Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Evolution is a FACT. I've heard this argument from many religious folks for quite some time now. Too bad they don't understand it. I'll try and give you an example. Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Scientists generally agree that Darwin?s Theory of Evolution is the correct explanation of how life on earth evolved. EVEN IF, other scientists come up with other theories about how evolution works, evolution itself remains a fact. For example,let?s consider this in light of another scientific fact - gravity. Gravity is a fact. How gravity works is a theory. Current theories about gravity might be disproved, but gravity remains a fact. Understand??

Natural selection is Darwin?s theory of how the environment works on species. Although genetics were not understood at the time, later science confirmed Darwin?s logic was reasonable. Individuals that are most successfully reproducing viable offspring form the gene pool of a species. Environmental forces determine which individuals survive. Insects tend to be successful not just because of the number of offspring they produce, but because this genetic trait is favorable to the insects' particular environmental niche. Insects that produce a lot of offspring survive best.

A breeding pair of elephants, Darwin reasoned, produce a population of 19 million elephants over 750 years, yet the number of elephants remains more constant. Natural constraints limit the number of elephants. Elephants that reproduce by putting enormous time and resources into a small number of offspring has made them the slowest breeders on earth.

That was for you KNICKSFAN4LYFE..

Now onto Paul.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
TO PAUL:

Those scientists you speak of, yes some of them have religion. But at the same time they do not go against scientific facts like evolution, genetics, biology, chemistry, or sociology. You can take the Christian out the Science, but you can't take the Science out of the Christian. As well if you can name some names..that would be helpful in this discussion.

Their personal conclusions in the spiritual sense yes, they sum it up to GOD as regular everyday persons. But as scientists there is a disconnect...also they don't conclude that as a fact "GOD DID IT"...they all clearly state it's what they believe to be true by their conclusions. At the same time they dare have not said that "GOD DID IT" is factual and truthful. Because every scientist knows for something to be truth it requires evidence, proof. Absence of evidence, is not evidence for "GOD" it's actually still evidence against.

The Cosmological Argument

I know it quite well. Hope you don't mind me paraphrazing it. But basically it goes something like....

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the univere began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause".

That should be in the ballpark of it's definition. Just have to point out this factoid...note that the argument does not say "Everything that exists has a cause", because the logical conclusion would be "GOD must have had a cause as well". Cosmologists agree that when we reverse the expansion of the universe, caused by the Big Bang, we come to what is know as the singularity; a point of infinite density.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space, matter, energy or time; they each came into existance at the singularity. Physicists understand that this poses a problem, because at the singularity all of physics break down; the leading theory to explain the problem is currently known as String Theory or M Theory.

The Cosmological Argument then describes the requirements of the cause; the cause must be uncaused, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes. The cause must also be timeless, since it created time. It must also be space-less and immaterial since it created all space and matter. It must also be incredibly powerful, since it is the creator of the whole universe.

Objections to this argument vary; some say that the universe caused itself. Unfortunately that would mean that the universe would have to exist BEFORE it existed, which is impossible. The other objection falls in line with String Theory, which is the same as the multiple universes theory; our universe was cause by another unseen and undetectable universe in another dimension.

Not many good arguments have been raised against this one, most tend towards saying that scientists don't know what existed before the Big Bang, or what caused it, so it's unfair to just assume that it was god.

Then you moved onto the classic "First Cause Argument"

Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God.

This sounds about right to me for a definition of it the new argument your making.

Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God?

Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.

Then you moved onto the second law of thermodynamics, or the argument from improbability.

The second law of thermodynamics says matter inevitably becomes entropic (spreads out in chaos) and this defies the observation on Earth where we see, things becoming more organized. Therefore God is responsible.

What is the likelihood that humans would have turned out the way they have? It's improbable that humanity (or any other impressive life form) arbitrarily came into existence.

Imagine a wind whipping through a warehouse of airplane parts and blowing the pieces around until they form a perfect, functional 747 jet? That's what we are talking about in terms of the likelihood man "just happened" on Earth. A similar story involves monkeys being given typewriters and eventually writing all the works of Shakespeare.

But here is where you fall apart;

This argument works because those making these claims deliberately leave out a critical aspect of the story:

No scientist ever said everything happens randomly or arbitrarily!!!

How things evolve, change or become something new and different can be explained using processes such as Natural selection.

This argument ignores glaring facts in the equation.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system. The entire universe is expanding and entropic. Theists ignore this fact.

When employing the Argument from Improbability to the concept of evolution, theists also deliberately ignore the process of natural selection, which clearly demonstrates that the evolutionary process is anything but random and arbitrary.

In any case, even if the Argument from Improbability were true, it wouldn't prove the existence of God.

Another variation on the Argument from Improbability centers around talking about how "perfect" the Earth, our bodies, the universe, etc. is.

Yes, if the Earth is so "perfect" how come the majority of it is covered with water and uninhabitable by humans? How come we weren't born with gills? If the universe is so perfect, why are there so many planets that are totally inhospitable to humans? Why doesn't the moon have an atmosphere? The "perfection" spin doesn't work.
 
Evolution is a FACT. I've heard this argument from many religious folks for quite some time now. Too bad they don't understand it. I'll try and give you an example. Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Scientists generally agree that Darwin?s Theory of Evolution is the correct explanation of how life on earth evolved. EVEN IF, other scientists come up with other theories about how evolution works, evolution itself remains a fact. For example,let?s consider this in light of another scientific fact - gravity. Gravity is a fact. How gravity works is a theory. Current theories about gravity might be disproved, but gravity remains a fact. Understand??

