just good old god

ZeusAres42

@Dee

I’m afraid E T will avoid your question it’s just to tricky for him or maybe you’re in for the usual fury laden response 

It started with him and Maxx talking about the morality of God. When I addressed a question to him about morality and God all of a sudden it was "apparently irrelevant." Convenient much? 

What's more, is that he even continued to disagree with the fact that what Maxx had actually started this debate with which was "assuming that God exists then what can you tell me about his character?" Now, unless I am living in a parallel world I am pretty sure that is what Maxx wrote. 

Also, when you're talking about a character of someone whether they be real or fictitious it evidently logically follows that would entail something about the morality of that character to or lack thereof.

Moreover, I decided to no longer engage in a serious discussion with E.T as he himself has proven he is not worthy of one. And definitely not worth my time.

Sand

@maxx

That was fascinating information.

maxx

yes I am sure you took time to read it.  I wish you could go to the grand canyon. It was carved from top to bottam through and is over 18 miles long by a river. If you actually believe this was accomplished in a mere 6 6o 10 thousand years then I am sorry to say that you know little of earth science and geology.@Sand

maxx

very correct. a simple post and no one could answer it without double talk and saying god only has good characteristics and completely ignore the rest especially when I asked according to the bible and we can see both sides, good and bad in the bible and they not only ignore the obvious but seem incapable of answering a hypothetical question without rancor.@ZeusAres42

Sand

Well here are the issues with science.

It seems to me that science cannot tell us what happens in the past or future.

Science can only answer in the present.

So science could answer in the present of the making of the Grand Canyon, but it cannot answer looking back.

I will give you an example.

There are some fantastical things that was said to have happened during WW1.

Could you provide evidence that those things occurred or did not occur.

The only way is though documented eyewitnesses.

I believe scientists work hard to try to disprove the fantastical stories. 

Nevertheless, science cannot disprove or prove the past or the future.

It is impossible to do so.

Eyewitnesses is the only way to verify what happened.

We have to look deep in peoples stories (documented eyewitness accounts) to find answers.

What happens when people in the present begin to question the witnesses and the events as not true?

Then people begin to believe that the whole event did not happen, or at least the way it is said it happened.

I do not argue against the evidence of the Grand Canyon.

I just do not say it argues against man being here more than 6000 years.

The Grand Canyon could have been here millions of years.

It seems like the creative days could have been 100s of millions of years each.

Just like Science has its right to change its theories to fit the evidence.

The Bible has its right to change its viewpoints to fit the discoveries.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Maxx agreed as did E T slavery is evil but biblical slavery wasn’t ......slavery , yet the Bible states several times slaves are your property and tells how to purchase , beat and use them , ET claimed modern sport stars are also slaves even though they get paid millions a year.

The dishonesty of ET and hypocrisy is appalling he rants and rages at anyone who pokes holes in his pathetic arguments , funnily enough the tells everyone regarding the Bible “ read the text without your spin on it “ yet when confronted with slavery verses he reinterprets then with his own spin anything to avoid admitting his defeat..

You’re very wise ignoring him I will do the same as I note others have done also , he’s a troll and a very childish one at that 

maxx

you state man has only been alive for around 6000 years so I am assuming first that you mean modern man, not cro- magnon or neanderthal, or other human ancestors that homo sapiens derived from. as well, there is this branch of science called archeology and they are very goo.d at what they do. They can reconstruct sites using very little that shards of pottery, stone tools, seeds. and so on. they and other branches of science show them in Africa over 300,000 years ago. what I can't fathom is the cake and eat it too idea most christains have for when science finds and confirms and dates a biblical site, then they are in total agreement with the findings; yet not when it conflicts with their views and beliefs. it is kind of like showing one a red rose and a green rose; thy believe in the red for it fits their beliefs but wont even look at the green one even when it is placed in front of them @Sand

Sand

@maxx

Cro-magnon or Neanderthal man is Science way of trying to explain the past, which it cannot do.

Science can reconstruct sites using very little shards of pottery, stone tools, seeds, etc. but who is to say they are right or wrong.

The science showing people alive before 6000 years is trying to explain the past.

They are going with carbon dating. 

Someone took a 400 year piece of wood that gave a carbon date of over 9000 years in carbon 14.

