The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Sin City · 12-10-2012 03:26PM

systemsready wrote: »

How can I prove that its possible they may be in error...then it would not be a possibility...it would be a certainty!

so you just think they are wrong to show your veiw to be right and not give any evidence to support your claim.

I mean do you think that they never carried the 1 over when doing caluclations which meant they they were out by a few billion years when calculating the age of the earth , stars sun galaxy and everything else?

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:26PM

Sin City wrote: »

I dont think you know what reason is

You have just proved to me you never reason

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:28PM

Sin City wrote: »

so you just think they are wrong to show your veiw to be right and not give any evidence to support your claim.

I mean do you think that they never carried the 1 over when doing caluclations which meant they they were out by a few billion years when calculating the age of the earth , stars sun galaxy and everything else?

I'm just saying that once men believed in many things through evidence that later became unproven. Don't hold your breath though...these things may not be revealed until well after you and I have perished.

Sin City · 12-10-2012 03:28PM

systemsready wrote: »

You have just proved to me you never reason

At least I have "PROVED " something or offered evidence which you havent yet.

Ok why dont you explain your reasoning here

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:30PM

shizz wrote: »

Sorry I was presuming that you where all for Christianity instead of Judaism.

I'm not for either..what I'm doing is analysing and getting a truer picture than what was presented to me during my formative years. Everyone must analyse what it is he believes...down to the last letter.

Sin City · 12-10-2012 03:30PM

systemsready wrote: »

I'm just saying that once men believed in many things through evidence that later became unproven. Don't hold your breath though...these things may not be revealed until well after you and I have perished.

Yes science is evolving, it can change with new evidence.

Yet with religion its all fables pretending to be facts without any evidence to back it up

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:33PM

Sin City wrote: »

At least I have "PROVED " something or offered evidence which you havent yet.

Ok why dont you explain your reasoning here

Where was your evidence for this statement?

Originally Posted by Sin City
I dont think you know what reason is

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:34PM

Sin City wrote: »

Yes science is evolving, it can change with new evidence.

Yet with religion its all fables pretending to be facts without any evidence to back it up

No you have it wrong...religion is facts sometimes delivered as parables..and sometimes explicitly clear.

shizz · 12-10-2012 03:39PM

systemsready wrote: »

No you have it wrong...religion is facts sometimes delivered as parables..and sometimes explicitly clear.

That has to be the most deluded sentence I've ever read.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:42PM

shizz wrote: »

That has to be the most deluded sentence I've ever read.

Elaborate please

shizz · 12-10-2012 03:45PM

systemsready wrote: »

Elaborate please

For something to be taken as fact it has to be verifiable. So to say that what religious books are based on are facts, is deluded.

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 03:45PM

systemsready wrote: »

I'm not jewish,
I'm saying if Pork is deemed filthy by a jew...why would it be clean for me? Isnt filth =filth....tell me somewhere , anywhere, where you find a difference of opinion on what is clean and what is dirty among educated people.
If you walk into a restaurant with sh** on your hands, no one there is going to accept it. Its filthy, and its universal.

Hilarious 'logic'.

You basically are saying you are Jewish, but you don't follow all of their laws, just the ones that you like.

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 03:57PM

Sin City wrote: »

Yes science is evolving, it can change with new evidence.

Yet with religion its all fables pretending to be facts without any evidence to back it up

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." I would say that there is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. The argument that science is is the only begetter of the truth is, itself, an untestable statement. "Taste and see the Lord is good." There is another way to grasp truth and that (I am coming from Descartes angle) is faith.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:58PM

shizz wrote: »

For something to be taken as fact it has to be verifiable. So to say that what religious books are based on are facts, is deluded.

Well, its what I believe and the more I research these facts the more I believe in them. And that takes a lifetime of research. You should start now before its too late.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 03:59PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." I would say that there is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. The argument that science is is the only begetter of the truth is, itself, an untestable statement. "Taste and see the Lord is good." There is another way to grasp truth and that (I am coming from Descartes angle) is faith.

