This should be a cool discussion. I don't think either a creationist or an evolutionist can prove their side to be right, considering that it all comes down to: there was nothing and then there was something. Either some being always existed and decided to make everything, or nothing just was like "hey, I'm tired of being nothing. Ima be something!", and started to evolve itself. Both ideas are crazy if you think about it.
You can squander all day on how we resemble apes, or how you found a piece of Noah's Ark in your back yard. But still there remains the ever-present question: how did nothing become something?
Well, it has Been scientifically proven that things can't spontaneously exist. It'd be cool, like "Hey! I want a hot dog" and a sweating poodle would appear. I can't find a link, but I watched a video on it in 7th grade science class. In my opinion, I think there was always something, perhaps able to fit into a thimble, that just was like "BOOM" and expanded really quickly, causing the Big Bang. This is my opinion. I also think that there is more scientific evidence to prove god DOESN'T exist than to prove he does. Don't go -1ing me for this, but in my eyes god-worshippers of all religions are just worshipping the unproved belief that god is out there, and in arguments only say "God created blabedy blah blah!" And then the scientist says "Actually, blah blah ah blah created blabedy blah blah." And there is no scientific evidence to prove that heaven or hell do exist. Someone answer me this: if you think heaven is real, where is it?
the bible never says things just popped into existence. Just because someone creates something doesn't mean something wasn't there to begin with.
Also, if you think atoms exist, where are they? Maybe we don't have the technology to see God yet. Because if you had talked about atoms in the Middle Ages, you probably would have been hanged
Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 12:57:33 PM by Birdbrain
The Hebrew/Jewish writings that are included in the bible are fiercely conservative and repeatedly warn against following other religions and schools of thought, often on pain of death. Of course over a 3000 year oral and written history the rhetoric (and i would add some of the values) change from ancient world Judaism to Roman era Christianity even if the messages remain fairly consistent. Ancient Hebrews (and by translation modern Christians) had to filter their understanding of God through the same lens as Leonidas, Hammurabi, Julius Caesar, and Seti. All these cultures (and again through them, us Christians too) borrowed stories, government, RELIGION, science and philosophy from each other. Thus, I feel that it's likely that God probably sent some inspiration to others and that includes those who came after: Galileo, Newton, Muhammad and Darwin and maybe even Tim across the street 😀. I DO believe the Bible is inspired by God (it would be hypocritical of me not to if I claim to be a Christian) but I also believe that based on scripture God intended us to consistently, rationally and wisely consider and apply his messages. The ancient people did it and...
here's the catch to this whole tirade:
they did it imperfectly. Some of the Bible is innacurate. It even occasionally contradicts itself with regards to numbers and genealogies. It contains a great deal of humanness. And that's okay. In fact, paradoxically, that convicts me of the Bible's perfection. Had God fed us truth through a towering black monolith it might have been more accurate and more direct (and it might have broken us or turned us into space fetuses) but wouldn't be nearly as useful or accessible or educational as the wondrously frustrating, sometimes contradictory, occasionally demanding, often poorly translated bible.
And now as I step off my soapbox I want to add that while I feel science is better at answering "what", the bible is best for answering "why".
I'm done. Sort of... See if you can track down a copy of Enuma Elish. Abraham was Mesopotamian and if the Hebrew tradition originates with him then it's likely Genesis originates from a much older tradition of stories. Genesis and Enuma Elish are the finest origins of species written prior to Darwin and I feel they still stand right along side his book.
Pardon my verbosity but this line of thought is clearly my passion!
For the people who believe god created man. He could have made man THROUGH evolution. Just sayin...
Doesn't that stand to contradict the book of genesis however? I mean, god literally created man. He didn't create a distant ancestor that man evolved from. I'm sorry to rain on the faiths here.
Only atheists take Bible literally Catholics certainly don't.
When does one decide which parts are true, and which are false? I mean, if its one big fantasy novel - then it's kinda preachy and written rather poorly - right? God kind of explicitly states the bible is true, and his word, and everything in it must be adhered to.
Did He really? I think it is putting words in His mouth. I would feel offended, just a little*
* however, according to some theories, He is .loving. bigger than B.F.M. so according to scale, I hope you live through the next thunderstorm, mate.
