I've never denied the possibility of their being a god, but I find it exceedingly unlikely.

If the Bible has many inconsistencies, then write off all religions based on it (although you might want to make sure they're actually inconsistencies before dismissing them. Virtually every person I've met who claims the Bible has inconsistencies tends to list things that aren't).

I'm not saying you should accept any religion as being based on the inerrant word of God (that'd be rather silly, since I don't currently believe that myself).

But the Bible demands all or nothing. If you believe it, yet believe it has errors, then you're being intellectually dishonest.

I'm not dismissing an argument at all. I'm saying that there seems to be some missing variables in your equation.

Let me review; Hyper-condensed matter + explosion = matter spreading throughout universe. Matter spreading throughout universe + gravity + X = planets, stars, etc forming, life starting, etc.

If you have an concept of what an omnipotent being would be capable of, you'll realize why that's not a problem.


So? All sorts of (non-religious) beliefs are set around "unyielding knowledge".


I'm not asking you to ignore anything. Just don't over-generalize it either. Both are false representations of reality.

Do you find it more or less likely than alternate universes with differing rules of how they operate?

The bible demands all or nothing! I find this truly amazing and opens a whole host of questions that need answering.

• Does this mean that everybody who is not a fundamentalist is wrong in their belief?
• Does it mean that all the Christians in this thread who beleive evolution as the work of God are "intellectually dishonest"?
• Does it mean that the vast swathes of Christians who interpret the Bible slightly different to what ever method you refer to are misguided in their belief?
• Does it mean that those who view the bible as a book of morals are "intellectually dishonest" compared to those who believe it is historically accurate?
• Can you actually have a belief based on a demand?
• If this is true, Can you believe in God? or, would you only believe the bible demanding you that there is a God?

Close enough. What variables are missing?

Can you give some examples?

...& to answer your "so?", whats wrong with setting beliefs around unyielding knowledge? .....it is the definition of ignorance.

[quote=Wade8813;'m not asking you to ignore anything. Just don't over-generalize it either. Both are false representations of reality.[/QUOTE]

I provided a case studies to represent my argument. I apologise now if history has a general theme but the fact of the matter is it exists for you to say that is over-generalising and a false representation is denial of the truth or a misguided historical education that has omitted disagreeable sectors of history.

The fact of the matter is religion in its most fundamental form is ignorant to scientific advancement if it defies its core beliefs.

Less. The human mind--our intelligence, emotions, and senses--owe to a complex mechanical process. That there would be a functional equivalent, however superior, that proceeded even the first nervous system, and designed it; strikes me as patently absurd. If intelligence is so elementary to have been around at the beginning or at least prior to anything else, then why would we require such sloppy and oft-malfunctioning brains? And why would a creator hide from us, as it must be if existent? Much more likely than the Christian God, is a non-interventionist creator entirely alien to us, and largely or wholly uncaring, but even that seems like a stretch: like something made up by people who want to imagine themselves or their kin at the center of the universe, as opposed to something that follows from anything we know.

Now the idea of their being more universes seems pretty likely to me. A long time ago, there was just the Earth and things spinning around it far up in the sky, as far as anyone knew. Then other planets were recognized as being planets, and people became aware they were part of the solar system. They also became aware the stars were other suns, and became aware of the galaxy. Then people learned that many of the nebula they had seen were whole other galaxies, and we only recently learned how mind-numbingly many other galaxies there are.

Which brings me to another point: we are tiny things. The cosmos are vast beyond our ability to imagine, and we occupy no apparently privileged position in them. We can no longer say with any honesty that the whole of it appears built for us.

That aside, the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems rather arbitrary. Why should isolated systems move towards a state of entropy? Clearly they do--albeit with some minor exceptions--but it does not seem anymore of a stretch to imagine a universe that did not abide by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, than it does to imagine that different planets have different gravitational pull: what we observe as universal laws, might simply supervene on the local state of some yet unknown interuniverisal fact or feature of a more primitive interuniversal medium. There is no evidence for it, but I see nothing to suggest against it.

Which is not to say I find that exceedingly likely either, just more likely. It could also be that the existence of time is contingent on their being space, and that things simply had a beginning. Which is not to say that things suddenly appeared for no reason, since the idea of things suddenly appearing only makes sense if we consider their to be a time prior to their being. When we image that there must have been time prior to the existence of our universe, we are adopting the vantage point of something outside the universe, and thus subtlety assuming a position on what we are trying to assess.