Natural selection is Darwin?s theory of how the environment works on species. Although genetics were not understood at the time, later science confirmed Darwin?s logic was reasonable. Individuals that are most successfully reproducing viable offspring form the gene pool of a species. Environmental forces determine which individuals survive. Insects tend to be successful not just because of the number of offspring they produce, but because this genetic trait is favorable to the insects' particular environmental niche. Insects that produce a lot of offspring survive best.

A breeding pair of elephants, Darwin reasoned, produce a population of 19 million elephants over 750 years, yet the number of elephants remains more constant. Natural constraints limit the number of elephants. Elephants that reproduce by putting enormous time and resources into a small number of offspring has made them the slowest breeders on earth.

That was for you KNICKSFAN4LYFE..

Now onto Paul.


Why is evolution the only thing involving science that scientists believe something came from nothing? Explain? How can something come from nothing when that goes against all laws of science itself?
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Why is evolution the only thing involving science that scientists believe something came from nothing? Explain? How can something come from nothing when that goes against all laws of science itself?

You'll find that answer in what I just said to Paul a few moments ago.

Now if you ever want to go through the issue of "Natural Selection" properly, and talk about String Theory...or Wave Function of the Universe Theory..by all means I'm open to explaining it as simply as I can to you.

On another note..I think many religious people get caught up in how scientists use the word "THEORY" and what it means as far as human language and dictionary meaning.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact".

For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

So when WE as atheists or scientists talk about something and add the word "THEORY" onto the end of it...were not using it in the common usage context, but the scientific context.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
I'm not a Muslim. I'm an athiest. But what I'm saying is that you cannot prove anything.

Doesn't matter what you believe, you cannot prove any of it.

It is hard being black and being an atheist is it not? My experiences of being a black atheist for the last almost 12 years now...have been met with people either thinking I'm a satanist or lost.

I personally find the idea of a black Christian insulting for reasons due to slavery largely in that context.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Another thing that is really pissing me off..

Atheism is not a belief. Say it with me "Atheism is not a belief"...and I'm actually going to be nice and tell you why.

The religious often claim that atheism is a belief. They use this characterization to claim among other things, false premises such as:

"It takes just as much faith to not believe in god as it does to believe in god"

W R O N G!!! W R O N G!!! W R O N G !!!

It takes no faith to not believe in something. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It is believing in something in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's the opposite of coming to a conclusion based on something real and tangible. The non-existence of something is not a belief. It's merely a base or fallback position one naturally comes to in the absence of contrary evidence.

Is there a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in the bathroom at your home right now"?

No? Why not? So you take it on faith that there isn't a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in your bathroom at home? Do you think your lack of belief in this concept requires faith, or maybe it's the other way around? You only require faith to believe IN something that defies the laws of logic.
 
Another thing that is really pissing me off..

Atheism is not a belief. Say it with me "Atheism is not a belief"...and I'm actually going to be nice and tell you why.

The religious often claim that atheism is a belief. They use this characterization to claim among other things, false premises such as:

"It takes just as much faith to not believe in god as it does to believe in god"

W R O N G!!! W R O N G!!! W R O N G !!!

It takes no faith to not believe in something. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It is believing in something in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's the opposite of coming to a conclusion based on something real and tangible. The non-existence of something is not a belief. It's merely a base or fallback position one naturally comes to in the absence of contrary evidence.

Is there a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in the bathroom at your home right now"?

No? Why not? So you take it on faith that there isn't a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in your bathroom at home? Do you think your lack of belief in this concept requires faith, or maybe it's the other way around? You only require faith to believe IN something that defies the laws of logic.

Atually, that is blind faith what you speak of. The faith that TRUE Christians have in the bible is based on this passage.

Hebrews 1:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld


So for instance, even though no man has ever seen God, the things around us and his word and the things he has done in the past give us faith that he will fulfill his promises, because he has demonstrated it before.

And that is precisely the reason why you have faith in what you believe. Becuase in your opinion, science has demonstrated to you enough for you to believe in evolution. So technically, yea, it's your faith.
 
You'll find that answer in what I just said to Paul a few moments ago.

Now if you ever want to go through the issue of "Natural Selection" properly, and talk about String Theory...or Wave Function of the Universe Theory..by all means I'm open to explaining it as simply as I can to you.

On another note..I think many religious people get caught up in how scientists use the word "THEORY" and what it means as far as human language and dictionary meaning.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact".

For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

So when WE as atheists or scientists talk about something and add the word "THEORY" onto the end of it...were not using it in the common usage context, but the scientific context.

And lemme ask you this. Has science ever been wrong on what they at a time or two, considered a scientific fact? Have they ever had to revise their thinking on evolution in anyway?

Now when you answer that, answer this. Has the BIBLE ever had to revise it's thinking on any scientifical matter it states in it, ever? And if you answer no, as you wisely should, then ask, how could those writers get those scientific facts correct without the tools and knowledge that today's scientists have?
 

TunerAddict

Starter
And lemme ask you this. Has science ever been wrong on what they at a time or two, considered a scientific fact? Have they ever had to revise their thinking on evolution in anyway?

Now when you answer that, answer this. Has the BIBLE ever had to revise it's thinking on any scientifical matter it states in it, ever? And if you answer no, as you wisely should, then ask, how could those writers get those scientific facts correct without the tools and knowledge that today's scientists have?

