Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related

will watch later.

10 min. videos generally aren't long enough to encompass the breadth of the problems with many religious doctrines, and are too shallow to account for nuanced answers from theists. I've seen videos that are an hour and a half that cover the topic (from one side or both, depending on the format, whether monologue or debate) and even that seems like a synopsis of the issue, not a comprehensive analysis.

My guess is that the questions contain 1-2 incredibly legit questions, a few ones that can be easily dismissed or are just plain silly/beligerent/etc., and a few questions that make false assumptions about various Christian teachings. Thus leaving the door open to confident Christian responses, that answer some questions admirably and ignore the few that defy an easy response.

I'll be interested to see how right that prediction is.

actually, every single one can be answered with "The Bible was only inspired by God, and thus is subject to human error"

also, the fourth question shows massive ignorance on the part of the video creator. To claim that "science" is against "Christianity" the narrator makes a series of sweeping indictments about how many completely untestable things NEVER happened. You know, just like a good scientist would

I was thinking of going through them 1 by 1, but it isn't worth it. I think my previous sentiment of "it's a little obnoxious of atheists to make presumptions about things they don't believe" is very relevant.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, every single one can be answered with "The Bible was only inspired by God, and thus is subject to human error"

also, the fourth question shows massive ignorance on the part of the video creator. To claim that "science" is against "Christianity" the narrator makes a series of sweeping indictments about how many completely untestable things NEVER happened. You know, just like a good scientist would

I was thinking of going through them 1 by 1, but it isn't worth it. I think my previous sentiment of "it's a little obnoxious of atheists to make presumptions about things they don't believe" is very relevant.

Dinosaurs = proof that the world isn't 6000 years old. And many of the first civilizations are as old as 6000 years.

The Video:

As an educated person you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective.
-God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.
-There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.
-Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for 3 days like the Bible says.
-God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.

unfortunatly, in the language of science, none of those terms are accurate. It is impossible to have proof of nonexistence. All you have is no evidence. The scientifically accurate phrase would be: Biblical accounts of the origins of the Earth, man, the story of Noah and of Jonah are not supported by current scientific theories or evidence.

Now, I understand why the film would phrase it the way it did, but it is ridiculous in the response to a criticism of Christians for not being properly scientific. You can't criticize someone else's scientific reasoning while making a mistake like that, it makes one look like they aren't exactly sure of what they are talking about.

Originally posted by inimalist
The Video:

As an educated person you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective.
-God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.
-There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.
-Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for 3 days like the Bible says.
-God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.

unfortunatly, in the language of science, none of those terms are accurate. It is impossible to have proof of nonexistence. All you have is no evidence. The scientifically accurate phrase would be: Biblical accounts of the origins of the Earth, man, the story of Noah and of Jonah are not supported by current scientific theories or evidence.

Now, I understand why the film would phrase it the way it did, but it is ridiculous in the response to a criticism of Christians for not being properly scientific. You can't criticize someone else's scientific reasoning while making a mistake like that, it makes one look like they aren't exactly sure of what they are talking about.

I have no proof? Since when did I make the video? And we know that the earth is more than 6000 years old or else dinosaurs and all of the other more than 6000 years old things that we have HARD EVIDENCE (dino bones) of would none exist.

And the bible also said that god created the moon to give night. The problem is that the moon has nothing to do w/creating night. If the moon were to disapear, there would still be night, just no moon.

I think you miss my point

science cannot prove that something did not happen, it can only provide evidence for what did

yes, all available evidence supports the Earth as more than 6000 years old, this does not mean you can say with any certainty that the earth was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

This is a very basic principle at the core of the philosophy of science and evidence. It shows that the author of the video is more interested in making childish slanders against Christian people than he is in making a scientifically accurate statement OR he doesn't know as much about science as he wants you to believe he does. Either way, that part makes the video look ignorant.

Would you care to debate any of my other points?