Excellent post

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 03:59PM

systemsready wrote: »

Well, its what I believe and the more I research these factsbeliefs the more I believe in them. And that takes a lifetime of research. You should start now before its too late.

Some of us will just stick to stuff that can be proved. There are too many gods out there to believe in them all.

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 04:00PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." I would say that there is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. The argument that science is is the only begetter of the truth is, itself, an untestable statement. "Taste and see the Lord is good." There is another way to grasp truth and that (I am coming from Descartes angle) is faith.

Not really. Pretty poetry, but it doesn't add up to anything.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 04:02PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Hilarious 'logic'.

You basically are saying you are Jewish, but you don't follow all of their laws, just the ones that you like.

To be jewish you have to be born into one of the twelve tribes don't you?
I can never be jewish, even if i converted to judaism , for the orthodox i could never be jewish.
Judaism runs through the female, so the mother has to be jewish.
I could marry a jewish girl and convert just for the marriage, my children could be jewish because of the mother, but not me.

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 04:03PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Some of us will just stick to stuff that can be proved. There are too many gods out there to believe in them all.

Gods. Very interesting comment. We can rule out the Olympian deities already. We can rule out those that rule themselves out like Hinduism. That leaves you with what - three religions based around one fact - that of Christ. Christianity is the only one that can truly hold on to truth when viewed closely.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 04:04PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Some of us will just stick to stuff that can be proved. There are too many gods out there to believe in them all.

As JAN HUS so eloquently put it:
Originally Posted by Jan Hus
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." I would say that there is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. The argument that science is is the only begetter of the truth is, itself, an untestable statement. "Taste and see the Lord is good." There is another way to grasp truth and that (I am coming from Descartes angle) is faith.

There is another way to grasp the truth (another way to prove things)

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 04:05PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Not really. Pretty poetry, but it doesn't add up to anything.

Explain. How do you know that you are not just a brain in a vat being experimented on? By faith.

Sin City · 12-10-2012 04:05PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." I would say that there is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. The argument that science is is the only begetter of the truth is, itself, an untestable statement. "Taste and see the Lord is good." There is another way to grasp truth and that (I am coming from Descartes angle) is faith.

I think youll find that faith is untestable therefore as much use as a chocolate kettle

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 04:07PM

systemsready wrote: »

To be jewish you have to be born into one of the twelve tribes don't you?
I can never be jewish, even if i converted to judaism , for the orthodox i could never be jewish.
Judaism runs through the female, so the mother has to be jewish.
I could marry a jewish girl and convert just for the marriage, my children could be jewish because of the mother, but not me.

So the orthodox decide who can be Jewish, not god? Wow, the god you believe is so unbelievably restricted by external rules.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 04:07PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There are too many gods out there to believe in them all.

We were not all brought into existence by different Creators...you cannot accept that as rational thinking.

The Chinese were created by god X, The English by god Y, etc etc

Impossible

Rationally there is only 1 Creator

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 04:07PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

Explain. How do you know that you are not just a brain in a vat being experimented on? By faith.

You don't know. End of.

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 04:07PM

Sin City wrote: »

I think youll find that faith is untestable therefore as much use as a chocolate kettle

But how many chocolate kettles created the world?

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 04:08PM

systemsready wrote: »

We were not all brought into existence by different Creators...you cannot accept that as rational thinking.

The Chinese were created by god X, The English by god Y, etc etc

Impossible

Rationally there is only 1 Creator

Right, and everybody has the one (or ones) they like to believe in. Why don't you believe in Zoroaster, for example?

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 04:09PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You don't know. End of.

Acknowledging this why do you insist on testability?

Sin City · 12-10-2012 04:11PM

systemsready wrote: »

We were not all brought into existence by different Creators...you cannot accept that as rational thinking.

Myself and my siblings were brought into existence by the same creators, our mam and dad

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 04:12PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right, and everybody has the one (or ones) they like to believe in. Why don't you believe in Zoroaster, for example?

Because Dualism while (as CS Lewis described it) manly is untrue. Looking at the world how can you acknowledge there are two deities fighting? By the way is this supposed to be a pun on Neizche

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments