I want to believe in Jesus and the Bible.
But how can I when discoveries like this are made that completely destroy the story of Adam and Eve and original sin and the need for a savior?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Foot
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
read Kierkegaard
>read Kierkegaard
no
what did he write about it?
How is this IQfy related?
Because the story of Adam and Eve is literature.
burgers?
The allegorical reading method pioneered by Philo and Origen and others. For most of Christian history the creation stories weren't taken literally, and a lot of philosophers understood Genesis as so symbolic and esoteric that basically none of it corresponds to real mundane events.
>For most of Christian history the creation stories weren't taken literally
What about israeli history?
Even Jesus took the stories literally.
Uh israelites know the old testament is allegory because they read it in hebrew so they understand all the puns. Meet some torah scholars.
Please expand on this.
true ive known israelites literally from israel who said the old testament barely even makes sense if youre reading it translated to english
its called the roman catholic church because christianity was made roman state religion because the jesus story had become so popular, it isnt supposed to make that much sense, it was a tool rome used strategically to control its people
>its called the roman catholic church becaus
technically speaking it was probably joke; the new testament reads as an exercise in jurisprudence where the reader is forced to discern a few bare minimum facts frommultiple accounts.. although i understand these multiple accounts didn't exist until later.. it still as a jurisprudence air about it, for a roman audience, where the governor is the reader, having to allow the barbarians their democracy and kill the innocent man, or whether to exercise imperium and let him go.
>roman state religion because the jesus story had become so popular, i
naw, it was still a minority sect of judaism when constantines mother started to like it; and he tolerated it because of her. the moment he died mot of his work was destroyed by his christian apointees who quickly took over the state using the emperor as a puppet, then proceeded to run the state into the ground through fear and informants; doin this from brittania to alexandria, eventually the christians had so soured themselves against all the people that they were forcibly removed from much of africa, spain and the levant, with islam coming about there, and with barbarians from the north taking over in the west due to the christians inability to manage in peace or raise an army in war.
dark ages came out within at most 200 yrs christianity being tolerated by constantine
Galatians makes no sense if the Bible doesn’t contain real history.
No one said the whole thing is allegorical.
How do you know which bits are and which aren’t?
Asking that is when theology begins. I recommend Ken Schenck's small book on Philo if you're interested in how the allegorical approach to scripture originated. Or just start researching Origen, one of the greatest Christians of all time.
This level of cope is unreal
How is that cope? It’s clear that the Bible contains part real history part allegory. In fact, it’s usually where the literal interpretation doesn’t make sense that allegory is found.
>it’s usually where the literal interpretation doesn’t make sense that allegory is found.
omega cope
If you’ve never read any of it and don’t know what you’re talking about at all, sure it might appear that way. The church fathers were also clear about this.
bruh, you are literally saying that if it doesn't make sense literally, call it metaphorical.
That's the biggest "convenience" i've ever seen.
You literally cannot read
no u
Do not expect a "omega cope", "no u", "bruh" poster to read anything. Even IQfy posts are to complex for these individuals.
u are moronic
>basically none of it corresponds to real mundane events.
It does though, pretty precisely. The problem is insisting that the time being taken literally.
>if I have to do it or it's wrong, it was a metaphor all along
If people believed it for thousands of years, but then a scientific discovery contradicts it, then it was a metaphor all along.
So worshipping Thor is perfectly okay, then?
It's more like
>How are parts of Genesis metaphors for mystical ascent and the deep underlynig metaphysical history of mankind
Sounds like a bunch of sophistic bullshit to avoid having to admit you were just wrong, but okay
It's very beautiful when you get into it, Philo is pretty amazing
Schenck includes a reading order guide to Philo at the end of his book that is helpful for getting into it
That's nice. It's still a bunch of bullshit cope
Noah
Abraham
Moses
Jesus
All believed it was literal.
They didn't know about evolution, the age of the universe, the formation of the solar system and earth. They had no reason to believe the stories were just metaphors.
You have no clue what you're discussing and furthermore are projecting a modern mentality backwards thousands of years. Ever considered why the ancient israelites never attempted to figure out the precise age of the earth? Stop posting and read more moron.
>Ever considered why the ancient israelites never attempted to figure out the precise age of the earth
They didn't have science or the technology able to do so. They thought the earth was pic related.
Dude chill out on muh science for one second, I'm talking about why they didn't do so from the Torah, which is how young earth creationists claim to calculate the age of earth. The reason why is because the israelites did not think of life in a material empiricist way, again you're projecting that mindset backwards in time because you can't conceive of anyone who doesn't think about things the exact same way you do at base.
They did try to date it, through the genealogy and years lived back to Adam.
Cite a source prior to the time of Jesus
>Noah
>Abraham
>Moses
>Jesus
>All believed it was literal
At best only one of those four was real
There are many creationists out there who attempt to account for these discoveries. A lot of them turn out to be fake anyway; look up Piltdown Man for example.
This is completely wrong. All the Church Fathers except Origen were Young Earth Creationists. And Origen was condemned for his over-allegorising hermeneutic.
Read St Ambrose. He was the first one to take everything as a metaphor.
There's simply no sensible way to say that The Bible is allegorical.
So the... uhhh... resurrection.... are we calling that a metaphor too?
>For most of Christian history the creation stories weren't taken literally,
Why people keep pushing this lie? You canjust read the Earlier Fathers to see how wrong this is.
>For most of Christian history the creation stories weren't taken literally
Completely false. Origen was a minority and was denied has a heretic in the Orthodox church.
the responses to this post prove that 99% of what you read on IQfy is opinionated garbage from 20 year olds who intend to someday read the things they pretend to read so they can be opinionated about them in the meantime
i mean aquinas himself says metaphorical readings are necessary in the summa, augustine propounds it, it's also a major point in maimonides and israeli tradition, there is an entire literature on allegorical exegesis going back to the alexandrian fathers
none of that is relevant to a bunch of teenagers online asserting their identity by being STAUNCHLY PRO-CATHOLIC vs. STAUNCHLY PRO-ORTHODOX vs. STAUNCHLY PRO-PROTESTANT while knowing nothing about whichever wikipedia identity they've decided to base their twitter profile of a personality on this month
i hate this fricking place, it was always bad but this has gotten so much worse. any time i know something about a topic and i see people talking about it, i'm filled with despair for any lurking newbies, because they're getting the most horrific mixture of falsehoods and partial truths and distortions from the mouths of complete morons
I do more reading these days for the reasons you mentioned above. Honestly I get more out of pol and wsg than this board these days.
It took decades until I accepted the truth that they really are all basically commies. It sounds so moronic but there's no other possible explanation for their behavior and blatant rewriting of history. They don't care about truth, just undermining religion as a political thing.
This includes people that don't even consider themselves left wing but deep down they're still driven by commie propaganda.
These
>Philo
the thing is that Philo can't be understood without Paedo
>being exoteric
lmfao
Jesus healed dinosaurs. Science is fake news. Fake *J*ews
Do you actually believe they found a full in-tact 3 million year old skeleton?
It's a 3.7 million year old fossil, no longer bone, which means there were humanoid creatures walking the Earth long before 6,000 BC, the time of Adam and Eve.
So let me get this straight? They literally did not find a 3 million year old skeleton and they expect me to believe they found a 3 million year old skeleton?
Surprisingly, I don’t.
They found the fossil that a skeleton left behind 3 million years ago.
Right, so like I said, there is no skeleton…
> 3 million years ago.
Lol I bet you believe dinosaurs lived more than 65 million years ago too.
>"This evidence seemed to suggest organic matter could in some way survive the process of fossilization"
Keep believing the Earth is 6,000 years old, moron.
Organic matter shouldn’t survive tens of
millions of years. Keep coping, they keep finding more and more of these too, not to mention carbon-14 in diamonds ‘billions’ of years old.
It’s over for godless science. It never even began.
>Organic matter shouldn’t survive tens of millions of years
Yet it did, and there's the evidence in that video.
I bet you also believe God created the light from galaxies billions of light years away already on its way to Earth so not to contradict the young earth model.
Keep coping and seething. As science progresses, morons like you will soon go extinct just like that australopithecus.
You are assuming that the past goes back tens of millions of years without any good reason to believe so. All of your precious dating methods are reliant on untestable presuppositions such as a constant rate of decay, uniformity of natural laws over time, and again, the idea that the past even goes back millions of billions of years. I laugh when you morons see a volcano erupt and are mystified when the newly formed rocks are ‘millions’ of years old, or when the truth is right before your eyes with carbon-14 in diamonds, the universality testimony of ancient cultures to the flood, and the lack of any evidence for Masonic legends like Darwinism. You’re in a cult, friend
>You are assuming that the past goes back tens of millions of years without any good reason to believe so.
Galaxies billions of light years away. Took billions of years for the light to reach Earth. Fricking idiot.
Which lights bro? Do you see these lights that weren't there yesterday?
You can take a picture of the Andromeda galaxy from your backyard.
It's 2.5 million light years away. That means it took 2.5 million years for the light to reach earth. That alone debunks the 6,000 year old young earth model.
and who recorded 2.5 million years ago that the light wasn't present?
Already predicted you were going to say something that moronic:
>I bet you also believe God created the light from galaxies billions of light years away already on its way to Earth so not to contradict the young earth model.
Frick off.
How do people know it's 2.5 million years away then? How does anyone measure that distance? Frick off with your estimates.
Are you a child?
I'm a grown man, thank you very much.
You know how if you have a lightbulb right next to you you will singe your eyes out but when it’s on the ceiling you’re fine?