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you miss my point

science cannot prove that something did not happen, it can only provide evidence for what did

yes, all available evidence supports the Earth as more than 6000 years old, this does not mean you can say with any certainty that the earth was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

This is a very basic principle at the core of the philosophy of science and evidence. It shows that the author of the video is more interested in making childish slanders against Christian people than he is in making a scientifically accurate statement OR he doesn't know as much about science as he wants you to believe he does. Either way, that part makes the video look ignorant.

Would you care to debate any of my other points?

If there is proof that the dinosaurs existed, then that disproves that the world is 6000 years old.

x (how old the universe is)

if x >= 200 million (when the dinosaurs came to the earth) Then
x =/= 6000

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
If there is proof that the dinosaurs existed, then that disproves that the world is 6000 years old.

No it doesn't. You should go read a comic book or perhaps the Talmud. The ability to alter reality (something attributed to God) could simply place evidence that dinosaurs existed in place or it could be a ridiculous cosmic coincidence that fossils exist. When dealing with omnipotence proving anything false is even more impossible than it normally is.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
x (how old the universe is)

if x >= 200 million (when the dinosaurs came to the earth) Then
x =/= 6000

So you don't believe the Bible but you think dinosaurs are aliens? Lulz.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it doesn't. You should go read a comic book or perhaps the Talmud. The ability to alter reality (something attributed to God) could simply place evidence that dinosaurs existed in place or it could be a ridiculous cosmic coincidence that fossils exist. When dealing with omnipotence proving anything false is even more impossible than it normally is.



So you don't believe the Bible but you think dinosaurs are aliens? Lulz.

??? When did I say that?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
??? When did I say that?

When you said dinosaurs "came to the earth".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When you said dinosaurs "came to the earth".

Dude...you know what I mean.

I didn't mean to say that, I meant when dinosaurs "come to be" as in started to exist.

And yes, I was being a little picky when I said "oh, me? but I didn't..." and so on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it doesn't. You should go read a comic book or perhaps the Talmud. The ability to alter reality (something attributed to God) could simply place evidence that dinosaurs existed in place or it could be a ridiculous cosmic coincidence that fossils exist. When dealing with omnipotence proving anything false is even more impossible than it normally is.




That's a lame excuse. According to your theory, how do you know that a giant spaghetti monster in outer space that wears a bikini and chants "I like pie" didn't alter reality to place evidence that you are a human being? Anything could be "possible" (aka 1 in a googlegoogleplex chance)

And why would god put bones there? For what purpose?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
That's a lame excuse.

No, that's called formal logic.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
According to your theory, how do you know that a giant spaghetti monster in outer space that wears a bikini and chants "I like pie" didn't alter reality to place evidence that you are a human being?

I have espoused no theory of any sort, I have simply given you a statement of rational facts. The example you provide is just as logically valid as the idea of God and neither can be disproved (unless you're omniscient). The fact is anyone who says "I know God isn't real" is an idiot or at least very poorly informed, the most you can say it "I know of no evidence that God (or your spaghetti entity) exists so there's no reason to believe in it".

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Anything could be "possible" (aka 1 in a googlegoogleplex chance)

Yes and no. There are various impossible things according to our laws of physics, however any instantaneous event is possible.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
And why would god put bones there? For what purpose?

Maybe he's just some insane creature with limitless power that like putting bones in places. Who cares?

Okay...

So how is god's existence any more likely than my example? And if it isn't, then how is it such a popular religion (I'm not atheist, I'm just asking)

Nothing is impossible, for it is possible for god to exist and god can defy physics.

??

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Okay...

So how is god's existence any more likely than my example?

Is isn't, in fact I just told you that. Again who cares?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
And if it isn't, then how is it such a popular religion (I'm not atheist, I'm just asking)

People like hope and religion tends to attract highly charismatic people as leaders.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
If there is proof that the dinosaurs existed, then that disproves that the world is 6000 years old.

I'm sorry, that isn't how science works.

The theory of evolution does not disprove creation. It simply is better supported by the evidence. As humans, we are not privy to the absolute truth of the universe.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
x (how old the universe is)

if x >= 200 million (when the dinosaurs came to the earth) Then
x =/= 6000

ok, thats fine.

