Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

....

But if one wants to push the issue (and this thread exists as an example of "pushing the issue") -- then theists (Boss, et al. need to confront the problem of why their gawds would put into place a wrong paradigm (in this case, Genesis), or prove the paradigm (Genesis) is right, with evidence.

If you defend the "wrong info" theory by saying "a Being created all this", then you must address why other cultures didn't have such a conflict with immense timelines, and more or less sophisticated ideas and you're going to have to address why the gods offers no updates, but prefers there be clashes of ideology to a destructive level. Remember, this is a god who claims to have a vested interest in our salvation so leaving clear hints as to his veracity is something he'd pretty much have to embrace in order to successfully fulfil his own agenda.

If you defend the literalist position, that means you start by proving god exists, first and foremost.

Then you need to prove 6 days is an accurate number for the creation itself. Not 6 trillion years, not 6 hours, not 6000 weeks, but 6 days.

And of course you'll have to prove that competing tales are mythology whereas the Genesis account is not.

Every atheist I know-- myself included-- eagerly await a hint of such proofs from any theist, anywhere, any time. After thousands of years, not one has managed to do it.

Which, of course, really isn't that surprising.

You either aren't a very good reader, or you prefer to lie and distort what you've read from me. The "super human being" god, which you keep asking "why did he do this? why did he make this?" is a god I don't believe exists, either physically or spiritually. God isn't a "he" and doesn't have humanistic attributes, in my opinion. God exists, created the universe and life, and is omnipresent. Paradigms and contradictions created by men, who don't comprehend God, is not God's problem.

You continue to want to argue the bible and have a theological debate on the religious teachings of Christianity, when we are attempting to examine the question of a spiritual existence. Some people here, have been able to separate religion and spirituality, and discuss this question without bias, but you have not demonstrated such ability. You continue to default back to debating religion and religious beliefs.

Now, it's very curious, since you claim to not believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, but you seem to want to challenge a story in the book itself, as if you have some valid interest in getting the story right. A story you don't believe in, and it doesn't matter if god did it in 6 days or 6 trillion years, you don't believe god did it at all. Let me ask you something, honestly... IF, for the sake of argument, you agree that spiritual nature can possibly exist... does it necessarily have to be in the form of Biblical god? Is that the only possible way that a spiritual god can exist? I ask, because your perspective seems to be this way, that either the god depicted in the Bible exists, or nothing spiritual exists at all. You continue to be unable to recognize spirituality in any other form than religious, and specifically, Christian. Just trying to get to the bottom of why that is?

 

[hobelim]

Can a "perfect" being "create" an imperfect world? Isn't the creation of this imperfect world evidence that your creator is not "perfect"? Logic says that a perfect being could not create something that is imperfect. So it looks like we have used logic to discover another limitation of your creator.

What makes you think that the world is imperfect ? isn't it more likely that your view is flawed?

Believers are making a mistake if they try and "use science" to "prove religion".

isn't that the same mistake as using science to disprove the creation story?


Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

even fairy tales convey truth. Do you think the story of the pied piper is false because there is no evidence that he ever existed?

 

[Hollie]

....

But if one wants to push the issue (and this thread exists as an example of "pushing the issue") -- then theists (Boss, et al. need to confront the problem of why their gawds would put into place a wrong paradigm (in this case, Genesis), or prove the paradigm (Genesis) is right, with evidence.

If you defend the "wrong info" theory by saying "a Being created all this", then you must address why other cultures didn't have such a conflict with immense timelines, and more or less sophisticated ideas and you're going to have to address why the gods offers no updates, but prefers there be clashes of ideology to a destructive level. Remember, this is a god who claims to have a vested interest in our salvation so leaving clear hints as to his veracity is something he'd pretty much have to embrace in order to successfully fulfil his own agenda.

If you defend the literalist position, that means you start by proving god exists, first and foremost.

Then you need to prove 6 days is an accurate number for the creation itself. Not 6 trillion years, not 6 hours, not 6000 weeks, but 6 days.

And of course you'll have to prove that competing tales are mythology whereas the Genesis account is not.