Another possibility is that there is simply something that prevents the universe from ever rising to some high degree of entropy and stopping. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not the only rule seemingly governing how things are, and not all things can be understood solely in terms of it. There are certainly things preventing the universe from reaching a high degree of entropy right now: it has to jump through some hurdles at the very least.

Furthermore--and this is stretching things perhaps as much as suggesting an anthropomorphic creator does--we can say that if an interuniversal medium had an infinitely low state of entropy, then the whole of it all would never reach thermodynamic equilibrium.

So there are a lot of possibilities, and I would say they have varying likelihoods, at least from my perspective.
------
Now, this really isn't a theory about the ultimate origins of everything, but I just considered that if a bunch of objects were flung into the air, there could be a point where if you were standing on one, all the others would appear to be moving away from you at an ever-increasing speed: much like galaxies appear to be in our universe. Now, we attribute that apparent expansion to the Big Bang and moreover dark energy, but what if our universe was "flung" from something in a sense? It even seems like you could test that idea, if it would result in sufficient differences in the speed of galaxies to give rise to observable time dilation. So, really, our universe could be spatially separate from others in a pretty mundane way. Though, the idea that something could fling a universe and exert gravitational pull on the whole of it is pretty wild, but seemingly plausible.

This is where I dont know enough about the dynamics of galaxies and their relative space and direction. However if our moon orbits the Earth, and our Earth and all the other planets orbit the sun, our sun and many other stars orbits our galaxy centre (assumed blackhole), galaxies orbit clusters and clusters orbit superclusters. This is where I wonder one of two possibilities; the superclusters could also have a gravitional pull they orbit, maybe the universal centre. Or, the superclusters all move in a given direction that would suggest propulsion from a point of origin. Or, they could just all float about randomly and any theory falls to pieces.

Remember, I'm not a fundamentalist (any more). Why would I say I think I'm wrong, but used to be right? Wouldn't I just revert to my old beliefs?

Some of them might be, but I don't think it's inherent, no.

Again, I don't even believe the Bible, so I'm not going to say any of them are right.

If they just believe it's a book of morals, then they're basically rejecting the Bible's claims, which is basically similar to what atheists/agnostics do (which isn't [necessarily] intellectually dishonest).

I'm not talking about specific beliefs. I'm saying that if you cherry pick parts of the Bible to dismiss as wrong/a lie, then you might as well toss out the whole thing, because if you can't trust it, then you don't think it's the word of God.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.


That's what I'm trying to figure out - the 'X' in the equation.

I think, therefore I am. 1+1=2.

Even things that aren't necessarily absolutes, but are so close we treat them as such; gravity, laws of inertia, etc.

Only if they're wrong. ALL beliefs that are wrong are ignorant. All beliefs that aren't wrong aren't ignorant.

I think you might be surprised how few scientific advancements actually defy Christianity's core beliefs.

Evolution (on a species level) is the only one I can think of; and there's some debate as to whether or not the Bible actually rules it out (and there's the fact that the side in support of Evolution has been so riddled with poor arguments, etc [not saying Creation hasn't as well, but if the science community is trying to argue some sort of higher ground in that area, they're going to need improvement).

The Earth being the center of the galaxy/universe? I don't know why anyone even thought that was true, much less made a big fuss about it. I don't see anything about that in the Bible.

Name some others (or even create/revitalize a thread for them).

You lost me here (twice).

Intelligence is elementary?

We require sloppy/malfunctioning brains?

Christians argue that God HAS revealed Himself to us through the Bible.

As to why God doesn't reveal himself more - "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed".

That argument seems reasonable for saying that other universes are plausible - not necessarily that they're likely.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about thermodynamics to speculate as to whether it's an absolute or not.

I seem to remember reading somewhere about how much of a problem it would be if our universe didn't have entropy, but it was a while ago, and I don't remember the specifics, or if there was a way around them.

I know it conflicts with all sorts of widely accepted theories (including one or more from Einstein hisself), but I can't even conceive of time as having a beginning or end, or it being anything but linear and constant.

I was under the impression that entropy in our universe was only hindered by sheer quantity - that eventually, entropy will get everything, but it'll take a while.

Could you explain this one?

Thats your own personal choice, however it must be noted that you have stated;

"But the Bible demands all or nothing. If you believe it, yet believe it has errors, then you're being intellectually dishonest."

To me this is a classic sign of fundamentalism. You are casting sides and saying you either have to believe it all or believe none of it without allowing for any degree of middle ground where we can gauge our own beliefs.

I know plenty of Christians who beleive that the bible is not the inerrant word of God. For example they might believe it is the inspired word of God... but according to your statement they should throw the whole book away. What you are saying is there is only one way to believe in the bible and all other ways are incorrect. I disagreee with this however it does enforce my argument that Religion is ignorant/arrogant.

Here is the official Catholic view.
Adam, Eve, and Evolution


So here we have the Catholic church saying you can believe what you wish as long as you believe that God was the driving force behind it. It is saying the bible should be interpreted from and not taken at its literal form. By your logic the Catholic churuh are rejecting the inerrant word of God (because they are cherry picking between literal and figurative passage) and therefore should reject the entire bible.

Catholic A: supports Theistic Evolution.
Catholic B: supports Special Creation.

...both are reading from the same book. The bible. If their beliefs are different then the bible is offering us an inconsistency and according to your earlier statement we must write it off.


Its irrelevant to who is right or wrong, what is relevant is the importance of personal beliefs. There is no room for liberalism in a fundamentalist world. Beliefs should not be demanded they should be sought.

I should also highlight that a belief can not be wrong, the proposition can be wrong but the belief is always true. With this in mind its fair to say the entire human race is wrong when it comes to understanding the universe, it is knowledge beyond our grasp, our theories are only belief ..in which case if its belief it can only be true.

Ive drfited slightly there; The meaning of ignorance in regards to fundamentalism is in its unyielding nature, it does not matter what "known facts" you place on it, it will always defy them. right or wrong it does not matter. When you get Muslim fundamentalists declaring war on the western world, westboro baptist church declaring war on gays, or the catholic denomination banning condoms, or when you get people saying the bible is to be interpreted as the inerrant world of God and all other ways are incorrect....it is ignorance. It is a narrow minded rejection of human enlightenment. Right or wrong, its ignorance.


Jonah really sat in a whales belly for three days!

Really once we remove the miracles from the bible there is not a lot left for science to disprove and not a lot of spirituality remaining either.

If they did float about randomly, Newton would be pissed that they're violating his laws. All I know is that everything in the visible universe is moving away from everything else as if space were expanding, as evidenced by the redshift of galaxies.

Figuring out how to put thoughts into words is a constant source of frustration for me, because I'm retarded like that, but I'll try again. Basically: it seems odd that human psychological-features like those attributed to God would come before all the things that give rise to them in us. Unless God has a brain and nervous system, or some functional equivalent, and then he's just a dude, albeit uber. Right? Seems odd to me at least.

Either way, we can say God just wants to hide, because he likes us better when we just believe in him because the Bible says so, but that god seems crazy. I have trouble with the idea that the creator of all things might be an emotional train wreck like that. Any book can claim to be written by God.

As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics: we would likely never have existed if didn't apply to our universe or portion thereof, but just think of all the neat and crazy things that would have. Incidentally, what hinders our universe from reaching a high degree of entropy seems to be the fact stars cannot just stop burning on a whim, but rather obey certain rules other than the 2nd thermodynamic one. There being lots of stuff does not seem sufficient to do the trick, since lots of stuff could conceivable go from a low to high entropy state in an instant.

Now time, that is just what clocks measure. Time is change, really, and when a given system (e.g. a train) goes fast, a clock within it ticks slower relative to one in a system moving slowly. Not just the clock, of course, but everything in the system.

Anyways, that's all I'm typing for now. I posted a thread on time dilation, but probably made things out to be more confusing than they need to be, despite an intention to do the opposite.

There's still some leeway; some things in the Bible are pretty obviously metaphorical, and some are pretty obviously literal. Some parts of it, however, are less obvious, so there would be room for differences of opinion (even fundamentalists disagree with each other in many areas).

However, some people's response to the Bible is pretty clearly dishonest. ANY time they run into anything that doesn't immediately make sense to them, or that they feel is "inconvenient", they just write off with whatever excuse they come up with.

So God screwed up? Or maybe God knew that the people writing the Bible were screwing up, but let it happen anyway? If you can explain to me how that can even conceivably make ANY sense, I'll accept it.

Not necessarily. It sounds like (according to that website) the Catholic church has a firm stance where it feels a firm stance is required, and gives leeway where they feel there may be room for interpretation. I may or may not agree if there's room for interpretation there, but that's not the point. They're still not allowing Catholics to disregard sections of the Bible on a whim.

That's a bad argument and you know it.

Two people witness a car crash. As so often happens, they give conflicting reports. According to the argument you just presented, since they can't agree, the car crash must be inconsistent and written off entirely.

