Do you believe their was a worldwide flood?

I think he was just trying to be polite.

When it comes down to it though, one method uses scientific enquiry, another bases their point of view on a fictional book.

Oh, and FYI: Chances are not 'No idea' They are a precise mathematical concept. A precise logical explanation. Something grounded in reality. Rolling a dice has a 1 in 6 chance of landing with the 1 side up. That is a fact, and it isrepresented by chance. It is not knowing nothing, but quite the contrary, a precise peice of actual knowledge.

 

I use science and the Bible. Many say they contradict each other. However, careful research and study say they do not.

hmmm...that sounds like philosophy more than anything else to me.

Col

 

I think carfeully constructed perspectives and selective blindness allows science and religion to coexist without contradicting each other. But only under those conditions. Take off your blinders and the bible is a direct contradiction to rationality in every regard. particularly the global flood story.

As for philosophy: What do you think science is? It is the application of philosophy to collected observed facts.

 

Hmmmm...blinders?? Blinders are off when there have been many findings of sea creatures (skeletons) and boats found at the tops of mountains...I wonder how they got there? I suppose there is a rational explanation for these things and nothing to do with the Bible?

Philosophy is nothing else but discussion based on thinking. It has nothing to do with facts. Many people confuse evidence with facts. Facts are proven. Evidence is the tools or items collected used to prove facts.

Here's an example. You can say "there is evidence that dinosaurs existed in Bible times". You can not say "It is fact that dinosaurs existed in Bible times".

Hence, the reason for philosophy. It's just talk and nothing more.

Col

 

Without a doubt.

If you define philosophy that way, then I don't use philosophy. For practicality though, i think you would find that most people define it very differently and get a much better use of the word. While Philosophy certainly can operate purely from thought experiment, there is no absolute doctrine which dictates that it must. So I am forced to disagree with your definition. Philosophy may in fact use 'facts' in its operation (for example: Science, which is a philosophy)

Secondly, evidence is factual evidence. If the evidence is in fact false, then it is not factual evidence, it is false evidence. there is no confusion there, they mean different things.

Yes, factual evidence can be used to establish the case that the bible is 'in fact' ficticious, so I do not deny that evidence is used to prove facts, but that evidence must first be factual. Observation and reproducibility are commonly accepted as a solid basis for accepting given evidence as factual.

actually, you can say both, but both can be false or true, and in the end it is the validity of the statement which is important. If there is in facte vidence for dinosaurs in the bible, then the evidence needs to be conclusive for it to be true that it is a fact that dinosaurs existed in the bible.

Simple really.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence for dinosaurs anytime in the last few million years, and thus, with a wealth of factually accepted evidence in favour of the postulate that dinosaurs did not exist in biblical times, it is a fact that dinosaurs did not exist in biblical times.

Socrates would be so hurt by this statement.

 

In other words, in my opinion of course, you are a philosopher. I have spoken to many philosophers in my time and have found evidence that they have one thing in common. That is, the talking around in circles. By way of providing more questions for the original question and thus avoiding the answer.

To me, it's just time wasting and overuse of long words. For example, postulate, practicality, reproducibilty etc..

I feel this is the extent of this conversation between you and I as I can't seem to have the strength to wade through the fog to get to the point.

Socrates will get over it. Apparently, he has already. It will be interesting to talk to him in the near future.

Col

 

LOL. In other words you don't understand how to think a problem through to its solution, so your conclusion will always be "Where I get up to when i stop thinking about it"

And that is why peopel continue to think books like the Bible can co-exist with Science. because they have never even bothered spending the time to think about it or investigate it.

I'm sorry I have spent large amounts of my time studying these topics, but I find it helps me to get to the truth, rather than just settling for what I am told or what i would like to be true.

Practicality....reproducibility. Big words. LOL.

 

They certainly contradict eachother. An example that is used all the time is that the Bible says Earth is a circle, meaning Earth is flat (all circles are obviously flat, they have no depth dimension).
So, as was the thinking at the time, the Bible agreed with everyone by saying Earth is flat. We know that's not true now, or do you still think that's scientifically accurate?

