God ain't real

MayCaesar

Łåśåğñūţ said:

if I started believing in santa, then made a book about him and used it as justification of him being real, it wont be much diffrent than the bible and god

Oh, but it would. Santa is a warm and kind being giving out presents for free and laughing cutely. Quite different from god, that allegedly drowned the entire human population except for one family just to prove some ideological point.

A religion centered at Santa would actually be something I could get behind!

Dee

I agree , an entity that cannot , be seen , heard or touched yet it’s exists???? Come on that’s just silly 

AlofRI

@Łåśåğñūţ I agree with about everything you said, except that nobody can say what created God. I think there is little doubt that human imagination (mixed with fear), created that God, and many others before and after.

As the man said: We are all atheists to an extent, as true atheists we just go one god further. Not a quote, just the jist …… 

Sand

@Łåśåğñūţ

>>>If god was real he would have an impact on how our world is, but he dosent<<<

What evidence do you have that he doesn't have an impact?

You can breathe oxygen, plants recycle it. They also produce the exact thing you need to survive.

The Sun is the exact distance to facilitate life. Your body has the exact organs to clean, build, heal, and provide nutrients to sustain your life. I could go on and on. But I will wait for your question of clarification or rebuttal.

>>>if he made it and controls things why does stuff always happen<<<

It depends on what stuff you are referring to.

>>>people getting sick ........ people always die.<<<

I can tell you do not read the Bible (Injil and Torah).

In an effort to gain more liberty, Man chose to be his own God.

He chose sickness and death, so man can rule man.

In the Bible, God has provided an answer to this problem, but Man has to voluntarily choose the answer like he chose the problem.

>>>God is never there to be the helpful all-powerful being he is said to be<<<

God has provided the answer to mankind's problems.

>>>But scientists made vaccines over time and helped us themselves.<<<

Vaccines help you live forever?

Or is the vaccines a patch that creates an opportunity for you to get sick again and die.

Only for a person just to blame God again, without even considering God's answer.

Consider this illustration.

A father provides a helpful environment for his kids to grow healthy and academically.

All the children decide to leave home and live their own life, even though the father actively opposes them.

Is it the father's fought if they make poor decisions and hurt themselves financially?

Even though the father is constantly entreating them to return home?

>>>If he is all about forgiveness as said by many Christians, can I steal and kill people then ask for forgiveness<<<

God forgave David, he can forgive you.

>>>Another reason is when Christians try to outsmart someone who doesn't believe in God by saying "if the big bang created the universe what created the big bang?" <<<

You miss the point of the question. The Big bang breaks the law of cause and effect.

Scientists are trying to say that something can come from nothing.

Religious people are saying that there was an intelligent designer for all these systems on this planet that cater to mankind.

>>>But I can say the same thing about god. What created God?<<<

No one is saying that God did not have a cause.

We are saying we do not know his cause.

Life always comes from a previous life.

Can you disprove that statement?

MayCaesar

Sand said:

Scientists are trying to say that something can come from nothing.

*sigh*

No, scientists are not trying to say that, and religious people should do away with this meme already. The "big bang" is a metaphor for the physical process the measurable effects of which are observable and agree with our theoretical predictions.

On the other hand, there are no predictions of substance to make from the creationist theory. These are not just different theories, as one of these theories is completely unfounded and is a product of human imagination, while another theory is a conclusion of rigorous analysis of gigabytes of data.

As for the Sun being the right distance from Earth, you are confusing cause and effect here. Our organisms have evolved to adapt to our conditions. Of course the conditions are going to be perfect for us; if they were not, then evolution would not take the path that it did, and we would be different creatures now, perfectly adapted to those other conditions.

None of this is even remotely suggestive of some intelligent design. Some people see what they want to see, but the data does not agree with them.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand What evidence do we have that god does have an impact, or for that matter exists at all? There is none, just the conjecture that there may be a god, gods, or other mythical beings.

Now lets do a little thought experiment here.

What would be required for you to accept that there was no god? That is to say, what thing would you need to observe for you to conclude that there is no god? Is there anything that would make you change your mind about your god beliefs?

Suppose someone went back in time with a mind reading device and proved that every god belief was made up by people. Would that disprove god?

Suppose a supper advanced civilization that lives a trillion years in the future creates a machine that reverses entropy, effectively meaning they can produce free energy and therefore live forever. Would that disprove that people can die?

Let's say that there is some unknown science that takes place outside of universes, or perhaps within this one but very rarely, which allows something to be created from nothing. Would that disprove god?

If in the next few decades, a few scientists manage to make inorganic material come to life able to reproduce, and this all happens without the scientists deliberately making it happen but just by setting the circumstances for it to occur, which could have existed naturally, proving abiogenesis is possible. Would this prove that god did not create life?

In every instance the answer is no isn't it?

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

If you do not make an impact are you saying you do not exist. Then there are billions of people that do not exist, at this point now.

Is there anything a person can do to prove God doesn't exist?

If scientists ever did construct inorganic life, they would accomplish something truly amazing, but would they prove that the inorganic life could be made without life?

If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?

If you set up circumstances for someone to die, did you kill them or did they die naturally?

I hope you can prove that in a court of law.

"Your honor, Mr. Smith walked into the tripwire and exploded, the components of a grenade are natural substances from the earth, proving Amurder is possible."

"We just need to set the circumstances up again, I could prove it to you! Would you be the subject?"

The first step to a scientific method is observation.

Where is the scientific observation of life coming about without life?

This situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; he set up circumstances where they transform into steel, plastic, silicone, wire, and come together to make a robot. He then sets up a way for the robot to get a program to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? That robots come about naturally? At best he proves, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

Sand

@MayCaesar

>>>These are not just different theories, as one of these theories is completely unfounded and is a product of human imagination, while another theory is a conclusion of rigorous analysis of gigabytes of data.<<<

This argument can be made from both sides.

Evolution is completely unfounded because neither one of us can prove the past.

We know by fact that evolution was put together by human imagination, to explain a hypothesis that could not be observed.

You cannot observe for millions of years.

>>>As for the Sun being the right distance from Earth, you are confusing cause and effect here. Our organisms have evolved to adapt to our conditions. Of course, the conditions are going to be perfect for us; if they were not, then evolution would not take the path that it did, and we would be different creatures now, perfectly adapted to those other conditions.<<<

Then why haven't other organisms, animals, and people did not evolve from other conditions on other planets?

Because there is a balance to life.

>>>None of this is even remotely suggestive of some intelligent design. Some people see what they want to see, but the data does not agree with them. <<<

Once again this argument can be made on both sides.

None of this is even remotely suggestive of no design. The fact that scientists can predict cell development is not proof of unintelligence.

Some people see what they want to see, but the data does not agree with them.

If you see a house, you are telling me, that your first conclusion that there is no intent, there is no designer, this object came about naturally?

What of a computer, would you say your first thought would be there is no designer, no intelligence behind it, it must have come about naturally?

Which one of these would be higher technology a computer or a house?

How would you determine this, since you were not there for any of these inventions?

Nevertheless, a cell is way more intricate than a house.

A cell is more productive than a computer.

Man is still learning from the cell, yet we quickly say there is no designer, no intelligence behind it.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand No, you are beating around the bush and not answering my question, although you do mention something that I think if you consider, it will open up something about your beliefs you may not have noticed before.

What I am asking is: Can there be any conceivable experiment that will test the validity of the statement: "God is real"?

What could we do as humans to show that there was or was not a god?

The interesting thing I want to point out is your stance on abiogenesis. You say:

"If scientists ever did construct inorganic life, they would accomplish something truly amazing, but would they prove that the inorganic life could be made without life?

If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?"

In other words, if scientists prove that abiogenesis is true, that proves god. If they say it is false, that proves god. No matter what you will conclude that god is real.

Why is this interesting? It implies that the answer to the question I am asking you is something like: "all conceivable experiments will always prove god, because I said so".

Lets do a little thought experiment. There are two kids playing a game with a pair of normal 6-sided dice.

The first kid says: "I hope I roll a 15, so I can win right away"

The second kid says: "I always seem to roll 7's"

The thought experiment is, which of these statements can we prove and which can we never prove?

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>What I am asking is: Can there be any conceivable experiment that will test the validity of the statement: "God is real"?<<<

Let me give you the formula to prove God does not exist.
If everyone intentionally worked against inorganic life coming about and inorganic life comes about without life, that would prove God doesn't exist.

It is simple.

>>>Why is this interesting? It implies that the answer to the question I am asking you is something like: "all conceivable experiments will always prove god because I said so".<<<

Not because I said so, it is because someone is participating.

Abiogenesis is trying to prove life can come from nonlife.

That would mean that life could not set things up.

But by scientists participating or setting things up, they are a part of the experiment.

That is all we are saying.

>>> Let's do a little thought experiment. There are two kids playing a game with a pair of normal 6-sided dice.<<<

The answer is obvious about the first kid.

Say there are two kids playing with a pair of normal 6-sided dice.

The first kid says, "I can prove that dice can roll by themselves."

The second kid says, "prove it!"

The first kid takes a piece of paper places the dice on the paper and lifts the corner of the paper straight up quickly.

This causes the dice to roll.

The second kid says, "you caused them to roll!"

The first kid says, "no, I only set up the circumstances for them to roll, technically I did not roll them, this is proof dice can roll by themselves"

The second kid says, "your experiment is wrong"

The first kid says, "what experiment can I do to prove to you that dice can roll themselves?"

Happy_Killbot

@Sand You are still avoiding my question.

I don't care about what we can prove, I care about what can we DISPROVE.

How can we DISPROVE that there is a god?

The dice example is the point I am trying to make. If someone says that I can role a 15 with two dice, even though we know logically that the max you can role is 12, we can never prove it. We can however, prove that rolling 2 dice will be 7 most often. But if the dice are loaded and usually land on 12, we can disprove that all 6 sided dice usually land on 7. Then we can update our understanding, from "two 6 sided dice total 7 most often" to "two even dice total 7 most often"

You can not disprove that rolling two dice will ever equal 15, so it is not scientific to say that. Same with the toy example you give, no one cares if you can prove that the dice can role themselves, how do we disprove it is the question.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot ;

The answer to your question is:

If everyone intentionally worked against inorganic life coming about and inorganic life comes about without life, that would DISPROVE God's existence.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand My question is substrate independent.

So if we travel to Mars and find life there that is completely unlike life on earth, proving that life can arise separately, then this would prove that god doesn't exist?

MayCaesar

Sand said:

@MayCaesar

>>>These are not just different theories, as one of these theories is completely unfounded and is a product of human imagination, while another theory is a conclusion of rigorous analysis of gigabytes of data.<<<

This argument can be made from both sides.

Evolution is completely unfounded because neither one of us can prove the past.

