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

[ZenMode]

That's wrong.

Genesis claimed the universe had a beginning.

Einstein and the scientific consensus was that the universe was static and had always existed.

Genesis was right.

The beginning of the universe is one of the most important questions anyone can think of.

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

 

[ZenMode]

Religion asserts; it doesn’t bother to prove.

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

 

[Cypress]

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

It only confirmed what Genesis claimed thousands of years ago.

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

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

 

[ZenMode]

It only confirmed what Genesis claimed thousands of years ago.

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

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

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

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.

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.

 

[Cypress]

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

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

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

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.

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.

Name these scientists.

 

[martin]

It only confirmed what Genesis claimed thousands of years ago.

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

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

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.

 

[Cypress]

Since both of these empires existed, what is so shocking about finding remnants of them?

You'd have to have taken college level history classes to grasp this.

Until the 19th century, you would only have heard of the Assyrians, the Achaemenid Persians, the Neo-Babylonians from the Bible. There was no concrete evidence of them, and it was an open question among humanists whether the Bible could be trusted to have historical information.

 

[Cypress]

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.

All I said was that the universe had a beginning.

The term 'Big Bang' is a derogatory term that opponents of the theory used to call it. The term just stuck. It's just a buzzword.

 

[ZenMode]

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

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

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.


Name these scientists.

Ptolemy (aka Claudius Ptolemaeus- (astronomer/mathemetician), in one of his writings, Almegest, while talking about the movement of planets, wrote:

I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia.

 

[martin]

All I said was that the universe had a beginning.

The term 'Big Bang' is a derogatory term that opponents of the theory used to call it. The term just stuck. It's just a buzzword.

Fair enough.

 

[Ross Dolan]

If I took the stories and writings about St Nick / Santa Claus literally, I would expect to see a fat guy in a red suit, being pulled through the sky by flying reindeer, delivering gifts on Christmas Eve. But, as with the Bible, we know that stories get exaggerated and don't always align with what makes sense or is, in some cases, even possible.

This is the advantage that Christians have created for their beliefs. Since none of the magical events of the Bible are happening today, Christians have figured out a way to attribute pretty much any event to their God, including the creation of everything - "Things exist, so Jesus/God made them".

If a Christian gets fired from their job, it's because Jesus/God had other plans for them. If a loved one dies at an early age, Jesus/God wanted to bring them to heaven, but if someone is unexpectedly cured of stage 4 cancer, it "wasn't their time" to be taken by Jesus/God.

Basically, anything that happens, good or bad, can be attributed to Jesus/God, should a believer wish to do so.

Right. This is what I referenced above - anything that a Christian wants to attribute to Jesus/God can be proof of Jesus/God. The argument for "things exist, it must be God" only works if you already believe in a God.

Like I mentioned above, written/oral stories often get exaggerated. Maybe Saint Nick / Santa Claus is just the being that causes us to feel the spirit of Christmas and go out and buy all the gifts, not literally delivering the gifts on a slay pulled by magical reindeer.

Jesus/God have stories written about them. Saint Nick / Santa Claus have stories written about them.

There's nothing tangible, today, that proves the existence of Jesus/God or Saint Nick / Santa Claus.

The evidence seems pretty similar.

The evidence is world's apart. But with theists and atheists...you cannot get through the barriers to understanding that they create.

I understand that you do not want to see it, but your defense of atheism is the same kind of thing that others do in defense of their theism.

 

[Cypress]

Ptolemy (aka Claudius Ptolemaeus- (astronomer/mathemetician), in one of his writings, Almegest, while talking about the movement of planets, wrote:

I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia.

Oh, why is that a big deal? Scientists since Newton, Galileo, and Kepler believed the universal natural laws they were discovering logically pointed to a law-giver, aka God.

Prominent astronomers like Fred Hoyle were angry about the big Bang theory and did not want it to be true. Because they knew exactly what it would imply - that the universe had a moment of creation.

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​

 

[Ross Dolan]

So much writing for someone who is vamping waaaay too hard to cover their ignorance.

If you want to think of me as ignorant...fine.

After all, I think of you as ignorant.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I do understand. Why are you unwilling to understand.

And more importantly: what right do YOU believe you have to tell me what I think?

I am not telling you what you think.

But I do ask you a two part question...so that I can determine what you think:

Do you "believe" that "there are no gods"...or...that "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?"

 

[Ross Dolan]

Except that word meanings do not necessarily develop systematically. It would not be "nonsense" for the meaning of "atheist" to shift from a prior meaning.

Many words do that. But the "shift" in atheism is a phony one...as I have pointed out. In any case, why not describe your position without using a label? That way we know what your position actually is...rather than trying to discern it from a descriptor.

Half time is over...gotta go back to the games. I'll be back.

 

[ZenMode]

Oh, why is that a big deal? Scientists since Newton, Galileo, and Kepler believed the universal natural laws they were discovering logically pointed to a law-giver, aka God.

Prominent astronomers like Fred Hoyle were angry about the big Bang theory and did not want it to be true. Because they knew exactly what it would imply - that the universe had a moment of creation

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.

 

[ZenMode]

The evidence is world's apart. But with theists and atheists...you cannot get through the barriers to understanding that they create.

I understand that you do not want to see it, but your defense of atheism is the same kind of thing that others do in defense of their theism.

The evidence really isn't worlds apart. 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.

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.