Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

[emilynghiem]

I’ll hop in. C This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them.

Who thought the earth was flat? that's a myth dreamed up by ...um .... 18th and 19th Century allegedly 'educated atheists'.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Uh...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the belief that the Earth was flat goes back a great deal further than that. In fact The Early Church ridiculed, and even imprisoned for heresy anyone "silly enough" to suggest that the earth was a sphere:

Christian Topography (547) by the Alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who had travelled as far as Sri Lanka and the source of the Blue Nile, is now widely considered the most valuable geographical document of the early medieval age, although it received relatively little attention from contemporaries. In it, the author repeatedly expounds the doctrine that the universe consists of only two places, the Earth below the firmament and heaven above it. Carefully drawing on arguments from scripture, he describes the Earth as a rectangle, 400 day's journey long by 200 wide, surrounded by four oceans and enclosed by four massive walls which support the firmament. The spherical Earth theory is contemptuously dismissed as "pagan"

So...yeah...the idea that the Earth was flat precedes the 1800's by quite a bit.

Dear Czernobog
Speaking of, since there is a revival of flat earthers using social media to get more conspiracy followers , I hope you will apply your brilliance and patience to intervention with those circles and bringing enlightenment to ppl who are sure they've been lied to and even the moon photos and footage are fake news!!

I have a friend who was questioning the spherical earth because of the conspiracy theory that Masons are a deceptive cult perpetuating this myth for control.

You might do more good for the sake of humanity by directing some of your time and tslents there to freeing lost souls or minds. If anyone can convince them of science being right I'm sure you can help the lost in that crowd! Please consider this as one possible mission or cause you could help with quite easily given your determination to stick with what is consistent truth and not religious propaganda to manipulate the masses. Thanks !

 

[hobelim]

So, I have a question. The creation Truth Foundation, in their statement of faith, claims, “The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

This might be a good time to remind everyone that while a relatively small group of Fundamentalist Christians who take everything in the Bible literally may claim the Bible inerrant in all matters, the greatest majority of Christians point out that Biblical inerrancy pertains to matters of faith.

You have faith that by worshipping and eating a lifeless matzo made by human hands you will receive eternal life even though it can neither see, hear, speak, or walk and has no life to give..

So much for inerancy in matters of faith...

 

[Czernobog]

I mean, I get it. After all, my questions put theists in a tight spot.

Funny how you see us in a tight spot while we, relaxed and comfortable, watch as you tie yourself up in knots over something that you say holds no meaning for you. Whatever it is you are seeking, I hope you find it.

Funny how the only way you can stay relaxed, and comfortable is by not honestly answering the question in the OP. And I'm not tied into anything. I found what I was seeking. Reason, and logic.

I’ll hop in. Considering we’re talking about people who had no concept that the sun was just a star, and the stars were just suns really really far away, that the earth was round, that disease was cause by tiny life, no concept of matter, energy, atoms, elements, the language/vocabulary to even describe this stuff, and thousands of other things we take for granted today...does it not raise eyebrows for you how close they got the creation story (especially compared to any other creation story out there)? There was a great void and emptiness, then boom, then god gave the heavens and earth shape, then the earth formed land and sea, then god created life in the sea, then the animals of the land, then finally humans...At the very least you have to be impressed with how close this spoken word, passed down for generations and finally into text, came to what we with all our knowledge know. This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them. I mean if you explained how the universe came into existence to a 5 year old, and they went and explained it to other 5 year olds, it just might sound something like that

Yeah, except it wasn't. First, you seem to forget that Genesis isn't as clear on that order as you present. You see, in chapter 1 of Genesis, it does appear to be in the correct evolutionary order. But, then, in chapter 2, the writer of Genesis changed their mind, and insisted that Man was created first, then all of the other animals. Also, there seems to be a little trouble with the physics even in Genesis, Chapter 1, You see, God, somehow, apparently created light, before creating the sun, and stars, even though light is generated by the sun, and stars. You want to pretend that Genesis perfectly aligns with our scientific knowledge of the universe. Except it really doesn't.

I never said it perfectly aligns at all, I said they got it suprispingly close considering.

You certainly implied it. And, repsectfully, it doesn't come close. That' is the point. It isn't even a little close.