The farther you are from something the more dim it, and from said dimming you can calculate your distance from the lightsource as long as you know how bright it is. And we know how bright stars should be since we have one in our backyard.
Now it’s HS physics time: the speed of light is roughly 300 000 km/s, so one lightyear per year. The distance between earth and andromeda is roughly 2,5 million lightyears.
Time=Velocity*speed therefore it took the light 2,5 million years to get to us.
Time=velocity*distance.
Frick me iI’m tired.
Wait, do you believe in an old Universe and a young Earth?
Or a both young Universe and young Earth?
the earth is older than 6000 years
translation upon translation of israeli genealogy isn't really an accurate historic time line
It doesn't matter whether it was present here or not. It proves that the universe has been up for enough time so that these photons, the ones that currently allow its observance, could arive here today. They ran all that space and time to get here, therefore, space and time have been present in our universe for millions of years.
and how do you know they travelled all that if you don't know their initial position?
Bro, God could easily have created the light already 90% of the way on its journey to earth when he created the universe, so we would be able to see it now. Why is that so hard to imagine?
Then God created an old universe, skipping billions of years worth of events?
What's the point of that? Why not just admit that the scriptures aren't a better source of physical information than actual, verifiable measurements of the speed of light? Surely you can't expect some sandBlack folk to be correct 100% of the time when it comes to things like that, do you?
>Why not just admit that the scriptures aren't a better source of physical information than actual, verifiable measurements of the speed of light?
None of our positions are epistemically privileged, when we look at them from a scientific perspective. You see light and assume it must have been travelling for billions of years, but you have no actual scientific evidence for this assumption, because it's just as possible that God created the same light already on its journey to Earth so we'd see it. Both of our suppositions are equally speculative, because the human intellect is not powerful enough to go back "billions of years" into the past and adjudicate with any certainty what occurred. My position IS epistemically privileged, however, when we bring in non-scientific modes of inquiry such as theology. I know through theology that the universe is only around 7500 years old, so I use theology to judge my scientific conclusions.
>What's the point of that?
God didn't need to wait billions of years. He could have, but we know through theology he didn't. It's not really an interesting theological question.
>My position IS epistemically privileged, however, when we bring in non-scientific modes of inquiry such as theology.
Not really, you can employ rhetorical tricks to make your position 'seem' reasonable by lowering the bar massively-
>Both of our suppositions are equally speculative,
But you have 'begun' with a confirmation bias of your theological outlook, whereas science begins with no preconception in mind; enabling it to investigate a thing fully and completely without the worry of it having to accommodate a theological outlook. Your premise, then, will always be flawed.
>whereas science begins with no preconception in mind
This is what your argument goes like:
1. That star is billions of light years away
2. We can see that star
3. Therefore, the light must have travelled for billlions of years
Do you see that it's so easy for a Christian to dispute the conclusion and say that God created the light from the star at the same time that he created the star?
Your "preconception" is that there was no creation, that things have been constant forever. You have no way to prove this, it's just your faith-based commitment.
>having to accommodate a theological outlook
Yes, theology checks science, because God cannot err, whereas humans can.
Well you can pretend this all you like but when you begin any inquiry with a preconception at your setting out to confirm; and it could be a scientific preconception, then all that's happening is that you're reaching an error because you're omitting or ignoring the things which you recognize would disprove the preconception, so all your equations are queered from the very beginning that you undertake any inquiry 'because' of the preconception:
e.g. you want to make bread, you don't have flour, you choose to pretend that a bag of sand is a bag of flour, you go ahead and make bread with sand, but what kind of bread is going to come out of the oven as a consequence of this error?
Unbiased inquiry does not have this problem, which is why it's how we investigate causes of things and learn to predict how things will operate in jurisprudence, sciences, etc.
Your preconceptions are just as biased as mine. You simply assume there was no creation and just assume that the world has been constant forever, despite having no proof. We both have assumptions we can't scientifically prove, but mine are backed up by theology.
>You simply assume there was no creation and just assume that the world has been constant forever,
you're assuming to know what i assume.. no?
>Your preconceptions are just as biased as mine.
Not true; the method of proving things to be completely or reasonably sure about a supposition is infinitely superior to picking up the cultural ethos of self-mutilating savages (i mean: abramic theology) who produced nothing by comparison to their neighbors, demonstrating that their notions of "how the world works" would be inferior to other cultures who figured out medicine, engineering, military, law, agriculture, other sciences, etc. i.e. this culture was the least likely to have gotten in right, based upon the outcome of a society predicated upon those precepts.
Don't get me wrong,if you're israeli then Jesus has a lot to tell you about, to help you stop mutilating your childrens penises and stop being a slave of priests to these "inherited lies", but if you're not israeli then why would you adopt their culture and their god, whilst denying that you're doing that.. eh..
i do agree though that academics have a habit of doing this as well; finding or agreeing upon set of dogmas, then sticking to it out of ease, but falling victim to the same errors or stagnancy as a consequence.
>assuming
I don't need to assume or 'believe' in anything to understand that studying the things and elements in the world produces great benefit. You call this God, I think, but your contemplation of 'God' comes at the expense of your study 'of' "The Creation" (that being ourselves and the world), which is the only non-man-made thing that we can be sure has no bias in it.
This is close enough to what I think about things.
>it's just as possible that God created the same light already on its journey to Earth so we'd see it
mental gymnastics at its finest
>because it's just as possible that God created the same light already on its journey to Earth so we'd see it.
This is an absurd cope. Why would God do that? That would only make sense if God wanted to force humans to rely entirely on faith in defiance of the evidence of their senses.
But the God of the Bible is CONSTANTLY validating the faith of his people with tangible proofs of their faith. Christians accepted the very real existence of miracles, absolute proof of God's existence, as a real feature of the world right up until humans invented empiricism.
The notion of a God that deliberately hides evidence of his existence is an EXTREMELY new invention which no Christian before the invention of empiricism would recognize. It's a God of the Gaps argument. God's nature constantly changing to explain away the complete lack of evidence for God's existence.
No, there is no necessary connection between 1) we see things billions of light years away and 2) therefore, the light has been travelling for billions of years to reach us.
In order to get from 1) to 2) you need to rule out a bunch of things: (1) that God didn’t just create the light already on its way to Earth, (2) that the speed of light wasn’t sped up in the past.
In other words you need to PRESUPPOSE the uniformity of physical laws over millions of years and also that there was no instantaneous creation of the light waves.
These presuppositions are completely unfounded. There is no reason to believe them whatsoever. You do so arbitrarily, and yet you want to blame God for you coming to a false conclusion. It’s not God’s fault, it’s your fault for having too high an estimation of your own reasoning, that you believe you can go back billions of years into the past.
>you need to rule out a bunch of things: (1) that God didn’t just create the light already on its way to Earth, (2) that the speed of light wasn’t sped up in the past.
One doesn't need to rule out claims for which there is no evidence. If you weren't attempting to justify a belief in God, there would be no reason to suppose either of those things in the first place. Also, Occam's Razor is not arbitrary.
>you want to blame God
I don't blame God for anything, because I have no reason to believe that God exists.
Right so again your argument from the stars being billions of light years away doesn’t work because it’s only a probabilistic argument, relying on the assumptions of eternal uniformity and no instantaneous creation, assumptions which themselves are unproven but taken to be “likely”. Maybe if I didn’t have independent evidence from theology supporting a young universe, I would apply Occam’s razor and agree with you. But given the evidence from theology, it is easy for me to accept one of these other plausible alternatives, that God either fast-forwarded time, or increased the speed of light in the past, or simply created the light waves already on their journey to earth (this last one seems the most sensible). None of these alternatives are outlandish or incomprehensible. So again, your argument from the stars does not succeed; find another.
>independent evidence from theology
lol. According to my own independent evidence from theology, God is a woman and Her name is Eris. Being a trickster b***h goddess with a cruel and malicious sense of humor, hoaxing a 13.7 billion year old universe would totally be her speed. Based on my theological readings, the universe actually came into existence at 11:16 PM (GMT) on August 6th, 1945.
>created the light waves already on their journey to earth (this last one seems the most sensible)
ANd the cool part is he could have done it 2 seconds ago and there would be no way to tell. Man, science fiction is fun! When we can just assume facts not in evidence, or claim fairytales and fiction are evidence, then we can come up with all kinds of wild scenarios. Maybe I didn't even write this comment and God hasn't created you or me yet, and my memory of writing this comment and your memory of reading it were created by God in the same way he created a universe that appears to have history.
This is some serious Phillip K Dick headtrip shit. I dig it, and I'm glad I'm stoned right now to really appreciate how crazy you are.
>So again, your argument from the stars does not succeed; find another.
I never made an argument. I said that your "God created the light waves already on their journey to earth" claim is a massive cope. Because it is. You're just throwing reason out the window because it's incompatible with whatever psychological wound makes you need your cosmological safety blanket.
What are you talking about? It's clear you're stoned just from what you're saying. I am not "throwing reason out of the window", I am simply showing you that your argument from the stars is not a necessary demonstration. It is laden with unproven assumptions that you just take by faith. I simply reject these assumptions and offer an alternative explanation for the star phenomenon.
>I am not "throwing reason out of the window"
Yes, you are. Theology is not evidence. By introducing theology as evidence, you are assuming your own conclusion (that God exists).
> I am simply showing you that your argument from the stars is not a necessary demonstration.
Again, I never made an argument from the stars.
> I simply reject these assumptions and offer an alternative explanation for the star phenomenon.
