Printable View
One last thing though.
Just the existance of such fossils, and the age of them, would help to show if nothing else, that the current believed age of this world is incorrect according to the bible.
I skimmed through the article on AiG, but it looks like the only thing they dispute is that this fish exists due to evolution, not the actual time period that it lived in?
Imitator:
It's true on one hand that they're fallible men, but on the other hand if it's God's word then he would exert control over it's being written and make sure it came out right.Quote:
Also, one problem I always had with the gospel's.
They were written after the fact.
You yourself said that Luke interviewed many people to write his gospel. How on earth do they know that what they quote Jesus and others as saying, is the EXACT words that he used, if its written after the fact? That leaves a margin of error in his words, and no reliable means at the time to make sure what they were attributing to him, was actually what he said.
You have to understand that back then people have much better memories then we do now. They trained themselves to memories long genialogies and stoies and such. There must have also been at least some scribes who wrote it down, and not to mention thousands upon thousands of people who heard him speak.
If 7 thousand people stood in front of the twin towers and specifically saw bombs going off inside both buildings wouldn't that be credible? He preached out in the open. He performed miracles out in the open, where everyone could see him. He spoke and taught in the temple, and I think most likely his words were taken down by scribes more than once. He preached throughout the whole land of Israel. And after the gospels were finished, many of the people who were alive with Jesus were alive also, and not to mention their children. That's what people don't think of. They think it's only a few people who wrote all this. But they only recorded his sayings from numerous testimonies. And in the end, if we look at his word, we find it to be consistant and not with any sign of fabrication.
Why do you doubt everything so much? It's not reasonable, and there's more reason to believe and confirm it was consistantly well recorded than there is any error would be in it. There is thousands and thousands of witnesses to his words and acts. And no doubt, these gospels were circulated and read throughout the churches as well, making it hard to teach error because of those living who had witnesses Jesus with there own eyes, this very thing also would help to cross anylize the word for any mistakes if the authors of the gospels hadn't gotten it right the first time.Quote:
Im not saying that Jesus didnt say things similar, with the same meaning, but a revisionists history is always much more interesting then the actual thing. There is too much of a chance for bias in the writings, and too much of a chance of error in its quotation of others.
The gospel was most definitely more widely circulated by mouth than by writing, at least in the beginning for sure. This wide circulation made it possible for errors to be corrected.
Just look at the history of scripture manuscripts! Over hundreds and hundreds of years, and of all the manuscripts we have they almost all match up exactly, only having certain spelling errors for the most part. Hows that for a testimony to man's ability to transcribe events.Quote:
Not to mention, man is imperfect, so to expect man to be able to transcribe past events, perfectly, in a book, is hard to believe. There are bound to be errors, but how can you have errors in a book of God?
I'm sorry, but that is obviously beyond my point. Sounds to me like you didn't know what to reply with. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you're going to reply, make sure to construct it to be arguable against my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
They are indeed well-circulated. Do I really believe that people back then saw ufo's? I don't know, it's possible... just like people see ufo's nowadays. However, if we go any further into this another discussion on the concept of extraterrestial life would start, so I won't go into that. Somebody could have, of course, made it all up to try and disprove of religion. Then again, maybe not.Quote:
I'll have to look into that. I would think knowledge of drawings like that would be well circulated. You seem to say It's something you really believe in so I thought maybe you could find me a few examples.
And for that reason that you agree with, I believe you are indeed following a religion that currently has no purpose but to control. To me, it's all a system of control.Quote:
That's true.
Then again, everyone has a definition of their own. My definition of a sheep is, in fact, someone who is closed minded and ignorant, and doesn't think for themselves. Are you a sheep? Maybe not. Am I a wolf? I don't know. You make some contradictions here, so I'm a bit confused as to what to say about that.Quote:
I wish you understood the hypocricy when people say that sheep are close minded and igorant, or when they say they don't think for themselves. If I didn't think for myself, I would go along the same wide path that the world takes, but instead I use discernment and swim against the flow. And many people want to be and "special" and "unique", but they don't understand that everything they have is a gift from God. They in fact conform to unconformaty, but I think it's really only rebellion and selfishness.
If people don't care whether it's correct or not, then they're wasting their time. One can know it's unknowable, at least in our present state of science. Our science, and your bible, have no way of disproving, or proving, that your faith exists. Thus, at this time it is indeed unknowable, and I know it.Quote:
I think that a lot of people don't really care whether it's correct or not honestly. Or at least not that much. And a lot of people convinced that there is no Truth only personal truth (which is a contradiction) or a few people like Imitator who think it's close to being or is unsearchable or unknowable. It's interesting how one can assert to know it's unknowable.