News flash - people interpreting things differently has no bearing whatsoever on the original thing being discussed.


Why would it be irrelevant who's right or wrong? That seems like the ONLY thing that matters. Beliefs are our best guesses as to what's right and what's wrong. It would make sense, then, to try to pinpoint which beliefs actually are right.

This entire paragraph made absolutely no sense to me.

Fundamentalists do sometimes ignore known facts (as do many people who aren't fundamentalists).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "human enlightenment", but it sounds like you're saying "It doesn't matter whether the fundamentalist is right or wrong, because it means rejecting what's right."

Name one miracle that science actually disproves. Being in the belly of a whale? Easy - all that would be required is something to protect you from the stomach acid (if they digest things slowly enough, it might not even be necessary).

Sometimes your statements seem poorly phrased, but other times I think you're just talking over my comprehension level .



You argue it's crazy, others disagree with you. I'm unconvinced one way or the other.

Any book can claim to be written by God, but getting several million people to believe it is harder.

Yeah - I still don't understand enough about physics to comment much about that.

Your explanation is no more confusing than any other explanation I've heard . Still makes NO sense to me...

Wade: "But don't give me any of this patronizing about dual meanings"

So you are admitting that there are dual meanings? (even within the fundamentalists now), yet when I suggest it, it would be patronising.

Is there anything wrong with that. Is a 99% belief better than a non-believer in the eyes of the theist world? Christianity is a prime example where your response to the bible is irrelevant compared to your response to the real world. Many Christian denominations take the word of Jesus as the only real factor of any importance, be good to yourself and others.

I dont think you understand my argument, it is not about if "god screwed up" or the people writing it screwed up. It is about the people reading reading it and how they read it, just becasue it has errors and inconsistencies does nto mean it is screwed up. According to the bible God gave us freewill to have faith, he gave us the ability to determine our own salvation. If God had wanted robots he would of made robots, he didnt he made humans, he wanted us to rejoice in his splendor at our own freewill.

You should not be so accepting to what you are told and use your ability to analyse, scrutinise and critically examine to come to your own conclusions. Thats what God/s (in every line of theism) would of liked.

The whole of Christianity disregards many parts of the old testament (maybe on a whim, maybe not, bu thats not my saying!). Protestants disregard the Book of Judith as an example. Judaism disregards everything accept the Torah. As for the interpretation and disputed and disregarded sectors of Genesis we get into a minefield. I dont know what denomination you were, but I can bet money that even if it is a hardline fundamental church it too focuses on some passages and disregards others.


News Flash: Its your argument!

Wade; "If the Bible has many inconsistencies, then write off all religions based on it "

Wade: "But the Bible demands all or nothing. If you believe it, yet believe it has errors, then you're being intellectually dishonest."


So we have two witnesses to a car crash, one says the car was travelling at 80mph the other says it was traveling at 90mph. As there is inconsistency shall we write off the information given to us as it is clear there is an error, or should we accept(and believe) that the car was moving at a considerable speed?

We can take this analogy a step further, we can call an expert who can measure the skid marks, observe the impact, note the direction and momentum needed and come to their own conclusion using science that the car was going 70mph.

Who do we believe?


It does not matter what is right or wrong in reflection to theist fundamentalism. Ignorance to new knowledge is always wrong. Just believing and not thinking for yourself is not the way to go about life.

A belief like an opinion can not be wrong, it is only what is believed or opinionated that can be wrong. It is the fine line of difference between what is a false belief and what is believed wrong.


Then they are too by definition fundamentalists.

I added a bit to the end of your quote. A fundamentalist will only believe the basic principle of the original source that they adhere to, that is by nature what a fundamentalist is. It does not matter if what you introduce to the argument is right or wrong, if it does not follow the original source then it is dismissed.

"Human enlightenment" is to ask questions and search for answers. For example a fundamental creationist will ask the scientist "why do you feel the need to question creation? when we already have an answer" ...then when the scientist looks at the evidence that says the world is over 6000 years old, the creationist will dismiss that evidence as futile. Questions and answers can only cast doubt on belief. Scientists yearn for this understanding and even though they are ultimately looking for answers it is the questions that inspire them. Religion fundamentalist by there very nature can not accept doubt as I have tried to explain a belief(faith) can not be wrong, so to accpet it is false is something best avoided.


Impossible question; If you can disprove a miracle, it would not be a miracle.

If you want to use some kind of abstract logic to prove miracles you go ahead. I'll just accept them as miracles, if I accept them as truth or myth and the logic I use to make that conclusion is a different matter altogether.