Every atheist I know-- myself included-- eagerly await a hint of such proofs from any theist, anywhere, any time. After thousands of years, not one has managed to do it.

Which, of course, really isn't that surprising.

You either aren't a very good reader, or you prefer to lie and distort what you've read from me. The "super human being" god, which you keep asking "why did he do this? why did he make this?" is a god I don't believe exists, either physically or spiritually. God isn't a "he" and doesn't have humanistic attributes, in my opinion. God exists, created the universe and life, and is omnipresent. Paradigms and contradictions created by men, who don't comprehend God, is not God's problem.

You continue to want to argue the bible and have a theological debate on the religious teachings of Christianity, when we are attempting to examine the question of a spiritual existence. Some people here, have been able to separate religion and spirituality, and discuss this question without bias, but you have not demonstrated such ability. You continue to default back to debating religion and religious beliefs.

Now, it's very curious, since you claim to not believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, but you seem to want to challenge a story in the book itself, as if you have some valid interest in getting the story right. A story you don't believe in, and it doesn't matter if god did it in 6 days or 6 trillion years, you don't believe god did it at all. Let me ask you something, honestly... IF, for the sake of argument, you agree that spiritual nature can possibly exist... does it necessarily have to be in the form of Biblical god? Is that the only possible way that a spiritual god can exist? I ask, because your perspective seems to be this way, that either the god depicted in the Bible exists, or nothing spiritual exists at all. You continue to be unable to recognize spirituality in any other form than religious, and specifically, Christian. Just trying to get to the bottom of why that is?

If you're going to argue for something you call "spiritual nature", you might want to first make an honest attempt to separate that from religion. You haven't done that. What you have done is align your so-called "spiritual nature" with very typical arguments for gods.

 

[Derideo_Te]

....

But if one wants to push the issue (and this thread exists as an example of "pushing the issue") -- then theists (Boss, et al. need to confront the problem of why their gawds would put into place a wrong paradigm (in this case, Genesis), or prove the paradigm (Genesis) is right, with evidence.

If you defend the "wrong info" theory by saying "a Being created all this", then you must address why other cultures didn't have such a conflict with immense timelines, and more or less sophisticated ideas and you're going to have to address why the gods offers no updates, but prefers there be clashes of ideology to a destructive level. Remember, this is a god who claims to have a vested interest in our salvation so leaving clear hints as to his veracity is something he'd pretty much have to embrace in order to successfully fulfil his own agenda.

If you defend the literalist position, that means you start by proving god exists, first and foremost.

Then you need to prove 6 days is an accurate number for the creation itself. Not 6 trillion years, not 6 hours, not 6000 weeks, but 6 days.

And of course you'll have to prove that competing tales are mythology whereas the Genesis account is not.

Every atheist I know-- myself included-- eagerly await a hint of such proofs from any theist, anywhere, any time. After thousands of years, not one has managed to do it.

Which, of course, really isn't that surprising.

You either aren't a very good reader, or you prefer to lie and distort what you've read from me.

The endless font of IRONY spews forth yet again!

 

[hobelim]

Wow. Did you miss the pun and the razz smiley, or, are you just that sensitive?

lol, no I noticed how clever and cute and good natured it all was right away....

as I said.......

I genuinely was trying to insert a little humor but I guess it was a bad idea since you don't know me. My apologies.

As far as your assertion goes that any logical person would immediately dispense with the Genesis account; you fail to recognize the possibility that someone can be a believer and still deal with the bible in a logical manner. Once (and this I understand isn't possible, given your position) you get past the idea that a Being created all this.... then nothing is impossible when it comes to what that Creator can do. A tree that bears fruit which, when eaten, gives someone new knowledge? Well, that's actually pretty low on the scale of miracles provided in the bible.

Take an honest step outside this discussion and pretend you are a computer programmer (assuming you are not). If you could write a program that creates a virtual universe -- do you think it would then somehow be impossible for you to create a virtual tree that provides knowledge to someone who eats from it? Expand that thought outward. Is there anything you could not accomplish in this reality you have created? Talking snakes and donkeys? No problem. Parting the waters of the Red Sea? Piece o' cake.

what purpose does it serve to believe that God can do anything when you ignore the reality he has chosen to create?


In reality serpents and donkeys cannot talk, except the human kind.

People have been comparing other people to animals according to their displayed attributes in the vernacular of every culture and language ever since people could talk.

How about rising from the dead? No problem?

Lets see.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Can a "perfect" being "create" an imperfect world? Isn't the creation of this imperfect world evidence that your creator is not "perfect"? Logic says that a perfect being could not create something that is imperfect. So it looks like we have used logic to discover another limitation of your creator.

What makes you think that the world is imperfect ? isn't it more likely that your view is flawed?

In a "perfect" world small children wouldn't be dying.

Believers are making a mistake if they try and "use science" to "prove religion".

isn't that the same mistake as using science to disprove the creation story?

Science is not "disproving" the "creation story". Science is simply uncovering the facts as they are. There is no "intent to disprove the creation story" on the part of scientists.

Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

Care to share that revelation with everyone?

even fairy tales convey truth. Do you think the story of the pied piper is false because there is no evidence that he ever existed?

Why do you believe that they are called "fairy tales" in the first place?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic.

Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?

Obviously, this is from a graduate of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Ruggedtouch,you need new material.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

What's interesting about the Adam and Eve fable is that in connection with the outcome of eating the fruit, the serpent told the truth. God lied. How ironic.

Your ignorance on what the bible states is just as evident as your ignorance of my education.

 

[Youwerecreated]

anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

the gift for believers is everlasting life.


surly your scriptures did not make you believe a falsehood -


What is possible is - Life in the Everlasting.

Yes I do believe and have no reason to doubt what is contained in the scriptures.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The theory that our universe reaches some arbitrary maximum expansion point, then contracts back in on itself, is NOT SUPPORTED BY PHYSICS! The Einstein theory of special and general relativity, has nothing to do with this unfounded and baseless opinion. It is not supported with ANY math or logic, the universe is not contracting, it is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster, not slower. "Could very well be confirmed" are your words, do you not understand what they mean? Means your theory is BUNK! You have absolutely NO scientific basis for it today. May as well be theorizing a magic unicorn created the universe!

I love it, the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun is telling Einstein he knows nothing about general relativity.

First of all the outer edges are accelerating and ASSUMED to be expanding. The problem with that ASSUMPTION is from where we are we cannot actually know whether they are accelerating farther away from us because the universe is expanding or if they are accelerating toward a super massive universal black hole that is also farther away from us. We only KNOW that they are accelerating AWAY from us, the rest is speculation on ALL sides.

What we do see is that the objects near us are definitely slowing down as the universe near us expands and it is only the distant objects in the universe that are accelerating. The problem with being certain that the distant universe is expanding is that when you look out in space you are not looking out in a straight line. You are looking AROUND the WARP of space/time. I have tried to keep the explanations simple enough for an idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around atoms, but that has only encouraged you to claim it is unscientific. So here is a link with some of the math and science made about as simple as it can be. If you take the time to read it, which you won't, you would see that there are problems with the flat universe that competes with the cyclic universe. I had referred to this when I mentioned the calculation for the measured dark energy necessary for a flat universe is way too small. Remember without that dark energy you get the Big Crunch, so while a flat universe is the current accepted standard model, the Big Crunch has not been disproved and completely ruled out. It is STILL a valid option in science and physics in spite of your official pontification.

Accelerating Universe and Dark Energy - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

Like dark matter, cosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.

The universe has continued to expand since the Big Bang, albeit at a slower rate since the period of inflation, while at the same time the gravity of all the matter in the universe is working to slow down and eventually reverse the expansion. Two main possibilities therefore present themselves: either the universe contains sufficient matter (known as the "critical mass") for its gravity to reverse the expansion, causing the universe to collapse back to what has become known as the “Big Crunch”, a kind of mirror image of the initial Big Bang; or it contains insufficient matter and it will go on expanding forever.

According to General Relativity, the density parameter, Omega, which is defined as the average density of the universe divided by the critical density (i.e. that required for the universe to have zero curvature) is related to the curvature of space. If Omega equals 1, then the curvature is zero and the universe is flat; if Omega is greater than 1, then there is positive curvature, indicating a closed or spherical universe; if Omega is less than 1, then there is negative curvature, suggesting an open or saddle-shaped universe.

The cosmic inflation model hypothesizes an Omega of exactly 1, so that the universe is in fact balanced on a knife’s edge between the two extreme possibilities. In that case, it will continue expanding, but gradually slowing down all the time, finally running out of steam only in the infinite future. For this to occur, though, the universe must contain exactly the critical mass of matter, which current calculations suggest should be about five atoms per cubic metre (equivalent to about 5 x 10^-30 g/cm3).

This perhaps sounds like a tiny amount (indeed it is much closer to a perfect vacuum than has even been achieved by scientists on Earth), but the actual universe is, on average, much emptier still, with around 0.2 atoms per cubic metre, taking into account visible stars and diffuse gas between galaxies. Even including dark matter in the calculations, all the matter in the universe, both visible and dark, only amounts to about a quarter of the required critical mass, suggesting a continuously expanding universe.

However, in 1998, two separate teams of astronomers observing distant type 1a supernovas (one led by the American Saul Perlmutter and the other by the Australians Nick Suntzeff and Brian Schmidt) made parallel discoveries which threw the scientific community into disarray, and which also has important implications for the expanding universe and its critical mass. The faintness of the supernova explosions seemed to indicate that they were actually further away from the Earth than had been expected, suggesting that the universe’s expansion had actually speeded up (not slowed) since the stars exploded. Contrary to all expectations, therefore, the expansion of the universe actually seems to be significantly speeding up - we live in an accelerating universe!

The only thing that could be accelerating the expansion (i.e. more than countering the braking force of the mutual gravitational pull of the galaxies) is space itself, suggesting that perhaps it is not empty after all but contains some strange “dark energy” or “antigravity” currently unknown to science. Thus, even what appears to be a complete vacuum actually contains energy in some currently unknown way. In fact, initial calculations (backed up by more recent research such as that on the growth of galaxy clusters by NASA's Chandra x-ray space telescope and that on binary galaxies by Christian Marinoni and Adeline Buzzi of the University of Provence) suggest that fully 73 - 74% of the universe consists of this dark energy.

If 74% of the total mass of the universe consists of dark energy, and about 85% of the remaining actual matter (representing about 22% of the total) is dark matter (see the section on Dark Matter for more discussion of this), then this suggests that only around 4% of the universe consists of what we think of as "normal", everyday, atom-based matter such as stars, intergalactic gas, etc. As of 2013, based on cosmic microwave background radiation data from the Planck satellite, the latest figures are closer to 68%, 27% and 5% respectively. Nowadays, this is generally accepted as the "standard model" of the make-up of the universe. So, for all our advances in physics and astronomy, it appears that we can still only see, account for and explain a small proportion of the totality of the universe, a sobering thought indeed.

Incorporating dark energy into our model of the universe would neatly account for the "missing" three-quarters of the universe required to cause the observed acceleration in the revised Big Bang theory. It also makes the map of the early universe produced by the WMAP probe fit well with the currently observed universe. Carlos Frenk's beautiful 3D computer models of the universe resemble remarkably closely the actual observed forms in the real universe (taking dark matter and dark energy into account), even if not all scientists are convinced by them. Alternative theories, such as Mordehai Milgrom's idea of "variable gravity", are as yet poorly developed and would have the effect of radically modifying all of physics from Newton onwards. So dark energy remains the most widely accepted option.

Further corroboration of some kind of energy operating in the apparent vacuum of space comes from the Casimir effect, named after the 1948 experiments of Dutch physicists Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder. This shows how smooth uncharged metallic plates can move due to energy fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space, and it is hypothesized that dark energy, generated somehow by space itself, may be a similar kind of vacuum fluctuation.

Unfortunately, like dark matter, we still do not know exactly what this dark energy is, how it is generated or how it operates. It appears to produce some kind of a negative pressure which is distributed relatively homogeneously in space, and thereby exerts a kind of cosmic repulsion on the universe, driving the galaxies ever further apart. As the space between the galaxies inexorably widens, the effects of dark energy appears to increase, suggesting that the universe is likely to continue expanding forever, although it seems to have little or no influence within the galaxies and clusters of galaxies themselves, where gravity is the dominant force.