Exactly my point, if you can find the right religion, and if there is a right religion. And by no means does that mean that christianity is the end-all, be-all. However, every Christian would say so, just like every muslim would say Islam is.Quote:
Why are you doomed to hell? If there's the right religion, then you can find it.
The only thing I can think of that has any truth to what you say about the right religion being found, is about one finding the right religion for them. It's an individual preference. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find? You just agreed with one of my biggest points. Yes, there are big differences with the religions, and yet at the same time they are all alike.Quote:
You don't have to believe in every religion, it's not unsearchable. So few have truly tried with honestly . And I know people will disagree with mwe on that. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.
Like I said, I don't believe in God, but I don't rule out the possibility. And as I see it, if God does exist, I would not respect him. And yes, I would rather go to hell than to follow what the bible says. Even though the bible has been edited and revised many times to justify certain causes. To explain what the bible is in one word, it would be "propaganda." And in fact, it fits the definition of propaganda perfectly.
Some people use religion to find meaning in their life. Some people believe in God because they're afraid of the afterlife. Some people go to religion because they feel helpless and afraid in life (fight or flight. religion would be flight, in this case).
Some people use religion to help stay sober from addictive drugs.
Some people abide by religion because they grew up in a religious family.
Some people use religion as control, and to justify otherwise unjustifiable things.
From what I've seen in my life, these are some of the most common reasons why people believe in some sort of God.
Sorry to break it to you, but there is NO RIGHT RELIGION. EVERY religion is FALSE. Religion is Satan @ his best!
What happened natureisawesome? Can't come up with ONE scripture to back up your point? That's what I thought.
You would have to re-write the word of God for it to say what you preach!
You are the typical religious dude who doesn't know Jesus.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
Jesus is LORD!
Imitator:
I have my concordance right here with me, and here is the meaning of the word used for weeks:Quote:
Imitator:Quote:
Quote:
Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.
So wait, it sometimes is translated into weeks, but just for this excercise we know that he meant seven years? How do we know, excluding the fact that it fits your excercise here, that he didnt mean weeks? Especially if what he said could be interpretted as weeks?
shabuwa
- lit. sevened, i.e. a week (spec. of years): seven, week.
from online concordance:
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week
a) period of seven days, a week
1) Feast of Weeks
b) heptad, seven (of years)
So for starters, it meaning seven years cannot be ruled out. It would mean a day for a year, that is seven years. There are other examples in scripture of the day for a year rule:
In both of these examples it was meant to be reminder of the rebellion of the Hebrews. In Daniels time, God had appointed 70 years for them to be held in captivity in Babylon. THis was foretold and prophesied by Jeremiah:Quote:
Ezekiel 4:6
6And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
numbers 14:34
34After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
11And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
Quote:
Jeremiah 25
12And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.
13And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations.
Now in response to this prayer God sent him the response of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. Now the 70 weeks begins "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dn 9:25) to the coming of "the Anointed One , the ruler, comes, and is then "cut off" (Dn 9:26). Now the word sevens could mean a regular week, but not in this context, and not comparing the other examples of prophecy that have been shown above. The decree to rebuild the temple was issued right about 445 BC, and took several years to finish. There is no mention of any claimed annointed one right around this period, as it would have been only 483 days until he would be killed! This doesn't fit the context at all and from comparing to the other prophecies shown it fits the context of the prophecy given to Daniel that it would mean a group of seven years, or a year for a day. You must also keep in mind these verses:Quote:
Daniel 9
1In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
2In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
3And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:
That's a pretty specific prophecy that was also fulfilled in Christ. In fact, the fact that Christ fulfilled all of his prophecies just as it was foretold over 600 years earlier is iin itself be proof enough. It took them years to buiild the temple, and after the end when the messiah was to be cut off the temple and city were to be destroyed. This never happened in 446 b.c. but it was fulfilled exactly in the time of Christ.Quote:
Daniel 9
26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
To deny that the universe had a definite start is to deny the second law. It's interesting how you can say we know so little but you're so sure there was never a beginning.Quote:
Imitator:Quote:
Quote:
For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.
You took a shred of truth there, and spread it into something entirely different.
Buddhism says that its foolish to look at things as having a definite start, and a definite end. Such things are human creations to help deal with the first Noble Truth, Pain. Doing so, will only cause more pain, and will prevent you from ever reaching nirvana.
I know that evolution and buddhism go hand in hand, and tha't probably one of the greatest reasons so many westerners are embracing this religon. There is believed to be a parallel in the antithesis between Darwin's theory of the evils of evolution and Buddha's doctrine of the evolution of evils. The former is due to the great struggle for existence and the latter, to the will to live (tanha). which gives rise to the struggle for existence.Quote:
Secondly, what Buddhism says makes perfect sense, because alot of what they speak of works on the scientific level.
Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. Nothing exists 'from its own side' or by reference to its own essence. So yes, it does deny reality. It's hard for a religion that teaches total impermanence to fit with science's foundational axiom which is that the natural laws remain true, and that the material world exists.
It's waiting? Life doesn't come out of nowhere but the proper conditions do, it seems like what you're saying.Quote:
Everything in life is waiting for the proper conditions to support its current manifestation. It doesnt completely poof out of no where, pretty much everything needed for it to manifest is there, its waiting for proper conditions.
That's in this universe. The second law holds true in this universe, because the natural law is in this universe. Outside of this universe things would be different. You know I already addressed this a long time ago!Quote:
Imitator:Quote:
Quote:
3. All events require that something caused them.
What caused the creation of God? If all events require that something caused them, then what caused the initial existance and creation of God?
If God can "just exist" and "just is", then doesnt that explicitly discredit that third rule? The key word for making it so its a problem, is of course "all", which implies everything, no exceptions.
Quote:
Quote:
Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not.
I never contradicted myself at all. You were arguing for a possibility as a fact when you had no evidence. It's not that possiblities don't exist, the evidence we have clearly supports that, it's that some things arn't possible, and possibilities aren't given, so you must go with the evidence always in determining your assumptions.Quote:
So wait, you state right here with this statement that some things we dont know, but that it doesnt mean that the answers dont exist, or that what we dont know doesnt exist? Isnt that what I was saying in regards to the Dreamer theory? That we dont know, but that doesnt mean its not true? And what did you say to argue against that? Odd...
Hard to prove but not impossible.Quote:
Exactly. Thats the beauty of it, in so many ways.Quote:
Quote:
Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove.
Remember I told you that it all depends upon human logic and reasoning. It's all we have. Once you establish anything , for instance your mind, then you can logically follow that the same mind you use as valid in one instance, can be applied for another similar purpose recognising the existance of the outside world as valid also.Quote:
And throughout the time you mention the option of this, you seem to immediately discredit it just from a dislike of your own. You claim its unrealistic, but in that case, what is realistic? Do you have definitive proof of what is realistic? Or just an assumption that you choose to believe in because its easier then the alternatives?
Not applying to anything a biiiig step from not applying to everything. Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.Quote:
Jumping back again to this, and I apologize for the jumping.Quote:
Quote:
1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.
Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.
Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.
Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.
The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.
If God exists while being exempt from the third rule, then we can assume that the third rule doesnt apply to everything, which means in essence it could apply to nothing. Not that it is applying to nothing, but that its possible if it doesnt apply to everything, that it could apply to nothing.
myself:
As if I was unaware of this!Quote:
If this is a book, it's all wrong (sorry if this is your own post that you wrote)
First let me start off by re-introducing the first Law of thermodynamics.
Energy can not be created or destroyed
No that's not what it means. You must not have been paying attention to my original post. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by the universe.Quote:
That means energy has always been here, and always will be. The energy just didn't pop out of nowhere and is now here. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, and will always be seeing as you can not destroy it. Therefor, the universe can not end, nor can it be destroyed.
Our universe is nothing but pure energy, down to every single atom and quark.
The second law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is running down. Because it's degrading towards an end it thus neccecitates a beginning. The energy available to do work is decresing as time goes on, and since the total energy to do work can't exceed the total amount available you can only extrapolate as far back back in time as the point where they were equal and this would be the beginning , the point where they are equal.
So something had to start motion in the first place. Because complexity is decreasing with time, it must have started higher to begin with.
If low entropy systems like life can never be created by the universe but we know both things exist, then something besides our universe must be responsible.
Matter and energy are interchangable.If the energy for motion must have come from the supernatural then the energy for matter must have too. That is, the original provider of all energy.
So you're wrong. There's more to it than the first law.
Time for a serious break.
Ok, I am going to say this one more time, with nothing else in the post but it, so that you can get this.Quote:
I never contradicted myself at all. You were arguing for a possibility as a fact when you had no evidence.
I, Imitator, have not once stated anything to be a fact. I have not insinuated anything to be a fact. I have not hinted at anything being a fact.
When I mention something from a specific source, I am merely quoting it for the point. It doesnt mean I believe in it, or that I hold it to be true at all, its merely a point to be brought up in a discussion to see what you have to say in response to it.
I have not, nor will I ever willingly state anything as a fact. Please, for the last time natureisawesome, stop stating that I have said something to be a fact, or have hinted at it being a fact, or anything that involves me, facts, and the stating of said facts.
If one thing can be exempt, why cant others? Who is to say that we ourselves are entirely a part of just this universe? Why cant we be like God, able to exist upon multiple universes, sort of like the principles behind String Theory?Quote:
Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.