And how do you explain a singularity, where ZERO light exists, no spacetime, then a great explosion, filling the universe and spewing vast ammounts of radiation, matter and a shit ton of energy...to scientific toddlers. And then consider these scientific toddlers go on and pass this story on and on. I would say light still holds up, there was plenty of energy, radiation, etc. going on before stars formed.

How do I explain it? I don't. The reality is that we don't know how it all got started, yet. There are several interesting theories out there - none of which require God - but we don't yet know, with certainty, how it started. However, "I don't know" has never been resolved by "It was God". That wasn't the resolution to "What is the Sun?" It wasn't the resolution to "What is lightening?" It wasn't to "Why do earthquakes happen?" And it won't be to this question, either. And here is another bit of news that might be surprising: When we learn the answer, it still won't be "The answer to everything". The answer to the question "How did the universe get started?" is going to open up a whole slew of new questions to which we won't know the answers. And guess what those answers won't be either!

Sam Harris once said, "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one."

And I would make that same challenge. Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

 

[Mudda]

So if you didn't know whom god was talking to, why did you respond to my initial question: to whom was god talking to when he said "let there be light"?

You are still not listening. I did respond to your question. In the Genesis account, God is not speaking to anyone. I've said this over and over and over and over and over....

The purpose of the Genesis account is to tell how light came into being. According to the Genesis account, the power of God's word brought light into being.

So He's talking to Himself. Got it.

 

[Mudda]

For us to know that Superman is flying, does an author use words to describe to us that Superman is flying? Perhaps try looking at it this way. The author did not describe God creating wire, then electricity, and then a light bulb. The author said God commanded light and there was light. Why do you believe God needed an audience? Don't we often use words in simple thoughts? There is no reason to complicate things. God commanded light and there was light. No audience required.

The law was spoken into existence as a light to the nations. The story of the creation of heaven and earth is really very uncomplicated already. Of course it matters if you do or don't understand what the story is even about.

Blindness of the audience must be addressed before anyone can see that light.

Nations didn't exist when the lights went on in our universe.

Ugh.. Is that the best you can do?

Before the law was given as a light that teaches people to distinguish between good and evil, true and false, clean and unclean, etc., the world was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep.

The story of genesis has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the creation of the universe, or the solar system or the first plants, animals or human beings..

lol, nothing in the bible means what's written it seems, because every time I bring something up, someone says "well, what's written is not what it means".

You like to dismiss the stories as fairy tales or fables but then balk at the revelation of the hidden teaching.

In any fairy tale with talking animals in a mythological place what it means, the teaching conveyed, is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you? Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Are you still angry at God because he let grandma get eaten by the big bad wolf?

sheesh...

When a child asks you for something good to eat for breakfast would you give them a bowl of turds?

What makes you think that when bronze age Hebrew children were hungry to start learning about life in the greater world they were given a load of crap?

So you're comparing the Bible to a fairy tale. Which one? Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

 

[Czernobog]

I’ll hop in. C This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them.

Who thought the earth was flat? that's a myth dreamed up by ...um .... 18th and 19th Century allegedly 'educated atheists'.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Uh...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the belief that the Earth was flat goes back a great deal further than that. In fact The Early Church ridiculed, and even imprisoned for heresy anyone "silly enough" to suggest that the earth was a sphere:

Christian Topography (547) by the Alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who had travelled as far as Sri Lanka and the source of the Blue Nile, is now widely considered the most valuable geographical document of the early medieval age, although it received relatively little attention from contemporaries. In it, the author repeatedly expounds the doctrine that the universe consists of only two places, the Earth below the firmament and heaven above it. Carefully drawing on arguments from scripture, he describes the Earth as a rectangle, 400 day's journey long by 200 wide, surrounded by four oceans and enclosed by four massive walls which support the firmament. The spherical Earth theory is contemptuously dismissed as "pagan"

So...yeah...the idea that the Earth was flat precedes the 1800's by quite a bit.

Dear Czernobog
Speaking of, since there is a revival of flat earthers using social media to get more conspiracy followers , I hope you will apply your brilliance and patience to intervention with those circles and bringing enlightenment to ppl who are sure they've been lied to and even the moon photos and footage are fake news!!

I have a friend who was questioning the spherical earth because of the conspiracy theory that Masons are a deceptive cult perpetuating this myth for control.

You might do more good for the sake of humanity by directing some of your time and tslents there to freeing lost souls or minds. If anyone can convince them of science being right I'm sure you can help the lost in that crowd! Please consider this as one possible mission or cause you could help with quite easily given your determination to stick with what is consistent truth and not religious propaganda to manipulate the masses. Thanks !

I haven't really involved myself in this particular fight, yet, as it has seemed to me that the people engaging in this lunacy have been crackpots, and attention-seekers. I really haven't seen "The Flat Earth" movement gaining any ground in mainstream intellectual circles. They're more just the people you point, at laugh about, and observe how silly they are.

 

[Mudda]

So if you didn't know whom god was talking to, why did you respond to my initial question: to whom was god talking to when he said "let there be light"?

You are still not listening. I did respond to your question. In the Genesis account, God is not speaking to anyone. I've said this over and over and over and over and over....

The purpose of the Genesis account is to tell how light came into being. According to the Genesis account, the power of God's word brought light into being.

Ugh.

What is the nature of light from God?

When Jesus said that he was the light of the world was he claiming to be the sun?

Jesus was an egomaniac, from what I can tell.

 

[Czernobog]

I’ll hop in. C This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them.

Who thought the earth was flat? that's a myth dreamed up by ...um .... 18th and 19th Century allegedly 'educated atheists'.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Uh...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the belief that the Earth was flat goes back a great deal further than that. In fact The Early Church ridiculed, and even imprisoned for heresy anyone "silly enough" to suggest that the earth was a sphere:

Christian Topography (547) by the Alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who had travelled as far as Sri Lanka and the source of the Blue Nile, is now widely considered the most valuable geographical document of the early medieval age, although it received relatively little attention from contemporaries. In it, the author repeatedly expounds the doctrine that the universe consists of only two places, the Earth below the firmament and heaven above it. Carefully drawing on arguments from scripture, he describes the Earth as a rectangle, 400 day's journey long by 200 wide, surrounded by four oceans and enclosed by four massive walls which support the firmament. The spherical Earth theory is contemptuously dismissed as "pagan"

So...yeah...the idea that the Earth was flat precedes the 1800's by quite a bit.

Cborg is correct on this. But back to the let there be light. I never claimed that god said that verbatim, that’s what early Jews said...obviously.

Point of interest. It's Czernobog, not borg. Czernobog is the Slavic God of Darkness, and Chaos.

 

[Meriweather]

So He's talking to Himself. Got it.

No, you don't "got it" but since it seems it is as close as you are going to get, we can leave it at that. Wishing you a nice day...

 

[sakinago]

Funny how you see us in a tight spot while we, relaxed and comfortable, watch as you tie yourself up in knots over something that you say holds no meaning for you. Whatever it is you are seeking, I hope you find it.

Funny how the only way you can stay relaxed, and comfortable is by not honestly answering the question in the OP. And I'm not tied into anything. I found what I was seeking. Reason, and logic.

I’ll hop in. Considering we’re talking about people who had no concept that the sun was just a star, and the stars were just suns really really far away, that the earth was round, that disease was cause by tiny life, no concept of matter, energy, atoms, elements, the language/vocabulary to even describe this stuff, and thousands of other things we take for granted today...does it not raise eyebrows for you how close they got the creation story (especially compared to any other creation story out there)? There was a great void and emptiness, then boom, then god gave the heavens and earth shape, then the earth formed land and sea, then god created life in the sea, then the animals of the land, then finally humans...At the very least you have to be impressed with how close this spoken word, passed down for generations and finally into text, came to what we with all our knowledge know. This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them. I mean if you explained how the universe came into existence to a 5 year old, and they went and explained it to other 5 year olds, it just might sound something like that

Yeah, except it wasn't. First, you seem to forget that Genesis isn't as clear on that order as you present. You see, in chapter 1 of Genesis, it does appear to be in the correct evolutionary order. But, then, in chapter 2, the writer of Genesis changed their mind, and insisted that Man was created first, then all of the other animals. Also, there seems to be a little trouble with the physics even in Genesis, Chapter 1, You see, God, somehow, apparently created light, before creating the sun, and stars, even though light is generated by the sun, and stars. You want to pretend that Genesis perfectly aligns with our scientific knowledge of the universe. Except it really doesn't.