Yes, and your alternative explanation is a complete flight from rationality into superstition. For some reason, probably psychological, you need to believe in Sky Daddy Yahweh, and since Sky Daddy is incompatible with a rational understanding of the universe, you "reject assumptions" and replace them with silly, childish fantasies. You're a religious person, thus irrational, motivated by emotion, and incapable of dealing with reality.
It's sad and funny and kind of pathetic.
>Again, I never made an argument from the stars.
That's the argument you're defending. That's the only one I was interested in refuting, so if you're only gonna do sky-daddy stuff now there's no point continuing. By the way, you should read David Bentley Hart's "the experience of God" and you will see how ridiculous your critiques are. Once you understand absolute divine simplicity, "sky daddy" silliness just looks stupid. Here's a good video on it: https://youtu.be/ii3LtdOmBHI
>That's the argument you're defending.
I'm not defending that argument. I am only pointing out that your dismissal of that argument is an obviously irrational coping mechanism.
>except that this has no bearing on the model or its utility
Okay, I think we're talking at cross-purposes.
>you could say, for example, that we cannot possibly be sure enough to build and fly an airplane
Yeah, we're definitely talking at cross-purposes, because I don't understand why you're making this argument, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that just because you can predict reality sufficiently to make a plane fly doesn't mean that you have control over reality. I'm not saying predictive modeling is useless or incapable of producing results, I'm saying that being able to make relatively accurate, constrained predictions and develop technology is not the same thing as having control over reality -- that there are always forces outside of your perception, and thus outside your ability to control.
>i.e. the numerical odds of a thing (actually do prove this to be correct)
No, man. Look, if you're not interested in actually looking into chaos theory, information theory, etc. then none of this is going to make sense to you.
Anyways, I find your reductionism tedious, so I'm done with this conversation, which seems to be going nowhere.
that this has no bearing on the model or its utility
>Okay, I think we're talking at cross-purposes.
You're talking to two different people, anon lol
my last posts were:
Oh, I know, I just forgot to add the link to your comment, which is very confusing. My bad.
>irrational coping mechanism
Idk how many times I have to point this out but neither you nor I can justify our assumptions in regards to this question from science alone. All you have to give your theory the scientific priority (which I freely admit) is Occam's Razor, but Occam's Razor does not apply when you have independent evidence contradicting your theory.
e.g. I want to know who the murderer is. One guy confesses. Occam's Razor says believe his confession because alternative theories multiply the number of assumptions involved. But then new evidence emerges saying that a witness saw someone else commit the murder and filmed it on camera. Now I discard Occam's Razor in regards to the confession, because new independent evidence has emerged contradicting the confession theory. So now I look for an alternative explanation.
Similarly, theology contradicts billions of years, so I look for an alternative explanation for why we see stars billions of light years away. I discard Occam's Razor because I have independent evidence contradicting the billions of years theory. I look for a different theory instead (the likes of which I have already explained to you).
Yes, this is all very uncertain, but that's simply because the human intellect is not powerful enough to judge these matters on its own. We have no way of verifying or falsifying the scientific assumptions involved in the argument from the stars. That ain't God's fault, it's our own fault for making false assumptions which are by no means obvious.
That's enough for me now I don't have anything else to add.
>Occam's Razor does not apply when you have independent evidence contradicting your theory.
But you don't have independent evidence. You have mythology, your imagination, and a fervent desire to resolve the two.
We assume that the relationship of time to space is constant because we perceive time and space as constant and have absolutely no reason to assume otherwise. There are no observable phenomenon that would lead us to question this assumption, nor is their a logical necessity to question this assumption.
This produces a problem for you, because if time is constant, then the universe appears to be 13.7 billion years old, which contradicts Christian mythology. So you then, without evidence or logic, assume that Christian mythology is true. You then invent a fictional narrative that explains away the contradiction. Your "evidence" for this narrative is fiction, and not even fiction that actually supports your supposition -- merely fiction that necessitates your supposition. But there is absolutely no rational reason to consider fiction evidence.
> But then new evidence emerges saying that a witness saw someone else commit the murder and filmed it on camera.
Sure. And if you can produce a videotape of God, then that would be a very good reason to consider your supposition. But your new evidence isn't a witness who filmed the real killer, your evidence is a stick-figure drawing of some random guy your mom drew and wrote "the real murderer" on because she has faith in her baby boy.
>Now I discard Occam's Razor in regards to the confession
But you're not discarding Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't say that you should never change your theory in the face of new evidence. Occam's Razor says that you should assume the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence.
You're discarding REASON.
All of the evidence suggests that Christian mythology is a cultural byproduct of Bronze Age Judaism with no more bearing on the nature of reality than Norse mythology, Vedic mythology, Greek mythology, etc. The claim that God created the Heavens and the Earth by speaking it into existence has no more bearing on the nature of reality than the claim that Odin carved the sky from the skull of the giant Ymir.
You, because you are Christian, want to believe that Christian mythology is a form of evidence, but it's not -- and even if we chose to consider it evidence, then there's no reason to exclude Norse, Vedic, or Greek mythology. You want to consider your religion's myths evidence, but not the myths of other religions. That's special pleading at it's finest.
Your beliefs are an absurdist coping mechanism because you are an emotionally and psychologically weak person who needs to believe in Sky Daddy or you'll have a nervous breakdown, so when reason fails to justify your faith, you reject reason in favor of absurdist nonsense. Many such cases.
>I'm not saying predictive modeling is useless or incapable of producing results,
I'm coming from the only point that (i would argue) matters in the real-world, where knowledge has an actionable or tutelary application, and is derived entirely from being able to prove a thing to a high degree.
I don't really care about the chaos theory thing for the same reason my curiosity isn't tied in knots at wondering how the galaxies came into being. It's a distraction away from real knowledge, at the expense of learning things that are useful - I think.
> I'm saying that being able to make relatively accurate, constrained predictions and develop technology is not the same thing as having control over reality
I do agree with this overall - but it's the difference of how one measures 'control' over things; managing the trajectory of a thing vs. piloting a thing like with a remote plane. Managing trajectory isn't the same as total control, but it's functional control; and superior anyway to no control.
> that there are always forces outside of your perception
cite some. I refuted the casino one by demonstrating how it's not a "real" concern because of the tiny tiny odds of such a thing occurring so as to make it be a useless expense to factor in such things into any model at the cost of having discovered a model which works 99% of the time and throwing it away because of the fear of dragons.
>Anyways,
No it was interesting for me, I thought you were the theist guy or most of the time so, hey.
Never laughed so hard at a post from IQfy. Normally i hate stoners but you're alright, anon
>This is an absurd cope. Why would God do that? That would only make sense if God wanted to force humans to rely entirely on faith in defiance of the evidence of their senses.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. John 20:29
I think the more important part of that story is the lines preceding the one you quoted. You know, where Thomas says "I'm not going to believe it until I have evidence." and Jesus then proceeds to give him the evidence he needs to believe.
Those who have faith without evidence might be "blessed" (bless their hearts), but Jesus didn't condemn or punish Thomas for doubting and gave him exactly the evidence he demanded.
>27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
God used to give people with doubts concrete evidence, but now we are told that God creates a hoax universe that only appears to have history, which only serves to make it harder to believe in God. And for some strange reason which I am sure is entirely coincidental, God only started taking this "no evidence, actively encourage doubt" stance AFTER we developed ideas like empiricism and skepticism. Unicorns, fairies and monsters all became creatures of the imagination after we developed the ability to question mythology, while god became a creature of blind, unthinking belief compelled by fear, guilt, and the threat of social opprobrium.
Seeing yourself as the same as an Apostle?
I think his point was that if the god saw fit to do magic to convince some people he had special powers, then why not convince anybody else. I'd take it further and point out that anybody can just make things up and pretend to have 'seen god', etc. as Paul seems to have done, ad that there's no way to tell the difference whether it's true or not; a con artist operates in the same window of seeming-plausibility or suspension of judgment.
>God only started taking this "no evidence, actively encourage doubt" stance AFTER we developed ideas like empiricism and skepticism. Unicorns, fairies and monsters all became creatures of the imagination after we developed the ability to question mythology,
Bearing in mind that Hebrews amongst themselves possessed no concept of empiricism or deduction of a things; the god, then, is imagined as they imagined a god; as a kind of insane brutal king who makes pointless demands - this is how barbarians consider people in command of things; at a great distance and kowing before them in terror, imagining that people in charge of things 'desire' mindless sycophants, not rather that mindless sycophants cause problems and require constant supervision precisely because they do not know how to do anything.
>I think his point was that if the god saw fit to do magic to convince some people he had special powers, then why not convince anybody else. I'd take it further and point out that anybody can just make things up and pretend to have 'seen god', etc. as Paul seems to have done, ad that there's no way to tell the difference whether it's true or not; a con artist operates in the same window of seeming-plausibility or suspension of judgment.
It is absurd to claim you can dissect the logic of a metaphysical being while not sharing an ontological equality with it.
It's absurd to posit that a being can exist outside of demonstrable reality (metaphysics?) in the first place, anon, let alone to, next, ascribe anything to it at all (religion, commands, holy books) when by the claim itself the being would always be unknowable.
>It's absurd to posit that a being can exist outside of demonstrable reality (metaphysics?) in the first place,
Completely wrong, it is indeterminate.
>let alone to, next, ascribe anything to it at all (religion, commands, holy books) when by the claim itself the being would always be unknowable.
