If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

The evidence really isn't worlds apart.

It is about two completely different things, Automaton.

Christians attribute all kinds of things to their God, but only because they already believe in their God, not because there is a legitimate reason to attribute all these things to the Christian God.

I have already shown you objective evidence. You cannot make that evidence just disappear.

Christians, like believers in any religion, claim that their God created everything. There's really no good reason to believe that the universe, and everything in it, was created by a god, much less any specific God.

The Theory of Creation does not mention a universe, Automaton.
Nothing in the Bible describes a creation of the universe either.

 

[Into the Night]

The evidence is very different...but as I said, getting theists or atheists to question their "beliefs" is almost impossible.

Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

What is the Big bang theory? Where did it originate?

The Theory of the Big Bang states that the Universe was 'created' out of a concentrated mass and energy. It does not describe a cause.

 

[Into the Night]

Right. Religion makes all kinds of claims that science proves to be wrong.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

It only confirmed what Genesis claimed thousands of years ago.

The Theory of the Big Bang does not appear in Genesis.

Are you admitting you asked a bogus question by ridiculously insinuating religion is supposed be doing scientific experiments?

Science isn't experiments.

If we were in the year 1920, Genesis was correct about a beginning and the prevailing scientific consensus was wrong

Genesis does not describe a beginning of the Universe.
Science does not use consensus.

 

[Into the Night]

My comment was that science has continually proven religion wrong, while religion has not proven science wrong.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

There may have been a single scientist who didn't believe that the universe had a beginning, but that is clearly not the consensus among scientists today.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

There were scientists / mathematicians who invoked Zeus because they couldn't explain the orbits of the planets. Over time, science will only continue to prove religion wrong.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Cypress]

Genesis claimed the universe had a beginning.

There is no such claim in genesis!

"Genesis", Cambridge dictionary definition:
"the origin of something, when it begun or starts to exist.

 

[Into the Night]

I thought Genesis claimed God did it, not by banging, which seems unseemly for God, but by saying words, just one word a day for like a week.

There is nothing that describes a beginning of the Universe in Genesis.

 

[Into the Night]

In 1920 Genesis was correct about a beginning to the universe, and the scientific consensus about a static eternal universe was wrong.

Genesis does not describe a beginning of the Universe. Science does not use consensus.

Science abandoned the static universe, and the Genesis account of a beginning was correct.

Genesis has no account of it.

19th and 20th century archeology and historical analysis have surprisingly confirmed biblical historicity about the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonians, and about historical figures like Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, John the Baptist, King David.

150 years ago secularists and atheists would have said the people and stories in the Bible are myths, fables, legends, not historical.

Atheism does not try to deny the Bible nor embrace it.

Name these scientists.

Science isn't people. There is no one to name.

 

[Into the Night]

"Genesis", Cambridge dictionary definition:
"the origin of something, when it begun or starts to exist.

Irrelevant. There is no account of the Universe being created in Genesis. Genesis describes the creation of the Earth, not the Universe.

 

[ZenMode]

Genesis does not describe a beginning of the Universe. Science does not use consensus.

Genesis has no account of it.

Atheism does not try to deny the Bible nor embrace it.

Science isn't people. There is no one to name.

"Science isn't people. There is no one to name."

Why do you insist on trying to fuck up useful conversations with your trolling, word games and other nonsense?

 

[Into the Night]

"Science isn't people. There is no one to name."

Why do you insist on trying to fuck up useful conversations with your trolling, word games and other nonsense?

You can't blame me for what you do, Automaton.

 

[ZenMode]

You can't blame me for what you do, Automaton.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for proving my point.

You aren't making a point.

 

[martin]

That's why Robert Jastrow wrote this:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries". ​

​

- Robert Jastrow, American astrophysicist​

Suggesting the different paths that brought you there don’t matter, e.g., the ‘theologian” who believes the essence of everything is green cheese.

 

[ZenMode]

You aren't making a point.

My point was made and confirmed. Your word games/trolling won't change that.

 

[Cypress]

Irrelevant. There is no account of the Universe being created in Genesis. Genesis describes the creation of the Earth, not the Universe!

​

Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

 

[Cypress]

Suggesting the different paths that brought you there don’t matter, e.g., the ‘theologian” who believes the essence of everything is green cheese.

Sorry, I don't understand this comment and the bit about green cheese

 

[Cypress]

It's not a big deal, but it reinforces the point about God of the gaps and that scientist, regardless of which God they believe in, can be wrong. Over time, science will only continue to prove religion wrong. Religion might get things right, but it's only by chance, not because there's some form of reason behind it.

Isaac Newton wasted a good part of his life on alchemy.

God of the gaps is an argument pointing to areas where we don't have scientific theories and saying God lives there.

That is the exact opposite of what Newton, Galileo, Kepler did. They pointed to actual confirmed scientific knowledge as proof of the mind of god.

What you have to decide for yourself is whether 1) a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe can come together by inanimate chance, or 2) whether mathematical rationality and lawful organization are more likely to come from a rational force or entity.

Newton, Galileo, Kepler were saying that the rational cannot come from the irrational. That is logically incoherent. Rationality can only come from a rational mind.

 

[martin]

Sorry, I don't understand this comment and the bit about green cheese

Only that the scientists who got there the hard way may have a better understanding than the true believer.