There is no way to ever know with absolute certainty what the value of X is. All we can do is provide evidence for what it most likely is. While it is possible to get confidence levels statistically of close to 100%, a) it isn't 100%, thus we could be wrong and b) our stats are not absolute truth.

Really dude, I can't express how wrong you are here.

Also, what about the fact that a non-literal interpretation of the Bible renders each criticism in the movie moot?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are various impossible things according to our laws of physics, however any instantaneous event is possible.

lol, also, our laws of physics are man made, and thus almost by definition incomplete and not absolute.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So how is god's existence any more likely than my example?

Ok, so pretend X is the probability of a supernatural being existing, and Y is the probability of that supernatural entity having the attributes of God.

X + Y = the probability of God existing

Now, your spaghetti monster, which it appears you have attributed godlike attributes to, has several other variables.

First, it has an X value simply because it is the probability of a supernatural thing existing. It also has a Y, because you have given it the same abilities to create and change reality as was being ascribed to God. It also has an M, simply because "God" is given no form, shape, or composition, so there is no value associated with these. However, a Spaghetti Monster has form, shape and composition, and while those should be separate variables, M works here.

So, at this point, probability of God = X + Y, probability of Spaghetti monster with Godlike attributes = X + Y + M.

Even without going further, a Spaghetti monster is less probable than a formless, unspecified, God. Unless M = 0, in which case the Spaghetti monster is formless, and thus hardly able to be called a Spaghetti monster.

Now, you have further specified what this spaghetti monster is like:

it is located in outer space, lets call A
it wears clothing, B
a bikini, C
it chants, D
"I like pie", E

after these variables are added, the probability for the described spaghetti monster = X + Y + M + A + B + C + D + E

The only way this spaghetti monster is AS likely as God is if values M, A, B, C, D and E are equal to 0, in which case all you have done is change the word "God" with "spaghetti monster" and thus rendered your argument moot.

Not to keep hitting a dead horse, but that question shows a sort of lack of comprehension about what probability is...

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, also, our laws of physics are man made, and thus almost by definition incomplete and not absolute.

I know the real ones 313

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know the real ones 313

TELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL USSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Originally posted by inimalist
TELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL USSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

But then what would I do for fun?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But then what would I do for fun?

spy on people in the shower?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, that isn't how science works.




Ok, so pretend X is the probability of a supernatural being existing, and Y is the probability of that supernatural entity having the attributes of God.

X + Y = the probability of God existing

Now, your spaghetti monster, which it appears you have attributed godlike attributes to, has several other variables.

First, it has an X value simply because it is the probability of a supernatural thing existing. It also has a Y, because you have given it the same abilities to create and change reality as was being ascribed to God. It also has an M, simply because "God" is given no form, shape, or composition, so there is no value associated with these. However, a Spaghetti Monster has form, shape and composition, and while those should be separate variables, M works here.

So, at this point, probability of God = X + Y, probability of Spaghetti monster with Godlike attributes = X + Y + M.

Even without going further, a Spaghetti monster is less probable than a formless, unspecified, God. Unless M = 0, in which case the Spaghetti monster is formless, and thus hardly able to be called a Spaghetti monster.

Now, you have further specified what this spaghetti monster is like:

it is located in outer space, lets call A
it wears clothing, B
a bikini, C
it chants, D
"I like pie", E

after these variables are added, the probability for the described spaghetti monster = X + Y + M + A + B + C + D + E

The only way this spaghetti monster is AS likely as God is if values M, A, B, C, D and E are equal to 0, in which case all you have done is change the word "God" with "spaghetti monster" and thus rendered your argument moot.

Not to keep hitting a dead horse, but that question shows a sort of lack of comprehension about what probability is...

But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.

Way to still completely miss the point.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.

Well, ok, God could have other variables, and with each, the probability becomes less. You didn't specify that, however, you used a ridiculous example and said it was equally as likely as the concept of God.

why must God have those attributes?