Although no-one has any idea of what dark energy may actually be, it appears to be unsettlingly similar to the force of cosmic repulsion or “cosmological constant” discarded by Einstein back in 1929 (as mentioned in the section on The Expanding Universe and Hubble’s Law), and this remains the most likely contender, even if its specific properties and effects are still under intense discussion. The size of the cosmological constant needed to describe the accelerating expansion of our current universe is very small indeed, around 10^-122 in Planck units. Indeed, the very closeness of this to zero (without it actually being zero) has worried many scientists. But even a tiny change to this value would result in a very different universe indeed, and one in which life, and even the stars and galaxies we take for granted, could not have existed.

Perhaps equally worrying is the colossal mismatch between the infinitesimally small magnitude of dark energy, and the value predicted by quantum theory, our best theory of the the very small, as to the energy present in apparently empty space. The theoretical value of dark energy is over 10^120 times smaller than this, what some scientists have called the worst failure of a prediction in the history of science! Some scientists have taken some comfort about the unexpectedly small size of dark energy in the idea that ours is just one universe in an unimaginably huge multiverse. Out of a potentially infinite number of parallel universes, each with slightly different properties and dark energy profiles, it is not so unlikely that ours just happens to be one with a dark energy that allows for the development of stars and even life, an example of the anthropic principle.

Ed do you believe everything you read ?

3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?

"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

The story of genesis is about the giving of the law, and the creation of Adam and Eve about the elevation of people from among the wild beasts of the field into a 'living being' aware of right and wrong and bound to the consequences of their actions..

The law is the light which separates the darkness and before the light was given, "the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep' which has further allegorical meaning.

[Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic.

Nonsense. Angels and devils and all the wild beasts of the wilderness described in scripture from dogs and pigs to serpents and vultures are allegorical descriptions of well known types of people that allude to the heights and depths of human potential. The story is just a fairy tale. try to learn what it teaches.

[Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

And after being shown how the story can be interpreted allegorically without contradicting reality a logical person would renounce their superstitious delusions forever and cut the ties that bind them in ignorance without ever looking back.

Give me a break this sounds like the usual rhetoric of an atheist nothing more nor nothing less.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

I grow tired of your ad hobelim attacks.

You might as well have tattooed a big penis on your forehead.

So I was right, typical hate filled atheistic tactics.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is not what is being proposed. There is only a single infinite universe of space/time. The period of time that we are counting from the current big bang is meaningless as far as the universe is concerned. It is an entirely arbitrary limitation that we are using from our own myopic perspective. The universe has always existed and while it constantly changes form it has no limitations as far as time is concerned.

The flow of time must have a first moment in time for the simple fact that if there is no first moment in time, then there is nothing for time to come after. If there is no first hour, then there are no hours that follow. If there is no first second, then no seconds can follow.

The universe cannot have always existed. It is impossible.

Time as we experience it is a flow but it is it not like a river where you can find the "source of time". Time is a "fluid" concept that is more akin to tides than rivers. There is a "doppler" effect to time where the faster you travel the slower relative time moves. It is even theoretically possible to travel backwards in time.

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science

It is just as erroneous to assume that there was a "beginning of time" as it is to assume that the universe was "created". Time is just another dimension of the space/time continuum in which we exist. The universe has always existed and as time is only a dimension of the universe it too has always existed.

You article mentioned does not present anything that would account for or work around the first moment problem.

Think about it. In any sequence of events, periods of time, no matter how large or small, there is a moment of time that precedes another moment of time.

The sequence must have started at some first moment in time, or else there could never be any other moments that follow. Without a first moment in time we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.

Time warps, spirals etc, do not escape that problem.

 

[hobelim]

Can a "perfect" being "create" an imperfect world? Isn't the creation of this imperfect world evidence that your creator is not "perfect"? Logic says that a perfect being could not create something that is imperfect. So it looks like we have used logic to discover another limitation of your creator.

What makes you think that the world is imperfect ? isn't it more likely that your view is flawed?

