat ;))

Even 'evening and morning are present.

It's right there 'Gen 1:19 ''Morning of the 4th day'', is it not?

I'm just venting my position as my position, and thanks for everyone's input, i like all the input.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things we don't know, like perhaps the earth's rotation (in the early days) was a lot slower than it is now.... There is no definition that a day is a 24 hour time period. As you know, there are parts of the northern hemisphere where you have sunlight or day light for months on end. I understand what you are getting at, but I don't think you can apply it to a strict literal interpretation of a 24 hour day for many of the reasons already cited.
 
I believe that Genesis is Man's attempt at describing that which he didn't fully understand at the time - hence the confusing language and choice of anthropocentric phrases, concepts and experiences.

The way in which the words "day", "night", "evening" and "morning" are used, and also the fact that Day One and Day Four seem to deal with the same thing, reinforce my view that a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible is not sensible or even possible. Literalism demands a strict definition of words and phrases to be applied - any elasticity in what words mean (which I would argue is happening here) requires an abandonment of literalism and all it implies.

The definition of the term "day" is the least of my problems with the content of Genesis, but I do think it is a good example of why many people (myself included) believe that Genesis is an allegorical account of our origins and not a literal one. As allegory, I can understand it and rationalise it. As a literal account, I can understand it, but not believe it. However, as a "literal" account where words mean whatever you want them to mean, I can't understand it or believe it.
 
Touring Mars
I believe that Genesis is Man's attempt at describing that which he didn't fully understand at the time - hence the confusing language and choice of anthropocentric phrases, concepts and experiences.

The way in which the words "day", "night", "evening" and "morning" are used, and also the fact that Day One and Day Four seem to deal with the same thing, reinforce my view that a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible is not sensible or even possible. Literalism demands a strict definition of words and phrases to be applied - any elasticity in what words mean (which I would argue is happening here) requires an abandonment of literalism and all it implies.

The definition of the term "day" is the least of my problems with the content of Genesis, but I do think it is a good example of why many people (myself included) believe that Genesis is an allegorical account of our origins and not a literal one. As allegory, I can understand it and rationalise it. As a literal account, I can understand it, but not believe it. However, as a "literal" account where words mean whatever you want them to mean, I can't understand it or believe it.
Click to expand...

Well said, i fully agree, nicely and mildly put. 👍
 
Well said, TM. 👍

I personally do not see flat out black and white evidence that dinosaurs disprove the Bible, it seems a stretch to me. I am enjoying the discussion greatly, though. My original statement was addressing the fact that any type of whatever-type-of-oleogy has not produced hard core evidence refuting any Biblical text.

I remember reading somewhere (apologize for not remembering where) that a certain culture was mentioned in the Bible and for years it was argued that this culture never existed, it is not in any written histories anywhere but the Bible, and they were made up. Then some who-ever-ologist discovered under the dirt hard evidence proving that it did exist.

Anyhow, I just recently read “What’s So Great About Christianity” by Dinesh D’Souza. He approaches things from the scientific point of view, so you guys may find him interesting. Here's a quote about him:
“As an unbeliever, I passionately disagree with Dinesh D’Souza on some of his positions. But he is a first-rate scholar whom I feel absolutely compelled to read. His thorough research and elegant prose have elevated him into the top ranks of those who champion liberty and individual responsibility. Now he adds Christianity to his formula for the good society, and although non-Christians and non-theists may disagree with some of his arguments, we ignore him at our peril. D’Souza’s book takes the debate to a new level. Read it.”

— Michael Shermer,
Publisher of Skeptic magazine
​
Since it was suggested earlier that the world would be better off if there was no God, I thought you might want to watch this video of a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens on the topic “Is Christianity the Problem”.

(warning: video is 94 minutes long, but I thought enjoyable)


About D’Souza:
A former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, D'Souza also served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983.
​
 
Skynyrd1977
it was suggested earlier that the world would be better off if there was no God
Click to expand...