I never said it perfectly aligns at all, I said they got it suprispingly close considering.

You certainly implied it. And, repsectfully, it doesn't come close. That' is the point. It isn't even a little close.

And how do you explain a singularity, where ZERO light exists, no spacetime, then a great explosion, filling the universe and spewing vast ammounts of radiation, matter and a shit ton of energy...to scientific toddlers. And then consider these scientific toddlers go on and pass this story on and on. I would say light still holds up, there was plenty of energy, radiation, etc. going on before stars formed.

How do I explain it? I don't. The reality is that we don't know how it all got started, yet. There are several interesting theories out there - none of which require God - but we don't yet know, with certainty, how it started. However, "I don't know" has never been resolved by "It was God". That wasn't the resolution to "What is the Sun?" It wasn't the resolution to "What is lightening?" It wasn't to "Why do earthquakes happen?" And it won't be to this question, either. And here is another bit of news that might be surprising: When we learn the answer, it still won't be "The answer to everything". The answer to the question "How did the universe get started?" is going to open up a whole slew of new questions to which we won't know the answers. And guess what those answers won't be either!

Sam Harris once said, "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one."

And I would make that same challenge. Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

No you’re missing the point, I’m not saying how do you explain the Big Bang without a god. But how would one explain the Big Bang to people who have no concept of any sort of astrophysics, and further how would they describe that?

 

[sakinago]

I’ll hop in. C This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them.

Who thought the earth was flat? that's a myth dreamed up by ...um .... 18th and 19th Century allegedly 'educated atheists'.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Uh...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the belief that the Earth was flat goes back a great deal further than that. In fact The Early Church ridiculed, and even imprisoned for heresy anyone "silly enough" to suggest that the earth was a sphere:

Christian Topography (547) by the Alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who had travelled as far as Sri Lanka and the source of the Blue Nile, is now widely considered the most valuable geographical document of the early medieval age, although it received relatively little attention from contemporaries. In it, the author repeatedly expounds the doctrine that the universe consists of only two places, the Earth below the firmament and heaven above it. Carefully drawing on arguments from scripture, he describes the Earth as a rectangle, 400 day's journey long by 200 wide, surrounded by four oceans and enclosed by four massive walls which support the firmament. The spherical Earth theory is contemptuously dismissed as "pagan"

So...yeah...the idea that the Earth was flat precedes the 1800's by quite a bit.

Cborg is correct on this. But back to the let there be light. I never claimed that god said that verbatim, that’s what early Jews said...obviously.

Point of interest. It's Czernobog, not borg. Czernobog is the Slavic God of Darkness, and Chaos.

Figured it was Eastern European

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

einstein thought to build an A-bomb during a world war that was not answered by scriptural religion which only go's to show your premise has a gaping hole in it ... neither has the quality necessary to decipher the truth when it is only an either / or proposition. presently, the books are all written by the same types -

the third face of eve, the fee knowing spirit is what is missing from collective humanity as the definition of humanity must include the awfulness recorded history portrays for mankind as an endless series of deliberate incursions that can only be described as evil repeating itself without interruption.

science / religion to accomplish its collective goal as seemingly set would be to become together an Almighty unison where acceptance would be universal and the rewards shared by all beings be what they may. life on Earth to become as perceived while living as their dreams project life after death.

the desert religions have always been a disservice for what they attempt to convey, science has yet to prove any differently.

 

[Czernobog]

Funny how the only way you can stay relaxed, and comfortable is by not honestly answering the question in the OP. And I'm not tied into anything. I found what I was seeking. Reason, and logic.

I’ll hop in. Considering we’re talking about people who had no concept that the sun was just a star, and the stars were just suns really really far away, that the earth was round, that disease was cause by tiny life, no concept of matter, energy, atoms, elements, the language/vocabulary to even describe this stuff, and thousands of other things we take for granted today...does it not raise eyebrows for you how close they got the creation story (especially compared to any other creation story out there)? There was a great void and emptiness, then boom, then god gave the heavens and earth shape, then the earth formed land and sea, then god created life in the sea, then the animals of the land, then finally humans...At the very least you have to be impressed with how close this spoken word, passed down for generations and finally into text, came to what we with all our knowledge know. This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them. I mean if you explained how the universe came into existence to a 5 year old, and they went and explained it to other 5 year olds, it just might sound something like that

Yeah, except it wasn't. First, you seem to forget that Genesis isn't as clear on that order as you present. You see, in chapter 1 of Genesis, it does appear to be in the correct evolutionary order. But, then, in chapter 2, the writer of Genesis changed their mind, and insisted that Man was created first, then all of the other animals. Also, there seems to be a little trouble with the physics even in Genesis, Chapter 1, You see, God, somehow, apparently created light, before creating the sun, and stars, even though light is generated by the sun, and stars. You want to pretend that Genesis perfectly aligns with our scientific knowledge of the universe. Except it really doesn't.

I never said it perfectly aligns at all, I said they got it suprispingly close considering.

You certainly implied it. And, repsectfully, it doesn't come close. That' is the point. It isn't even a little close.

And how do you explain a singularity, where ZERO light exists, no spacetime, then a great explosion, filling the universe and spewing vast ammounts of radiation, matter and a shit ton of energy...to scientific toddlers. And then consider these scientific toddlers go on and pass this story on and on. I would say light still holds up, there was plenty of energy, radiation, etc. going on before stars formed.

How do I explain it? I don't. The reality is that we don't know how it all got started, yet. There are several interesting theories out there - none of which require God - but we don't yet know, with certainty, how it started. However, "I don't know" has never been resolved by "It was God". That wasn't the resolution to "What is the Sun?" It wasn't the resolution to "What is lightening?" It wasn't to "Why do earthquakes happen?" And it won't be to this question, either. And here is another bit of news that might be surprising: When we learn the answer, it still won't be "The answer to everything". The answer to the question "How did the universe get started?" is going to open up a whole slew of new questions to which we won't know the answers. And guess what those answers won't be either!

Sam Harris once said, "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one."

And I would make that same challenge. Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

No you’re missing the point, I’m not saying how do you explain the Big Bang without a god. But how would one explain the Big Bang to people who have no concept of any sort of astrophysics, and further how would they describe that?

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by introducing them to some mythical "Magi-Man-In-The-Sky"! I can certainly understand your "telephone game" explanation of how the original story got distort. However, even with that, what you are saying is that God is the invention of Man.

 

[Czernobog]

.

Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

einstein thought to build an A-bomb during a world war that was not answered by scriptural religion which only go's to show your premise has a gaping hole in it ... neither has the quality necessary to decipher the truth when it is only an either / or proposition. presently, the books are all written by the same types -

the third face of eve, the fee knowing spirit is what is missing from collective humanity as the definition of humanity must include the awfulness recorded history portrays for mankind as an endless series of deliberate incursions that can only be described as evil repeating itself without interruption.

science / religion to accomplish its collective goal as seemingly set would be to become together an Almighty unison where acceptance would be universal and the rewards shared by all beings be what they may. life on Earth to become as perceived while living as their dreams project life after death.

the desert religions have always been a disservice for what they attempt to convey, science has yet to prove any differently.

Okay...You start with Einstein, and then devolve into a blather word salad that I tried for 20 minutes to try to make sense of, in, I presume since you were directly responding to my challenge to do so, an attempt to point out some scientific question that was ultimately answered more rationally by religion.

By all means, I invite you to translate that gibberish into English for the rest of us.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

einstein thought to build an A-bomb during a world war that was not answered by scriptural religion which only go's to show your premise has a gaping hole in it ... neither has the quality necessary to decipher the truth when it is only an either / or proposition. presently, the books are all written by the same types -

the third face of eve, the fee knowing spirit is what is missing from collective humanity as the definition of humanity must include the awfulness recorded history portrays for mankind as an endless series of deliberate incursions that can only be described as evil repeating itself without interruption.

science / religion to accomplish its collective goal as seemingly set would be to become together an Almighty unison where acceptance would be universal and the rewards shared by all beings be what they may. life on Earth to become as perceived while living as their dreams project life after death.

the desert religions have always been a disservice for what they attempt to convey, science has yet to prove any differently.

Okay...You start with Einstein, and then devolve into a blather word salad that I tried for 20 minutes to try to make sense of, in, I presume since you were directly responding to my challenge to do so, an attempt to point out some scientific question that was ultimately answered more rationally by religion.

By all means, I invite you to translate that gibberish into English for the rest of us.

.

By all means, I invite you to translate that gibberish into English for the rest of us.

it's self explanatory I doubt it would be an issue if found in the bible which you freely translate flawlessly -

you distinguish science that exists to explain origins as different than religion which you equate somehow to the desert religions where there is no equivalency the same as saying science was responsible for Hiroshima.

 

[Czernobog]

.

Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

einstein thought to build an A-bomb during a world war that was not answered by scriptural religion which only go's to show your premise has a gaping hole in it ... neither has the quality necessary to decipher the truth when it is only an either / or proposition. presently, the books are all written by the same types -

the third face of eve, the fee knowing spirit is what is missing from collective humanity as the definition of humanity must include the awfulness recorded history portrays for mankind as an endless series of deliberate incursions that can only be described as evil repeating itself without interruption.

science / religion to accomplish its collective goal as seemingly set would be to become together an Almighty unison where acceptance would be universal and the rewards shared by all beings be what they may. life on Earth to become as perceived while living as their dreams project life after death.

the desert religions have always been a disservice for what they attempt to convey, science has yet to prove any differently.

Okay...You start with Einstein, and then devolve into a blather word salad that I tried for 20 minutes to try to make sense of, in, I presume since you were directly responding to my challenge to do so, an attempt to point out some scientific question that was ultimately answered more rationally by religion.

By all means, I invite you to translate that gibberish into English for the rest of us.

.

By all means, I invite you to translate that gibberish into English for the rest of us.

it's self explanatory I doubt it would be an issue if found in the bible which you freely translate flawlessly -

you distinguish science that exists to explain origins as different than religion which you equate somehow to the desert religions where there is no equivalency the same as saying science was responsible for Hiroshima.

In some ways, science was responsible for Hiroshima. "I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds," That was what Oppenheimer said when he saw the first successful test. It, literally, scared the absolute fuck out of him. It appalled him to realise the level of devastation that he had just helped to create. So what? How does that alter the reality that religion will never answer the question that Sakinago asked? He didn't ask a question about morality, which is what you seem to want to make this. He asked a question about objective reality: Where did the universe come from? How was it formed? These are the types of questions that science over, and over have purposed answers for. And, not once, in all of history, has religion ever gone behind science, and proven to correct it. Not. Once.

 

[sakinago]

I’ll hop in. Considering we’re talking about people who had no concept that the sun was just a star, and the stars were just suns really really far away, that the earth was round, that disease was cause by tiny life, no concept of matter, energy, atoms, elements, the language/vocabulary to even describe this stuff, and thousands of other things we take for granted today...does it not raise eyebrows for you how close they got the creation story (especially compared to any other creation story out there)? There was a great void and emptiness, then boom, then god gave the heavens and earth shape, then the earth formed land and sea, then god created life in the sea, then the animals of the land, then finally humans...At the very least you have to be impressed with how close this spoken word, passed down for generations and finally into text, came to what we with all our knowledge know. This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them. I mean if you explained how the universe came into existence to a 5 year old, and they went and explained it to other 5 year olds, it just might sound something like that

Yeah, except it wasn't. First, you seem to forget that Genesis isn't as clear on that order as you present. You see, in chapter 1 of Genesis, it does appear to be in the correct evolutionary order. But, then, in chapter 2, the writer of Genesis changed their mind, and insisted that Man was created first, then all of the other animals. Also, there seems to be a little trouble with the physics even in Genesis, Chapter 1, You see, God, somehow, apparently created light, before creating the sun, and stars, even though light is generated by the sun, and stars. You want to pretend that Genesis perfectly aligns with our scientific knowledge of the universe. Except it really doesn't.

I never said it perfectly aligns at all, I said they got it suprispingly close considering.

You certainly implied it. And, repsectfully, it doesn't come close. That' is the point. It isn't even a little close.

And how do you explain a singularity, where ZERO light exists, no spacetime, then a great explosion, filling the universe and spewing vast ammounts of radiation, matter and a shit ton of energy...to scientific toddlers. And then consider these scientific toddlers go on and pass this story on and on. I would say light still holds up, there was plenty of energy, radiation, etc. going on before stars formed.

How do I explain it? I don't. The reality is that we don't know how it all got started, yet. There are several interesting theories out there - none of which require God - but we don't yet know, with certainty, how it started. However, "I don't know" has never been resolved by "It was God". That wasn't the resolution to "What is the Sun?" It wasn't the resolution to "What is lightening?" It wasn't to "Why do earthquakes happen?" And it won't be to this question, either. And here is another bit of news that might be surprising: When we learn the answer, it still won't be "The answer to everything". The answer to the question "How did the universe get started?" is going to open up a whole slew of new questions to which we won't know the answers. And guess what those answers won't be either!

Sam Harris once said, "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one."

And I would make that same challenge. Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

No you’re missing the point, I’m not saying how do you explain the Big Bang without a god. But how would one explain the Big Bang to people who have no concept of any sort of astrophysics, and further how would they describe that?

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by introducing them to some mythical "Magi-Man-In-The-Sky"! I can certainly understand your "telephone game" explanation of how the original story got distort. However, even with that, what you are saying is that God is the invention of Man.

Ok now you’re running fast to beat on a strawman. No I clearly never said that. My point is clear, even without the telephone game (although that does add credence). Even with google translate, as I talk to my cousins in Brazil earlier today, much is still lost in translation from superiorly educated (compared to back then) man to man. We’re talking about people who didn’t even have the language to describe what we know now about the formation of the universe, earth, and life. If a god or person taught or showed or whatever to pigmys on some pacific island who’ve never experienced the modern world...people who have never conceived of a singularity, to where if you told them all you see, plus more, was condensed to the size smaller than a pinkie toe nail and would call you crazy, do you think they’d fully grasp that concept and be able to describe it back to you?

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah, except it wasn't. First, you seem to forget that Genesis isn't as clear on that order as you present. You see, in chapter 1 of Genesis, it does appear to be in the correct evolutionary order. But, then, in chapter 2, the writer of Genesis changed their mind, and insisted that Man was created first, then all of the other animals. Also, there seems to be a little trouble with the physics even in Genesis, Chapter 1, You see, God, somehow, apparently created light, before creating the sun, and stars, even though light is generated by the sun, and stars. You want to pretend that Genesis perfectly aligns with our scientific knowledge of the universe. Except it really doesn't.

I never said it perfectly aligns at all, I said they got it suprispingly close considering.

You certainly implied it. And, repsectfully, it doesn't come close. That' is the point. It isn't even a little close.

And how do you explain a singularity, where ZERO light exists, no spacetime, then a great explosion, filling the universe and spewing vast ammounts of radiation, matter and a shit ton of energy...to scientific toddlers. And then consider these scientific toddlers go on and pass this story on and on. I would say light still holds up, there was plenty of energy, radiation, etc. going on before stars formed.

How do I explain it? I don't. The reality is that we don't know how it all got started, yet. There are several interesting theories out there - none of which require God - but we don't yet know, with certainty, how it started. However, "I don't know" has never been resolved by "It was God". That wasn't the resolution to "What is the Sun?" It wasn't the resolution to "What is lightening?" It wasn't to "Why do earthquakes happen?" And it won't be to this question, either. And here is another bit of news that might be surprising: When we learn the answer, it still won't be "The answer to everything". The answer to the question "How did the universe get started?" is going to open up a whole slew of new questions to which we won't know the answers. And guess what those answers won't be either!

Sam Harris once said, "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one."

And I would make that same challenge. Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

No you’re missing the point, I’m not saying how do you explain the Big Bang without a god. But how would one explain the Big Bang to people who have no concept of any sort of astrophysics, and further how would they describe that?

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by introducing them to some mythical "Magi-Man-In-The-Sky"! I can certainly understand your "telephone game" explanation of how the original story got distort. However, even with that, what you are saying is that God is the invention of Man.

Ok now you’re running fast to beat on a strawman. No I clearly never said that. My point is clear, even without the telephone game (although that does add credence). Even with google translate, as I talk to my cousins in Brazil earlier today, much is still lost in translation from superiorly educated (compared to back then) man to man. We’re talking about people who didn’t even have the language to describe what we know now about the formation of the universe, earth, and life. If a god or person taught or showed or whatever to pigmys on some pacific island who’ve never experienced the modern world...people who have never conceived of a singularity, to where if you told them all you see, plus more, was condensed to the size smaller than a pinkie toe nail and would call you crazy, do you think they’d fully grasp that concept and be able to describe it back to you?