Revelation? Even without, knowing of =/= affirming that, hence apophatic theology. Your grasp of this very old argument leaves a lot to be desired.
>Your grasp of this very old argument leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm coming at the thing with worldly reasoning and the powers of deduction, is the problem i guess.
>Completely wrong, it is indeterminate.
it's a posited position that is superficially indeterminate; i.e. unverifiable from the outset, that suggests a design of the idea with falsehood in mind.
The sun as a god is more solid as a premise, do you see? Because it can be pointed to, and its powers clearly displayed to inspire awe and terror.
>If God exists, then he clearly does not want me to believe in his existence
yup - personally I think that the notion that God exists and hates religion and favors atheists and deists is far more likely, 'if' a God exists at all.
>I think his point was that if the god saw fit to do magic to convince some people he had special powers, then why not convince anybody else.
Exactly.
It's the classic problem. If God is all-knowing, all-loving, and wants mankind to believe in him so much that he would give concrete, physical evidence to mankind of his existence, why in the world would he do it in Iron Age Judea, almost 2000 years before the invention of global media networks?
If God exists, then he clearly does not want me to believe in his existence, because he has completely stacked the deck in such a way that I am no more capable of believing in the supernatural reality of Jesus than I am in Mithras, Orpheus, Osiris, or any of the other death/rebrith cycle gods that presaged him in mythology.
Seeking God is so ingrained in you that you don't even need those books. Just seek God with prayer and you will have your signs from the angels.
When I've sought God through the religious experience, the God I've found is as far from the God of the Bible as a duck is from Buick. If the personal, subjective religious experience is evidence, then my evidence suggests God is a woman, Her name is Eris, and she's kind of a b***h.
No one can actually answer this question laughing my fricking ass off Lmfao.
>uhh uhh it is because it is okay!!!
I was watching a doco last night about black holes. It's all just fricking theory pulled out of someone's ass. Entirely baseless. None of these claims can be verified at all. Not a single one.
Just because light takes x amount of time to cover y distance on earth doesn't mean it is the same "2.5 million light-years away". Does it take a camera 2.5 million years to capture that image? Fricking idiots.
>Just because light takes x amount of time to cover y distance on earth doesn't mean it is the same "2.5 million light-years away". Does it take a camera 2.5 million years to capture that image? Fricking idiots.
Are you really this stupid?
NTA, and let me preface this by saying I actually agree with you and am not a Christian, but let me play devil's advocate here. Just for the sake of argument.
How do you know that light maintains the same speed across the vast distances you believe are in space? You can say "light is a constant" but how do you KNOW? You can do a math problem to prove it on paper, but how do YOU know it works that way in practice and not on paper? You, an individual human with no access to the technology or other resources necessary to determine this information, how do YOU know these things? If you don't even have the simplest of tools to do these tests yourself in any way, so you can't prove it on your own, how do YOU know it's true?
Well, you read them. Or hear them. And as they come from a source you trust, a scientist or other authoritative figure, you believe it. You have not proven anything yourself, you don't actually KNOW that these things are true. But you BELIEVE that they are, because to you it makes sense. To you, it's logical. It's what you were taught. Even without ever doing a single bit of actual science yourself, not a single test to determine anything, you believe these things to be true. Do you know what that is called? Where you believe something without proof, simply because an authoritative source said so, when you KNOW something is true without actual evidence in your hand that you can touch and see and feel?
That's called faith. You have faith in these sources, these scientists and researchers who do the work for you, who tell you what to believe. It's very similar to religion, blindly believing anything you read because it comes from the correct book. So maybe you aren't all that different from those "stupid" Christians after all. Neither of you can prove your beliefs on your own with hard physical evidence, both of you must rely on what books and authoritative figures tell you.
If you're not able to go to space and travel 2.5 million lightyears to see if the light stays the same speed the whole way, well you've got no more proof to show the Christian that light stays the same speed than the Christian can show you for their God existing. You're both just throwing claims at one another, claims that both of you will dismiss simply because it comes from the other so it must be nonsense. And when either of you finds real evidence that you can show one another, you'll both look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions (dinosaur fossils / nephilim bones) based on your faith (faith in God and that the bible isn't ficiton made up by humans / faith in honest scientific inquiry and that the scientists aren't liars and aren't manipulating or misrepresenting their findings).
My point is, if you can't get through to someone, try putting yourself in their shoes. Try thinking from their perspective, try arguing against your own beliefs. Then maybe you'll find a way to convince them that they're wrong.
I think any sane person needs and wants a logical and coherent universe, in that sense, your doubt is far more insane, then his faith in the laws of science.
>I think any sane person needs and wants a logical and coherent universe
rather: sanity is only achieved by studying and learning the logic and thus coherency of the "universe" (of things which occur).
I have done this, thus I would never say something like "my god put these fossils there to trick me into not believing he exists"
>That's called faith. You have faith in these sources,
>authority (of the information)
This is a good point.. I mean, you can conduct experiments etc., to prove things for yourself but ..the real problem is to know where or when or how much "faith" to place in any source. I said yesterday that,
> the genital mutilation cult that equates child murder with eating shell fish as equal crimes is the least useful place to start this quest from.
meaning that these people or ideas stemming from them would be inferior by comparison. This is simple enough for me to understand and dismiss it all entirely, and it's because 'of' the highly poor nature of the source of their claims; judging them by their actions (modern christians for example also):
They claim to have all the answers, whilst being unable to convey a case using real-world reasoning (which god, if existing, obviously gave us a brain to be able to do), so really their source is not "real world", has nothing to do with real world, or 'god', but is rather just the opinion of some bronze age savages or poorly educated people from the 1st century, using 'god' as a means to make an argument and give it authority by saying "god says so" -this is easily open to trickery because there's no way to prove any god said anything.
e.g. I know what I just said is true because God told me it was true - you can neither confirm nor deny this lol
A problem here, is that what a person places authority in needs to be, first of all, deduced (is the source credible, how far can we rely on this one precept) using the logic that they may or may not have in the first place.
Certainly any organization is capable of falling into stagnancy in this manner, out of ease to agree upon some dogma and stop their inquiry; academia, religion, both have this problem, but the error of the academics is a religious one in this case.
I think it's of greater impact that the consequence of having wrong ideas (i.e. opinions that do not accord to reality) in the head means that a person is operating under errors and causing bad things to occur; chiefly scapegoating of others to shift the blame of the effect of the error onto something else,
e.g. jim raped a pig, then jim said he got saved by jesus, but people still avoid jim as a pig rapist - what is happening is that jims actions have destroyed his reputation, what jim pretends is happening is that satan is possessing the people around him.
(FYI I'm new to this thread.)
I appreciate your post.
>That's called faith. You have faith in these sources, these scientists and researchers who do the work for you, who tell you what to believe. It's very similar to religion, blindly believing anything you read because it comes from the correct book. So maybe you aren't all that different from those "stupid" Christians after all. Neither of you can prove your beliefs on your own with hard physical evidence, both of you must rely on what books and authoritative figures tell you.
One big difference is that science actually gives us technology. We know some people are figuring *something* out, how else could we have smartphones, OLED tvs, etc.
>My point is, if you can't get through to someone, try putting yourself in their shoes. Try thinking from their perspective, try arguing against your own beliefs. Then maybe you'll find a way to convince them that they're wrong.
Good point
>That means it took 2.5 million years for the light to reach earth. That alone debunks the 6,000 year old young earth model.
It doesn't though.
I mean I'm not christian and I know the age of the universe and of the Earth, but the fact that Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away tells nothing about the age of the Earth.
young earth creationists believe the entire universe is only thousands of years old
I see then. I thought that whey they say "the world" is 6000 years old, they meant the Earth and not necessarily the whole universe. Do they even accept the existence of exo-planets if they try to refute fossils?
I bet you believe nukes are real too. I'm not even one of the religious anons on this thread. The whole lot of you are so gullible it pains me.
>I bet you believe nukes are real too. I'm not even one of the religious anons on this thread. The whole lot of you are so gullible it pains me.
I guess this was just claymation.
If the universe is 13.7 billion years old how can the universe be 93 billion(X infinity) light-years large?
Excellent point! I to believe in science! I'm afraid you won't make much headway with these IQfy "chuds" have you ever been on Reddit.com? Much better place for intellectual giants like ourselves.
Will do
Dr Mary Schweitzer is super cute.
That creature clearly did not walk and barely fits the descriptor of humanoid. On top of that some parts of that skeleton are not even from the same species.
Believe in just Jesus and the Bible will come.
>“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
Remember, Christ is to be believed and scripture to be known.
>“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.”
You believe Christ by sufficient belief and knowledge in one - note it's by knowing Moses's writings. Know the scriptures better and you'll see that they are truly divine. Reread Job and pay attention to the symbols. Literal stories, figures, and otherwise are likely not historical but they are still the Truth. Alexander the Great was a historical figure but didn't create Music, Democracy, science, or cathedrals.
just go with the allegory explanation and you can still go with evolution. For example, Garden of Eden is an allegory for ignorance being bliss
If there was no Adam and Eve
then there was no Garden of Eden
there was no Tree of Knowledge
there was no fruit
there was no serpent
there was no original sin
there was no need for Jesus to die for our sins.
symbolism
metaphysical doctrines translated into myths and symbols
btw jesus dying on the cross as 'dying for our sins' is a modern interpretation of the whole story
the passion represents spiritual/initiatic death and rebirth, the same pattern that happens in the enneads and other epics/myths, descent into hell and ascention
the tree of knowledge means discriminatory or dualistic thinking (good and evil)
the goal to destroy the ego and become Christ
"If any man come to me … and hate not his own soul he cannot be my disciple” (Luke, 14:26)
“Whoever is joined unto the Lord is One Spirit” (I Cor.6:17, cf. 12:4-13).
That interpretation is in Paul, who knew Peter (Cephas), so it must be pretty old. But it's highly possible Jesus' original ministry didn't involve such a claim.
But why stop there? Why not just take that to its logical conclusion: God is an allegory for the inconceivable, seemingly random forces that exist beyond our control but impact on our lives.
And if God is an allegory, then what is the point of faith? And why have faith in THAT particular allegory? Once you've accepted that faith is a Kierkegaardian leap into the absurd, then why leap into the absurdity of Christianity? Why not embrace Taoism, Buddhism, or Marvel comic books?
>God is an allegory for the inconceivable, seemingly random forces that exist beyond our control but impact on our lives.
These "seemingly random forces", owever, when you ask people what they mean, either trace back to archaic misconceptions of scientific mechanics - or are flat-out idiocy; such as running a brush covered in red paint across a wall and then pretending to be amazed at how the paint got on the wall.. (i.e. feigned ignorance toward cause and effect) it could almost be said to take a certain kind of intelligence to construct such stupidity.
>And if God is an allegory,
then what is it actually an allegory for?
Good question.
I have no idea what you're saying and I think you have completely misunderstood what I meant by "seemingly random forces."
>then what is it actually an allegory for?
I literally just said God is an allegory for the inconceivable, seemingly random forces that exist beyond our control but impact on our lives.
Though, really, God is just a conspiracy theory.
>I have no idea what you're saying and I think you have completely misunderstood what I meant by "seemingly random forces."
Thanks for clearing up what you meant by "seemingly random forces". Oh wait, you didn't.
Yeah iv'e heard tens of thousands of people say this and it always goes back to this,
as I said here.
I find the "highly learned intellectual position" (i.e. apologists) of being baffled by demonstrable effect from evident cause to be particularly bizarre.
> for the inconceivable, seemingly random forces that exist beyond our control but impact on our lives.
yeah bro it's called causes coming from effects; you fire a gun into a door and by magic TOTALLY RANDOM TINGS OCCUR that would be obvious outcomes of having fired a gun into a door; powder burns, spent bullet casing, door is marked, smoke from the muzzle, etc. "seemingly random forces" my foot.
cite some fricking examples of these random forces.
>Thanks for clearing up what you meant by "seemingly random forces".
Like a traffic jam happening when you're racing to get to a job interview, or your kid getting leukemia, or terrorists blowing up the plane your business partner was taking to the most important meeting of your career.
>yeah bro it's called causes coming from effects
Well, yeah. That's why I said SEEMINGLY random, because nothing is truly random. Everything that happens does so because of a complex chain of events. But we, humans, are not capable of perceiving or understanding the specifics of all those chains of events and their interactions. This is basic Chaos Theory.
God is an allegory for deterministic chaos.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
>Like a traffic jam happening when you're racing to get to a job interview, or your kid getting leukemia, or terrorists blowing up the plane your business partner was taking to the most important meeting of your career.
Well those things are obviously all effects of things, they're not actually random are they? I suppose you could say the same thing for Luck, to view it more positively. But if you know these things aren't random then where does the God thing come in? it'd be superfluous at that point.
>But we, humans, are not capable of perceiving or understanding the specifics of all those chains of events and their interactions.
of course we are. More often, I find, people simply don't want to follow an event back to a cause because it shows them how they could've prevented it, or more likely where they were to blame in some way for it and want to feign ignorance to the cause.
off topic entirely, but when I started to learn about cause and proof in old world philosophy it struck me as kind of funny that the only people seeming to be talking about "everything happens for a reason" were religious types, using the language to claim how the god made the planet.
>This is basic Chaos Theory.
i think this is a mathematical thing and is technically unrelated to this subject.
>determinism
technically speaking 'cause and proof' as a philosophical discipline predates 'determinism' in the later context; cause and proof as a discipline being put into structure by Chrysippus of Soli the "second founder" the stoic school:
"If this, then that,"
I mean, I understand the idea that you're putting across, but my point is that if "everything actually does happen for a reason" and we canidentify those causes of the effects we observe, then where's the room to put God into it? We know that it wasn't God who closed the train door on your foot, it happened because you were 10 seconds too late to get onto the train, because you hesitated for 5 seconds looking for somewhere to throwaway your coffee cup, because you were distracted for another 5 seconds by a passing woman, etc.
God is where in this?
>they're not actually random are they?
They appear random from the human perspective, hence "SEEMINGLY random forces."
>But if you know these things aren't random then where does the God thing come in?
Bronze age people weren't very intellectually sophisticated?
>of course we are.
No, we aren't. Even with advanced instrumentation and massive organizations devoted to data collection, we are mostly blind to the essentially incalculable number of "things in motion" around us.
>i think this is a mathematical thing and is technically unrelated to this subject.
::facepalm:: Nevermind, I didn't realize you're an idiot. Carry on.
>God is where in this?
Dude, I'm an atheist. Why are you asking me this? I'm literally arguing that God is nothing but a Bronze Age allegory for Chaos Theory, with the implication that there's no reason to believe in the literal existence of God.
>>i think this is a mathematical thing and is technically unrelated to this subject.
>::facepalm::
what 'chaos theory'? The thing that sounds cool that hipsters used to talk about when trying to explain "oh e random things" around them. Last I checked that was something to do with numeracy. I didnt care enough to click the wiki again.
>Dude, I'm an atheist. Why are you asking me this?
i- .. oh, could've sworn I was talking to a god-botherer
> we are mostly blind to the essentially incalculable number of "things in motion" around us.
I said we are 'capable' - not that we actually do this. And I mean in relative sense; we are capable of filtering through all incoming sense data, scanning for threats, assessing probability of outcomes, "if this, then that", etc., I mean to say this is how we're wired as a hunter-builder species designed to take in every aspect of everything happening around us and do these equations of prediction constantly, but this is obviously not worth the trouble to do most of the time.
I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore as I was sure you were making an argument for the god the israelites... or was I talking to someone else? hm
If there is no such thing as random, as we agree, then I was asking where a theist would shoehorn in the function ofthe god; but realizing that the notion of,
> we are mostly blind to the essentially incalculable number of "things in motion" around us
exists, as provide that shoehorn in the first place I can deduce 'why' that statement would be made. My point there was that when the idea of "seemingly random events" is gone; luck, chance, etc., then there's no object anymore to prayer/faith/hope/false-hope to influence those "seemingly random events".
>deterministic chaos
>far beyond human perception
I don't buy it. It's a more fleshed out way to describe the incredibly basic cause and effect that I mentioned yesterday; also "far beyond human perception" is less of a maxim or precept and more of a didactic opener for a teacher to use when trying to draw a students attention to things they may not have noticed in order to instruct them in those things.
The cause - in your example - may be inactionable; you have no control over the city infrastructure and habits of the animals that resulted in it living near a road, but you still have control over the effect of that cause (instead of controlling the cause to remedy the effect in this instance) in that you can deduce that the animal population has been pushed out to that area, that likely animals will cross the road, and you'd pay attention to the sides of the road not go as fast, etc etc.
The only real "chaos" beyond human ability to foresee (and even this is doubtful) is a meteor striking the earth. Or a sun flare perhaps, but even then both of these things are obviously readily predictable; tens of thousands of years in the past, once we understand the dynamic model which eventually causes each effect.
>what 'chaos theory'?
Chaos theory is a mathematical theory involving deterministic chaos. Chaos theory seeks to find ways to predict unpredictable outcomes through pattern analysis. That's a gross oversimplification, of course.
>I said we are 'capable'
Except we really aren't. It's not actually possible to create a perfect model of prediction because that model would necessarily have to perfectly replicate the whole of existence, which would mean the model itself would be a perfect mirror of the universe -- a universe of its own.
>I don't buy it.
Okay. Unfortunately, the math checks out. Your problem seems to be a paucity of imagination. You are incapable of concieving of how much you are incapable of concieving.
>This is a good metaphor for logic and prediction of outcomes where the superflous details (you want to draw more cards) doesn't actually matter as, focusing more broadly, you can whittle down the entire scope of possible equations to a simple calculation and then utilize it.
Yes, but your simple calculation is not an accurate model of reality, and thus your predictions are not accurate.
For example, your blackjack prediction model works because you're dealing with a very, very small subject with a high degree of predictability. But your model can't predict an outcome like "I lost this round of blackjack because terrorists started shooting up the casino," because the chain of events leading to that outcome are completely outside the scope of your model.
When you start trying to apply this concept to anything that isn't, you know, trivial bullshit -- i.e. not card games, but economies, wars, epidemics, etc. -- then the number of influences rises to a sufficient level of complexity where accurate prediction becomes increasingly impossible.
>Except we really aren't. It's not actually possible to create a perfect model of prediction because that model would necessarily have to perfectly replicate the whole of existence, which would mean the model itself would be a perfect mirror of the universe -- a universe of its own.
>You are incapable of concieving of how much you are incapable of concieving.
Did you read the blackjack example?
By being able to accurately predict things (in that manner) we can prove a theory to be correct.
