Do you believe in God?

[Teflonicus]

Please don't. I know you mean well but look at this logically. The people who agree with you don't need to see it over and over, and the people who disagree with you are never going to watch the video anyway. We don't need to see it a dozen times.

The point of such a video, and such a catalogue of biblical errancy, is to put the issue beyond doubt. It saves time, space, and effort in that it's a quick way to remind others of the basics of the issue--which people are prone to forget.

If someone disagrees with it, before they begin to prattle on about "the word of god," they are obliged to look at the video and deal with the points raised therein. If they refuse, they can be pointed back to the video.

Let's face it: basic reminders are a constant requirement of this argument. How many times has a theist pointed to "holes in the theory of evolution" without the slightest knowledge about the current (and previous) state of evolutionary science.

Personally, I have no problem with videos like this whatsoever. If everyone agreed that the bible contains inconsistencies, you may have a point. They don't though, and so the issue is still relevant.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm aware of the point of the video. My point, already acknowledged by the person posting it, is that it doesn't need to be posted repeatedly in this discussion. At the most, anyone wishing to repeat the message of the video can link back to one of the other numerous times it was posted. We all know that those holding the opposite viewpoint are unlikely to bother watching it anyway, so its repetition is moot.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I say, let'em post. I find the video very funny. As previously stated many times in this thread I do believe in God, I am a christian and I come to realize, through videos as this one, that there are two kinds of people addressing the Bible in the most literal sense:

a) militant atheists that do bother to make these videos;

b) orthodox jews and maybe some protestant christian churches from the USA (not really sure on this one, but the lunatics that had something against Steve Jobs must belong to this sort of christians)

In a way, it's like "charity" and "love", both words used in different translations of the Bible to convey the meaning of the old greek (I think) word "agape". I didn't watch the movie to the end, but maybe we have Ken replying LOVE and Craig replying CHARITY. And you know what? They're both right, I'll grant 10 points each

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I just wanted SCJ to acknowledge the contradictions that he seemed oblivious too, sorry that I posted it four times.

a) militant atheists that do bother to make these videos

I wouldn't go so far as to call the video creator a militant atheist though (at least this video creator, some are of course). In his videos all he really does is point out things that Christians (some not all) people do and are known to do in a comical sort of way.

 

[Teflonicus]

I'm aware of the point of the video. My point, already acknowledged by the person posting it, is that it doesn't need to be posted repeatedly in this discussion. At the most, anyone wishing to repeat the message of the video can link back to one of the other numerous times it was posted. We all know that those holding the opposite viewpoint are unlikely to bother watching it anyway, so its repetition is moot.

Neither you, nor I, can predict what those holding the opposite viewpoint are going to do. When, time and time again though, they continue to post that "the bible is the inerrant word of god," why not answer the same question the same way? Even a link to a previous posting of the video takes up a post.

More to the point, this form of behaviour is not proscribed by the AUP or its explanatory FAQ which leads to the conclusion that your complaint is merely one of style--not one of rule-breaking.

Personally, I hadn't seen that video for a long while, and I was glad to see it. It saved me a whole lot of time rehashing old arguments about the inerrancy of the bible.

 

[Scaff]

More to the point, this form of behaviour is not proscribed by the AUP or its explanatory FAQ which leads to the conclusion that your complaint is merely one of style--not one of rule-breaking.

While not specifically prohibited by the AUP, excessive repeat posting of the same thing (particularly if across multiple threads) would see the staff take action.

'Flooding' as it generally known is not a good posting technique, and a link back to the original video is a better idea that simply re-posting the video over and over.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Don't worry guys I won't post it again. If it does come up in discussion, however, I'll just post the /watch part.

 

[ProjectVRD]

Not being able to watch said video, can somebody please advise if it contains references to the God Paradox?

 

[Teflonicus]

While not specifically prohibited by the AUP, excessive repeat posting of the same thing (particularly if across multiple threads) would see the staff take action.

'Flooding' as it generally known is not a good posting technique, and a link back to the original video is a better idea that simply re-posting the video over and over.

And if there has been no accusation of that, why are you raising the matter?

 

[Scaff]

And if there has been no accusation of that, why are you raising the matter?

I'm clarifying the situation to ensure that everyone is clear about it, as my role as a moderator requires.