I disagree with that suggestion, i think the world would be exactly like it is today ;p

Would the world be better off without religion?
I tend to think it would, but i cannot back up that claim since i do not know a world without religion, so that is an opinion, not much more (a bit more, but no conclusive evidence).
Besides that, in a world without religion, we'd not be having this discussion :cheers:

've seen every Hitchens video/audio there is i think, call me biased, but i much prefer listening to Hitchens then to da Souza, Hitchens is certainly 'blessed' with more wit then Dinesh. (and a lot more content i).

I agree Dinesh was at least somewhat of an opponent to Hitchens, usually Hitchens can autopilot. But in all honesty, i do not think Dinesh got any further then raising his voice without addressing too much content.

Since we're throwing out long discussions..., here's another two hours. This is a discussion between Dan Barker and Jason Gastrich on Jason's Christian radio show in San Diego, California, in November 2002 radio only, but a very interesting show.

Save it on your ipod and listen while in traffic 👍
(or now, if you start listening you might not be able to stop ;))

Alternatively, Lewis Black is on topic wrt 'fossil'.
 
Last edited:
Pako
There are a lot of things we don't know, like perhaps the earth's rotation (in the early days) was a lot slower than it is now.... There is no definition that a day is a 24 hour time period. As you know, there are parts of the northern hemisphere where you have sunlight or day light for months on end. I understand what you are getting at, but I don't think you can apply it to a strict literal interpretation of a 24 hour day for many of the reasons already cited.
Click to expand...

Generally accepted scientific consensus is that the earth's rotation is slowing. At current rate, by an average of 1.4 milliseconds per century.

I'm not sure of the timescales of biblical time - for example, how long before the birth of Jesus the universe was supposedly created by God, but the length of a day when measured by atomic clock (which lose something like one second every 30 million years, so fairly accurate) will not be ostensibly longer now than it was back at the time of "creation". A day in 2008 is roughly only 3/100ths of a second longer than it was in the year 0 AD.

Although "a day" back then was unlikely to have been measured by 24 hour clock (well, it wasn't), the actual physical time period, night into day, day into night etc was still very much the same. "A day" back then was essentially exactly the same as "a day" today.

This is an example of why, in my view, it's impossible to take accounts in the bible literally. The process of creation appears very much to be a figurative story if it's to match up to any scientific research into the origins of the universe. If it isn't meant to match up to any scientific study (I know it wasn't written to do so at the time, but even the religious amongst us probably believe the theory of the big bang), then it makes no sense whatsoever.

I'd suggest going further than this too, and my opinion is that if Genesis was written as a figurative account of creation, then the rest of the bible, in both old and new testaments, was written in exactly the same way - not to be historically accurate in any way, but simply to explain difficult-to-understand concepts in a more reader-friendly way. Let's face it, the Bible would be pretty lame if it had to explain exact accounts of everything that happened, not to mention that it would be difficult to read and about twice as long. As it is, the Bible is pretty easy to read whatever your age, and makes technically difficult concepts quite easy to understand (for example, the parables).

BayConRong
why would the earth spin faster now? shouldn't it have been spinning slower now?
Click to expand...

The earth's rotation is slowing down, you're correct. In roughly 250 million years, the length of a day as measured by atomic clock will be 25 hours long.
 
without GOD nothing would have sence of course i belive i am CHRISTIAN - my bad english
 
Last edited:
homeforsummer
Generally accepted scientific consensus is that the earth's rotation is slowing. At current rate, by an average of 1.4 milliseconds per century.

I'm not sure of the timescales of biblical time - for example, how long before the birth of Jesus the universe was supposedly created by God, but the length of a day when measured by atomic clock (which lose something like one second every 30 million years, so fairly accurate) will not be ostensibly longer now than it was back at the time of "creation". A day in 2008 is roughly only 3/100ths of a second longer than it was in the year 0 AD.

Although "a day" back then was unlikely to have been measured by 24 hour clock (well, it wasn't), the actual physical time period, night into day, day into night etc was still very much the same. "A day" back then was essentially exactly the same as "a day" today.

This is an example of why, in my view, it's impossible to take accounts in the bible literally. The process of creation appears very much to be a figurative story if it's to match up to any scientific research into the origins of the universe. If it isn't meant to match up to any scientific study (I know it wasn't written to do so at the time, but even the religious amongst us probably believe the theory of the big bang), then it makes no sense whatsoever.

I'd suggest going further than this too, and my opinion is that if Genesis was written as a figurative account of creation, then the rest of the bible, in both old and new testaments, was written in exactly the same way - not to be historically accurate in any way, but simply to explain difficult-to-understand concepts in a more reader-friendly way. Let's face it, the Bible would be pretty lame if it had to explain exact accounts of everything that happened, not to mention that it would be difficult to read and about twice as long. As it is, the Bible is pretty easy to read whatever your age, and makes technically difficult concepts quite easy to understand (for example, the parables).



The earth's rotation is slowing down, you're correct. In roughly 250 million years, the length of a day as measured by atomic clock will be 25 hours long.
Click to expand...

Just saw an episode on Discovery HD called "The Universe", and one of the theories out there now is there was a mini-bang or a pre-bang before the big-bang which might suggest, by a great stretch of the imagination, that the rotation of the earth, and even more so, the expansion of the universe started out slower, then accelerated after the second bang.
 
I guess I don't see any problem with it, since its purely optional, infact I see it as a good move, I would have loved to cover philosophy at primary school although I was probably too young to appreciate it then.
 
zujo 19
without GOD nothing would have sence of course i belive i am CHRISTIAN - my bad english
Click to expand...

Would you care to explain your opinion? Without God nothing would make sense? I suspect those of us who aren't religious are more of the opinion that if God were real nothing would make sense ;)

Pako
Just saw an episode on Discovery HD called "The Universe", and one of the theories out there now is there was a mini-bang or a pre-bang before the big-bang which might suggest, by a great stretch of the imagination, that the rotation of the earth, and even more so, the expansion of the universe started out slower, then accelerated after the second bang.
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss the idea of two big bangs (for I know comparatively little on the subject) and we apparently know that the universe is expanding quicker all the time, but the Earth's rotation is slowing according to current scientific study. How far apart were these big bangs, did the program say? The universe is thought to be around 14 billion years old and the Earth around 4.5 billion years, so I doubt a second big bang had any effect on making the Earth or any other comparatively recent planet rotate quicker.

My source for the Earth's rotation is BBC Focus magazine (science and tech mag) and my source for the universe and astronomy stuff is our old favourite, Wikipedia, though I have no reason to disbelieve articles such as the astronomy ones.
 
Pako
which might suggest, by a great stretch of the imagination, that the rotation of the earth, and even more so, the expansion of the universe started out slower, then accelerated after the second bang.
Click to expand...

Well, i don't have that kind of imagination i guess, since i fail to see any connection with the fact the expansion is accelerating to the rotation speed of the earth, please expand.

The only thing i can imagine that could account for faster rotation speed is the 'Giant Impact Hypothesis'. (the most popular hypothesis on how the moon was formed) which btw, cannot be incorporated after day 3 for obvious reasons :)


However, the ones taking genesis as the literal account of 'creation', you'll have to 'dump' cosmology completely;
Our sun is generally considered a 3rd generation star, certainly not a first, and our earth cannot possibly (within he boundaries of cosmology) have formed before any other body in the universe. (this is impossible within cosmology since the elements found on earth were produced by exploding stars).
Stars explode and form all the time, just like planets do.
A nice video that puts the earth 'place' somewhat (certainly not entirely) into proportion is it's relative size wrt other 'bodies' in the universe.


To find some common ground:
Galileo the guy that proposed the earth goes around the sun iso vice versa,, and who was imprisoned for that proposal by the religious leader
Galileo said it best:
"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
Click to expand...

Risking loosing that just gained common ground again, i only agree with the second part of that comment ;)
 
Last edited:
I find myself in an awkward position now - raised a Methodist since I can remember and going to a Catholic High School that had more RE lessons than physics, but having always been interested in science. Alas, I didn't turn into a scientist, but the more I discovered the more I questioned the faith.

"The Bible's full of contradictions"
"How do Adam and Eve fit into evolution"

While doubting, I never lost faith and still continued praying most nights for others (and myself if I'm honest). The turning point was probably a few years ago, realising just how much trouble is routed in religion in some way and the extent of believers hypocrisy. Documentaries explaining reasons for certain Christian doctrines and scientific theories on religious events contributed too. In the end I was left with more questions and the only recurring theme from religion was one of overriding stubborness:

My sister: "That film's so wrong, she was just a prostitute"
Me: "Actually she wasn't"
My sister: "Of course she is, you don't read the Bible anyway"
Me: "Show me where in the Bible it is even mentioned. In fact this was a lie purportrated by...."
My sister: "Whatever you don't believe in God"

For the record, I thought that film was drivel and no, she's no Bible basher but one of "those Christians"; has the Crucifix and believes in God but rarely goes to church.

Anyway, I'm posting here because of something interesting I read in the Daily Mail (I know). A book is going to be published by the same people that brought us The Da Vinci Code after having already been a bestseller in Ireland. It's by a woman who claims she can see angels.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/spectrum/On-a-wing-and-a.4207179.jp

That's a different interview, but it's pretty much the gist of it. I know what you're thinking, and I'm not ready to announce I'm a believer but I was genuinely interested by the story. Her views on religion mirror that of Dogma and it's driven me to explore my beliefs from a different angle (aptly said in the Einstein quote at the end), and I reckon no harm can come from that. I like to think of it as being similar to a muse, case in point being that article. Right on the next page in the paper was a feature on "real gifts" for Christmas, those being charitable donations. One was for a Barnados Christmas scheme for child carers, and as soon as I saw it I was compelled to give one as a gift. I know I wouldn't have done so if it weren't for the angel article, and I'm still too cynical to even contemplate it was "God's plan to make me", but I find it a nice starting point for an understanding of spiritual belief. Note this doesn't change my views on the Bible (I can't comment on others since I have no knowledge of them), as I believe it impossible to take an literal understanding of all the Books included.

As for religion and science? I find this quote I read recently fits nicely:

"The reasoning faculty can deal with no facts until they are cognized by it"

And that works both ways :sly:
 
Thanks for sharing that with us KSaiyu, i'm wondering what movie you are talking about ;)

Wrt Lorna Byrne (i think the one that can see angels), a quote from the article you link to is:
LORNA Byrne says four angels are beside us as we talk. Sometimes they sit on the edge of the table. There are some on the other side too, with pen and paper in their hands, just like me
Click to expand...

That always leaves me wondering, angels sitting on the end of a table? angels can physically interact with tables?, if i had some scales underneath the legs of the table, would i see the scales indicate there is more weight on the table if an angel sits on it?
Why does an angel need to sit anyway?, do they have weight, can they become tired?

'Holding pen and paper', what kind of pen and paper is that? can i see the pens and paper, or is that some invisible paper... can angel pens run out of ink, can the paper get wet?

Why do people always see 'things' related to their particular religion? i.e., why don't hindu's see jesus, and don't christians see shiva etc...

It all sounds so obviously between the ears to me.
Their experiences may very well seem real to them, but i don't think they are real beyond their perception.

Didn't some guy also publish a book about him being in hell for half an hour?

Well, thanks for sharing your story, you seem to have a healthy amount of skepticism while retaining an open mind..

And i should stop posting in this thread for a bit :cheers:
 

Similar threads

R
  • Question
Question about counter-steering wheel assist
Replies
6
Views
2K
RNGRxGORO
R
papumania174
Are there any cars from a previous GT game that you would like to see in GT7, but will probably not make it into the game?
Replies
8
Views
789
MMX
MMX
mef
  • Poll
Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
sdi_03
"More you play, More you learn" The true meaning.
2 3
Replies
88
Views
7K
Famine
Famine
GranTurNismo
Do You Agree With This Statement (GAME)
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
HenrySwanson
HenrySwanson

Latest Posts

Back