>For example, your blackjack prediction model works because
ah you did read it
>But your model can't predict an outcome like "I lost this round of blackjack because terrorists started shooting up the casino," because the chain of events leading to that outcome are completely outside the scope of your model.
except that this has no bearing on the model or its utility; you could say, for example, that we cannot possibly be sure enough to build and fly an airplane, let alone invent commercial air travel, because a meteor might hit the earth and render the action superfluous, or a dragon might appear and attack the airplane - something totally unlikely; something that 'could' be foreseen and planned against, maybe, but due to the odds of it ever occuring it's not worth taking the time to factor into such an equation.
Blackjack works as an example to demonstrate how over-complexity works against a person; e.g. you want to draw exactly 21, so you go bust far more often in each hand because
> the number of influences rises to a sufficient level of complexity where accurate prediction becomes increasingly impossible
except we can already demonstrate the superiority of another model over this; we can prove it by predicting the outcome repeatedly.
i.e. the numerical odds of a thing
>Unfortunately, the math checks out.
i.e. the numerical odds of a thing (actually do prove this to be correct)
What are the odds that your blackjack game is interrupted by Al Qaeda bursting into the casino? It's neglible, but if you were to take this seriously (i.e. if the world took this seriously) then you'd see casino security kitted out in paramilitary gear, etc.which you obviously see because they agree that the odds of such a thing occur are minuscule.
This line of thought really does remind me of the "heat death of the universe" excuse, as an excuse to avoid doing the dishes.
e.g. the game of blackjack or 21;
there are essentially only 2 draws that matter; the first card, which determines at a 50/50 ratio whether you need the next card to be high or low - thinking of the game in this way allows you to bust the dealer or opponent because theyre thinking far more complexly about the matter; they're looking for a specific number card to get them to 21, increasing their chances of going bust by drawing more cards.
This is a good metaphor for logic and prediction of outcomes where the superflous details (you want to draw more cards) doesn't actually matter as, focusing more broadly, you can whittle down the entire scope of possible equations to a simple calculation and then utilize it.
e.g.,
> the essentially incalculable number of "things in motion" around us
this approach needlessly over-complicates the practical application of a basic and simple sequence of deduction.
I think the difference is this:
that when you realize that "everything happens because of something" then this itself greatly empowers the self to actually work around or work with those "forces" - forces as you described - to predict and avert the bad outcomes at the very least,
e.g. traffic, you can predict traffic, you can avert being late by leaving earlier.
I don't think this is really "the absolute" opinion of what 'god' is; crossing fingers and praying that traffic does't occur, but it kind of seems like it is. Leaving things to chance, basically.
Except you're forgetting the Butterfly Effect. Everything happens because of something, but everything also exists in a state of deterministic chaos. The relationship between the "something" that causes the thing to happen and the thing itself is far beyond human perception.
Today, while I was driving my mom home after taking her out to breakfast, a wild hare ran out of hedge running along an autoparts store and out into the street. I slammed on my brakes because I brake for small woodland creatures, even when the dumb pieces of shit are in the city.
Now, there was nobody behind me and no traffic at all, but if there was traffic, then a driver suddenly breaking for wild hare can trigger a rippling effect of slowdowns that spreads out through the traffic matrix, creating a traffic jam.
That's chaos. That's not predictable. Control is an illusion.
>>then what is it actually an allegory for?
>I literally just said God is an allegory for
I forgot what I was getting at with this; I phrased this badly, I think I was saying a "better question" would be to define the process of the allegory that God serves as a stand in for; like in the god of the gaps fallacy where - X doesn't know what lightning is and shrugs, grins through bleary eyes and says "its god". butnvm
I don't believe in carbon dating. I think it's a pseudoscience.
>carbon dating
pretty cold term for love
Yet they'll go through wikipedia and delete mentionable WWII vets and their awards because nobody was there to confirm that the events did or didn't happen as they did.
It is a pseudoscience. The fact that it's so prevalent and widely accepted as definitive proof of anything is absolutely wild. Polygraphs are still widely used though, so I guess it's not too surprising
No, you're just coping
it operates on certain assumptions that are not proven. For example, that decay happens at a regular rate over time.
Genesis, Creation and Early Man by Father Seraphim Rose addresses most of those issues.
>radioactive decay hasn't been proven
>Geoscience research institute
>https://www.grisda.org/radiocarbon-dating
>"Beyond this, the accuracy of the date depends on the reliability of the assumptions used in interpreting the measurements (see below)."
>"Calculating a date based on the concentration of radiocarbon in a sample is based on several assumptions. The first assumption is that the decay rate of 14C has not changed over time. Recently some evidence has been published in peer-reviewed journals suggesting that this assumption may not be true for all isotopes. While 14C has not been observed to vary, the rates of Silicon-32 and Radium-226 decay may vary in relation to Earth’s distance from the sun. [11] There may be other examples of systematic variation in isotope decay rates. While the small variations in isotope decay that have been reported may not invalidate all isotopic dating, they raise questions about the assumption of completely uniform decay rates."
>"A second assumption is that the sample being dated has not experienced any loss or contamination of 14C over its history..."
>"Three additional assumptions are necessary in radiocarbon dating..."
>"Another assumption is that the amounts of carbon-14 present in the geophysical reservoirs must be constant. "
Read bones of contention by lubenow
Just study it as another human myth. It's much more exciting that way anyway.
Why should I care about the skeletal remains of inbred tribes who hid away in caves during cataclysmic events? This doesnt disprove the story of Adam and Eve.
>"Hello my fellow human"
The absolute state of IQfy. I thought this was supposed to be the smartest board.
This is IQfy not IQfy.
Adam and Eve is IQfy.
>He still believes the story of Adam and Eve is factual.
>the year of our Lord 2022
>he doesn’t believe in God’s word
Why *are* you so dumb and stupid?
Atheists actually think their distant ancestors were monkeys jfl
Explain that skeleton
I don’t care.
Smithsonian has destroyed shit before that threatened their narrative of history. Whose to say they wouldn't create something to reinforce their narrative of history?
We can look at it simply. Science is a business. Scientists work as scientists because they get paid to. University student doing phds and whatever are doing it so they can earn big money later in life.
Do you believe businesses always act with truth and ethics?
Religion is a business
Can't disagree with that when mega churches and tv preachers exist.
*Protestantism is a business
The Catholic Church is literally the worlds corporation.
It has a CEO who is chosen by a board of directors, a strict hierarchical structure with a corporate ladder for the employees to climb, it also provides a service that people pay for.
Sure T
>The Catholic Church is literally the worlds corporation.
>corporation
Dat's rite. The Body of Christ, in fact.
>University student doing phds and whatever are doing it so they can earn big money later in life
imagine thinking phds make big money.
This
Denying that the Smithsonian has destroyed stuff just makes you look like an idiot who hasn’t done a basic fact check.
>Denying that the Smithsonian has destroyed stuff just makes you look like an idiot who hasn’t done a basic fact check.
I just googled it. Nothing comes up
I think they're talking about the giant human bones that disappeared from the smithsonian. I've heard this story.
The irony is that it 'may' be true, but their single use of the story is to use it as proof of nephilim.
Okay, then, OP, if we find giant skeletons will you believe giants actually existed?
cope
It’s just a skeleton, bro. You don’t even know if it reproduced, or that it is related to humans, because you can’t even get genetic material from fossils, and ancestry is established solely through morphology alone. Even then, it could just be a variety of human that went extinct at some point. We know from domestic dogs alone that a vast amount of differences are possible within a single species.
The general scientific picture going back millions, let alone billions of years, is a philosophical assumption and nothing more, dubiously extrapolated from uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions by reality.
>because you can’t even get genetic material from fossils
Completely bullshit statement. Ancient DNA research has been around for decades. I don't know why you would so confidently state something when you clearly don't know shit about this topic.
where does Jesus say science is evil or untrustworthy?
Science didn't exist in Jesus's time.
He definitely believed in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark.
>Matthew 19:4-6
>He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female
>Matthew 24:38
>For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark
Jesus was even called the second Adam.
>1 Corinthians 15:45
>Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
>Science didn't exist in Jesus's time
Stopped reading there. You've been brainwashed
Most science is just "peer review" and "peers" often just confirm each others biases to deliver a profit to their shareholders
Yeah, this is just made up.
The piltdown man was.
Looks fake as hell
Nothing is stopping you from believing in Jesus and the bible, because the bible in whatever format is a great read and Jesus was a great man that inspired people to follow him around and keep writing about him for two thousand years
>But how can I when discoveries like this are made that completely destroy the story of Adam and Eve
Man and women weren't created out of nothing, it's allegorical. The "days" of the creation story are "periods of time" in the Hebrew version of Genesis. The Old Testament is a collection of sand-people scribbles that have been translated multiple times from multiple languages over the course of 8000 years because it's a really good read. Read The Epic of Gilgamesh for the full Noah and flood story. Anon I could rant about this for days, but your best bet is to just read the book in whole and digest it for what it is. Read it and get a grasp on what are pre-science explanations of "how we got here" and love the fun nuggets of truth
You can stop taking Babylonian allegories as literal facts for a start
Why does symbolic thinking filter German-derived philosophy so hard? Read St. Maximus the Confessor. Just because it's literal doesn't mean that it isn't symbolic, and vice versa. In fact it's always both.
>Just because it's literal doesn't mean that it isn't symbolic, and vice versa. In fact it's always both.
picking and choosing.
Read Ellul.
OP, watch this video: https://youtu.be/ry80ihYGjQk
There are good Young Earth Creationist answers to this stuff. Don't leave Jesus for this. And if you're not happy with the Creationists, remember the Catholic Church allows people to believe in theistic evolution so long as you believe there were 2 first humans, Adam and Eve. I personally don't think theistic evolution is satisfactory, but you shouldn't leave your faith over this, when there are many good independent reasons to believe in God.