This piece of wood was a piece out of someone's house.

So the scientists adjusted the carbon formula, which made many scientists question if the environment was different back then, could it give us false readings now?

Once again science changes their theories to fit the evidence.

The evidence in the past may have been different from the evidence now.

So reconstructing a site based on the evidence now is like reconstructing a picture from one puzzle piece.

The Cake and Eat it

Right now there are scientists arguing against the landing on the moon.

There are scientists who argue against the holocaust.

There are scientists arguing against the seven wonders of the world.

That is your green rose.

By acknowledging that rose you cause other problems. Most of us in the world choose to acknowledge the red until more concrete information comes out.

Typically like carbon dating, scientists will condemn other lines of thinking as completely false because of that Green Rose.

Then later another Scientist discovers information showing it wasn't a Rose but a Lisianthus.

Elephant

Let's look at the real reasons for science attacking the past.

Science only attacks the past because the Bible points to God.

It's not the miracles, or the 6000 years, or the other small issues.

The Bible is one of the strongest evidence pointing to a creator.

If God is real then man has to acknowledge the morals outlined by a higher more intelligent being.

Let's face it man considers himself as the higher power.

He doesn't want a power controlling his decisions.

Who or what you can have intercourse with, or you can kill, etc.

One Possible Answer

I believe Science and Religion need to work in harmony with one another, to find the answers to life.

If they do I feel man will start to grow exponentially.

maxx

yes science can make mistakes; probably in the case of the wood which is I hope not the only reason you find carbon dating lacking, especially since it works so well on things we already know the dates of. I assume you are familiar with continental drift; magnetic fields in rock layers, ice cores and the time and speed of the expansion of the universe; you seem to agree that whe world is older than the bible says it is but not with humans being alive more than  6 to 10 k years. your reasoning first is saying that the creation days could have been millions of years each; yet humans were also within the creation days and must be millions of years. I would like you to point out also where god (bible) has a right to change its mind unless that was simply sarcasm. also point out where this wood was mistakenly tested wrong for I cant find it and tell me who the scientists  one by one are more, that argue we never been to the moon, the holocaust, and the seven wonders, and perhaps their degrees as well. @Sand

Sand

I agree the earth is older than 6000 years.

We would not see the stars for the universe to be only 6000 years.

The tree information is located in C. W. Ferguson, Science, Vol. 159 page 842.

Here are his credentials:

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

Dr. Evzen Neustupný, of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences

He outlines the assumptions of carbon dating in his symposium - Nobel Symposium 12: Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, page 25.

Here are his credentials:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/div-classtitleintransigent-archaeology-an-interview-with-evzen-neustupny-on-his-life-in-archaeologydiv/C44E8FF1948D9B9F94C652DAB0845E15

Humans were created at the end of the sixth day.

It was not sarcasm.

The Bible has its right to change its viewpoints to fit the discoveries.

People in the past assumed the Bible made conclusions on the earth being the center of the universe.

The earth is flat, among other conclusions.

When you look back at those scriptures it was saying the opposite.

People hold religious people to their previous assumptions made.

Science makes way more assumptions that change.

I am not holding science's feet to the fire, I am just saying to give the same latitude to the Bible.

Sand

@maxx

What I am saying there are questions science cannot answer with a level of accuracy.

Science only gives information off of evidence.

The Bible advises using information (knowledge) in conjunction with understanding (Bible definition) to make conclusions.

The Bible calls this Wisdom.

maxx

science does make assumptions based upon research and discoveries and if needed, changes these assumptions based upon new discoveries. The bible makes assumptions based upon faith and (according to you) changes its assumptions when science makes new discoveries about what is in it. after reading several articles by this neustupny person, it is clear that he believes more in biblical archeology that science and believes in a very young earth. Of course science can not make 100 percent accuracy in its findings for we are always finding new discoveries, almost every scientist agrees a form of life; probably begin very early in earths history and of course this led to animals eventually. I for the life of me why you cant understand how you can suggest that there was no living thing before 6000 years or so ago just because the bible states so. Recently I read an article on how they found the possible site of  Sodom and Gomorrah near the dead sea. You would probably agree with the findings but simply refuse the evidence of early humans. you cant accept the carbon dating of ancient humans due to a couple of fluke mistakes yet are more than willing to believe the findings and dating of many biblical sites that science has found. Who is to say that those datings were not flawed and those sites were actually much much older?@Sand

Sand

I just want to clean a few statments up, just for your thought.