In a "perfect" world small children wouldn't be dying

the way I see it physical death, a natural part of life, is a blessing. If no one ever died it would take about three geological minutes for this planet to become an unspeakable hell.

[Science is not "disproving" the "creation story". Science is simply uncovering the facts as they are. There is no "intent to disprove the creation story" on the part of scientists.

Maybe so, but scientific discoveries and known facts should be used as a constraint on what might be any possible interpretation of any written story that is supposed to have taken place on this earth in this reality.


Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

[Care to share that revelation with everyone?

I have been doing just that. Haven't you noticed?

[Why do you believe that they are called "fairy tales" in the first place?

You must have noticed that I stand with you against all who would insist scripture is a historical document relating the literal truth.

all that I am saying is that there is much more there than what meets the literal eye.

To say it is not there is as silly as to claim that God diddled a virgin to father himself to so that he could become a fully human God without a human father..



Do you think that well known and long established literary techniques - allegories, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., etc., - do not apply to scripture, the Torah, which literally means instruction?


C'mon now, pay the piper.

 

[Hollie]

The flow of time must have a first moment in time for the simple fact that if there is no first moment in time, then there is nothing for time to come after. If there is no first hour, then there are no hours that follow. If there is no first second, then no seconds can follow.

The universe cannot have always existed. It is impossible.

Time as we experience it is a flow but it is it not like a river where you can find the "source of time". Time is a "fluid" concept that is more akin to tides than rivers. There is a "doppler" effect to time where the faster you travel the slower relative time moves. It is even theoretically possible to travel backwards in time.

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science

It is just as erroneous to assume that there was a "beginning of time" as it is to assume that the universe was "created". Time is just another dimension of the space/time continuum in which we exist. The universe has always existed and as time is only a dimension of the universe it too has always existed.

You article mentioned does not present anything that would account for or work around the first moment problem.

Think about it. In any sequence of events, periods of time, no matter how large or small, there is a moment of time that precedes another moment of time.

The sequence must have started at some first moment in time, or else there could never be any other moments that follow. Without a first moment in time we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.

Time warps, spirals etc, do not escape that problem.

The first moment problem would apply to your gawds, also. Although obviously, most religionists insist that their gawds get special dispensations... because their gawds have magical powers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The flow of time must have a first moment in time for the simple fact that if there is no first moment in time, then there is nothing for time to come after. If there is no first hour, then there are no hours that follow. If there is no first second, then no seconds can follow.

The universe cannot have always existed. It is impossible.

Time as we experience it is a flow but it is it not like a river where you can find the "source of time". Time is a "fluid" concept that is more akin to tides than rivers. There is a "doppler" effect to time where the faster you travel the slower relative time moves. It is even theoretically possible to travel backwards in time.

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science

It is just as erroneous to assume that there was a "beginning of time" as it is to assume that the universe was "created". Time is just another dimension of the space/time continuum in which we exist. The universe has always existed and as time is only a dimension of the universe it too has always existed.

You article mentioned does not present anything that would account for or work around the first moment problem.

Think about it. In any sequence of events, periods of time, no matter how large or small, there is a moment of time that precedes another moment of time.

The sequence must have started at some first moment in time, or else there could never be any other moments that follow. Without a first moment in time we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.

Time warps, spirals etc, do not escape that problem.

There is no problem with time. The problem pertains to our perception of time as being linear. We place arbitrary limits on time by defining a day as a single rotation of our planet and a year as being the time it takes to circle the sun. None of these arbitrary limitations apply in the rest of the universe. Time is more analogous to a Mobius strip. It has no beginning or ending. We are only perceiving it from our own limited perspective which is why you believe that it must have a "beginning". Time, or to be more precise, Space/Time does not have any such limitation.

 

[hobelim]

"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

The story of genesis is about the giving of the law, and the creation of Adam and Eve about the elevation of people from among the wild beasts of the field into a 'living being' aware of right and wrong and bound to the consequences of their actions..

The law is the light which separates the darkness and before the light was given, "the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep' which has further allegorical meaning.