We know by fact that evolution was put together by human imagination, to explain a hypothesis that could not be observed.

You cannot observe for millions of years.

>>>As for the Sun being the right distance from Earth, you are confusing cause and effect here. Our organisms have evolved to adapt to our conditions. Of course, the conditions are going to be perfect for us; if they were not, then evolution would not take the path that it did, and we would be different creatures now, perfectly adapted to those other conditions.<<<

Then why haven't other organisms, animals, and people did not evolve from other conditions on other planets?

Because there is a balance to life.

>>>None of this is even remotely suggestive of some intelligent design. Some people see what they want to see, but the data does not agree with them. <<<

Once again this argument can be made on both sides.

None of this is even remotely suggestive of no design. The fact that scientists can predict cell development is not proof of unintelligence.

Some people see what they want to see, but the data does not agree with them.

If you see a house, you are telling me, that your first conclusion that there is no intent, there is no designer, this object came about naturally?

What of a computer, would you say your first thought would be there is no designer, no intelligence behind it, it must have come about naturally?

Which one of these would be higher technology a computer or a house?

How would you determine this, since you were not there for any of these inventions?

Nevertheless, a cell is way more intricate than a house.

A cell is more productive than a computer.

Man is still learning from the cell, yet we quickly say there is no designer, no intelligence behind it.

Not at all. Science operates by rigorously analysing evidence and finding falsifiable models matching this evidence. Religion operates by making stories up, even if they are not supported by any evidence.

How do you know that other organisms did not evolve on other planets? We do not even know yet if there is life on Mars (there very well can be), and given that there are probably hundreds billions planets in our galaxy alone, there is a very good chance that there is plenty of life in the Universe out there, some of which is very different from ours.

I am not saying that there is proof that the Universe was not intelligently designed. I am saying that there is no evidence suggesting that it is, hence concluding that it is intelligently designed makes little sense.

With a computer, we have a well documented history of its development by humans, and we do not have any plausible theories explaining how it molecules could randomly assemble in a way that would result in a computer. With biology, we do not have any documented history of intelligent design of cells and other related entities, and we have fairly sophisticated computer models the predictions of which align with the evidence showing how cells and other related entities could stochastically form on Earth out of natural conditions.

Science deals with hard evidence, it does not deal with fantasies. Something that I cannot say about religion.

Sand

@MayCaesar

How do you know the well-documented history of the computer is not a well documented made up story?

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

No, it would not prove God did not exist but it would prove that evolution has merit.

To prove that God does not exist you have to have life come about without other life.

This could be proved on Mars, but you have to show lifeless material bring about life.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand So if some scientist took a sterile material, put it in a vat that simulated early earth conditions, and watched under a microscope until something in that material came to life, that would disprove god then?

MayCaesar

@Sand

What is a "well documented made up story"? This sentence makes no sense.

Historians take multiple different sources and cross-reference them with each other, and if everything aligns with one story and does not align with any other reasonable story, then this story is taken as truth.
Religious people do not do that. They take one text and say, "This text describes the truth", with no evidence, no analysis, no cross-referencing.

Sand

@MayCaesar

There is no cross-reference with Josephus's records, Cuneiform tablets Nabonidus, Cyrus Cylinder, Edict of Augustus, Strabo, Edict of Claudius.

There is no analysis with archeologists, on locations, times, events?

Even though the Bible passed the Historical method many times.

Can you tell me one historical book on the creation of the Computer?

And does that book has cross-referencing?

And did this book undergo the Historical Method?

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

Once again that technique has a scientist's involvement.

You know people are going to argue that conclusion.

As you know the conclusion will draw serious scrutiny.

Because as you said many people believe in God.

There is a lot of logic and supporting evidence for God.

This will have to be thrown out if it was proven wrong, so the process used will be under a lot of scrutiny.

Let me say, it is not impossible, but highly improbable.

Very, very, very, very difficult to prove abiogenesis.

Any involvement from scientists, people will point to it.

I personally feel I try to look at things from all sides, and I would point to it.

So you know others would do the same.

Sand

@MayCaesar

Let me help you. Most historical books have not undergone the historical method.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand I think there is a critical aspect you are missing. If watching abiogenesis in a lab does not count as proof that abiogenesis is possible and therefore god does not exist, (which is a fallacy as you will see in a second) then is there anything that does? If we find life on another world, as we may someday on Mars, Europa, or Titan, then that would prove abiogenesis occurred right?

The answer is no. Abiogenesis is a theory, and even if we watch it happen right in front of us, it is still just a theory. You see, science doesn't exactly prove things, it just gets recursively less wrong until it is close enough to absolute truth that we can say it is true. It is still possible that the life was deliberately put there, but it is much less likely to have been the case once we understand how it may have been possible, same as in the dice example where we can never prove that 2 6 sided dice total 7 most often, but with every roll we can be more and more confident of that.

I am a person who values pragmatic knowledge. In order for something to be useful, it has to be repeatable, and anything repeatable is fundamentally testable. So what test can we do that will yield the same results to always show that God does or does not exist? Abiogenesis isn't a good example, because suppose someone observes abiogenesis in a lab, and then exclaims: "I have just seen god create life" There is nothing stopping someone from declaring that, and there is nothing that can be done to prove that is true or not. Maybe god did create life right in front of the scientist. Maybe it was just coincidence. No matter what, you have to take it on faith that this happened.

MayCaesar

@Sand

History is a science. What individual books say has little to do with what science as a whole says. History is prone to interpretation, but data is what it is.

