The Bible's Greatest Contradiction

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Socrastein, Feb 7, 2006.

  1. Radok

    Radok Love myself better than U

    It doesn't matter if they tried to prove it wrong. Check the infectious creationism hit Briton or whatever that thread is called now to see what I mean. And just because bacteria changes to other bacteria, doesn't mean spontanious generation is possible, which is the whole idea behind evolution.
     
  2. Radok

    Radok Love myself better than U

    Well, when you can explain and prove that a primordeal soup sprang to life, then we'll call it science, how bout that?
     
  3. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    But, arn't you saying that very same thing, except about god (I mean for the god idea to work, he had to always be there). I mean saying that a being omniscient, omnipotent, outside of time and our frame of reality as we know it, sounds better. I don't think that's easier to say. Wouldn't the easiest/best choice, be more along the lines of "I don't know".
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  4. tbubb1

    tbubb1 Notes of Autumn

    lol

    I think it takes a lot more faith to believe you evolved from a rock than came from the Living God.
     
  5. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    Not really... Faith is Faith, and who said anything about rocks?

    You say god is living, where? If you say heaven, where is that? Why is it he doesn't need a creator? I mean, all things living, came from something living right, so how could he be alive, if he didn't come from another living being? :D I mean really, to a nontheist this makes very little to no sense, just like what they believe makes no sense to you........ Like I said "I don't know" is easier to say..........




    P.s
    Maybe it was a living rock..... :woo:
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  6. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Yes, the same way that by claiming there are no metaphysical beings I'm claiming all beings are physical. You can phrase any negative as an affirmative proposition, and the other way around.

    Well I never claimed to have proven that God does not exist. So what's your point?

    There is much that would count as proof in my eyes. A logically sound proof of God would be evidence (proof, in fact). Experimentally verifiable and repeatable evidence of 'miracles' would also be evidence. If the trumpets sounded and Jesus came to earth, that would be evidence too.

    Logic always has a part to play, whether people wish to acknowledge that or not is irrelevent.

    The difference you're skipping over is that there is evidence for the universe arising naturally, for all matter and energy arising naturally, for all galaxies and stars arising through natural physical forces, for heavier elements forming in the furnace of a star going supernova, for these heavier elements forming into our planet, for replicators sponteneously arising on the early planet, for these replicators to evolve over billions of years, and for our species to be a product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

    There is ample evidence for all of this. It is scientifically and logically consistent, and it proposes no erroneous assumptions or supernatural effects.

    So if I have to pick between evidentially supported, logically consistent, and parsimonious explanations, and "Goddidit"... I'll go with the logically sound position.

    Quite right, it would be pretty nuts to think you evolved from a rock, seeing as how there's absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. It'd be as crazy as saying you were created by an unsubstantiated supernatural being.

    Good thing evolution doesn't say we evolved from rocks, eh? Sounds like you've been getting your scientific knowledge from Kent Hovind.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  7. brahman

    brahman Banned Banned


    all in all i think this thread is like some of mine, simply here to test ones ability to argue, and half the time you end up argueing about something that has nothing to do with the topic, such as debating the difference between EVIDENCE and PROOF, which is fun arguement in itself.
     
  8. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    To get back to the original post, this is not a contradiction, since everything in the bible testifies to God's existance. Whether you believe God to exist or not is a matter of faith, but I don't believe that there is anything in the bible which says that God does not exist.

    So your original proposition appears to be fundamentally flawed.
     
  9. pj_goober

    pj_goober Valued Member

    Not entirely sure what you mean by "spontaneous generation" its not a phrase i've ever come across before.

    Evolution isn't some crack pot theory. It happens. Do you believe in dogs? evolution (within the lifetime of our recorded history dogs have been bread from feral wolves). It takes but a little thought to see that unnatural selection can result in dramatic genetic changes over time. This is evolution in action. Why do you doubt that it happens. I accept that it takes a leap of understanding and comprehension to believe that the same process is responsible for the development of complex organisms from human beings to trees, all from the same origins. But frankly, just because YOU don't understand how something works, doesn't mean its wrong. Considerably more intelligent people than any of us can prove (with evidence, within reasonable doubt) that evolution [a process which we can see happening] COULD be responsible for the changes neccessary to turn protozoa into people. This doesn't mean that it definately did, you can argue with this till we're both blue in the face and i'll never be able to show for certain that evolution is the cause of those changes. what we do know however is that it is the best explaination availiable. This is true of every scientific theory and proposition that exists now or has ever existed, it is the best explaination availiable with the evidence at hand.

    Given that the counter argument is that God (a supernatural being - who refuses to present any evidence of existance as knowledge would deny faith) created man out of dust and women out of a mans rib bone. (no explaination of the mode behind his creation of all of animal kind) I'm going to stick with the scientific explaination as it doesn't rely on magic, instead it relies on demonstratable methods and proveable consequences.
     
  10. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    I'm not speaking of internal contradictions in the Bible. I'm taking a broader view of the Bible, not simply comparing it to itself, but comparing it to reality.

    For instance, if science somehow found conclusive proof that Jesus died and was resurrected on the FOURTH day, that would be a contradiction in the manner I am using it, because it contradicts the Bible which says He rose on the THIRD day. Now, there would be no internal contradiction of course, because the Bible always says he rose on the THIRD day. I'm simply broadening my perspective of the Bible and its consistency.

