Bible and science contradictory?

[frezzy]

"People do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself, but because it contradicts them"

 

[Skeptic]

I personally don't believe that if he exists he would be matter or even energy as we know it- more of a force or spirit unknown to us at this time (just like how scientists say that what they don't understand will come in time).

And he created man in the likeness of himself I believe, not the universe. And even if he did, likeness of himself means not exactly- only certain traits would have been passed. A deity/god, by definition, would not be confined to the same limitations we or what they have created are.

Btw, I'm not saying I'm a die hard believer that God exists. I just want to clear up things for both sides. If someone who believes in the Bible says something wrong about science- or simply doesn't understand it- and I know about it, I'll speak up for that too.

I just dont see how there can be ONE all living force that created all that we know in existence. Saying that it all appeared basically with the click of a switch. Science has proved the evolution of many species of animals.

I mean... look at the similarities between prehistoric animals and modern day species that werent around in prehistoric times. These animals adapt and evolve to changes in the earths conditions.

 

[Skeptic]

"People do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself, but because it contradicts them"

nope... pretty much because it contradicts itself

kthnx.

 

[Ironslave]

$10,000 to the first person who can explain to me physiologicaly, any of the following.

1) How Mary got pregnant without getting creampied.

2) How Jesus could be dead for like 72 hours (considering you start to get massive brain cell death in 4 minutes) and come back alive.

Hmmmm wow man, tough post! I'm going to try and win $10,000

.... hmm, got nothing. :wutyousay:

Maybe one of the other members can prove it?

 

[Duality]

"People do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself, but because it contradicts them"

good post man

 

[Arcane1129]

Well IS, as we both know there is no way to prove it physiologically. Christians consider them miracles, which means supernatural- no way to prove them through science as far as we know.

So, let's just go ahead and assume the bible is true for this:
Both those incidents directly relate to Jesus, which was essentially God in human form. Jesus established the principles of the new testament of the bible, so if God is real I guess those would be times to use your power- if God didn't send Jesus we wouldn't have the bible, meaning we wouldn't know God's will.

So yeah, no scientific explanation possible, as I know you you knew when you posted. But if the bible is assumed true it makes sense that God would choose to use his power then of all times. Had no miracle been done regarding Jesus, the possibility of him being part of God would be nil and he wouldn't have attracted so much attention.

...can I have like $5 of the $10,000?

 

[Arcane1129]

I just dont see how there can be ONE all living force that created all that we know in existence. Saying that it all appeared basically with the click of a switch. Science has proved the evolution of many species of animals.

I mean... look at the similarities between prehistoric animals and modern day species that werent around in prehistoric times. These animals adapt and evolve to changes in the earths conditions.

Isn't the big bang theory essentially the same thing- a random flick of a switch? And if a deity did create the earth and animals, evolution could still take place- just not to the same degree.

That's why I asked if anyone knew the current popular theory for the creation of matter. Last I heard it was something involving dark matter...but I have no idea what that's about. If anyone can elaborate, go ahead.

 

[frezzy]

“What evidence do you have that there is a God?”

The very existence of the universe itself is evidence that there is a God. Let’s think about this for a moment. There are only three options for the existence of the universe. One, that it has always been. Two, that it came into being by itself. Three, that it was created. The first option, that the universe is eternal, has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. The motion of the galaxies, the background radiation echo, and other evidences all overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point in time, something scientists call the Big Bang. Option two, that the universe created itself, is philosophically impossible. Of course, before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist. We all know that nothing can not do anything. Nothing is nothing. It (if we could even call nothing an it!) cannot see, smell, act, think, or create. So option one and two can be thrown out on scientific and philosophical grounds. Option three, that something or someone outside of the universe created the universe, is the only reasonable option. Let’s imagine I am holding up a painting. When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing else besides the painting itself. The painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. It would not be there if the painter did not exist, and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe itself proves absolutely that there is a creator.

 

[frezzy]

its taking forever to submit my edit so I'll add this here..


“What evidence do you have that the Bible is actually true?”

