Why did God rest on the 7th day?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You made it personal for calling Adam and Eve myths. For all we know, the Buddha was a myth. How do you know someone just didn't invent him and wrote all these things about him?

I have no idea why you would consider me saying that Adam and Eve are part of a myth as personal. That must cause you a lot of problems in your life.

We have the text that the story of Adam and Eve were taken from. Just look it up for yourself.

Siddhartha Grama was a real person. We know this because he was royalty. Also, it really doesn’t matter. The teachings are what is important.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
And yes, I've read about his "supposed" path of enlightenment...written by someone else. Sure, you can say the same about Jesus not being a historical character...but, you would be contradicting yourself to believe that the Buddha was an actual person....not just the figment of someone's imagination.

Both Buddha and Jesus were real people. They were both men, and nothing more.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
As far as Adam and Eve being derived from older religions....sure, because all of humankind had its beginnings with Adam and Eve...so, every culture would hav a similar story...just with different names. The same thing is applied to the "Great Flood". Most every culture worldwide has a similar story about a Great Deluge!!! Coincidence...I think not.

Because there is commonality between human cultures does not mean that the mythology created by those cultures is factual. If that was the case then Zeus and the other Greek god would also be true.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The last thing I'll say is this...It takes more faith to believe in Evolution and the "Origin of Life" as science puts it....than to have Faith in God...the Creator of the Universe and humankind.

Not really. I used to be a Christian and did not believe in evolution. Therefore, I have been on both sides and I would say that it requires a small amount of faith in the scientific method while it takes tremendous faith to believe in the mythology of Christianity. When you have been on both sides, then you will be able to say what you said about. Until then, you should not make claims that you do not have the information to support.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Let's say you die right now for instance...and you stand before God...and realize that the Bible had been right all along...and that scientific theories concerning the origins of life had been wrong. What do you say then, when God asks you to account for not believing in His Word, but instead you believed in the modern god...humanism and scientific theory.

That is so silly.

What if you die and find yourself as a fetus in a womb, with no god around you. How will you feel after wasting all of that past life?

Originally posted by Digi
The major problem with your comparison of Christianity and Buddhism is that is isn't relevant to most Buddhists whether or not Buddha was a myth. Their doctrine isn't dependent on the historical veracity of the Buddha character. Christianity is dependent on the veracity of Jesus. I'm guessing shakya might even agree.

As for this laughable comment: It takes more faith to believe in Evolution and the "Origin of Life" as science puts it....than to have Faith in God...the Creator of the Universe and humankind. ...I suppose I've just missed the hundreds of scientific books and articles, backed by thousands of controlled tests, that support the theory. The Bible hardly qualifies as that kind of evidence, nor do the thousands of as-yet-unconfirmed claims of divine or paranormal intervention in the world. There's a reason skeptics balk at religious claims: it's not because their thick-headed or not open-minded. It's because they need a good reason to believe, something that appeals to reason instead of emotion. Very few, if any, such reasons are provided.

All things, science, religion, what have you, are a leap of faith. That much I'll agree to. But there's different kinds of faith. There's faith that is based on probable conclusions from mountains of evidence. It's not certainty, no. Never will be. So it's faith. And there's blind faith, from very little evidence but a whole lot of hope. It's comforting, but not backed with a rational foundation.

Also, the appeal to the angry God made me laugh. If I stood before God, assuming it was the Christian God and not one of the infinite possibilities of Gods, I'd apologize for not believing in him but explain that he gave me no good reason to believe. I have no regrets in my life and live it according to what I deem to be right and true. I'm not scared of such an encounter, as the only way it ends badly is if God is a petulant, irrational being....in which case it wouldn't be worthy of worship anyway.

I'd also argue that there was no choice in the matter, as his universe is perfectly causal, and therefore could not have happened any other way. He'd either have to concede or show me how something can be outside deterministic causality. Either way, I'd enjoy the response. But that's a different story.

I'm not sure how to break down posts into individual segments for response....as you've done to mine. I need to tinker with that and figure it out so I will not have to reply to your entire essay as a whole.

I agree with much of what you said. You are correct. Chrisitanity is the only faith that puts its hopes in a Man...and not a set of rules or doctrines.

However, I can see that we will not agree on the science vs Christianity debate. Controlled experiments are not totally fail-safe. Scientific tools such as carbon dating have proved faulty in the past. In sum, Science is not completely accurate...and neither is religion. It is true, that belief in the Bible is an act of Faith. There is no way to truly know..through controlled experiments as you put it..to test the veracity of the Bible. However, the Bible addresses that issue. The Bible itself claims to be a book of faith. I believe God set this world in order...and it's ok if someone does not agree with me.

With that said, if science contradicts the Bible...then, I choose to believe the Bible. In truth, no one can truly know what happened in the beginning...no one was there to witness it. Science claims to know what happened...but, it's all just speculation. The Bible tells a story of how man came to be. True, no evidence exists to validate that story...but, I choose to believe it by faith. No one will ever convince me otherwise. It's not because I'm being intransigent...it's because I believe God's Word to be true....and many people who have "claimed" to study it on this forum..are severely lacking in their interpretation of Scripture.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea why you would consider me saying that Adam and Eve are part of a myth as personal. That must cause you a lot of problems in your life.