What's stopping you from converting to Hellenism? At least the gods are way cooler, embody virtues and sins we all have anyway, and they have their own dying-and-rising god in Dyonisus, complete with the wine and the ripping hot bod.
The various myths explain the world just as well as the bible (what's the proof Zeus doesn't send thunder down on us?) and the Theogony and Homer's works are also way cooler than the Bible.
Also you can get high as balls if you go full Euleusinian.
I just don't see why we should all follow some sandBlack person cult when we could go back to the real Western Tradition. Christianity really was a mistake.
idk about Hellenism, Hellene, but Christians are just lazy and enjoy being viceful; it began as a religion 'for' sinful evil people in the first place.
Roman is much better, but much harder. You have around seventy virtues, 3/4 the year in religious thinking, 1/2 the year in holidays.Not sure how the Hellenes really compare to the Gods of the Republic.
People have always "sinned" and have always been lazy. Why mortify ourselves over our own nature?
The Romans were no purer than the Greeks, despite for their autistic obssession with Mars, Janus and Vesta. You could say that Catholicism basically just continued as the Roman religion (with a new israeli sect reskin), what with their pantheon of saints, exultation of violence despite the New Testament preaching against it, etc.
What I'm saying is, it's indifferent which religion you join. If you have doubts, you'll always have doubts. Literalist morons only push people away from their religions, rather than pull in. It's part of the reason missionaries got skewered in so-called barbaric places. Frick them for imposing their unasked guilt on others.
For me? It's Camus's notion of the absurd. Who the frick knows what to really believe. I didn't ask to be here, but I don't really want to return the ticket.
Well, I think the genital mutilation cult that equates child murder with eating shell fish as equal crimes is the least useful place to start this quest from.
Why don't you take a minute to research what you're arguing about before posting?
Like half the NT is Paul explicitly stating that circumcision is not necessary for salvation, and that the letter of the law is superseded by the spirit - a law which includes the prohibition on "eating shell fish" that you seem to think is a feature of Christian doctrine.
I understand that you don't agree with Christianity, but if you're going to post on this board, argue in good faith and without misrepresenting the subject of your argument. If you just want to bash a straw Church go post on /b/ or something.
ug.
>>Like half the NT is Paul explicitly stating that circumcision is not necessary for salvation,
Oh, right, yeah - he says "(instead) circumcise the heart", which is just a completely meaningless statement; cut off the foreskin of your heart. What is this even supposed to mean? Unless you're a israelite being told with the dumbest possible argument why you shouldn't mutilate your sons wiener.
My point, if you had done the same thing you ask me to do, "take a minute (to read)" was that the Abramic theology is the worst and most painfully stupid religion; beginning from Eden onwards (terrible inhumane character of god, believes humans are gods when they learn right from wrong, exiles them so they don't become immortal, madness), resulting in Jesus having to come back and save the israelites who had been following it. My point in context,
>- a law which includes the prohibition on "eating shell fish" that you seem to think is a feature of Christian doctrine.
was that the products and ideas of this culture ought not be taken seriously when they're compared to other far more accomplished human civilizations.
And if you'd read properly, I said,
> the genital mutilation cult that equates child murder with eating shell fish as equal crimes
Meaning that "sin" is taken out of logic and regarded 'equally' as to kill a child as to eat fish on a random day. This was backwards and stupid even for the time during Mesopotamia and Egypt, and was completely unfathomably backwards and stupid by the time Jesus was alive.
Despite all of this, these guys got it right about god tho, yeah, for real, and they're the blessed people; we can tell, obviously, by their rich history.
>"sinned" and have always been lazy
There is a vast difference though between a religion or society which is highly productive, and one that claims sloth and indolence as a kind of virtue, whilst preaching that humans cannot ever good and are born evil - because of garden of eden story.
see: Julian, Plotinus
Not all ways of life are equal, is my point, some are absolutely terrible.
>Literalist morons only push people away from their religions,
This may even be a sign of that religion being good; if you have nothing worth taking you want to draw people in, but if you have something worthwhile then you don't want anybody else to know about it.
>(with a new israeli sect reskin)
foreskin*
You need not any rational reason to believe in the irrational.
then i saw ur face
now ama beleeeverr
Atheists actually think their ancestors are monkeys
Why don’t you have a tail? They seem pretty useful. Yet you don’t. So you devolved?
Exactly
"exactly" typical missionary, getting a low IQ savage to say something dumb and then saying "exactly" as if the monkey-man even understands what he says.
that's a misconception, silly anon. We didn't evolve from apes just as cats didn't evolve from tigers. Different species, very similar in terms of genetic roots.
You shouldn't be asking why don't we have tails, you should ask why do "contemporary" monkeys do not develop traits such as the homo-whatever. Most likely they won't ever, because then they would have to suffer jobs and people like yourself and Joe.
good points'; monkeys are better designed than humans to actually live in the world anyway, if a human was stripped naked and dumped into a jungle, would he thrive? better question is to take bets on how long he'd survive like that.
We thrived so much we created our own jungles
Hey, there's no ecological basis to this (if this is a complaint that we we better off in the wild); God is supposed to have created animals for humans to slaughter and the world for them to frick up as they pleased.
Preserving the world or thriving during ones own life is not important to a Abramic thinker, since the focus is not on this world at all.
I'm more of an Emergent Design kind of guy, myself.
In what context? elaborate a little
We weren't created by intelligence. We were created by simple things operating together, eventually resulting in the emergence of more complex things. Intelligence is the product of complexities built upon complexities.
this checks out
> Intelligence is the product of complexities built upon complexities.
Yeah it reminds me of a point made where a 'god', if existing, wouldn't exist outside of the laws of logic and would have no control over things like gravity, etc., i.e. he couldn't make up become down, as these were set processes as consequence of broader mechanics; planetary physics, etc. So the 'god' could have sculpted the planet and bioengineered humans and animals, etc., but their interactions with their environment - figuring out gravity, being subject to things like that, and developing a grasp of sequential logic through studying those things, would be 'expected' by the 'god', but ultimately have nothing to do with the 'god'.
Which knocks the legs out from under the idea of the god as being omnipotent but, hey.
It does make me wonder, if there was a God would he also be subject to entropy like the rest of the universe.
Personally I view gods as memetic entities (basically tulpas with mainstream followings), which are subject to entropy as their images are eroded or altered in time, with their deaths coming when they are remembered for the last time. However, were there an entity with dominion over reality, how much dominion would they have and what forces would supersede that dominion?
>were there an entity with dominion over reality, how much dominion would they have and what forces would supersede that dominion?
It almost seems to me like this is what the later-early christians were getting at with the whole 'christ is logos' things; where the god itself is the process of logical discernment and discovery, but this couldn't be further from the 'god' that religion and religious baggage is forced to insist is true - at the complete expense of studying and appreciating the process of logic, which they're forced to deny.
>with their deaths coming when they are remembered for the last time.
>memetic entities
This is certainly true (call memetic entities "fixed representations") with the origin of the original polytheist gods; where the god is a personification of a specific task or function, and their stories tend to involve the interaction of one function with another function, giving the human a tutelary lesson about that specific thing.
The unique aspect of this is that those tutelary gods never die at all, with the lessons remaining there for anybody to look at and understand,
from the Latin: Tutelary; "teaching+spirit" "tut(a)+lar(es)"
The israeli god difference is that the god is supposed to be considered as being literal (even though there's plenty of evidence that the abramic god and the allah god came from polytheist pantheons in the first place; being later regarded like local patron gods; athena as patron goddess of athens etc.)
It's just an idea of mine, a way to bridge the literal god notion with being the god 'of' creation; to refer to reality - galaxy etc. - as being 'the creation', moving the focus away from the holy book to the scientific processes as being the better way to figure out the "mind of god" as being reality itself; processes of logic, physics, etc.
But I will say this is not a belief of mine, just a way to hold-the-hand of a person coming from literalism and help them back to real-world.
Most people will tell you oil is the compressed remains of dinosaurs
Take the Thomism pill.
Trying to harmonize the Bible and evolution is the biggest cope I've ever seen.
Man was supposed to be God's special creation, not evolved from a mountain of hominid corpses.
>Trying to harmonize the Bible and evolution is the biggest cope I've ever seen.
Agreed. A man who believes in evolution can not believe in the God the Bible talks about.
hominids could have just been a different species. There are other explanations too. Check out Genesis, creation and early man.
Quit this slave mentality,anon. Read some Nietzsche instead.
Is God a metaphor?
Christianity and Judaism are lies invented by israelites to manipulate weak willed people. If there is a God, there is no evidence they have interacted with the physical world. There, I just saved decades of your life from bullshit. You're welcome.
Read Stirner
>I can't believe in the bible because of obvious hoaxes
???
"The devil put the bones there to trick us!"
So you found proof of the nephilim in the bible and that makes you doubt the bible?
Do Christians really think like this?
He said the fossils made him not believe the creation story. Apparently completely forgetting the mentioning of the nephilim in the book of genesis. Its called thinking logically.
>I want to believe in Jesus and the Bible.
this attachment is the problem, just let it go
I think chimpanzees have a lot of hands-on experience, like 10,000 years living with humans. Why can't they just figure out how to evolve already?
You think they want anything to do with modernity after seeing how miserable it made us?
The ancestors of chimpanzees and humans was the one to evolve into humans, chimpanzees are not just non evolved humans, they are a different path.