Faith is based on evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So Faith has substance and evidence.

Religious people make assumptions of what the Bible is saying.

When these people open their mind and change their viewpoint they can see better what the Bible is saying.

Keep in mind science was developed by religion. Ironic as it is religion funded science.

So when you say science make new discoveries...well.....science is a branch of religion.

Besides the point.

You say a couple of fluke mistakes yet this has happened many many times before.

Science takes a hard stand against the Bible who cannot change its statements.

You have a discovery that science makes a strong statement against the Bible.

People would say "this is concrete proof the Bible is incorrect and God does not exist"

Causing many people to turn against the Bible and thinking against God.

Then a year or so later, another discovery is made that adjusts that so-called "concrete proof".

And amazingly it lines up exactly as what the Bible had stated all along.

No disrespect this different discovery is not made headlines like the first discovery.

Because conflict sells, there's big news in shock!

When I say many many, I mean millions of times.

So when someone cries wolf that many times, please do not blame Religious people for not jumping ship.

I'm surprised you place a lot of trust in carbon dating.

It is not a few scientists saying it is wrong. Some propose that something different is used.

Many scientists say carbon dating breaks down after 4000 years or right at 2000 BCE, for some odd reason.

I got the references:

C. W. Ferguson says there are no trees with more 3,000, and even 4,000 years old, the oldest living tree included in the chronology goes back only to 800 C.E.

For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before. - Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Radiocarbon Dating Wrong,” January 18, 1976, p. C8

Nobel prize-winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating.

He suggested two stages of dating, because anything over 5000 years "these ancient ages, are not known accurately".

You watch soon some scientist is going to come out with a new way of dating objects or formula correction for carbon dating.

Then they are going to date those 300,000 year old artifacts from Africa, and they going say they are actually from 3,000 BCE.

Shocking as that would be it would be placed in some small article in a science magazine or Readers digest.

Everyone who jumped off the Religious boat have to get life preservers and pulled back in.

maxx

the most ridiculous statement you made in your reply is "evidence of things not seen"  I rather have some mistakes on carbon dating than agree with that statement.  As well they do have new techniques in aging the past one which is uranium decay. and yes religion was humans first attempt at figuring out meaning in the world; hence a science although the two deviated a long time ago. Science is not a religion; religion is the belief in a supernature deity especially a god. As well, I am not saying that a god or possible creator does not exist; just not the one   of the bible as it is written, nor of any of the other religions. considering, how the bible was written, what humans put in and what was left out, the translation errors and so on, one would have to be foolish to take the bible of today as his word. At least when science makes mistakes, they attempt to rectify them. and as you said science was originally developed by religion; I already agreed but religion was developed by superstitious cause and effect. Wait! I did not write that religion is a superstition but it was built from it. (of course, I can not show you proof so you can just take it on evidence not seen)@Sand

Sand

You are right Science is not Religion. Science is a branch off of Religion and tries to answer all the questions on its own.

It is like, philosophy deciding science has too many problems, then they try to explain everything through philosophy. There are a lot of conclusions they can come to, but there is a lot of conclusions philosophy will get wrong, and never be able to answer by itself.

Science did that same thing to Religion.
And Science cannot answer all the question

The Bible condemns superstition

I know you don't understand the definition of faith, most evidence is not seen. Unless you have personally implemented carbon dating. The connotation "evidence not seen" means you don't have to personally demonstrate the experiment. People focus too much on the unseen part. One Biblical scholar said, "proof though not personally performed". But this is what the Bible means about Wisdom.

maxx

yet you are condemning science based upon mistakes that they make through their experiments and through reconstructing ancient sites. faithis a human concept, just like luck @Sand

Sand

Don't get me wrong I'm not condemning science. I just feel it is only a part of the answer. 

Luck is condemned in the Bible.

Science cannot answer all the questions on it's own. It is necessary!

Sand

Faith as a concept has been misused. Faith is not belief. Faith has substance and evidence. The by-product is belief. 