You can read a lot of papers published by IBM researchers, for example, at the time the PC development was going on. Everything is well documented and reproducible. Is the story about the talking snake well documented and reproducible? Or the story about all creatures on Earth, except for a small family of humans and exactly two adults of different genders for each animal species, dying in flooding? I would like to see accounts of that that point at falsifiable data points that we can collect.

Sand

True History is a science, that is where the historical method came from.

Nevertheless, most history books did not undergo the historical method.

The Bible underwent more scrutiny and testing than any other book in history!

Not only did it pass these tests, but lots of people still made up reasons not to trust it or believe the information in it.

Everything is well documented in history but not all reproducible.

Can you reproduce the twin tower incident? Pearl harbor incident? The challenger debacle?

What about miracle stories in history?

The Red Barron getting a bullet in his brain and continue to fly planes and shoot people down.

What a story!

What about Jeanne Fretel arrived at Lourdes in a comatose state as a result of tuberculosis peritonitis. Bathing in the water Jeanne woke from her coma and declared herself cured.

Or how about Jean-Pierre Bely, who was suffering from multiple sclerosis. After spending time near Lourdes waters, he was declared cured.

On 13th October 1917 between 50,000 and 100,000 people claim after a downfall of rain and dark clouds the sky became clear and the Sun appeared as a spinning disk then emitted multi-colored lights, it appeared to zig-zag quickly towards Earth.

John Kennedy's assassination was done with a magic bullet that went through the bodies of two adult men, tore through about 15 inches of human flesh, broke two bones and punctured 15 different layers of clothing. It started when it pierced Kennedy's suit coat from the rear before puncturing his body to the right of his spine. The bullet exited Kennedy's body through the front of his neck below his Adam's apple. Then punctured Connally's back, shattering his fifth right rib bone. After exiting the front of Connally's chest, the bullet shot through his right wrist, breaking one of his wrist bones, before burying itself beneath the skin of Connally's left thigh.

Serbian former flight attendant Vesna Vulovic holds a miraculous world record - the longest fall without a parachute, after a plane she was working onboard in 1972 exploded, 33,333 ft in the air.

What about the tsunami on July 10, 1958, with a documented maximum height of 1,720 feet way bigger than the empire state building. Do you know how much water would be needed to create a wave of that size?!?!

Or what about the book written in 1898 (14 years before the Titanic sank), American author Morgan Robertson wrote a novella titled ‘The Wreck of the Titan.’ The book was about a fictional ocean liner that sinks due to a collision with an iceberg. In the book, the ship is described as being “unsinkable” and doesn’t have enough lifeboats for everyone on board.

But the Bible with a talking snake, that could easily be some ventriloquist nearby, unbelievable.

Or a worldwide flood with eight people in a boat surviving, highly skeptical.

But a worldwide ice age, a giant comet hitting the earth to killing all dinosaurs completely believable, only Cro-Magnon man survived, no boat, no nothing, just lived.

Man can't even add but he survived two worldwide extinction eliminating eras.  

What I am getting at is evolution is just as farfetched as the Bible.

A lot of people may rag and point about the Bible, but evolution stories with its rigorously analyzing evidence are just as mythical and unbelievable.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

You probably right about abiogenesis.

>>>I am a person who values pragmatic knowledge. In order for something to be useful, it has to be repeatable, and anything repeatable is fundamentally testable. So what test can we do that will yield the same results to always show that God does or does not exist?<<<

There are a lot of things in the Bible that seemed impossible because they were not reproducible.

But now some of those things are very possible, very plausible.

Once Man is able to create life, and they are very close, it will make God from a mystical type entity to a scientist with more advanced technology.

Man will be able to see how someone could start life. Call it an alien or whatever.

Nevertheless, intelligent designer is way more plausible than abiogenesis.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand The point with abiogenesis is if you can make it happen once in a lab, you can do the same things and make it happen any number of times. I think we have beaten abiogenesis down, so I'm going to take this in a different direction.

I know you like to talk about how the bible is verified through the historical method, so I am going to assume this is all true, however I am going to point out that it does not necessarily matter.

Lets say you meet someone who believes that the man named Jesus in the bible was not the son of god, but was actually the devil in disguise playing an ultimate con. This person asserts, that although everything recorded in the bible happened, Jesus is not the messiah but is instead the devil pretending to be the messiah, in an effort to lure as many people away from Judaism, the one true religion. He states many facts that seem to confirm this belief, such as the fact that some of the miracles of Jesus could easily have been considered dark magic, such as raising the dead or turning water to wine, speaking in parables, and declaring that the law as spelled out in Leviticus is no longer valid. He then goes on to demonstrate many contradictions between the new and old testament, insisting that only contradictions between the old and new testaments exist. He proselytizes that because this is truth, that everyone who follows Jesus must repent and cease their worship of him because he is a false prophet and they would be violating gods sacred commandments.

***I don't care to talk about if any of this is true or not.***

What I do care to talk about, is how would we know if it is true or not? That is to say, what test can we do that will always tell us which if any belief is true?

If no such test exists, then how can we say that this is not what happened, on account of we did not disprove it?

Phil413

Why is it that in the context of religion, do people have to demand physical proof in God to believe he exists? There are those that believe that a person can be born attracted to a same sex person, or born to be an gender identity other than themselves, without any concrete evidence ( we are just supposed to believe it), but will go through hell before believing in a higher power. Explain that.