The Book of Deuteronomy is gods law, in addition to the 10 commandments. That was god speaking to Moses using the logic of the bible. It's utterly preposterous to believe these things by today's standards - but they were nonetheless true of ritualistic, tribalistic, superstitious people of the Iron Age.
If we're to believe the bible is the word of god, then clearly the lessons it has to teach us should be as true today. Surely the omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent, celestial dictator and creator of the cosmos wouldn't have said those things for no reason.
The Amalekites certainly seem to receive the brunt of gods hatred for humanity, funny considering he created them.
On the contrary, it would be wise to give to people temporary law, but more applicable to their development level. Iron Age Man didn't know about logic and quantum physics You don't play the same way with 5 and 10 year old.
So then what good reasons are there to believe the bible, believe in the book of genesis, or even to believe a word of it - given its lapses in even the most simplistic ideas. A creationist is basing the formation of the universe given the literal text of the book of genesis - then throw the rest away? It's a creation myth, those have existed forever. They're invented in the minds of men unable to explain the most simple of ideas.
How about germ theory? Many lives would have been saved from infection and disease given that tasty bit of information. We're not compelled to tell children that evil spirits have invaded their bodies. Since the bible was written by people of the era, it too holds all they knew about the natural world. Divine inspiration must hold deeper, more profound messages then what is written in the bible - anyone can, and did, think those things up.
I believe humans look for meaning in everything and you cannot truly understand any thing without knowing where it started, where it came from, how it got to here and where it's going...
It is enlightenment we all seek and to know the truth of our origins would be to better know and understand ourselves and our place in this un fathomable expanse of void, matter, energy and more!
There is a spiritual side to humans, and thus, must be a spiritual side to the universe.
Our human failings show through as we argue over the details of our religious convictions. Who said what. Where and how. There is only one, there are few, there are many, there are none. All quantitative in nature.
I firmly believe that to truly understand ourselves, we must look inward. Enlightenment will not be found in a book, or a program. it wont be found with a ruler, or a calculator, or a stopwatch. It will be found with heart, spirit, and mind. Only then will we truly understand what we see when we look outward.
What about that "god particle" they found? Do think it is real, or just a useless side effect of hitting two atoms together at high speeds, and doesn't mean anything about the creation of the universe?
What about that "god particle" they found? Do think it is real, or just a useless side effect of hitting two atoms together at high speeds, and doesn't mean anything about the creation of the universe?
It's emerging science. Also, it does not describe the "god" most people recognize, most people have referred to it as a bad label for those reasons.
How about germ theory? Many lives would have been saved from infection and disease given that tasty bit of information. We're not compelled to tell children that evil spirits have invaded their bodies.
Free will, a proper one, requires no interference whatsoever from God. Otherwise it would all be a farce.
How about germ theory? Many lives would have been saved from infection and disease given that tasty bit of information. We're not compelled to tell children that evil spirits have invaded their bodies.
Free will, a proper one, requires no interference whatsoever from God. Otherwise it would all be a farce.
Then what is the purpose of the 10 commandments?
Also, without trying to get into a lengthy conversation - free will does not exist. It's one of the biggest reasons that the bible is nonsense invented by people. The crux of the entire thing makes baseless claims on the existence of free will.
How about germ theory? Many lives would have been saved from infection and disease given that tasty bit of information. We're not compelled to tell children that evil spirits have invaded their bodies.
Free will, a proper one, requires no interference whatsoever from God. Otherwise it would all be a farce.
Then what is the purpose of the 10 commandments?
Also, without trying to get into a lengthy conversation - free will does not exist. It's one of the biggest reasons that the bible is nonsense invented by people. The crux of the entire thing makes baseless claims on the existence of free will.
It's the open agreement from God to Humans, a deal with a promise that if you fulfil it, you will find eternal life in God, etc. etc.
I believe in free will. It is in the quantum uncertainty. It is the cat in poisonous box
Schrodinger's cat? The thing where the cat is in the box with a seal vial of poison that could break open at any time so the cat can be thought of as both dead and alive? Just clarifying.