Nonsense. Angels and devils and all the wild beasts of the wilderness described in scripture from dogs and pigs to serpents and vultures are allegorical descriptions of well known types of people that allude to the heights and depths of human potential. The story is just a fairy tale. try to learn what it teaches.

[Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?

No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

And after being shown how the story can be interpreted allegorically without contradicting reality a logical person would renounce their superstitious delusions forever and cut the ties that bind them in ignorance without ever looking back.

Give me a break this sounds like the usual rhetoric of an atheist nothing more nor nothing less.

I am not an atheist. I just don't believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn.

And I know that anyone who does profess to believe such bullshit has either been misled or has made evil a deliberate choice.

I see you have made yours.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

The story of genesis is about the giving of the law, and the creation of Adam and Eve about the elevation of people from among the wild beasts of the field into a 'living being' aware of right and wrong and bound to the consequences of their actions..

The law is the light which separates the darkness and before the light was given, "the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep' which has further allegorical meaning.







Nonsense. Angels and devils and all the wild beasts of the wilderness described in scripture from dogs and pigs to serpents and vultures are allegorical descriptions of well known types of people that allude to the heights and depths of human potential. The story is just a fairy tale. try to learn what it teaches.






No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

And after being shown how the story can be interpreted allegorically without contradicting reality a logical person would renounce their superstitious delusions forever and cut the ties that bind them in ignorance without ever looking back.

Give me a break this sounds like the usual rhetoric of an atheist nothing more nor nothing less.

I am not an atheist. I just don't believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn.

And I know that anyone who does profess to believe such bullshit has either been misled or has made evil a deliberate choice.

I see you have made yours.

I have made my choice that is correct. If you are not an atheist you are not far from it with the way you think.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

The story of genesis is about the giving of the law, and the creation of Adam and Eve about the elevation of people from among the wild beasts of the field into a 'living being' aware of right and wrong and bound to the consequences of their actions..

The law is the light which separates the darkness and before the light was given, "the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep' which has further allegorical meaning.







Nonsense. Angels and devils and all the wild beasts of the wilderness described in scripture from dogs and pigs to serpents and vultures are allegorical descriptions of well known types of people that allude to the heights and depths of human potential. The story is just a fairy tale. try to learn what it teaches.






No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

And after being shown how the story can be interpreted allegorically without contradicting reality a logical person would renounce their superstitious delusions forever and cut the ties that bind them in ignorance without ever looking back.

Give me a break this sounds like the usual rhetoric of an atheist nothing more nor nothing less.

I am not an atheist. I just don't believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn.

And I know that anyone who does profess to believe such bullshit has either been misled or has made evil a deliberate choice.

I see you have made yours.

Oh and there are no scientific facts that contradict the bible just faulty interpretations.





There are no facts in science - only measurement embedded within assumptions.

There are properties that have been determined so many times by different researchers and different techniques that we can treat a narrow range of values by consensus as if they were absolute facts. An example would be considering the boiling point of methanol at 1 atm to be 65C within one degree of accuracy. For most purposes that will suffice, as long as we understand the source of our confidence.

The problem arises when we treat rarely measured properties as facts simply because they are printed in peer-reviewed articles or tables in books. We teach our students not to trust numbers in Wikipedia but have no problem if they can cite a reference in a peer-reviewed journal, even without thoroughly analyzing the experimental sections.

We delude ourselves into thinking that we can appreciate our uncertainty of the value of a property simply by taking multiple measurements, taking an average and reporting standard deviation. That is actually a useful thing to do if we remember that we are measuring random errors and completely ignoring systematic errors, which are possibly very common in infrequently measured properties.

Are There Facts In Experimental Sciences?

Do you feel just a tad bit silly now. This is on just experimental science now think of all theories that contain mostly conjecture very little testable science.

 

[Hollie]

Give me a break this sounds like the usual rhetoric of an atheist nothing more nor nothing less.

I am not an atheist. I just don't believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn.

And I know that anyone who does profess to believe such bullshit has either been misled or has made evil a deliberate choice.

I see you have made yours.

Oh and there are no scientific facts that contradict the bible just faulty interpretations.

The result of "shaken baby" syndrome.