 

What are you on about? The people at that time thought the earth was flat (ships falling off the edge of the earth into a hole or something). The Bible does in no place say "that the earth is flat". People might have thought that at the time but it does not say the earth was flat.

Well, I may have studied the Bible and many other forms of wide research as much as you have studied whatever it is you have studied. My beliefs are based on evidence and not fact. Sure, I can provide a myriad of things to support that the Bible is not factual, just as much as I can provide a myriad of things to support evolution is not factual. Does not mean I completely dismiss it. It's a question of faith. You have faith in your things and I have faith in my things. We can leave it at that.

I choose to use simpler words. I find longer (bigger) words unnecessary and only confuse the issue. This way, everyone can talk on the same level and not force others to go look up every third word in the dictionary to find out what someone said.

I am not being a smart-ass or dismissive. Just being "practical".

Col

 

Are you trying to tell me circles aren't flat?

 

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

 

I challenge you to provide anything showing evidence that evolution is not factual. If you want, we can go point for point, you provide evidence that evolution is wrong, I'll tell you why that isn't true, then provide evidence why the bible is wrong, you respond and say why that isn't true etc.

Faith should never come into it. Faith is a horrible answer to any question, and one I never accept. Not even of my own beliefs. Yes, i have beliefs. I believe the sun will 'rise' tomorrow, I believe if I shoot myself in the head I will die etc, but everyone of those beliefs comes from evidence which I find compelling. Every 'faith' must also come from compelling evidence. Every time I have gotten a christian to sit down and actually follow this line of inquiry through to its conclusion, I always get them to admit that they believe God exists as per the christian Bible just because they have faith, and they have no reason for that faith.

What is more startling about that, is that these same people happily go on believing this beleif, even though they admit that they believe in God and the Bible for no reason. They just choose to. True insanity.

Fair enough. I prefer to use the most accurate words (since I think that they help avoid confusion), but I will do my best to keep the words simple. Communication is afterall the real goal.

 

As for dinosaurs - what about the bedrock found with both dinosaur footprints and human footprints in it - wouldn't logic suggest they both existed at the same time?

As for four corners - people still say the four corners of the earth - even though its round, I traveled to the ends of the earths - means I traveled a long way -

besides which the Bible is a book of FAITH not science. It wasn't written as a science textbook.

If I said, I went to Hell and back - you wouldn't believe I literally went to HELL - you would know I meant I had a crap time of it.

 

If it were real. But it isn't.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

No argument there. But you see non-christians are stuck in this terrible situation where some people like you say that the Bible is scientific and that is a book of Faith (ie: meaningless), yet other people like to tell us that homosexuals are evil, that abortion is wrong, that evolution is false etc.

its amazing how much science comes out of this non-scientific book (even though the evidence still contradicts everything it says)

 

I am not going there because it will end up being a very long thread. I would rather a peaceable face to face discussion with books at hand to aid the discussion. You can say whatever you like against the Bible's teachings. In fact, I could probably pick out a hundred things from it to cause doubt but what would that prove or would it help people today?

You are talking about blind faith. I am talking about the things that Jesus and the apostles taught along with what God taught. I see an organization that lives and breathes in harmony with those teachings in every way. Now, with that in mind, is this blind faith, if I can see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears and feel with my own heart with what goes on around me? No. It's faith based on evidence.

See above

I agree.

Col

 

I actually find internet forums to be the best medium for discussion. You have the time to consider every reply very well, ensure you understand what they have said, consider your reply, find references, and provide links to the evidence. And it is strictly turn based, there is no voice raising or shouting over the top of each other. I don't think a better medium for discussion exists.

However, I agree that a thread doing what I have proposed would indeed be long, and so shouldn't be done here, however I would be interested in starting a dedicated thread if you were interested (although I sense you aren't, so don't worry. I probably shouldn't waste my time doing it either....I have websites to develop!)