 

maxx

right, luck is nothing more than coincidence; so therefore coincidences are condemned in the bible' as well you are lumping such things such as luck and astrology and so on under  idols which is open to interpretation; for instance, the cross is an idol@Sand

Sand

Coincidence is ok.
Luck is - success or failure apparently brought by chance 

The problem is these things is the challenge of rulership and love.
But the cross is an idol.
Each of the things condemned has false gods behind them.

Religions who use this idol do not follow the Bible completely. Of course everyone has areas to grow. But use of the cross is direct violation of God's laws. We do not condemn, but we exhort to change their ways. 

Sand

But eventually science will eliminate religion. Only because the generation is coming that will not have understanding. They will look at religion and see no use for it. I am sure you could relate to that.

maxx

actually there is an old quote; by whom I am no longer sure. it says that if there were no God then mankind would have to invent one. This has been quite a post considering that at the beginning of it I merely asked about Gods character if the bible was his word.@Sand

YeshuaBought

God is Love:  1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

ZeusAres42

Sand said:

I just want to clean a few statments up, just for your thought.

Faith is based on evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So Faith has substance and evidence.

Actually "faith is generally defined as a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

Secondly, the absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. 

Sand

@ZeusAres42
Most people who do not study the Bible define Faith as strong belief. Whereas belief is the byproduct or result of Faith. If you look back at the scripture about the Bible's definition, faith has substance and evidence. So the absence of evidence means no basis for faith. 

People think faith lacks evidence, because of the miracles mentioned in the Bible. Nevertheless, when we had miracles in our day, time was taken to research to see how it was done. Then a scientific break down was made to explain or understand the event. Calling the scientific break down evidence added creditability to the event. But before the break down occurred there was evidence that the miraculous event happened, it was the eye witness accounts.

The break down did nothing about proving whether the miraculous event occurred or not. Nevertheless, we call that break down evidence.

Faith takes in all the facts, the eye witness accounts, the scientific break down, plus anything else that is used to understand what actually happened.

People today who do not have that break down, claim that those events did not occur. That is why some feel that some of the events in WW1 & 2 did not happen.

maxx

You are missing the definition of faith; you assume that it is a belief in God or the Bible   Faith is just something that you believe in; such as a person or even satan. Faith itself has no substance for just like luck or hope, it is just a human concept and is something humans created.@Sand

Sand

@maxx
Faith has its secular definition. 

ZeusAres42 is correct about the secular definition - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That is exactly what you, maxx, are referring to.

Nevertheless, the Bible's definition is different. True Faith cannot exist without evidence or substance.

If you look at the way people are rejecting the so called "evidence" of science
Evidence is not as concrete as we are taught to believe in school.
Better science is more about breaking the rules, seeing beyond what is possible. 

Which is also the secular definition of faith.

a strongly held belief or theory.
Since every conclusion in science is theories.

Science is based on Faith.

ZeusAres42

@Sand

Nevertheless, the Bible's definition is different. True Faith cannot exist without evidence or substance.

Can you describe this evidence and/or substance exactly?

Plaffelvohfen

@Sand

 True Faith cannot exist without evidence or substance.

To me this is just an adaptation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample... 

ZeusAres42

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Sand

 True Faith cannot exist without evidence or substance.

To me this is just an adaptation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample... 

I agree to a certain extent because I also saw the Definist Fallacy as well in other passages that were written here. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/75/Definist-Fallacy

Sand

@Plaffelvohfen @ZeusAres42

That could be the case, but it wouldn't be something I was doing.

Secular dictionaries were written in 1806 ad.

The Bible's definition was written in 61 ce.

So because the Bible wrote the first definition of Faith way before secular dictionaries wrote theirs,  then people have been performing the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" and "the Definist Fallacy" on the Bible.

>>>Can you describe this evidence and/or substance exactly?

The Bible is the pioneer and uses the Historical method.

Sand

I mean the Bible uses and is the pioneer of the Historical method.

maxx

regardless if you think faith has substance; which is sure isn't physical substance, therefore it must be some sort of mental substance. it is still a human concept and is made up by humans. you are using one human concept{faith} to attempt to ex[plain your belief in another human concept{religion}. concepts do no exist in the absence of humans. As well your last statement; that science is based upon faith is absurd. you need to back that up with proof. Scientists may have faith in their experiments but science is based upon studies, experiment, and  research. you are attempting to get metaphysical and I thought that Christians or whatever denomination that you are, were not allowed by god to dabble is such fields.@Sand

Sand

It is not what I think, it is what is written. I showed this multiple times. I am not giving the definition or a belief. I am dictating what is written. It could be mental substance,...but that would be your belief. Even science does not exist in the absence of humans. 