The staff don't need an accusation to comment on or carry out moderation activity.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Not being able to watch said video, can somebody please advise if it contains references to the God Paradox?

The what?

 

[Teflonicus]

Not being able to watch said video, can somebody please advise if it contains references to the God Paradox?

Is this is what's also known as the "omnipotence paradox" where a supreme being has to be able to create a challenge which it then cannot complete? If so, I don't recall it being mentioned.

The video is of a quiz show where the moderator asks two contestants questions about the bible. Things like: "Did the temple curtain rip before or after Jesus died?" Followed by one of the contestants answering, "Yes," and the moderator announcing "correct, it was both".

Along the bottom of the screen, the biblical passages which justify both/all contradictory answers appear.

 

[Teflonicus]

I'm clarifying the situation to ensure that everyone is clear about it, as my role as a moderator requires.

The staff don't need an accusation to comment on or carry out moderation activity.

Oh, OK: You're clarifying generally. That's fine. I didn't realise that you were a moderator (I use my phone and don't take the time to zoom in) and I thought you were just another person citing a far-fetched reason to pass off your disliking of someone's style as a contravention of the AUP.

 

[XoravaX]

It gets worse...


... this geocentric view of space is hopelessly out of step with reality as we now understand it. 2000 years ago it wasn't, and it was perhaps a fair assumption to make that the Sun, moon and stars were 'placed' around the Earth for our benefit. But, the very concept of what daytime and nighttime actually are (i.e. the result of the Earth's rotation) and the fact that these words have no meaning elsewhere (e.g. in space) is something that was clearly not anticipated by the authors of the Bible. They cannot be blamed for that - and the Bible is not a science textbook, after all - but it does mean that the Bible contains woefully inadequate descriptions of some pretty basic stuff, and as such, it cannot be used as if it is an accurate descriptor of the Cosmos.

Well, actually if one would create a three-dimensional coordinate system in whose centre is Earth...

Eg. in physics we can consider Earth stationary while just everything other moves. That way it is also easier to count several things (in relation to Earth), contrary to choosing an imaginary point in the space, as that way nothing would be stationary and we couldn't even find such a point after it is designated.

If we view the universe in relation to Earth, it is geocentric. That, or the view of it in relation to Sun (or the centre of the Milky Way) is the easiest way, as defining "the centre of the universe" is pretty difficult.

--

I completely agree with you. Also, some extreme Catholics take the Bible literally, as well as the fundamentalist Protestants you mentioned.

I believe that my maxim is bigger and fires anti tank rounds. It's also spelled GAU-8.

That is no Maxim. A little common knowledge wouldn't harm you.

 

[Scaff]

Well, actually if one would create a three-dimensional coordinate system in whose centre is Earth...

Eg. in physics we can consider Earth stationary while just everything other moves. That way it is also easier to count several things (in relation to Earth), contrary to choosing an imaginary point in the space, as that way nothing would be stationary and we couldn't even find such a point after it is designated.

If we view the universe in relation to Earth, it is geocentric. That, or the view of it in relation to Sun (or the centre of the Milky Way) is the easiest way, as defining "the centre of the universe" is pretty difficult.

Biblical geocentricity considers everything to be revolving around the earth.

The moons orbiting the other planets in our own solar system cause issue with this, as Galileo discovered during his own life (given that he discovered three of Jupiters moons orbiting it and not Earth):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism

 

[Exorcet]

Well, actually if one would create a three-dimensional coordinate system in whose centre is Earth...

The Bible doesn't mention coordinate systems. It says that "light" is distinct from stars, and the light of the sun and moon are from different sources.

That is no Maxim. A little common knowledge wouldn't harm you.

A bit of sarcasm and silliness, which is also why I pointed out that my maxim was spelled GAU-8. Though, the anti tank rounds still make my post more correct (more sarcasm).

 

[Gt5anticip8r]

Personally, I don't believe in God.

It's been quite a while now, and he still hasn't materialised despite repeated calls from devotees.

Kind of reminds me of The Aviator:

" ...we would like him to reappear. Would you ask him to return?"
"No, I don't think I will."
"Will you try to make him return?"
"No, I don't think I'll try."
"You don't think you'll try?
"No, I don't think so."*

Also if God does exist (highly unlikely), would you be truely happy knowing that the struggles you face in everyday life, the hardships, loss and misery are all one big "test"? How can anyone get along happy in the knowledge that their entire life is little more than a practical joke to the powers that be?

*May not be a perfect dialogue

 

[Teflonicus]

Personally, I don't believe in God.

It's been quite a while now, and he still hasn't materialised despite repeated calls from devotees.

Kind of reminds me of The Aviator:

" ...we would like him to reappear. Would you ask him to return?"
"No, I don't think I will."
"Will you try to make him return?"
"No, I don't think I'll try."
"You don't think you'll try?
"No, I don't think so."*

Also if God does exist (highly unlikely), would you be truely happy knowing that the struggles you face in everyday life, the hardships, loss and misery are all one big "test"? How can anyone get along happy in the knowledge that their entire life is little more than a practical joke to the powers that be?

*May not be a perfect dialogue

We could be living in a computer-simulated reality which does not require the presence of a god at all. In fact, if "reality" turned out to be simulated, the source of the simulation wouldn't be a god as a proper god would not need to simulate anything.

Anyway, the point about a god putting us through hardships becomes much starker when one considers leukaemia-suffering children, born into a short life of agony. What kind of all-powerful being would allow that? What kind of god would allow children to die on the scale that they do in various parts of Africa? Is child illness, starvation and dehydration also a test? -For who is it a test exactly?

(I'm not criticising your point. I'm merely trying to expand upon it.)

 

[Liquid]

In before "God moves/works in mysterious ways", which is just such a cop out.

 

[Hun200kmh]

God works in mysterious ways

 

[XoravaX]

In before "God moves/works in mysterious ways", which is just such a cop out.

Oh, you're over 400 pages late.

Biblical geocentricity considers everything to be revolving around the earth.

The moons orbiting the other planets in our own solar system cause issue with this, as Galileo discovered during his own life (given that he discovered three of Jupiters moons orbiting it and not Earth).

Ah, but should we view them in relation to Earth we would see that they revolve around a planet that revolves around Sun that revolves around Earth. If drawn on a paper this creates somewhat a complicated trace, but everything revolves around Earth (that doesn't move directly away from the Earth), if we view it in relation to Earth.

Similar to how Moon revolves around Sun:

A bit of sarcasm and silliness, which is also why I pointed out that my maxim was spelled GAU-8. Though, the anti tank rounds still make my post more correct (more sarcasm).

I think Bertha weighs my post's correctness better - while its barrel might not be the length of a Volkswagen Beetle, its rounds weigh over half a tonne.

 

[Teflonicus]

Ah, but should we view them in relation to Earth we would see that they revolve around a planet that revolves around Sun that revolves around Earth. If drawn on a paper this creates somewhat a complicated trace, but everything revolves around Earth (that doesn't move directly away from the Earth), if we view it in relation to Earth.

Are you suggesting that the geocentricity of biblical times was a natural error of the state of science then or are you saying geocentricity holds some truth now?

I don't mean to be antagonistic at all; it's just that I've read back a few posts of yours and can't work out why you are disagreeing with heliocentriciry (within the solar system) ... if you are.

 

[Spree]

Go science! No one can create humans. We came from chimps, Which came from something else, which came from something else, and so on.
And if someone created humans, wouldn't that be considered witchcraft or sorcery, which is bad, or whatever. Truthfully religion is to confusing and I like to have actual facts to prove stuff.
Just an opinion.

 

[Famine]

We came from chimps

Nope.

Both chimps and us came from a common chimp-us ancestor.

 

[XoravaX]

Are you suggesting that the geocentricity of biblical times was a natural error of the state of science then or are you saying geocentricity holds some truth now?

I don't mean to be antagonistic at all; it's just that I've read back a few posts of yours and can't work out why you are disagreeing with heliocentriciry (within the solar system) ... if you are.

I am not disagreeing with heliocentricity - I am just pointing out that while the solar system is heliocentric it is also (somewhat) geocentric as the planets and Sun also revolve around any object in the solar system, depending on what we view as the stationary object there (it can be virtually anything since no-one can define what is stationary in space - the one with the greatest mass is often chosen though.).