You've never read the original bible. Its far been changed from its origination by Church leaders so there is no way for you to prove it.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Atually, that is blind faith what you speak of. The faith that TRUE Christians have in the bible is based on this passage.

Hebrews 1:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld


So for instance, even though no man has ever seen God, the things around us and his word and the things he has done in the past give us faith that he will fulfill his promises, because he has demonstrated it before.

And that is precisely the reason why you have faith in what you believe. Becuase in your opinion, science has demonstrated to you enough for you to believe in evolution. So technically, yea, it's your faith.

No it's not. What you are doing is twisting the definition and spinning it around to suit you.

Faith- is belief without evidence

Atheism- believes in no gods, or supernatural forces. Not because we have faith they don't exist, but there is NO EVIDENCE proving GOD or GOD's exist. Atheism deals with reality, practicality, evidence, proof, analysis, and logic. All things against faith itself.

Your clever english spin tricks are not going to work here.

Science is not an opinion it's factual. If I felt that there is no gravity I can simply test it's existence by jumping up and down. The theory says with gravity what goes up will come down, I jump up...and come down..I've scientifically proven the theory of gravity as working and provable. And guess what...you don't need a secret magic book or decoder ring to prove this!
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
And lemme ask you this. Has science ever been wrong on what they at a time or two, considered a scientific fact? Have they ever had to revise their thinking on evolution in anyway?

Now when you answer that, answer this. Has the BIBLE ever had to revise it's thinking on any scientifical matter it states in it, ever? And if you answer no, as you wisely should, then ask, how could those writers get those scientific facts correct without the tools and knowledge that today's scientists have?

So because science updates it's wrong? If that isn't the biggest load of horseshit. That's exactly what makes and SCIENCE SUPERIOR TO RELIGION, any of them.

The very fact that the bible and all other religious texts have remained stagnant in superstition and stupidity is the reason why most people of faith have lower I.Q's.

Religion let's not forget..let's take the bible for example...states it is a sin to eat shellfish, the children should be stoned for cursing at their parents, that it is justifiable to kill someone who prays to a different GOD, that slaves should be submissive to their masters, wives to their husbands, rape is only a crime if shes not married, that she should be ostracized when she gets her period.

If I had to pick a book to give to a child about morality..your vile holy books I'd instruct them were toilet paper and give them something more nurturing.

But getting back to science. What makes science superior is because it does update, and is adaptable. Human knowledge increases with study, time, debate, experimentation, discovery, research, evidence. The fact that science can be wrong, and CORRECTED later on is it's power and beauty. Sure can be wrong, but it has to be tested, proven, confirmed, re-confirmed. And guess what...mistakes are corrected. Darwin was wrong about heredity because he couldn't have possibly had knowledge of genetics. Which we discovered.

You cant change one word, syllable, or paragraph in any holy book. Holy books are nothing more than the thoughts
of early primitive peoples, trying to explain concepts intellectually far beyond their capabilities.

The bible hasn't even been updated to state that the earth revolves around the sun..it still states the earth is the center of the universe. Still states the earth was created in 7 days...never mind the 4 plus billions years. Has no mention of Cain's wife I might add..still to this day.

Eventually it is my hope one day religion, is looked at no differently that a children's magic show.
 
So because science updates it's wrong? If that isn't the biggest load of horseshit. That's exactly what makes and SCIENCE SUPERIOR TO RELIGION, any of them.

The very fact that the bible and all other religious texts have remained stagnant in superstition and stupidity is the reason why most people of faith have lower I.Q's.

Religion let's not forget..let's take the bible for example...states it is a sin to eat shellfish, the children should be stoned for cursing at their parents, that it is justifiable to kill someone who prays to a different GOD, that slaves should be submissive to their masters, wives to their husbands, rape is only a crime if shes not married, that she should be ostracized when she gets her period.

If I had to pick a book to give to a child about morality..your vile holy books I'd instruct them were toilet paper and give them something more nurturing.

But getting back to science. What makes science superior is because it does update, and is adaptable. Human knowledge increases with study, time, debate, experimentation, discovery, research, evidence. The fact that science can be wrong, and CORRECTED later on is it's power and beauty. Sure can be wrong, but it has to be tested, proven, confirmed, re-confirmed. And guess what...mistakes are corrected. Darwin was wrong about heredity because he couldn't have possibly had knowledge of genetics. Which we discovered.

You cant change one word, syllable, or paragraph in any holy book. Holy books are nothing more than the thoughts
of early primitive peoples, trying to explain concepts intellectually far beyond their capabilities.

The bible hasn't even been updated to state that the earth revolves around the sun..it still states the earth is the center of the universe. Still states the earth was created in 7 days...never mind the 4 plus billions years. Has no mention of Cain's wife I might add..still to this day.

Eventually it is my hope one day religion, is looked at no differently that a children's magic show.

All that said, how is it that the bible is NEVER WRONG ON ANY SCIENTIFIC FACTS IT HAS STATED? HOW COULD THOSE WRITERS WRITE THE THINGS THEY DID AND BE ACCURATE ABOUT IT ALL AND ITS THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD? AND A FAIRYTALE AT THAT?

And again, if the bible is nothing more than thoughts, how can the scientific facts and prophecies in them stand up? Matter of fact, answer against these in a new post.
 
Last edited:
No it's not. What you are doing is twisting the definition and spinning it around to suit you.

Faith- is belief without evidence

Atheism- believes in no gods, or supernatural forces. Not because we have faith they don't exist, but there is NO EVIDENCE proving GOD or GOD's exist. Atheism deals with reality, practicality, evidence, proof, analysis, and logic. All things against faith itself.

Your clever english spin tricks are not going to work here.

Science is not an opinion it's factual. If I felt that there is no gravity I can simply test it's existence by jumping up and down. The theory says with gravity what goes up will come down, I jump up...and come down..I've scientifically proven the theory of gravity as working and provable. And guess what...you don't need a secret magic book or decoder ring to prove this!
from answers.com

faith

(fāth)
pron.gif






scroll_top.gif
faith

Click here for more free books!

scroll_bottom.gif

n.
  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
  3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
  4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
  5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
  6. A set of principles or beliefs.
See the first answer for it? Fits what the bible says just fine. See the next answer? Fits what you say. So when I said the faith you speak of is blind faith, then that fits category 2. But the actual faith you live, is based on category 1.

sorry.
 
5 Reasons to trust the bible..

If the bible is only mans thoughts and a fairy tale, how can such sound reasonings such as these come about?

Reasons to Trust the Bible

1. Historical Soundness

It would be hard to trust a book that is found to contain inaccuracies. Imagine reading a modern history book that dated the second world war to the 1800?s or that called the president of the United States a king. Would such inaccuracies not raise questions in your mind about the overall reliability of the book?

NO ONE has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible. It refers to real people and real events.

People. Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone [1] discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.

Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone [2], dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words ?House of David? and ?king of Israel.?

Events. Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible?s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that ?Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,? states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.

Proper titles. There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as ?district ruler? and Gallio as ?proconsul.? (Luke 3:1; Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province ?beyond the River,? the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province ?Beyond the River.?

Accuracy in seemingly minor details is no small matter. If we can trust the Bible writers in even small details, should that not bolster our confidence in the other things they wrote?

Reasons to Trust the Bible

2. Candor and Honesty

Honesty provides the foundation for trust. A man who has a reputation for honesty may win your trust, but if he lies to you even once, he may lose it.

THE Bible writers were honest men who wrote with openness of heart. Their candor gives their writing the clear ring of truth.

Mistakes and shortcomings. The Bible writers openly admitted their own failures and weaknesses. Moses told of a mistake he made that cost him dearly. (Numbers 20:7-13) Asaph explained that for a time he found himself envying the prosperous life of the wicked. (Psalm 73:1-14) Jonah told of his disobedience and the bad attitude he initially had when God showed mercy to repentant sinners. (Jonah 1:1-3; 3:10; 4:1-3) Matthew freely related that he had abandoned Jesus on the night of Jesus? arrest.?Matthew 26:56.

The writers of the Hebrew Scriptures laid bare the repeated grumbling and rebellion of their own people. (2 Chronicles 36:15, 16) The writers spared no one, not even the rulers of their nation. (Ezekiel 34:1-10) With similar candor, the letters of the apostles reported the serious problems experienced by individual Christians, including responsible ones, as well as by some congregations in the first century C.E.?1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 4:10.

Unflattering truth. The Bible writers did not try to gloss over what some might have viewed as embarrassing truth. The first-century Christians frankly acknowledged that they were not admired by the world around them but were looked upon as foolish and ignoble. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29) The writers noted that Jesus? apostles were seen as ?unlettered and ordinary.??Acts 4:13.

The Gospel writers did not color the facts in order to cast Jesus in a more favorable light. Rather, they reported honestly that he was born under humble circumstances into a working-class family, that he did not study at the prestigious schools of his day, and that the majority of his listeners rejected his message.?Matthew 27:25; Luke 2:4-7; John 7:15.

Clearly, the Bible gives ample evidence that it is the product of honest writers. Does their honesty win your trust?


Reasons to Trust the Bible

3. Internal Harmony

Imagine asking 40 men from varied backgrounds to write a book, each writing a section. The writers live in a number of lands and do not all know one another. Some do not know what the others have written. Would you expect a book thus produced to be harmonious?

THE Bible is such a book. Written under even more unusual conditions than those described above, its internal harmony is nothing less than profound.

Unique circumstances. The Bible was written over a span of some 1,600 years, from 1513 B.C.E. to about 98 C.E. Many of the approximately 40 writers thus lived centuries apart. Their occupations were varied. Some were fishermen, others were shepherds or kings, and one was a physician.

A harmonious message. The Bible penmen developed one central theme: the vindication of God?s right to rule mankind and the fulfillment of his purpose by means of his heavenly Kingdom, a world government. That theme is introduced in Genesis, expanded on in the books that follow, and brought to a climax in Revelation.?See ?What Is the Bible About?? on page 19.

Agreement on details. The Bible writers agreed on even minute details, but often this harmony was clearly unintentional. Note an example. The Bible writer John tells us that when a large crowd came to hear Jesus, Jesus specifically asked Philip where to buy some loaves to feed the people. (John 6:1-5) In a parallel account, Luke says that this took place near the city of Bethsaida. Earlier in his book, John happened to have said that Philip was from Bethsaida. (Luke 9:10; John 1:44) So Jesus naturally addressed his question to one of the men who had lived nearby. The details agree?but with an obvious lack of intent to make them harmonious.

Reasonable differences. There are some differences between certain accounts, but should we not expect this? Suppose a group of people witnessed a crime. If each one mentioned the same details using the same words, would you not suspect collusion? Reasonably, the testimony of each would vary somewhat according to his particular angle of view. So it was with the Bible writers.

Consider an example. Did Jesus wear a purple garment on the day of his death, as Mark and John report? (Mark 15:17; John 19:2) Or was it scarlet, as Matthew says? (Matthew 27:28) Really, both can be correct. Purple has components of red in it. Depending on the observer?s angle of view, light reflection and background could have subdued certain hues, giving different casts to the garment.

The harmony of the Bible writers, including their unintentional consistency, further stamps their writings as trustworthy.


Reasons to Trust the Bible

4. Scientific Accuracy

Science has made great strides in modern times. As a result, old theories have given way to new ones. What was once accepted as fact may now be seen as myth. Science textbooks often need revision.

THE Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.

Free of unscientific views. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices.

Scientifically sound statements. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging ?upon nothing.? (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to ?the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.? (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support?does not that description sound remarkably modern?

Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.?Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.

Partly as a result of turning powerful telescopes toward the heavens, scientists have concluded that the universe had a sudden ?birth.? Not all scientists like the implications of this explanation. One professor noted: ?A universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?? Yet, long before telescopes, the very first verse of the Bible plainly stated: ?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.??Genesis 1:1.

Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Does not such a book merit, at the very least, our consideration?

Reasons to Trust the Bible

5. Fulfilled Prophecy

Imagine a weather forecaster who has a long record of being right?every time. If he predicted rain, would you carry an umbrella?

THE Bible is filled with predictions, or prophecies. Its record, as documented by history, is clear. Bible prophecy is always right.

Distinguishing features. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been fulfilled down to the smallest of details. They usually involve matters of great importance and predict the opposite of what those living at the time of the writing might have been expecting.

An outstanding example. Strategically built astride the Euphrates River, ancient Babylon has been called ?the political, religious, and cultural centre of the ancient Orient.? About 732 B.C.E., the prophet Isaiah penned an ominous prophecy?Babylon would fall. Isaiah provided specifics: A leader named ?Cyrus? would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates would ?dry up,? and the city?s gates would ?not be shut.? (Isaiah 44:27?45:3) Some 200 years later, on October 5, 539 B.C.E., the prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.) confirmed the manner of Babylon?s fall.

A bold detail. Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon: ?She will never be inhabited.? (Isaiah 13:19, 20) To predict permanent desolation for a sprawling city occupying a strategic location was bold indeed. You would normally expect that such a city would be rebuilt if ruined. Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, Isaiah?s words eventually came true. Today the site of ancient Babylon ?is flat, hot, deserted and dusty,? reports Smithsonian magazine.

It is awesome to contemplate the magnitude of Isaiah?s prophecy. What he foretold would be the equivalent of predicting the exact manner in which a modern city, such as New York or London, would be destroyed 200 years from now and then emphatically stating that it would never again be inhabited. Of course, most remarkable is the fact that Isaiah?s prophecy came true!

In this series of articles, we have considered some of the evidence that has convinced millions of people that the Bible is trustworthy. They therefore look to it as a reliable guide to direct their steps. Why not learn more about the Bible so that you can decide for yourself whether you too can trust it?
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
from answers.com

faith

(fāth)
pron.gif






scroll_top.gif
faith

Click here for more free books!

scroll_bottom.gif

n.
  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
  3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
  4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
  5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
  6. A set of principles or beliefs.
See the first answer for it? Fits what the bible says just fine. See the next answer? Fits what you say. So when I said the faith you speak of is blind faith, then that fits category 2. But the actual faith you live, is based on category 1.

sorry.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD, OR LOGICAL PROOF HE EXISTS...

FROM UR OWN DEFINITION.

That's religion...why don't you look up the definition of proof, evidence, and logic.
 
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD, OR LOGICAL PROOF HE EXISTS...

FROM UR OWN DEFINITION.

That's religion...why don't you look up the definition of proof, evidence, and logic.


That's a lie, because there is ample proof that he does exist. And the bible being the main one.

Again, I have not seen you tackle any of the prophecies. Or disprove even one as not happening. How could these many different writers know this stuff would happen? Jesus existed. He also prophesied. How could those who listened to him have lived if not by paying attention to his words?

How could the bible have scientific fact that is 100 percent accurate? How would these people know this stuff? How come non of the facts in the bible have been proven wrong? What about historical soundness? How come no one can dispute that about the bible?

All I hear you say is lies, lies lies, yet all I am seeing in the bible is truth, truth , truth! And to make it worse, you cannot even dispute them! How can they be lies if the truths are indisputable?
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Are you slow or just plain stupid? No one has proven the historical inaccuracies of the bible? The hell have you been..maybe if you read something other than that vile book of bullshit, you would have learned something by now.

Historical soundness of the bible. I'm having a hard time beleiving your intellectually fit to be a functioning human being. I mean I havent heard of this kind of stupidity until I at great length had this discussion with a creationist. Then again I've heard a rant like this before...

Let's begin shall we; I'll even use your bible against itself. Just to prove what you don't know about it, I'll place the biblical phrases first.

"These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19)

You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17)"

A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a Cocker Spaniel is a cat.

The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6)

Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung.

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22)

Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

Snakes don't eat dirt.

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

Camels have split hooves.

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)

The earth isn't stationary!

He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

And there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?) And yes that's exactly how the idea got started that the EARTH was flat...from religion and it's masses of idiots.

A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32).
A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22).
A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18).
A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13).
A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11).

Diseases are not caused by demons, less now you want to dismiss psychology and biology as well.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up... (James 5:14-15).

Prayer does not cure sickness, or we would have no need for doctors.

By the way...

While not received very well by critics or the general public upon its initial release, the Bible has slowly developed a cult following over the years and is currently #13,582 on the Amazon.com bestseller list!

Keep using bible quotes and stories to prove nothing factual....take you and your fairy tales to Disney..they are into worlds that don't exist and imaginary friends.
 
Are you slow or just plain stupid? No one has proven the historical inaccuracies of the bible? The hell have you been..maybe if you read something other than that vile book of bullshit, you would have learned something by now.

Historical soundness of the bible. I'm having a hard time beleiving your intellectually fit to be a functioning human being. I mean I havent heard of this kind of stupidity until I at great length had this discussion with a creationist. Then again I've heard a rant like this before...

Let's begin shall we; I'll even use your bible against itself. Just to prove what you don't know about it, I'll place the biblical phrases first.

"These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19)

You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17)"

A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a Cocker Spaniel is a cat.

The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6)

Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung.

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22)

Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

Snakes don't eat dirt.

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

Camels have split hooves.

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)

The earth isn't stationary!

He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

And there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?) And yes that's exactly how the idea got started that the EARTH was flat...from religion and it's masses of idiots.

A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32).
A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22).
A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18).
A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13).
A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11).

Diseases are not caused by demons, less now you want to dismiss psychology and biology as well.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up... (James 5:14-15).

Prayer does not cure sickness, or we would have no need for doctors.

By the way...

While not received very well by critics or the general public upon its initial release, the Bible has slowly developed a cult following over the years and is currently #13,582 on the Amazon.com bestseller list!

Keep using bible quotes and stories to prove nothing factual....take you and your fairy tales to Disney..they are into worlds that don't exist and imaginary friends.

Historical soundness as in places and people in time. But I see my posts are largely being ignored by you, because if they were not, you'd know exactly what I meant by it, since I have posted a historical soundness piece in a post already lol. So it is an utter waste of time to even converse with you and your pompous attitude. The world is crumbling around us all, humans are ruining the earth (The bible also prophesied about that as well, humans ruining the earth), and you atheist believe we'll be here evolving for the next billion years.

But just cuz I can, I will briefly explain what you have missed concerning James 5:14,15.

That prayer was not speaking of actual physical healing, it speaks of spiritual healing. People can become spiritually sick, and begin to lack faith and such. So no, it does not concern physical healing at all. But I could see why you'd try to jump on that, because with your obvious lack of understanding, this would appear to tilt the debate your way. But no. Wrong again.

I ask you though, how is it that the book of Daniel can prophesy about Alexander the great and his four general who eventually took over his army after he died, BEFORE he was born? You care to discuss that? How about 66-70 ce in Jerusalem? Care to discuss why all those that fled in 66 ce fled in the first place? How did they know what sign to look for? What about Cyrus the persian? Nah, don't wanna dispute that eh?
 

Paul1355

All Star
Response to Knickfan4realz

TO PAUL:

Those scientists you speak of, yes some of them have religion. But at the same time they do not go against scientific facts like evolution, genetics, biology, chemistry, or sociology. You can take the Christian out the Science, but you can't take the Science out of the Christian. As well if you can name some names..that would be helpful in this discussion.

Their personal conclusions in the spiritual sense yes, they sum it up to GOD as regular everyday persons. But as scientists there is a disconnect...also they don't conclude that as a fact "GOD DID IT"...they all clearly state it's what they believe to be true by their conclusions. At the same time they dare have not said that "GOD DID IT" is factual and truthful. Because every scientist knows for something to be truth it requires evidence, proof. Absence of evidence, is not evidence for "GOD" it's actually still evidence against.

The Cosmological Argument

I know it quite well. Hope you don't mind me paraphrazing it. But basically it goes something like....

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the univere began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause".

That should be in the ballpark of it's definition. Just have to point out this factoid...note that the argument does not say "Everything that exists has a cause", because the logical conclusion would be "GOD must have had a cause as well". Cosmologists agree that when we reverse the expansion of the universe, caused by the Big Bang, we come to what is know as the singularity; a point of infinite density.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space, matter, energy or time; they each came into existance at the singularity. Physicists understand that this poses a problem, because at the singularity all of physics break down; the leading theory to explain the problem is currently known as String Theory or M Theory.

The Cosmological Argument then describes the requirements of the cause; the cause must be uncaused, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes. The cause must also be timeless, since it created time. It must also be space-less and immaterial since it created all space and matter. It must also be incredibly powerful, since it is the creator of the whole universe.

Objections to this argument vary; some say that the universe caused itself. Unfortunately that would mean that the universe would have to exist BEFORE it existed, which is impossible. The other objection falls in line with String Theory, which is the same as the multiple universes theory; our universe was cause by another unseen and undetectable universe in another dimension.

Not many good arguments have been raised against this one, most tend towards saying that scientists don't know what existed before the Big Bang, or what caused it, so it's unfair to just assume that it was god.

Then you moved onto the classic "First Cause Argument"

Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God.

This sounds about right to me for a definition of it the new argument your making.

Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God?

Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.

Then you moved onto the second law of thermodynamics, or the argument from improbability.

The second law of thermodynamics says matter inevitably becomes entropic (spreads out in chaos) and this defies the observation on Earth where we see, things becoming more organized. Therefore God is responsible.

What is the likelihood that humans would have turned out the way they have? It's improbable that humanity (or any other impressive life form) arbitrarily came into existence.

Imagine a wind whipping through a warehouse of airplane parts and blowing the pieces around until they form a perfect, functional 747 jet? That's what we are talking about in terms of the likelihood man "just happened" on Earth. A similar story involves monkeys being given typewriters and eventually writing all the works of Shakespeare.

But here is where you fall apart;

This argument works because those making these claims deliberately leave out a critical aspect of the story:

No scientist ever said everything happens randomly or arbitrarily!!!

How things evolve, change or become something new and different can be explained using processes such as Natural selection.

This argument ignores glaring facts in the equation.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system. The entire universe is expanding and entropic. Theists ignore this fact.

When employing the Argument from Improbability to the concept of evolution, theists also deliberately ignore the process of natural selection, which clearly demonstrates that the evolutionary process is anything but random and arbitrary.

In any case, even if the Argument from Improbability were true, it wouldn't prove the existence of God.

Another variation on the Argument from Improbability centers around talking about how "perfect" the Earth, our bodies, the universe, etc. is.

Yes, if the Earth is so "perfect" how come the majority of it is covered with water and uninhabitable by humans? How come we weren't born with gills? If the universe is so perfect, why are there so many planets that are totally inhospitable to humans? Why doesn't the moon have an atmosphere? The "perfection" spin doesn't work.

I have responded to you by putting you argument into each paragraph. I then will mention other things that are not about your arguments.

I dont think you realized that some things you said were actually agreeing with me but ill get on to that later.
1) You started out going against the scientist saying that they have religion, but i said that they were Atheist and Agnostic..having the same views of you in most ways and not being religious scientist. So whatever their conclusion came out to be is a researched Atheist conclusion, you can't beat around it...these men are more knowledable then me and you and they have looked into the matter so much that there conclusion came to be a Creator. Now you also say that it doesnt mean they are saying "God" did it, one of the men i named sayed in a quote if you read it said "This traces that every living thing has been found from a product of forces they cannot discover, that there are or what i call, Supernatural forces at work which is a scientifically proven fact. And that the Biblical view seems to be the right view.". And i did name some names those are higly regarded Astromoers and Scientist so to deny their claims is basically a biased action. That quote you read was from Agnostic Astronomer Rober Jastrow. So that quote goes against your argument that they didnt say God did it...because the Biblical view means God did it. Also Robert Geisure who i quoted said "Every beginning must have had a Beginner" this goes against Evolution and every other Athiest claim and "Beginner" means a supernatural force or God. Even Einstein proved the Beginning of the Universe with his Theory of Relativity. We have names right there Robert Jastrow, Robert Geisure and even Einstein and later i talk about Atheist Anthony Kenny's statement.

2)Then you argued against the reversal of time. I said it traces back to Nothing, you said a point of inifite density. Ok what was in that point? Nothing was when you trace everything back the Atheist view is that matter came from Nothing by Nothing just like Atheist Anthony Kenny said. Now as i said simply that the Athiest view: is that No one created something out of nothing, and the Theist view: is that Someone created something out of nothing. Which sounds more likely to have made the universe and earth? No one or Someone? when you trace it back, something was created and the answer is who, because jsut like Atheist Rober Geisure said "every beginning has a beginner."

3) You then argued the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you wound up agreeing with me that matter will likely end in chaos because thats what the 2nd law states. You do know that the Biblical view has the world ending in chaos. You also said that this Law defies what we see on Earth becoming more organized. Nothing is becoming organized it's the exact opposite! You can see gobal warming destroying glatiers in the Artic...scientist say that these will cause the end of the world eventually in millions of years...i dont beleive it will be that long but it still has the world ending in chaos. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, every natural disaster is becoming more frequent every year. Scientist have made many claims of the disorder of the energy of the universe using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Think about it, if the universe is billions of years old how would all that energy still be here and not in 100% disorder with the universe being destroyed right now? This is were Atheist views dont agree with the law of Thermodynamics. Because if there was NO Beginning...we wouldnt be here discussing this because the universe would have ended a long time ago. The universe is an example of a dying flashlight. It has only a finite amount of energy this means there is an ending to the universe which proves there is a begining and that an Inifinte is impossilbe because the 2nd Law goes against that claim.

4) Your "whipping wind in a warehosue making a jet" example goes against the Atheist View not the Theistic view. The Atheist view is that a Big Bang "just happened". The Atheist view is that all of a sudden Nothing became something. And the odds of that happening are as if a whipping wind blew around jet parts to make a perfect boeing 747. The Theistic view is there was a Beginner and then he created the Heavens and the Earth,then water then land etc...then created the Human from the Earth. This is not a random event such as the Big Bang and the Atheist view going from Nothing to all of a sudden something, you just contradicted yourself.

5) Infinfite time is impossible...as i said there was a beginning because if there wasnt a beginning then today would never be here. Your saying that the Universe started with as an infinite??? How does that make sense? And there is NO INIFINITE TIME becuase scientist go against that claim because the 2nd law of thermodyanmics goes against the inifinte time possibility. If the universe is in chaos, it will end, if it can end, it must of began, thus proving the Universe has a beginning. Think about it.

From there we can beleive that there must have been a Beginner and that the quotes from the Atheists and Agnostics i mentioned support that claim.

One new things i wanted to throw in Knickfan4realz:
1)You did not answer my question from my previous post...If there is no God why is their something rather than nothing at all?

Note: if you say that something has always been here, then the 5 reasons for the Universe having a Beginning disproves that.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Alright, Knicksfan4lyfe I'll indulge you since you like to keep brining up the issue with Alexander the Great. Let's examine that...and I'm just going to use biblical scripture to prove my point about it being false prophecy which seems to be where the conversation has taken us too at the moment. Fair enough I hope.

Ezekiel Chapter 13 verse 6
Ezekiel Chapter 14 verse 9
Ezekiel Chapter 26 verse 3
Ezekiel Chapter 29 verse 10
Ezekiel Chapter 29 verse 17
Ezekiel Chapter 30 verse 4
Deuteronomy Chapter 18 verse 20

All of that what you say about Alexander the Great was a false prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre from 585-573 B.C.E. but was unable to take the city. Tyre was conquered in 332 B.C.E. by Alexander but at no time was the city destroyed. It exists to this day. According to the false prophecy found in Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to completely destroy Tyre, it was never to be rebuilt again, but to remain an eternal ruin, and the King was supposed to get much wealth and loot from the city, making it worth his while.

Another false prophecy follows in Ezekiel. Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer Tyre, the prophet admits, and neither did he make a thin dime from the attempt.

Therefore, the prophet proceeds to make another false prophecy, this time proclaiming destruction of Egypt at the King's hands, as a sort of consolation prize for not looting Tyre as was prophesied previously. This looting of Egypt at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar never happened either. The prophet stated that the King would make such a ruin of Egypt that no one would live there for ?forty years'. This never happened. It is another false prophesy attributed to the prophet after the prophet had just previously made a false prophecy (one false prophecy after another).

What actually happened...AND THIS IS IMPORTANT... is that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt twice, once in 588 and again in 568 and was luckless both times.

The prophet THEN admits that Nebuchadnezzar was luckless in his campaign against Tyre, and contrary to what was prophesied, did not loot Tyre. He then promised the ruin of Egypt and all its treasures, and this did not happen either.

All of the above is just a long false prophecy, in that none of these things happened.

The Babylonians did not destroy Egypt, the Nile never dried up, there was never a time when Egypt was desolate for forty years, no exile and return of the Egyptians, and no time when there was not a prince over Egypt, among the other things mentioned.

By editing these false prophecies into the manuscript the scribes effectively discredited the prophet Ezekiel. After making even his first false prophecy Ezekiel was through as a prophet in Israel, according to Deuteronomy. By pressing on and making a second false prophecy things were only made worse.

What looks even worse than this statement from Deuteronomy is the following statement, from the book of Ezekiel itself. According to Deuteronomy, Ezekiel should have been killed after making that false prophecy about Tyre, and, ironically, Ezekiel concurs.

So then, according to the book of Ezekiel, if a prophet makes a false prophecy then not only should the prophet be killed, but the person who listens to that prophet as well. Given that the book of Ezekiel is in the canon, and many people insist that the Bible is 'infallible' this would mean that we would have to kill hundreds of millions of church goers, as well as stoning Ezekiel to death.

Furthermore, according to Ezekiel, God was planning to destroy Ezekiel and that is why Ezekiel made that false prophecy about Tyre. Yahweh just wanted to get rid of that Ezekiel, once and for all, and thus deliberately deceived Ezekiel into making that first false prophecy.

Once again the prophet Ezekiel is damned by his own mouth for saying 'lying divinations' and then 'expecting God to fulfill the prophecy.' Even worse was then trying to 'daub the wall with whitewash' and cover over the crack. Making excuses about that false prophecy later, and trying to slap a coat of whitewash over the crack (the false prophecy concerning the looting and destruction of Tyre) by then offering Egypt to the Babylonians, for example, is condemned by Ezekiel's own mouth.

That excuse making and whitewashing of false prophecy makes God especially mad, according to Ezekiel. God would destroy the whitewashing prophets by making that cracked and crumbling wall of false prophecy come down on their heads, write them off, refuse to let them into the land, and utterly destroy them.

So when you consider the whole messy affair, here you can see the prophet Ezekiel being hoisted high on his own sword and judged by his own judgments. If it really was true that one single individual was responsible for this book, and it is not composed of variant sources, then it truly is the case that the book of Ezekiel is one of the sorriest excuses for a book of prophecy in the entire Bible.

Other false prophecies are as follows:

Genesis

God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17...

God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

"In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Isaac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

Deuteronomy

God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But according to Joshua ( 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13) and Judges (1:21, 27-36, 3:1-5) there were some people they just couldn't kill. 7:24

Now let's throw in some from the NT...

Matthew

Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre. 2:17-18

Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations "and then shall the end come. Well according to Paul the gospel has been preached to everyone (Rom.10:18) yet the end hasn't come. 24:14

Jesus is a false prophet, since he predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples. The world of course didn't end then, and according to Ec.1:4 it never will end. 24:34

Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. 26:64

Mark

Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi (3:1, 4:1, 5). But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD" in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance. 1:2

John

Verse 33 says that during Jesus' crucifixion, the soldiers didn't break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Ex.12:46, Num. 9:12 and Ps.34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Num.9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments.

The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person. 19:33, 36

Revelation

John believed that the things that he wrote about would happen soon, within his own lifetime. After nearly 2000 years, believers still believe that "the time is at hand" and that the events described in Revelation will "shortly come to pass." 1:1, 3

Do you really want keep going with me on this?
 
Top