    You're quite right it doesn't contradict itself, I am pointing out that it contradicts what we see and observe, which is just as much a contradiction.
     
  11. pj_goober

    pj_goober Valued Member

    But you are comparing it to YOUR perseption of reality. Which is pointless. Someone who believes looks at the world and sees the existance of god, in their mind there is no contradiction.
     
  12. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    my main problem is that if god exists, why has he left all this evidence for us to find that points away from the bible??? Redshift supports the big bang theory, genetics supports evolution. Carbon Dating supports the premise that the universe is billions of years old.

    Why would God leave all this evidence for us to find if it leads away from him? Or is he trying to trick us, in which case why is he trying to trick us. If its a test, is it a test we are meant to pass or a test we are meant to fail? The existence of God answers all tough questions - but why is this desirable?
     
  13. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    I see.

    Well if you take the bible as being the literal truth then it contradicts pretty much everything, including 'common sense', 'reality' and 'intelligent thought'. However, if you treat it as a series of parables and apocryphal stories then it is a different matter. It gets a lot harder to pin down really.
     
  14. [T][K][D]

    [T][K][D] Valued Member

    i hope u guys realise is that...this thread is going NOWHERE ^^...people who believe in god like me will always do so until death, and people who believe that evolution and the big bang *theory* created everything by the most miniscule chance will do so too. So what was the purpose of this thread? To try and prove with religeon with logic and scientific understanding? that isnt going to work no matter how smart you are because religion is based of belief and you cant create a formula for that...take cares..see u in the afterlife ^^

    Will~~
     
  15. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    According to christianity, you probably wont
     
  16. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    That makes it sound like there are just two diametrically opposite positions to be taken. But life isn't that simple. Many Christians do not believe that the biblical creation story is literally true, and accept the theory of evolution and the 'big bang'. But they believe that God must have been ultimately responsible for it.

    Good question. It's a well-trodden path which both theists and atheists obviously enjoy revisiting! :D
     
  17. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Surely the biggest religious contradiction is the difference between the code of behaviour laid out in the bible (for example) and the ACTUAL behaviour of people that claim to be christians?
    People pick and choose what bits they want to believe in or act upon.
    How anyone can be a catholic today after the actions of the inquisition and the crusades is truly beyond me. Any organisation that sees fit to ban books in order to safe guard its views is surely a corrupt and worthless organisation built on very shaky foundations?
    Banning books indeed. How primitive. They'll be banning "ideas" next.
    The nazi party is never going to be an acceptable organisation to belong to and yet the catholic church still is.
    They have indulged in very similar practices (genocide, torture, banning books, imprisoning people that dissent, aggressive empire building etc) and yet one is OK and the other not. Very odd.
    Perhaps after a suitable amount of time being a nazi will be viewed in the same way as being a catholic?

    Overall the main reason that atheists constantly try and convince religious people that their views might be a bit suspect is that to us you guys sound...erm....a bit looney. Sorry about that but it's true. And the fact that people die because of it is even harder to ignore. It's very hard to accept that seemingly intelligent people believe with all their hearts primitive stories with no basis in real experince or tangible evidence.
     
  18. amiller127

    amiller127 Chief Instructor

    Im not religeous. Dont believe in god and am not really into organised religeon as it can be manipulated to be a very negative thing. But i couldn't resist this.

    Technically, the "Killer" Whale, or orca, the nice black and white shamu thing you get at sea world is technically part of the dolphin family......... :D

    Sorry - will leave this thread now
     
  19. BendzR

    BendzR New Member

    I could not agree with you any less. I know people who have changed from one side to the other, for both cases. Including myself.
     
  20. HandandFoot

    HandandFoot New Member

    Fuel for atheists and agnostics

    And this is the best arguing point for most atheists and agnostics. One that I cannot even refute!

    Christ actually calls his followers to be His light in the world! We are to be His strongest evidence! If the rest of mankind cannot see some semblence of Christ in us, then we are the best argument against Him!

    Another point; do not confuse Catholic, LDS, Baptist, Jehovahs Witness, Methodist, Luteran, Episcopal (and others ad nauseum) with real Chritianity. They are organizations created by men (ordinary humans) to coordinate resources, dictate policies, create interpretations, amass political advantage, etc. The Church (which did not exist before Christ) was not a political organization, but a group of fellow believers who congregated together on occassion to worship God and Christ and study and uplift each other. The affore mentioned organizations in most cases) were created to take advantage of those congregations.

    As they became more powerful by sheer number of members, they began to exert there influence over politicians and rulers and as we have heard, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". There is no excetion in a religious organization (and not just Christian). What the Catholic church did in eur-asia, they did in the name of God but not at the will of God. We are all left to our own will. God does not rule over us unless we invite Him to do so.

    As for miracles as proof; you must first believe before the evidence becomes proof. God will not prove Himself to anyone (since Christ) without faith as the first action. Why? I'll ask Him when I get there. (Having said that last statement, you can now all rest comfortably in the assurance that I am just another whacko and go on living your life in blissful ignorance to what I see as abvious) :D
     

Share This Page