If I had to narrow it down to a few evidences, I would probably say: fulfilled prophecies, archaeological discoveries, and the Bible’s amazing unity. The Bible, unlike any other religious book, has demonstrated itself to be the Word of God through its ability to rightly predict the future. There are literally hundreds of very specific prophecies in the Bible that were spoken hundreds of years before their fulfillment that have already come to pass. No other religious book can verify itself in this way. The Bible has also been proven to be historically reliable by numerous archaeological discoveries. To date, there have been more than 25,000 archaeological discoveries that have verified the names of persons, places, events, and customs mentioned in the Bible. Finally, there is the Bible’s amazing unity. Here is a book that is actually a collection of sixty-six different books, written down by more than forty different authors, over a period of 1,500 plus years, on three different continents, in three different languages, and it addresses life’s most controversial topics from beginning to end. You would think there would be chaos, confusion, and contradictions, yet the Bible miraculously remains absolutely consistent and internally harmonious from beginning to end. These three evidences (fulfilled prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the Bible’s amazing unity) build a compelling case for the divine origin and historical reliability of the Bible.

 

[Tech]

I like these threads.

It helps me determine who the crazies are.


:carduindisguise

 

[frezzy]

this is a healthy discussion

 

[frezzy]

I like these threads.

It helps me determine who the crazies are.


:carduindisguise

likewise.

 

[Ironslave]

Well IS, as we both know there is no way to prove it physiologically. Christians consider them miracles, which means supernatural- no way to prove them through science as far as we know.

But, isn't the point of accepting something as knowledge to prove it to be true? Or at the absolute least, highly likely? Why is this true for literally everything on earth, except religion? With religion, it's "prove god doesn't exist", instead of "prove he does."

Going back to my example, you are right, there's no way physiolgically to explain how Mary got knocked up, or how Jesus came back from the dead. It's just pawned as being a true, supernatural event that did happen, only we don't know why.

By that logic, I could come out and claim I had invented a magical concoction
that cured all the world's illnesses by using an extract from Robcardu's semen. I could even write a 10,000 page book telling how it works. Now, all the medical doctors, journals, and people would look at me as a lunatic, and before they even considered believing me, they would need even the slightest amount of proof.

This is in essence, how Christianity is accepted. I have no problem with accepting the notion that there could be something out there, but typical blind Christianity is so fucking stupid it's absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

 

[Hypocrisy86]

i will be at the corner of this thread
watching you all, i see all.

 

[Braaq]

The fact that we are using the Bible as a reference in itself makes this funny because there is proof to back up science, whereas the Bible relies on faith and theology.... I guess there are always going to be suckers

 

[Arcane1129]

Yep, I get exactly what you're saying. And that's where the faith vs. science thing comes in.

Scientists believe only what they see/experience/test. Believers go by what they experience spiritually or follow the book they believe to be written by inspiration of God.

All a matter of choice a person has to eventually make.

 

[frezzy]

To some, the notion of Faith seems too far fetched; However, aren't the individuals who reject the Word of God creating their own sense of Faith by believing there is no God?

 

[Ironslave]

To some, the notion of Faith seems too far fetched; However, aren't the individuals who reject the Word of God creating their own sense of Faith by believing there is no God?

This is dependent on the notion of proof that there is a God, which has not, nor ever will be proven.

What kind of words am I rejecting? I have never seen "God", nor have I ever heard any kind of words with my own two ears. Forgive me for not being a blind sheep who accepts something simply because society has conditioned people to do so.

Christianity is nothing more than an idiotic cult with political power.

 

[lifterdead]

There's no need to break this down into interpretation of select quotes from the bible; the two inherently are incompatible. The bible demands faith. Science abhors "faith." That is- science demands all of its tenets be defended by reason supported with logic. The bible (or any religion, for that matter) demands you accept its tenets without proof as a matter of course.

Science questions everything. Period. Think you've got a good theory? Get it published in a journal, see if it stands up to intense scrutiny. The whole idea behind science is to improve our understanding or reality by constantly questioning everything, old theories included. Without it, there would be no room for improvement.

Religion, in contrast, demands accepting concepts without proof, or any evidence. Don't quite agree with the bible? Not feeling convinced? Too bad. If you don't, an all-powerful, ominpotent, Bronze age sky-god will send you to a place where you'll be tortured forever after you die. This, of course, is further based on the concept that there is life after death......

 

[frezzy]

Ironslave, How is that so?

-These "blind sheep" willfully put their faith in God, whom they believe exists.

-Those who (must have removed their "blindfold"?) have faith in their own ideology that God does not exist.

right? so they too rely on faith.