Originally posted by inimalist
Well, ok, God could have other variables, and with each, the probability becomes less. You didn't specify that, however, you used a ridiculous example and said it was equally as likely as the concept of God.

why must God have those attributes?

No offense to Christians, but how is God any more likely to exist than Santa Claus? He is magical, does magical things and is surrounded by magic. Sure: he could exist, but so could my monster.

Because either the bible or the church or Jesus said so. And the bible (or was it the church) also said that the earth was at the center of the universe.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
No offense to Christians, but how is God any more likely to exist than Santa Claus? He is magical, does magical things and is surrounded by magic.

ok, you are probably right. The probability of a human with magical powers is probably more than the probability of God, what point are you trying to make?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Sure: he could exist, but so could my monster.

yes, you are right, it could exist. This is, in fact, the very same point you argued with me a few posts ago.

Scientifically, you can't say something doesn't exist, so all things are potentially possible.

Your monster could exist, as could an even more complex and less probable monster (give him a funny hat or something), it doesn't change the fact that it is much more unlikely than just the concept of God or that it is a silly example meant to demean and dismiss Christian beliefs.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Because either the bible or the church or Jesus said so. And the bible (or was it the church) also said that the earth was at the center of the universe.

and there is no other way to interpret church doctrine other than the way you do?

BTW, how do you only quote parts of a post?

And secondly, all I am trying to say is that God is not guaranteed to exist. No one knows for sure, and no one will ever know for a very very very long time.

And how is my monster more complex? There are thousands of pages that describe God. Maybe not as "crazy", but still not exactly "normal".

But yes, God still could exist. But he could not exist. Rationally, God is a joke, but since when is religion rational?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
BTW, how do you only quote parts of a post?

when you quote a post, quote tags appear at the beginning and end of what you want to quote:

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
XXXXXXXXXXXX

Just copy and past the beginning and end tags around the text you want to quote

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
And secondly, all I am trying to say is that God is not guaranteed to exist. No one knows for sure,

indeed, the same however can be said for his non-existence.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
and no one will ever know for a very very very long time.

no one will ever know. The question is unfalsifiable

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
And how is my monster more complex?

I went over this. Had you specified you were talking about the literal interpretation of the Christian god, then you might have had a point.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
There are thousands of pages that describe God. Maybe not as "crazy", but still not exactly "normal".

are you claiming that the only way to interpret the attributes of God is through literal interpretations of the Bible?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But yes, God still could exist. But he could not exist.

/thread

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Rationally, God is a joke, but since when is religion rational?

that is preposterous and bordering on prejudice. Do you think all people who believe in God are irrational or believe for irrational reasons?

Do you claim to have access to a universally absolute capacity for rational thought?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But God has more variables then X and Y. He must be all knowing, all powerful, flawless, and basically perfect in every way. He must also have made the universe in 7 (or was it 6) days, made the moon in order to have night (BS) and have done a bunch of other things.

Regardless of which argument you lean towards, screaming "preposterous" is futile. On one hand, a God-like being is invincible, not subject to the laws of physics or the human imagination, and could easily exist without leaving footprints for you to see. On the other hand, a universe with endless time and space that fluctuates repeatedly and employs four different known forces renders every scenario--including the creation of life--not only possible, but nearly inevitable.

But since neither assumption employs a stable premise (that is to say, a God-like being is undiscoverable and an eternally fluctuating universe in unprovable), absolute knowledge doesn't exist.

As far as mechanical logic is concerned, I tend to lean toward the eternally fluctuating universe. When it really comes down to it though, I believe in a God. My reasons are strictly personal, and not subject to scientific review.

I didn't mean that Christians were irrational (sorry if that offended anyone) I'm just saying that faith is not that rational. Luther (or was it someone else) said that reason is faith's enemy. Faith is spiritual, not logical.

Most Christians are smart...most (phelps church), but they tend to not think that rationally when confronted w/religion.