Happy_Killbot

@Phil413 *Cough Cough* No evidence for sexual dysphoria eh?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225591/

It is not due to social pressures, (rapid onset gender dysphoria ) meaning it is natural to the person, not learned.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-exists/

There is evidence that people are born like that, you are not just supposed to accept it. If anyone tells you to just accept something, they are most likely not your friend. Being skeptical is good.

The real question is, if there is no physical proof, then how do we know which if any higher power to choose? Suppose you were raised following the wrong god. Then what? We need evidence because we need a reason to think something is true, for pragmatic purposes.

Phil413

Religion is probably the only topic that scientists are closed minded on. They have no problem believing that we came from apes, or that we somehow evolved from a big spark in the sky. Weren't these the same scientists who were once convinced that the earth was flat, or that the atom was the smallest thing around? Are they that unbelievably arrogant to think that there is not even the smallest possibility that life came from another means?

ZeusAres42

Phil413 said:

Religion is probably the only topic that scientists are closed minded on. They have no problem believing that we came from apes, or that we somehow evolved from a big spark in the sky. Weren't these the same scientists who were once convinced that the earth was flat, or that the atom was the smallest thing around? Are they that unbelievably arrogant to think that there is not even the smallest possibility that life came from another means?

I think I understand why it might appear like that @Phil413. However, from my understanding science is not concerned about religion, nor is it their job to prove God's existence or lack thereof. Science is about the natural material world. What's more, is that you've also got many scientists that are also religious. We've got Muslim Scientists, Christian Scientists, Jewish Scientists, etc.

Phil413

@ Zeus- thank you.That makes sense. 

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

You're a lot of fun!

I personally feel that religion and science need to work together.

But it will take time.

Time always reveals truth.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand When you are dealing with god, gods, and other mythical beings, can you ever prove anything?

If in a trillion years from now, someone made a computer that could track the motion and position of every particle in the universe, both today and in the past, right up until the point the universe came to exist, it is still possible that god exists outside the universe.

Now lets say through some sci-fi magic, someone figures out a way to get outside the universe and the same thing becomes possible in any universe. Now isn't it possible that god exists outside of all universes?

No matter what, you can push the possibility to infinity. The idea of god, gods or other mythical beings isn't scientific, and there is no reason for anyone to need the belief in one. You can get morality, purpose, and wisdom from so many other sources.

Why do we need a god?

We don't.

Sand

The Truth.

In everything, there is a little bit of truth.

In fictitious stories, there is a little bit of truth.

In lies cannot be told without a little bit of truth.

In nursery rhymes, there is a little bit of truth.

Even in Satan, there is a little bit of truth.

Because it comes up so much.

When it comes to God, you cannot deny, there is truth, whether it is a lot or a little.

Science tries so hard to not acknowledge it but they have to.

In TV shows they sometimes call it Mother Nature.

What is Mother Nature? Some controlling force, that science recognizes that there is something there, and they don't want to say, "God".

But its the same thing.

Look at the scientific method:

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Test with experiment
Result
Analyze Data
Communicate Results

Powerful and very useful.

The Bible uses another method called Wisdom.

Wisdom
Knowledge
        Thinking Ability
            Thoughtful consideration of a matter, based on a thorough knowledge
Understanding
        Perception
                 Getting the sense of the matter
                 Put together
                 Know well
        Comprehension
                 Know what is being said
        Discernment
                 #1 Seeing and Recognizing things   
                            Separating the Individual factors
                 #2 Emphasizes distinguishing the parts   
                            Perceive the relationship between them
                 #3 Weighing or evaluating one in the light of the others
        Insight
                 Intelligent knowledge of the reason
                            Reason why
                 To look at; to be prudent, circumspect; to act prudently, to be intelligent
                 Insight is gained when you appreciate and motivated to apply

Let me explain, inside of Wisdom is knowledge and Understanding

Inside of knowledge is Thinking Ability, an explanation is below that.

Inside of Understanding are Perception, Comprehension, Discernment, and Insight.

Then an explanation is below that.

The Bible says Wisdom is screaming everywhere we need to learn how to hear it.

God says evidence of him is clearly seen through understanding by the things made.

So in some way God has signed his work, we need to take the time to recognize it.

We need to take our time and mind's eye to look for it.

The truth is there.

Even if it is a little bit.

Phil413

@Łåśåğñūţ- this is the "third rail" of all questions. Does God exist? Prove God is real. God doesn't exist. List goes on and on. I respond by saying that if you ask these questions why do you care? You either believe or you don't. We all have free choice in this world, and you believe that we are ruled by a herd of giraffes, or that you are your own God, or that there is odo ne above you, more power to you. I will ask this though: Why do some people not question other things in life ( they just accept it), but are absolutely adamant about God not existing? 

Happy_Killbot

@Sand I would like you to define truth. If you mean literal truth, I highly disagree. If you mean metaphysical truth, I agree to a limited extent.

I challenge you to find one scientific paper published in the last 100 years that makes any claim that "mother nature" is a real entity. You won't, because "mother nature" is a euphemism. Specifically it is a layman's way of describing the chaotic reality of many natural forces, such as the weather, that to the untrained eye, looks like agency.

This is the assumption of most god beliefs. That reality has agency. It is misappropriation of randomness with intention.

Do you think that there are things in this world that are fundamentally unpredictable, and act without care or decision, lacking the facilities to do so?