 

[Famine]

That rather seems to fundamentally misunderstand gravitation.

All objects - and systems are also objects - revolve not around the next biggest thing, but around a gravitational fulcrum (barycentre) that results from their relative masses and distances.

The Moon doesn't revolve around the Earth. The Moon and Earth revolve around a common centre - though because of the relative masses, the common centre is within the Earth and this results in the Moon having a big, sweeping, 200,000 mile orbit around the common centre while the Earth just wobbles a bit.

The Earth/Moon system doesn't revolve around the Sun. The Sun and Earth/Moon system revolve around a common centre - though because of the relative masses, the common centre is within the Sun and this results in the Earth/Moon system having a big, sweeping, 93.5 million mile orbit around the common centre while the Sun just wobbles a bit.

This distinction can be clearly seen within our Solar System, if you go far enough out. Recently demoted dwarf planet Pluto has "a moon" that is a significant proportion of Pluto's size and mass - Charon. The common centre of the two bodies is not within either of them, so Charon cannot be said to orbit Pluto - both orbit around a common point that's about 1,000 miles above the surface of Pluto.

This also applies at smaller scales (artificial satellites and asteroids) and larger ones (the Solar System and Sagittarius A).

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Correct.

As has already been pointed out, you've got the age of the universe wrong. Massively.

While it may not matter what you believe the age of the universe to be, it does matter if you make wildly inaccurate statements as if they are facts.

At the very least, you ought to realise that what you believe and what is actually true might be two different things. If you really believe the universe is a mere few thousand years old, then you have an excellent example right there. If you believe this because that's what you've been told, then that is unfortunate - but it's not something that cannot be rectified. But, if you continue to believe this despite a full consideration of the evidence, then you've got a serious problem. Being in error because you've been misled is unfortunate, but being in error through wilful ignorance is not worthy of sympathy or respect. Of course, I trust (and hope) that you are of the former variety, and as such I hope that you are atleast willing to consider the possibility that you are in error on this matter.

First, "age" of the universe, and, life as we know it, are two different entities, in my estimation.

Likewise since science is basically a process of trial and error, your assumptions based on current evidence, with regaurd to age of the universe, could be overturned tomorrow, so they are suspect as well.
You, nor science, nor anyone else, has a conclusive evidential lock on origins of the universe, or life as we know it, so you can keep your self determined comments of "willful ignorance", "sympathy and respect" to yourself.
Educated to some extent, it's still a guessing game and you know it.

Now, I am not completely opposed to the possibility of your universe accessment, since there is evidence for it.
However, there are too many unknowns, and details left out of the Biblical account,
to accurately determine exactly, how, who, what, where, and when.

I am of the the current opinion, that it is possible there is a distinction not being made between, the Biblical account of the Earth as we know it now, or current arrangement, and raw material that could have been present and used in the process to create the current arrangement.

Ultimately , I know God is who he said he is, and there is a way to consistently reconcile his account with whatever real evidence is present.

There is a on going controversy, currently concerning this, surrounding Hugh Ross, a Astrophysicist who is a Christian.
While I do not agree with all his views, his likewise insistence on the age of the universe, is something to consider.
http://www.google.com/search?source...pw.r_qf.&fp=58cd1a128b75a554&biw=1344&bih=733
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/

 

[niky]

your assumptions based on current evidence, with regaurd to age of the universe, could be overturned tomorrow, so they are suspect as well.

Look... we all know Grandpa lied about his age when getting his driver's license just so he could buy beer for the boys, but there's no way evidence is coming out tomorrow that he's really just six years old.

 

[TJC_69]

SuperCobraJet facepalms the thread once more .....

From his link ->

When Did Man Appear?
Six thousand to 60,000 years ago.....

 

[Teflonicus]

I am not disagreeing with heliocentricity - I am just pointing out that while the solar system is heliocentric it is also (somewhat) geocentric as the planets and Sun also revolve around any object in the solar system, depending on what we view as the stationary object there (it can be virtually anything since no-one can define what is stationary in space - the one with the greatest mass is often chosen though.).

Famine has already put forward any scientific difference I had with you here, but what exactly is your point in relation to this thread? Are you defending one of the biblical cosmologies over Gallileo or modern astronomy?