We have the text that the story of Adam and Eve were taken from. Just look it up for yourself.

Siddhartha Grama was a real person. We know this because he was royalty. Also, it really doesn’t matter. The teachings are what is important.

Both Buddha and Jesus were real people. They were both men, and nothing more.

Because there is commonality between human cultures does not mean that the mythology created by those cultures is factual. If that was the case then Zeus and the other Greek god would also be true.

Not really. I used to be a Christian and did not believe in evolution. Therefore, I have been on both sides and I would say that it requires a small amount of faith in the scientific method while it takes tremendous faith to believe in the mythology of Christianity. When you have been on both sides, then you will be able to say what you said about. Until then, you should not make claims that you do not have the information to support.

That is so silly.

What if you die and find yourself as a fetus in a womb, with no god around you. How will you feel after wasting all of that past life?

That is impossible. The transmigration of souls is not accepted among most scientists. It requires having a soul...and science would have no way of explaining a supernatural phenomenon such as that.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That is impossible. The transmigration of souls is not accepted among most scientists. It requires having a soul...and science would have no way of explaining a supernatural phenomenon such as that.

There is no such think as a soul. I do not believe in supernatural. My question to you was just as silly as your question to me.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'm not sure how to break down posts into individual segments for response....as you've done to mine. I need to tinker with that and figure it out so I will not have to reply to your entire essay as a whole.

I agree with much of what you said. You are correct. Chrisitanity is the only faith that puts its hopes in a Man...and not a set of rules or doctrines.

However, I can see that we will not agree on the science vs Christianity debate. Controlled experiments are not totally fail-safe. Scientific tools such as carbon dating have proved faulty in the past. In sum, Science is not completely accurate...and neither is religion. It is true, that belief in the Bible is an act of Faith. There is no way to truly know..through controlled experiments as you put it..to test the veracity of the Bible. However, the Bible addresses that issue. The Bible itself claims to be a book of faith. I believe God set this world in order...and it's ok if someone does not agree with me.

With that said, if science contradicts the Bible...then, I choose to believe the Bible. In truth, no one can truly know what happened in the beginning...no one was there to witness it. Science claims to know what happened...but, it's all just speculation. The Bible tells a story of how man came to be. True, no evidence exists to validate that story...but, I choose to believe it by faith. No one will ever convince me otherwise. It's not because I'm being intransigent...it's because I believe God's Word to be true....and many people who have "claimed" to study it on this forum..are severely lacking in their interpretation of Scripture.

Speculation implies no evidence. Science isn't speculation. Religion is. Also, citing occasional inaccuracies doesn't invalidate science as a whole. It actually speaks to the power of scientific methods to continually improve our knowledge, something religion can't claim.

Otherwise, ok to the rest of it, though your hardline assertion that nothing can or will ever change your mind saddens me. Such irrational faith stifles our ability to reason for ourselves.

Originally posted by Digi
Speculation implies no evidence. Science isn't speculation. Religion is. Also, citing occasional inaccuracies doesn't invalidate science as a whole. It actually speaks to the power of scientific methods to continually improve our knowledge, something religion can't claim.

Otherwise, ok to the rest of it, though your hardline assertion that nothing can or will ever change your mind saddens me. Such irrational faith stifles our ability to reason for ourselves.

Well, technically certain scientific disciplines rely on speculation, such as proponents of the big bang theory and the origination of life on Earth. Even scientists disagree among themselves on exactly how those events tooks place. So, science does rely on speculation.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Well, technically certain scientific disciplines rely on speculation, such as proponents of the big bang theory and the origination of life on Earth. Even scientists disagree among themselves on exactly how those events tooks place. So, science does rely on speculation.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

That is like saying that because some religious people use violence to promote their ideas, all religions are violent.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

That is like saying that because some religious people use violence to promote their ideas, all religions are violent.

That's not what I said at all. Digi said science NEVER relies on speculation. I know that to be false. Actually, I don't Digi meant it that way..but, I responded just in case. I did not generalize anything.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That is impossible. The transmigration of souls is not accepted among most scientists. It requires having a soul...and science would have no way of explaining a supernatural phenomenon such as that.

technically incorrect

should something supernatural, like a soul, exist, specifically in the way it does in the bible, while it may not be measurable in itself, it would have measurable and predictable effects on human behaviour and the physical world.

Unless you are talking about supernatural things which cannot affect natural things, but that is not Christian theology.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That's not what I said at all. Digi said science NEVER relies on speculation. I know that to be false. Actually, I don't Digi meant it that way..but, I responded just in case. I did not generalize anything.

Science does not rely on speculation. Just because some people speculate does not mean that science relies on speculation. That would be like saying that because some Christians are stupid, then the religion is stupid.

Science relies on observations of nature. People come up with new ideas all the time, but these ideas must match observations of nature and be able to predict something in nature. For example: The Theory of Relativity. It was an idea that matched observations of nature, and was proved correct by predicting something that was observed in nature.