I hate it when people say that a book that is full to the brim with rape, misogyny, slavery, authoritarianism, false hopes, violence, and all sorts of limitations on what you can eat or who you can sleep with is wisdom. That isn't wisdom, that's Indoctrination! 

Consider that the bible was written in a time that was very different from our modern times. What may have been right then is not necessarily right today. Let me explain with the most controversial example I can, the assumption of the bible that women should be subservient to men.

It is well documented that women who are educated have fewer children, and when they do it is later in life, because these women tend to have careers and to spend more time at work.

So what does this mean for ancient cultures that didn't have access to modern medicine and were constantly at war against both the elements and rival groups? It means that cultures that treat women as equals were going to die out because they would not have stable populations!

So what about today? Our population is skyrocketing and it may be necessary to stabilize our population. What's the easiest way to do this?
Educate women! So the bible and it's "wisdom" is exactly the wrong answer!

How is that for Wisdom and Understanding? Wisdom doesn't come from tradition or ancient stories, it comes from applied knowledge, which can only be derived through science and logic. I couldn't care less what some decrepit old book says, what is good today may not be what was good yesterday.

MayCaesar

@Sand

It is important to separate history as a science from history as a recreational activity. There are many books written by historians or non-historians on history that contain a lot of unverified information, individual interpretation, and so on and so on. When I talk about history, I mean the science, not everything that you can find on book shelves.

Sure, there are many historical records of people performing outstanding feats, often feats which we deem impossible. But we are continuously learning about the complexity of human organism, and each year we learn about new mechanisms allowing humans to sometimes channel their energy in the most outstanding ways. 
There are no records of anyone performing outstanding feats as a result of divine intervention, however.

Again, the difference between science and religion is that in the former case we can verify or disprove every claim made, based on direct or indirect evidence - and in the latter case we have to take the authors' word on everything, because nothing can be verified. Individual events described in the Bible sometimes can be verified, but their connection to the divine intervention cannot. That is the difference.

You are right that not everything in history is clear. Some things are, some are not. In religion, nothing is clear, nothing is supported by any testable evidence. The Bible, the Torah or the Quran in this regard are like the book Lord of the Rings.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

I mean literal truth.

I do not need to reference any scientific paper.

It is all over the internet. It is in scientific books. It is in nature shows.

You know it for a fact that you can look at any nature show and they will reference "mother nature".

To use that reference means you have to use the definition of that word.

You may feel "mother nature" refers to:

>>>a euphemism. Specifically, it is a layman's way of describing the chaotic reality of many natural forces, such as the weather, that to the untrained eye looks like agency.<<<

The true definition is :

"nature personified as a creative and controlling force."

If they mean such things why not refer to such things, use the words how they mean, because euphemisms can cause confusion during explanations.

>>>I hate it when people say that a book that is full to the brim with rape, misogyny, slavery, authoritarianism, false hopes, violence, and all sorts of limitations on what you can eat or who you can sleep with is wisdom. That isn't wisdom, that's Indoctrination! <<<

That's funny you just described a majority of the Books on the market.

Does the Bible promote those things, or does it document what occurred like a history book?

Because every history book ever, was written with that and more.

>>>Let me explain with the most controversial example I can, the assumption of the bible that women should be subservient to men.<<<

>>>Educate women! So the bible and it's "wisdom" is exactly the wrong answer!<<<

These are assumptions to people who do not study or read the Bible.

The Bible never said Women should be subservient to men.

Ephesians 5:21 - "Be submitting yourselves to one another in reverence of Christ:"

The Bible says to work in harmony with one another.

The Bible paints Women very strong and encourages other women to look at these women as examples to strive to excel economically.

Proverbs chapter 31 shows how.

The breadth of this woman's accomplishments is remarkable—buying, selling, sewing, cooking, investing in real estate, farming, and managing a business.

Women are never taught to be treated poorly in the Bible.

I believe you are referring to other cultures, where women were treated as second rate citizens. (USA)

I understand you are mistaken because you don't read or study the Bible.

Someone shows you a passage and takes it out of context, claiming wrong conclusions.

>>> I couldn't care less what some decrepit old book says, what is good today may not be what was good yesterday.<<<

It is because you cut off information, why you and those who think like that will be limited in truth.

This is what hinders scientific growth.

It only recognizes its knowledge, its process, its understanding.

Instead of working in harmony with others.

Working as a team.

Togetherness.

Unity.

Love.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand The thing is with the mother nature euphemism, is that they do. No credible scientist refers to mother nature like it is a real thing. TV scientists are not real.

There is no such thing as a "true definition" Consider this old thought experiment: Suppose there is a group of men who each have a box that the others can not look into. They each look into their box and say that the box contains a "beetle". Can they ever know what is in the others box? The answer is no. If they each contain something totally different, no one can know, because it is still possible that the description they each give is relative to what that different object in each of their boxes is!

Definitions are relative to our discourse. Go back in time 40 years and say "LOL" no one will know what that means.

Yes, this thinking would definitely apply to many books on the market, and in particular ones that make some kind of subjective or philosophical claim.

The bible is not an accurate history book. Have you ever heard of the epic of Gilgamesh? it is the source material for Noah's flood that pre-dates the bible.

Yes, the bible says that women should be subservient to men, right there in the first book, and in other parts.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

The bible is very misogynistic, and if you don't think so, it's because you don't know the bible.

Religion tears people apart. It spreads false information, violates unity and corrupts love and togetherness. It is not a source of truth, it is a source of tradition. I have read the bible cover to cover, as well as the Quran and pagan works. There is nothing special about the bible, it is just another book that claims divinity where there is none to be found.

Sand

@MayCaesar

>>> In religion, nothing is clear, nothing is supported by any testable evidence. <<<

Did Babylon capture Jerusalem, as the Bible said?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(597_BC)

Did Medo Persia defeat Babylon, as the Bible said?

Was Cyrus the king, as the Bible said?

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodotus/cyrus-takes-babylon/

Did Cyrus release the Jews, as the Bible said?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great_in_the_Bible

Did Greece defeat Medo Persia, as the Bible said?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexander.htm

Did Greece split between four generals, as the Bible said?

https://www.ancient.eu/article/94/the-hellenistic-world-the-world-of-alexander-the-g/

I'm just naming a few.

Sand

@MayCaesar

What we are saying here is that something happened and the writers of the Bible documented it.

They attributed it to God.

Now of days history books document it.

Someone comes out and tries to find the scientific reasons behind the situation.

And they attribute it to Science.

Nevertheless, one event doesn't make it less true than the other.

The event still happened, it was properly documented.

In the future when science becomes more accurate than now, or they develop a new study that is better than science.

Are people to conclude that all the events in the history books fictitious because they had some things not clear?

Because there are a lot of events that could be considered far fetched.

Two planes into the two largest buildings in the world?

Two world wars with 85 million deaths?

Vietnam defeated the USA?

Two Atomic Bombs and people still living there?

Donald Trump as president?

Sand

>>>Have you ever heard of the epic of Gilgamesh?<<<

There are arguments as to if they are referring to the same flood event.

Did they give a date for their flood?

I believe there were other floods during that time.

You might want to ask him. The writer claimed to be immortal also.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

This is a prophecy showing what would happen.

My question is to you, did women have pain in childbearing?

Did men rule over women?

So this prophecy was pointing to those events.

The other scriptures show Paul's preferences in the organization of the church and marriage.

To insinuate that the Bible encourages women to be subservient is a lie.

subservient - prepared to obey others unquestioningly.

submit - accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.

submissive - ready to conform to the authority or will of others

These scriptures are not saying to serve man or be a slave to men.

It is showing Paul's viewpoint of yielding.

If you see a sign that says yield, does it mean to serve or obey the other vehicle?

No. It means to be passive to allow the other vehicle to have the right way.

Are you subservient to your country?

No. As a citizen, you submit to their authority.

Are you subservient to your job?

No. As an employee, you submit to their requirements.

There is no law that says women cannot speak in the church.

Paul is asking women to yield to the men in the church.

Women have spoken in the church and have several books named after them and authority in the Bible.

>>>The bible is very misogynistic, and if you don't think so, it's because you don't know the bible. Religion tears people apart. It spreads false information, violates unity and corrupts love and togetherness. It is not a source of truth, it is a source of tradition. I have read the bible cover to cover, as well as the Quran and pagan works. There is nothing special about the bible, it is just another book that claims divinity where there is none to be found. <<<

Philippians 4:2 - "Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life."
1 Timothy 5:2 - "Treat older women as you would your mother, and treat younger women with all purity as you would your own sisters."

These are not statements of someone who is misogynistic.

As someone who has read the Bible, you should know this about women.

So these are personal opinions. Once you let feelings get involved you sort of lose your ability to be rational.

>>>There is no such thing as a "true definition" Consider this old thought experiment: Suppose there is a group of men who each have a box that the others can not look into. They each look into their box and say that the box contains a "beetle". Can they ever know what is in the others box? The answer is no. If they each contain something totally different, no one can know, because it is still possible that the description they each give is relative to what that different object in each of their boxes is!<<<

Now here you claim to not know what is in other boxes.

This completely contradictory to your claim to understand what is in the Religious bucket.

If you are going to judge negative with the Bible it will be hard for you to learn from it.

Many famous people had personal things in their life that was not exemplary.

Albert Einstein

He has been variously portrayed as a bad father, cruel to his wives and an adulterer.

Yet you find good in his academic work.

Stephen Hawkins

Failed marriages, families divided, accusations of abuse and obsessive.

Yet you find good in his academic work.

You must learn to see good to grow.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand Sounds like you are trying to give your own interpretation of scripture.

What makes you think you have any authority to do that?

subservient, submission, to submit, are all synonyms, I don't want to make semantic arguments here but the misogyny, which is what we should really be talking about is still apparent.

According to the bible, women are to be subservient to men. There is no denying that. Showing more bible passages does not dismiss other passages, otherwise the bible contradicts itself.

Are you claiming the bible contradicts itself?

You miss the point of the thought experiment. The idea is to point out the limitations of semantics. It doesn't contradict my claim, it contradicts a straw man for what argument you think I am making.

You know, you never answered my question from before.

How do we know that the devil didn't invent Jesus to turn people from god's word?

What evidence do you have to disprove this is not the case? If it is, then you will face eternal torture for worshiping false idols.

MayCaesar

@Sand

That is the first problem: that attribution to God is not based on any hard evidence. The attribution to science is, simply due to how science works.

The second problem is abundance of stories in the Bible that are not supported by any historical evidence, and that contradict everything we know about the world. We have never seen or found evidence of the existence of talking snakes, angels, floodings that wiped out nearly all life on Earth, and so on. History never makes claims not based on hard evidence; you will not see historians seriously talk about, for example, Atlantis, aside from studying the origins of this myth.