It would help people break away from ancient repression and unreasonable thinking. It is hard to explain to a christian the harm belief in the bible can cause, because christians are so brain washed with the goodness of it all, that what is patently bad to everyone else seems normal to them.
I thoroughly recommend finding the time to watch these one day:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316&q=richard+dawkins&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8033327978006186584&q=richard+dawkins&hl=en

But belief in the PHILOSOPHY which Jesus taught is completely separate from the belief in his status as human, demi-god, a god, a prophet or GOD himself. If his teachings are good, then follow them, but don't expect that to be a good argument for all of the other rubbish the Bible says.

And unfortunately I am not sure I understand the second half of what you said here. You have faith (i prefer the word belief) based on evidence about something, but I'm not sure what the connection is between that thing and the fact that you can see hear feel...

 

I don't have any repression at all and I don't use unreasonable thinking either. I have a very large circle of friends that get along together extremely well and that is a result of our lives are in harmony with the Bible's teachings. You might be tarring our organization with the same brush. Our organization is certainly not mainstream like many are. We go by what the Bible really teaches.

Well, the things Jesus spoke of and taught are and were quoted in just all parts of the Bible. I can't see how the rest of it can be labeled as rubbish.
According to the Bible, Jesus is God's only begotten Son. Not a demi-god or even a god. He was god-like, but only in the sense he had the same qualities as his father.

I was talking about what our societies are like in this world. It's terrible how people treat each other and have done so for thousands of years. However, it is much much worse than ever before. This is mentioned a lot in the Bible about our time. On the other side, we have people in our organization living in harmony with the teachings of the Bible. We don't get involved in politics, we don't get involved in war, we treat people with love and respect and we try very hard to keep our families together, all in harmony with God's word. Only when you live your life this way will anyone understand how it feels.

Col

 

Well no brainwashed person belives they are brainwashed. No unreasonable person thinks they are unreasonable. No one indoctrinated with 'the way the world is' from birth knows the world can be any other way.

I'm not tarring any organisation. I think your organisation is irrelevant, what I am talking about is the Bible. The Bible is full of rubbish, and I guarantee your organisation rarely follows half of what the book says you are supposed to do because you have explained the bad bits away, and created some extra good bits from vague sentences. Thats how we use the bible...we decide what bits we like, and we advocate them as Gods word, and then we throw out the bits we don't like, because anyone who thinks they are Gods word obviously interpretted it wrong.

Easy. The stuff which is rubbish, is rubbish. The stuff which makes sense, that may not be. Just make sure you evaluate it objectively.

How does that happen anyway? How exactly was God Jesus' father? Did he really have the DNA of God in him? Or did God just create him? Because if God created Jesus, and he created all humans, aren't we all Gods Children? How is Jesus special?

What is your evidence for now being much wqorse than before? I think we live in the best time in human history. Equality of the sexes (not present in the time of the bible), no slave trade throughout most of the world (unlike in the bible). Sure, people still kill each other en mass, but only in very specific areas of the world. In the time of the Bible there was constant warfare too (just read the Bible, its all through it!).

I don't know how on earth you can justify saying that how people treat each other now is worse than any other point in history.

And besides, assuming your organisation is peachy keen perfect, good for it. You can achieve the same results without the Bible. I guarantee you are all still human, and still prone to your own human jealousies and fantasies, so you wouldn't be perfect individually. And I can stand up here and say that my relationship with my group of friends is as good as 'perfect' too. And none of us are religious. But we share, and work together, and trust each other with our lives. God has nothing to do with humans co-operating - humans do.

 

Strange the fact that I found myself in an European country in a very mountainous area, 300 meters above sea level, and a bone fish embedded in Stone in almost perfect condition. others found a couple of hundred meters away a sword fish.

 

And I guess in your geological and paleontological knowledge concluded that these 'near perfect condition' 'bones' conclusively showed that there was a global flood 6000 years ago which saw sea levels rise up to the peaks of the mountains.

Is that what you are trying to say? (despite the mathematical evidence that there isn't enough water for that to happen, and the fact that sea fossils on mountain tops is entirely expected in modern geological theory)