Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Re: What's so fictional about The Bible?
First you have to have a creation. Is the Big Bang the creation? Scientists have stated that the Big Bang doesn't need a creator. I read the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and they cover the point about the Big Bang does not needing a creator. So, what other creation would need a creator? Evolution?
No it's just impossible that there's nothing above the creator or that the creator isn't surpassed by something. The idea of omnipotence is true about nature, but as an asymptotic terminal point in a positive or negative correlated graphical hierarchy of intelligent life/dimensional complexity.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Gender: Male Location: The Infinite Embassy; on trial
Re: Re: What's so fictional about The Bible?
How can a scientist say what does, and doesn't need A Creator? Have either of the authors you mentioned ever created anything in their lives?
Evolution is more like the product of denial with the purpose to satisfy materialistic persons. Men didn't even create the organisms they research to come up with that nonsense, therefore evolution isn't worthy of being classified with creation.
Gender: Male Location: The Infinite Embassy; on trial
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's so fictional about The Bible?
...Neither of the authors have created anything, so there's no need to waste time reading about their speculation. Evolution definitely doesn't qualify for creation, I agree with you. However, evolution is a theory that steers away from animals and humans being created separately (denial), and instead lumps them together with the goal to justify claims of origin by mere similarities.
I can't give you a creation. Why don't you believe in a creation? Are you yourself not a creation? What about your flesh, blood, muscle, bone...were organic materials not created?
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's so fictional about The Bible?
Rather someone has or has not created anything is irrelevant. It leads to an ambiguous conclusion. It may or may not be possible to create.
Humans are animals. To say that they are not is denial. But again this is irrelevant to the topic.
I was created by my parents, but I know you are not talking about that kind of creation. You are talking about creating something from nothing. I personally believe that nothing can never exist for something to come from. Therefore, the universe is eternal. It simply changes over time, like the big bang. That is why I do not believe in a creation.
Gender: Male Location: The Infinite Embassy; on trial
Irrelevant to who? The Bible says that a sentient intelligence identified / accepted to be God made the heavens and the earth. So, I must ask about this presumed conclusion. Would it be selective, ambiguous, or a logical and sound conclusion? If it's not God....surely we would keep going with...a no limits fallacy? Where does it stop?
Humans are like animals, being material beings. Again, irrelevant to who though? The Bible says animals came first, then man. So how do we have a common ancestor, to have evolved from? Which one is fiction, The Bible or Evolution? I guess biologists want the building blocks, to make plants and animals artificially or something.
You were produced by your parents because even they aren't capable of creation. To say your parents didn't produce you is denial. It's relevant, because it correlates with events spoken of in that book.
If I'm not mistaken, there are some physicists that believe in "nothing," and speculate that it's unstable, always able to make "something" in regards to the universe's origins. How come "nothing" can be defined, or speculated about, if it doesn't exist? How can't you believe in something that is a recognizable value? Is it because it's invisible to you?
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Well, the bible was written by humans who according to you have never been able to create anything.
Again, the bible is just a book written by humans. We can look at the DNA of animals and see the connection. Of course the bible is not fact, and evolution is based on science.
Of course my parents produced me. But they didn’t produce me from nothing.
However, nothingness is so unstable that it could have never existed. That means there was always something. As far as your question; people can speculate about things that don’t exist. For example; the square root of -2.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Well the bible is a mix of many books. Most of them are fictional stories, but there are books that talk about factual things, like how the Jewish people worshiped.
The creation story is just a story. We know that the Earth is much older then 6,000 years, and there in no way the human race could have come from two people. Adam and Eve's children would have had to merry each other, and that inbreeding would have killed all humans long ago.
Gender: Male Location: The Infinite Embassy; on trial
Really? What books did the Bible take from?
How can we be so sure the Earth is much older than 6,000 years? Is it because of geologists looking at rocks, studying their formations and compositions and how elements are able to effect them over time? Fossil evidence? Carbon dating?
Just wondering...because the book says there is a being that can make heavens, and the earth in 7 days. I don't see why he couldn't make mountains and canyons any less astonishing as to baffle those who wonder about their origins.
Humans starting from 2 people is an interpretation. Regardless, if the Earth is older than 6,000 years....how long did it take humans to recognize each other as "equals?" Like...how come at one time, we apparently evolved from a common ancestor and were friends. A few thousand years later, we forgot? Had to re-establish it?
When we came from this common ancestor, were we adults or infants?
Then why did god make the Earth look so old? Also, if the stars in the sky were only created 6,000 years ago, then we would not be able to see past 6,000 light years. Light from further away would not have gotten here yet. However, we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away.
Do humans see each other are true equals now? I would have to say that hasn’t happened yet.
Humans didn’t suddenly evolve from one species to another. It is an ongoing process that is so slow that we cannot perceive it. Humans have been doing what humans have always done long before we looked human.
nah. Not worth it. You're literally espousing young earth creationism, yes? That's too steep a hill for me to climb right now. Insofar as this thread goes, though, I cosign Neme and Shakya's comments so far.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Existence of the universe does not prove that there is a creator, in particular since there are many other, and some more plausible, explanations put forth as well.