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

 

[sakinago]

I never said it perfectly aligns at all, I said they got it suprispingly close considering.

You certainly implied it. And, repsectfully, it doesn't come close. That' is the point. It isn't even a little close.

And how do you explain a singularity, where ZERO light exists, no spacetime, then a great explosion, filling the universe and spewing vast ammounts of radiation, matter and a shit ton of energy...to scientific toddlers. And then consider these scientific toddlers go on and pass this story on and on. I would say light still holds up, there was plenty of energy, radiation, etc. going on before stars formed.

How do I explain it? I don't. The reality is that we don't know how it all got started, yet. There are several interesting theories out there - none of which require God - but we don't yet know, with certainty, how it started. However, "I don't know" has never been resolved by "It was God". That wasn't the resolution to "What is the Sun?" It wasn't the resolution to "What is lightening?" It wasn't to "Why do earthquakes happen?" And it won't be to this question, either. And here is another bit of news that might be surprising: When we learn the answer, it still won't be "The answer to everything". The answer to the question "How did the universe get started?" is going to open up a whole slew of new questions to which we won't know the answers. And guess what those answers won't be either!

Sam Harris once said, "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one."

And I would make that same challenge. Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

No you’re missing the point, I’m not saying how do you explain the Big Bang without a god. But how would one explain the Big Bang to people who have no concept of any sort of astrophysics, and further how would they describe that?

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by introducing them to some mythical "Magi-Man-In-The-Sky"! I can certainly understand your "telephone game" explanation of how the original story got distort. However, even with that, what you are saying is that God is the invention of Man.

Ok now you’re running fast to beat on a strawman. No I clearly never said that. My point is clear, even without the telephone game (although that does add credence). Even with google translate, as I talk to my cousins in Brazil earlier today, much is still lost in translation from superiorly educated (compared to back then) man to man. We’re talking about people who didn’t even have the language to describe what we know now about the formation of the universe, earth, and life. If a god or person taught or showed or whatever to pigmys on some pacific island who’ve never experienced the modern world...people who have never conceived of a singularity, to where if you told them all you see, plus more, was condensed to the size smaller than a pinkie toe nail and would call you crazy, do you think they’d fully grasp that concept and be able to describe it back to you?

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

 

[Czernobog]

You certainly implied it. And, repsectfully, it doesn't come close. That' is the point. It isn't even a little close.

How do I explain it? I don't. The reality is that we don't know how it all got started, yet. There are several interesting theories out there - none of which require God - but we don't yet know, with certainty, how it started. However, "I don't know" has never been resolved by "It was God". That wasn't the resolution to "What is the Sun?" It wasn't the resolution to "What is lightening?" It wasn't to "Why do earthquakes happen?" And it won't be to this question, either. And here is another bit of news that might be surprising: When we learn the answer, it still won't be "The answer to everything". The answer to the question "How did the universe get started?" is going to open up a whole slew of new questions to which we won't know the answers. And guess what those answers won't be either!

Sam Harris once said, "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one."

And I would make that same challenge. Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

No you’re missing the point, I’m not saying how do you explain the Big Bang without a god. But how would one explain the Big Bang to people who have no concept of any sort of astrophysics, and further how would they describe that?

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by introducing them to some mythical "Magi-Man-In-The-Sky"! I can certainly understand your "telephone game" explanation of how the original story got distort. However, even with that, what you are saying is that God is the invention of Man.

Ok now you’re running fast to beat on a strawman. No I clearly never said that. My point is clear, even without the telephone game (although that does add credence). Even with google translate, as I talk to my cousins in Brazil earlier today, much is still lost in translation from superiorly educated (compared to back then) man to man. We’re talking about people who didn’t even have the language to describe what we know now about the formation of the universe, earth, and life. If a god or person taught or showed or whatever to pigmys on some pacific island who’ve never experienced the modern world...people who have never conceived of a singularity, to where if you told them all you see, plus more, was condensed to the size smaller than a pinkie toe nail and would call you crazy, do you think they’d fully grasp that concept and be able to describe it back to you?

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.