I do not dispute that the Bible talks about some events that truly happened. It would be strange if it had no relation to reality whatsoever, as it would not be found relatable by its readers and, likely, would be a fairly obscure book few people would ever read.
However, its narrative is based on a lot of unfounded speculation as well. And while historians also speculate sometimes, those speculations are based on rigorous scientific method, not on people's fantasies. That is the crucial difference.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>Sounds like you are trying to give your own interpretation of scripture.<<<
I posted the defintion of the words used.
I didn't put my own words like a synonym.

>>>According to the bible, women are to be subservient to men. There is no denying that. Showing more bible passages does not dismiss other passages, otherwise the bible contradicts itself.<<<

If you ask any woman if they are subservient to men in the church. Or if the Bible teaches women to be subservient to their husbands. All of them would tell you no, and I think they would be offended. That is why I believe you are not seeing it correctly.

>>>You miss the point of the thought experiment. The idea is to point out the limitations of semantics. It doesn't contradict my claim, it contradicts a straw man for what argument you think I am making.<<<

I got your point. Nevertheless, regardless what is in each box, there is something in the box, that each person is referring to as a beetle.

To expound on you thought experiment. To kick one of those men out claiming they have nothing in their box because of what you know of their negative qualities, would be wrong. 

I mentioned documented instants of of how Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkins actually treated women poorly. You didn't blink an eye, you continued your focus on the Bible. And what suffers? The human race suffers because your greatness is hindered, because you refuse to find the beetle in the box. 

>>>How do we know that the devil didn't invent Jesus to turn people from god's word?<<<
Prophecy of seventy weeks in Daniel proves that not true.

Phil413

@Łåśåğñūţ- There have been many historical figures way back when ( Caesar, Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, Plato, Aristotle) and they have one thing in common with God and the Bible: other than manuscripts and temples, what other proof do you have that they even existed? None. We take it based on.....faith. Christians believe the bible is the word of God. Those who wrote in it were influenced by God. You can choose to believe in it, or not, but those who believe in God don't have to proof anything to anybody. Scientists and Atheists can have 1000 different reasons why the don't believe in Creationism or God, because it doesn't matter to the believer...it's all about faith.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand I guess you have never heard of the transformed wife.

https://twitter.com/laalex2?lang=en

Seriously, read through her twitter. Just because you don't think that the bible says that women should be subservient to men (even though it does, and quite clearly at that) does not mean that some people don't think that, and even suggest that others do it too.

Her stuff is so cringe worthy and deeply misogynistic that words escape me.

The reason I don't care so much about individuals treating women poorly is because, well, they are individuals. They do not have an enormous social structure based on doing this. That is like comparing Nazi's to serial killers, the scale alone negates the point.

The seventy weeks of Daniel doesn't disprove that the devil invented Jesus, in fact it could be easily offered as evidence, because presumably the devil could have known about the prophecy and used that to it's advantage. Suppose that the real Jesus was born elsewhere, and the man who the bible claims is Jesus is not? Isn't it possible, that since Barbarian tribes destroyed Rome, that the real messiah was one of them, born hundreds of years latter? 

Happy_Killbot

@Phil413 Is faith ever better than knowing?

Sand

@MayCaesar

You cannot hard evidence anything about the past.

Even science has no hard evidence about the past.

Where is the hard evidence of the ice age?

Where is the hard evidence of the missing animals used to connect the species?

Where is the hard evidence of abiogenesis?

Where is the hard evidence of Cro-Magnon man can survive several extinction level events with nothing but a stick and a stone?

Where is the hard evidence that a cell can put itself together?

I can go on and on.

There is no hard evidence about the past.

Only speculation based on clues we have now.

But science cannot tell exactly what happened or how it happened.

Science is guessing.

Nothing is in totality 100%.

If you look at science as a whole it gets things more wrong than it gets right.

But you wipe away the failed experiments and focus only on the successful ones.

Then you say based on hard evidence.

What I propose is that you take the good and strain out the bad in everything.

Bible and Science.

People have no problem doing that with Science.

Science is the conduit used to kill hundreds of millions of people.

But no one puts Science on trial.

But the Bible says anything that seems out of the way, the whole book is thrown in the trash.

Science builds drugs that are used not to cure but to create a snare and a racquet.

History books have many events that seem odd.

People take the good and strain out the bad.

The Bible's goal is to provide information through moral stories.

Instead of looking at the moral lesson of what you can get from the story, your concerned about whether the snake can talk.

But you don't do that with anything else.

The Bible has so many positives that we can take from the book and learn from it.

It has helped so many people in life, it has molded many societies, it is responsible for a number of countries being created, in particular, the USA.

But instead of being grateful, people focus on the negatives of the book and condemn it.

What if we did that with Science.

What if we focused on every failed experiment and every negative issue science presented in history.

Then we went around promoting that we should do away with science altogether.

Claiming it tears people apart, builds racism, slavery, stealing, hate, etc.

When it is science at the heart of each of these issues.

Then you got clowns that say "The gun didn't kill anybody, its the person behind the gun"

But with the Bible, it is the book, not the people.

I wish people will look at the glass half full instead of half empty!

Look at the positives you can get not the negatives.

John_C_87

Evidence can be…

Hidden.

Destroyed.

Denied.

A gun and kill, a bullet can kill. Both need a person as a united state to in fact kill.

The glass may be explained to others as filled or empty. The united state is the glass is always full.

"God Ain't real." Is a slang translation saying God is not your responsibility to hold for representation.