What's so fictional about The Bible?

Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

Are the laws ineffective, worldwide?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

Are the laws ineffective, worldwide?

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?

a creator can exist and the bible can still be fiction

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

Are the laws ineffective, worldwide?

Originally posted by Oneness
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.

Originally posted by red g jacks
**** does that mean?

I don't think you would want to know. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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?

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.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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.

Well you would have to read the book. Also, I don't think evolution qualifies as a creation. But it is in not way a denial of anything.

I'm asking for you to give me a creation. To be honest, I don't believe in a creation. Therefore there cannot be a creator if there is not creation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well you would have to read the book. Also, I don't think evolution qualifies as a creation. But it is in not way a denial of anything.

I'm asking for you to give me a creation. To be honest, I don't believe in a creation. Therefore there cannot be a creator if there is not creation.

...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?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
...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?

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.

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?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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?

So what's not factual about the Bible?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
So what's not factual about the Bible?

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.

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?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Really? What books did the Bible take from?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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?"

Originally posted by Jynocidus
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?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
When we came from this common ancestor, were we adults or infants?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
So what's not factual about the Bible?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

{edit}

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.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I don't think you understand how "burden of proof" works.

You want a scan of The Creator? Or do you accept the creation around you?

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.