Originally posted by inimalist
technically incorrect

should something supernatural, like a soul, exist, specifically in the way it does in the bible, while it may not be measurable in itself, it would have measurable and predictable effects on human behaviour and the physical world.

Unless you are talking about supernatural things which cannot affect natural things, but that is not Christian theology.

A soul does affect human behaviour...it is who we are...not the shroud of flesh that cloaks it. But, I doubt you'll accept that response..as science has no way to confirm it.

How does science explain paranormal activity..such as ghosts and hauntings. I believe such occurences to be too prevalent to be a mere coincidence...or a delusion affecting the people that witness such things. Now, I don't believe ghosts to be people..instead I believe them to be demons. In any case...neither souls or demonic spirits have a physical form...and many people claim to witness them. I've even encountered similar things that I can't explain.

Science has no concrete explanation to account for such occurences.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Science does [B]not rely on speculation. Just because some people speculate does not mean that science relies on speculation. That would be like saying that because some Christians are stupid, then the religion is stupid.

Science relies on observations of nature. People come up with new ideas all the time, but these ideas must match observations of nature and be able to predict something in nature. For example: The Theory of Relativity. It was an idea that matched observations of nature, and was proved correct by predicting something that was observed in nature. [/B]

How can a scientist observe the origins of life? They weren't there. They don't even know what it was. Of course science has to speculate. How do you think theories are formed? Through education guesses(speculating)...you're being intransigent.

Besides, I didn't say that all scientists rely on speculation. I said that certian disciplines do...because science does not have the answer to everything. If they did...the world would have perfect knowledge of the universe and everything in it. With that being said, what does a scientist do when he can't answer a certain phenomenon? Well, he may say that he doesn't know. Alternatively, he may provide a guess based on whatever law to give an explanation for the event. In the latter's case..he forms an opinion..or speculation if you will.

the speculations of scientists do not become scientific fact until they are observed in controlled settings. The speculation is where science comes from, yes, but is not part of science itself.

besides the hebrew-latin translation blunders, can someone please explain to me why everyone's being so anal about "day" when god talks about creating the universe in six "days"....i mean, how can it be a day when the sun wasn't even around then? how and WHY are we taking it to be a 24-hour time span?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
How can a scientist observe the origins of life? They weren't there.

If that was true, then no murder would ever be solved, after all, they weren’t there.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
They don't even know what it was. Of course science has to speculate. How do you think theories are formed? Through education guesses(speculating)...you're being intransigent.

We need some definitions here:

Speculation = expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
Theory = a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
Hypothesis = a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

A speculation is not a theory. I think you are trying to use the speculation when you really mean hypothesis.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Besides, I didn't say that all scientists rely on speculation. I said that certian disciplines do...because science does not have the answer to everything. If they did...the world would have perfect knowledge of the universe and everything in it. With that being said, what does a scientist do when he can't answer a certain phenomenon? Well, he may say that he doesn't know. Alternatively, he may provide a guess based on whatever law to give an explanation for the event. In the latter's case..he forms an opinion..or speculation if you will.

…Again this not speculation. A scientist will start with a hypothesis and work toward a theory.

You are simply speculating about speculation.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
A soul does affect human behaviour...it is who we are...not the shroud of flesh that cloaks it. But, I doubt you'll accept that response..as science has no way to confirm it.

the thing is, if a soul can affect people, it can be observed.

So far, neurons, and not souls, describe human behaviour best.

We could confirm a soul, but I doubt you'd accept scientific evidence that all aspects of what you call a soul are subject to neuronal activity and manipulable through basic materialism.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
How does science explain paranormal activity..such as ghosts and hauntings.

you would have to present a concrete example for scientists to have an opinion on.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I believe such occurences to be too prevalent to be a mere coincidence...or a delusion affecting the people that witness such things.

well, thats a false dichotomy. You are implying that either hauntings are real or people who believe in them are delusional.

The human brain was never designed to interpret reality correctly, and that plays tricks on us, especially when we are so convinced it shows us reality. People who have had paranormal experiences are not deluded, however, the "realness" of the experience to them does not mean it is happening.

And by this definition, you should be Hindu, as there are more people who believe that than anything else, if popular opinion is what you use to decide truth.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Now, I don't believe ghosts to be people..instead I believe them to be demons. In any case...neither souls or demonic spirits have a physical form...and many people claim to witness them. I've even encountered similar things that I can't explain.

fine. However, humans can only see that which light reflects off, or that which produces photons. If you are seeing something, it has to be physical. There is no other way to see something.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Science has no concrete explanation to account for such occurences.

sure it does

a) I'm sure you are unaware of them
b) I'm sure you aren't motivated to find them
c) I'm sure you wouldn't believe them

Originally posted by inimalist
...
sure it does

a) I'm sure you are unaware of them
b) I'm sure you aren't motivated to find them
c) I'm sure you wouldn't believe them

d) All of the above

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
d) All of the above

that was a list, not choices 😛

Originally posted by inimalist
that was a list, not choices 😛

🙁 So I failed?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
🙁 So I failed?

no, it was probably me. using letters rather than bullets or a dash could lead someone to believe it was multiple choice rather than an inclusive list.