I was saying based on the secular definition. In the scientific method, a hypothesis has to be made, depending on the model, based on a belief. Then the experiments, studies, and research. The hypothesis, aka beliefs, aka claims come before the evidence. 

With the Bible's definition, belief comes after the evidence. 

Since Faith by definition is based on evidence. Christian's are allow to "dabble" in any field involving evidence. 

Dee

@Sand ;


You say.....

Since Faith by definition is based on evidence. Christian's are allow to "dabble" in any field involving evidence

My reply ....By definition it’s not, it’s based on spiritual conviction and  nothing  else 

maxx

you keep pointing at the text and saying it is true because it says it is true. that is circular reasoning. I could point at all the religions in the world and say they are correct because they say so. I could point at Dee and say she is right because she says so. learn how that collection of books were written before you attempt to say everything in there is true.@Sand

Sand

Just because a concept is acceptable or agreeable doesn't make it true.

I revealed a concept that is unacceptable for you to analyze the usefulness.

Will you determine it is true, that is for you to discern.

maxx

you said just because a concept is acceptable does not make it true; well; right back at you. if you were born in another time you would be buying indulgences to get into heaven because it was acceptable back then. you sound fairly intelligent but you are blinded by what you believe in. Have you ever actually researched how the bible was originally compiled and written?@Sand

Sand

The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.

Yes I have researched how the bible was originally compiled and written. Yes, growing up with your same experiences I would be named maxx arguing against someone else named sand. 

maxx

then I am sure that you know that the early churches who decided what was to be kept in and out of the bible, decided that they would not tell that people would eventually get out of hades or hell and that satan does not rule it. as well there is a difference between hell where lost souls go to and where satan and his lost flock of fallen angels end up; the bottomless pit.@Sand

Sand

Yep. I understand that.

Sand

I think we need to ask the question of what if the Bible is a Book from God?
Regardless of what the early churches did. Then study the Bible for yourself.
(When someone is late to work, for example, they like to shift the blame. Car broke down, traffic was heavy, etc. The big question of, you knew car was unreliable and traffic typically happens, why not leave early, or find other transportation, etc.)

Back to the question of what if the Bible is a Book from God?

I believe it is a concept that the majority of people have not considered.
The hugest assumption is the Bible cannot possibly be right, for various reasons.

maxx

If it is a work inspired by god then the human writers sure messed it up when putting it together @Sand

Sand

The Death of the Author

Author vs Writer

Sand

Humans cannot stand up to our own level of scrutiny.

One person's masterpiece is another's piece of garbage.

It is hard to convince and satisfy everyone.

If God opened the heavens and spoke to man, I do believe people would claim it was a hoax.

maxx

I am not saying that there may not be a creator or something out there; just that if so; it is not the god portrayed in the bible. 
@Sand

Sand

Why not?

Sand

What are some of the things you do not agree with?

maxx

its not a matter of what I disagree with.  I can look at the bible objectively  and even though you may say you can as well, your belief belies that idea. You can not pick up the bible and read it as if you have never seen it before or heard anything about god. To you, it reflects His word and no matter of inconsistencies will deny you that belief. Originally religion began as a superstition in itself. What you are looking at is a religion based upon the ideas of cause and effect and the books of the bible were compiled by humans who claim them to be true based soley upon a superstitious idea,  All the religions in the world are based upon a misleading idea that God(s) causes things to happen that humans are incapable to understand. If there is a creator, then we must look elsewhere. I ask a question; how do you believe religions got started and do you believe that before your denomination that other religions predated it?
@Sand

Sand

@maxx

Every pen bleeds.

Every man makes mistakes.

God uses men to write the word.

It is easy to find inconsistencies or mistakes in anything.

Just as I have made decisions about the Bible, you have also made decisions about the Bible.

You may say you can look at the Bible objectively, but your belief belies that idea also.

Nevertheless, if you feel another book or religious study needs to be considered, present that information.

This way everyone can consider the viability.