Quote: (07-25-2010 10:41 PM)Dash Global Wrote:
if God is real then the Bible has to be correct.
No, this is not the case. Even if Christian god is real (the best chance is 1/5000 as there are around 5,000
known gods and an unknown amount of unnamed gods), even then the bible may be incorrect because unless you talk to this god you would have no way to validate its correctness. If a book says something which is correct, it still doesn't mean everything it says is correct. Look on Scientology's Dianetics.
Quote:Quote:
The theory of Evolution is still a theory and not proven. (im talking about species evolving into another species, not species adapting to their surroundings and conditions) In order for the theory of evolution to be valid one you would need to have spontaneous generation which states that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life.
What you're talking about (decaying matter simply turns into organic life) is origin of life, not evolution.
Modern Theory of Evolution does not cover the origin of life, it covers evolving species, generally via natural selections and mutations. Meaning it explains how the species evolved, not where the first species came from. This kind of mistake is not acceptable even for a biology school test, not to mention for debate.
<skipped the rest of quote where you talking about origins of life and not evolution>
Quote:Quote:
Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster said it was "now abandoned."
Where exactly does it say that in Webster? Prove your words.
Quote:Quote:
The other issue with the theory of evolution is that you would have to have small changes to species over an extended period of time (missing links) that can be shown with fossil records.
And there are - it is just kinda naive to expect to hear it from your pastor. But if you read Nature or National Geographic, not to mention some serious web sites, you'd know that.
On the other side, there is NO proof about creationism AT ALL!
Quote:Quote:
Our DNA is 98% the same as monkeys thus proving we evolved from apes. But consider our DNA is also 50% exactly the same as a banana.
I have such discussions in past, and some religious people were notorious of making up everything, including numbers. I want to make sure you are not one of them. Please prove your words by providing a link to a reputable source confirming this information.
Quote:Quote:
Example Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto (Auckland, New Zealand) was found to have a potassium-40 age of 485,000 years, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon-14 method to be less than 300 years old. Slight discrepancy?
And again, prove your words.
Quote:Quote:
I can know what my friends are gonna do in certain situations in the future, but it was completely their choice.
You are ignoring a very important part - you did not create your friend (or his ancestry line). If you did, and were knowing that the way you created them they WOULD do wrong in future, but did nothing to create them in a different way, you would be responsible for their behavior, and not them. Your god, according to you, created Adam and Eva - and being omniscient he already knew his creations would "sin" - but did nothing to prevent it. And now, according to your bible, your god is punishing us because his creations did not behave the way he wanted them to - even though he knew that even before creating them (and he did, since the god is omniscient).
However you still missed the main contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience. If I'm omnipotent and can do anything, this means I do not know the future, because tomorrow I might want to do something which changes the future. Being omniscient means that right now I know exactly everything which happens in future, including my own actions and its consequences - which means I cannot do anything to change the future, and this means I'm not omnipotent.
Quote:Quote:
You did not refute my pascals wager statement. unless you are telling me the outcomes i stated for Christianity and atheists are wrong, but that cant be the case.
I provided some links as arguments, and even explained why Pascal's initial concept is invalid - because it is based on assumption that there is either only one Christian god or no god. Even this assumption is plain wrong, since it does not address all known gods and religions (and for some major religions there is no punishment at all for not believing in god). When you insinuate that I did not without even addressing them is plain disrespect.
Quote:Quote:
Im not sure what you are trying to say about the test concept. if their is a higher being controlling things we have no choice in the matter after the fact. If he in fact carries such stipulations regarding life choices. We simply choose to do or believe something, but that in its self means nothing if their is a higher being controlling things.
No. If there is higher omniscient thing, you have no choice as this thing knows ahead, in advance, what you gonna do. It should have known that you at this specific time is going to write a reply to my post even before Earth was created (otherwise this thing is not omniscient). This means your higher thing already knew who exactly would be in hell or heaven even before Adam was created, which makes "sin" a pretty weird concept.
Quote:Quote:
On your last comment, here again my statement is under the assumption that the Bible is the real word of God. If in fact the Christian God exists than the Bible is correct, which in turn has a clear outcome for believers and non believers.
Too many assumptions needed.
First, you need to assume that a higher being exist.
Second, you need to assume that this higher being is omniscient and omnipotent.
Third, you need to assume that this higher being is only one (and not like Greek's Pantheon from myths)
Fourth, you need to assume that this higher being is something described in the bible.
Fifth, you need to assume that this higher being inspired the bible.
As you see, you need at least five assumptions - NONE of which you can prove. To me, this is too much to simply believe for a rational person.