>I want to believe in Jesus and the Bible. But how can I
Read The Portable Jung and then read Pistis Sophia. Problem solved.
>>I want to believe in Jesus and the Bible. But how can I
>Read The Portable Jung and then read Pistis Sophia. Problem solved.
Can I use this to affirm my belief in other gods such Quetzalcoatl or Dongo? I can, can't i.. so it's flawed, ain't it..
only if you're moronic
that's fine, anon, I'm a christian and most of my congregation is moronic, I'm going to print this out onto a piece of card and take this to church to read.
you say it was the Portable Jug fallacy and the epidemiology of Sophie? I'll tell them this.
Who cares about these discoveries? The Bible is literally true. Maybe God put these fossils there to tempt the unbelievers. Honestly don't care. My epistemology starts with the inerrancy of the Bible, rest is secondary.
lol but. why wouldn't it be more likely that the first humans,i.e. adam and eve, were neanderthals or something? I almost can't comprehend the bowl of custard in place of a rational brain that would produce this silliness to be reached as a conclusion by a human,
>Maybe God put these fossils there to tempt the unbelievers.
>why wouldn't it be more likely that the first humans,i.e. adam and eve, were neanderthals or something?
Because neanderthals don't exist.
>bible literalists are nihilists
The opposite.
>Because neanderthals don't exist.
Okay where did we come from then, genius?
God made us from mud and fashioned us in his own image, then he broke off a rib and made girls. THEN HE PUT BELLY BUTTONS ON US TO TEST OUR FAITH
observe,
KJV : And the mud was chocolate.
Non-KJV: And the mud was excrement.
>THEN HE PUT BELLY BUTTONS ON US TO TEST OUR FAITH
Better back your argument with a proof that Adam and Eve had a belly button.
pft easy
>Genesis 1:1, "WHAT A NICE BELLY BUTTON YOU HAVE, ADAM," said God
next
Read Genesis.
>Honestly don't care.
Of course not, all bible literalists are nihilists, you dont care, we know.
er
>paramilitary gear, etc.which you obviously see
*which you obviously don't* see
I use logic to belive in the bible. So this world exists. Everything fits into place too well for there to not be a god. So look at religions. Which one is the best and encapsulates best the human experience and tells the best way to live your life? The bible. Also Jesus was real. Just to make it clear to you, if the bible is not real, then it means there is no god, because you can see how goofy other religions are and false of course.
Imagine actually believeing that bullshit.
pic related
The Torah is entirely coded doublespeak. Learn Hebrew. You will understand all the puns.
Here's an example:
http://ancient-spooks.de/texts/10-commandments.html
escape the electromagnetic cage grid anons, youre all creators. you can make your own reality, you do not need to be boxed in by arbitrary concepts/thoughts nor do you depend on others for originality.
Plenty of top level scientists, including Nobel prize winners believe that Genesis is history. Take a look at a sceptical approach of mainstream science. There is absolutely no proof of evolution of species, our archeological findings proving we evolved from monkeys are absolutely fantasy, most dating methods place the earth to be very young, DNA clusters correlate perfectly with the Tower of Babel story.
Just have a look for yourself and think about it.
>Evolution isn't real because... just trust me bro
Evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria has been mapped out in real time.
I said evolution of species, not evolution. Huge difference.
Anyways, I am not going to argue with anyone about Creationism, I left the videos for people to watch and make up their own minds. Have a blessed day, anon
Well the first documentary is literally a fictional film, I started watching the second and the presenter starts his discussion of the scientific evidence by talking to a guy with a PhD in philosophy who doesn't work in science.
In terms of evolution of species, you're arbitrarily drawing a line at the evolution of mating barriers. If evolution happens, there's nothing to say two populations that become isolated can't gradually change to the point that there would be barriers to mating if reintroduced to each other. In plants it can even happen quickly through polyploidization (doubling of a genome in the next generation), or hybridisation, so a population of a new species can appear within a few generations. You can look up white beans (Sorbus spp.) in the Avon Gorge, several species of whitebeam only exist in that one gorge due to the reproduction methods I mentioned:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/what-we-do/more-case-studies/2012/6.html
https://avongorge.org.uk/wildlife-and-geology/rare-plant-fact-files/bristol-whitebeam/
Not just that, but there are stars more than 6000 light years away, which is a pretty slam dunk case against a young Earth by itself.
The way mainstream scientists measure the distance of stars is by a colour chart as their telescopes don't see the star itself but see a blue blipping light and since it's blue therefore they claim it's a gazillion light years away or whatever.
I'm leaving it for the anons to decide whether this is trustable and makes sense. Many scientists completely disagree with these methods and calculations.
We can accurately measure the distance to nearer stars using the parallax effect, as the earth moves, from out point of view nearer stars move more than stars further away. Using parallax to find the distance of something is very well understood since we can use it here on Earth and check the results using other methods of measurement. With the information about the distances to nearer stars we can measure the luminosity and spectrum of emitted wavelengths of stars for which we know the distance and type. For example, using parallax, the Hubble Telescope can be used to measure the distance to stars up to 5000 parsecs away (≈ 16000 light years) [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/161]
The measured luminosity and spectra from these stars with known distances are used to calculate the distances to stars too far to be measured using parallax, which gets us to the stars millions and billions of light years away. So your description of how these distances are measured is incorrect, it's actually very thorough.
I don't think it's "very well understood" since scientist smarter than me and you combined don't think any of that noise is legit
And there are many more scientists in that exact field who think it is legit, who do you think is doing the research I described?
C'mon, just admit it. You bunch know nothing about the scientific methods, be it either in favor or against your perceptions of the Bible.
>he took Adam and Eve literally
Ngmi
>he didn't because man in lab coat said so
Actually ngmi
>he did because a pedo in a dress said so
it's just a test bros, trust the plan
god will come and drain the swa- i mean commence the rapture and all the non-believers will be forsaken just wait bros it's all part of the plan
This cope is literally in the Bible itself. People have called out the 'trust the plan' bullshit since the start
2 Peter 3:3-7
>Know this first of all, that in the last days scoffers will come to scoff, living according to their own desires and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? From the time when our ancestors fell asleep, everything has remained as it was from the beginning of creation.” They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God; through these the world that then existed was destroyed, deluged with water. The present heavens and earth have been reserved by the same word for fire, kept for the day of judgment and of destruction of the godless.
All of the creatures of the Earth were created before Adam, you could even say that something 99% identical to Adam existed before him, but it wasn't really a human in God's eyes. It's an arbitrary distinction.
My personal view is that as Adam was given dominion of all the living things on Earth he would necessarily be compatible and related to them and not entirely alien, otherwise it would be pointless for Adam to have a place in the ecosystem at all if he doesn't actually fit into it. Why would he rear cattle and eat plants if he wasn't a mammal that needed nutrients from those things to survive? Was Adam the first living thing to eat fruit and pick apples off of trees? God ordered Adam to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the Earth, why would he do this and make Adam something that didn't fit into the grand scheme of the Earth's ecosystem?
If you think those things are contradictory to Adam & Eve then you need to read more Christian/Catholic literature or listen to a priest
>But how can I when discoveries like this are made that completely destroy the story of Adam and Eve and original sin and the need for a savior?
Adam and eve are an allegory not fricking real you idiot
>t. coping priest who has been schooled to answer this way
>Adam and eve are an allegory not fricking real
This is how low Christianity has fallen.
Ask actual apologists and read books teaching apologetics.
It’s a veneer over universal truth. Christianity is the closest to that universal truth we currently have.
>There is an absolute principle responsible for all creation
>All reality partakes in that principle
>That principle manifests itself periodically in the history of sentient life
>Sentient life’s greatest joy is union with that principle
Christianity provides the machinery or framework to help us attain that unity.
If curious, read
>Parmenides (Plato)
>Metaphysics (Aristotle)
>Elements (Proclus)
Or a commentary/synopsis
>Literal creationists in this thread
Lmao. Lol even
Even Augustine and all of the israelites at the start of Christianity (including the man Jesus) know that Genesis was a collection of myths and allegories.
THEN HOW DID SIN ENTER THE WORLD AND WHAT DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS FOR?
im an atheist and the 8ooks ive read from the 8i8le are so overtly alegorical that this whole conversation seems like arguing wether the events of animal farm contradict science
Nobody can refute any of this, lol
this is really sad.
The position of the bible-apologists is flawed from the premise in dozens of ways; chiefly that it is all beginning with the premise to confirm an obvious fiction as being literally true, resulting in amazing comedy.
But the real flaw in the premise comes from the misunderstanding of what inquiry and science and proofs, etc., is even about, so it seems to a (literalist-minded) theist that "what science says" is as rigid and immovable as "what (religion) says", which just isn't the case; inquiry and discovery never ends and nothing is closed.
Although.. it must be admitted that random people do tend to treat science as if it were "rigid, immovable", e.g. "that what is discovered today must be taken as literal truth and that inquiry into the subject has ended," which is never the case. Any thinking person, reasonably well-educated understand this about any science; it's almost a forgivable error if a person coming from religion has this view (because this is how they're taught to think of things), but there's no excuse I think for the non-religious types to treat the sciences in this way; it's the precise same error essentially.
>supposed to be considered as being literal
and being the god of absolutely everything, and so becoming the god of absolutely nothing due to the impossibility to focus on any specific thing.
Don’t believe in falsehoods.
Religion is philosophical suicide.
Read Pius XII, Humani Generis, paragraphs 35-37, which effectively describes the minimal amount of historical content that is acceptable, from a Catholic perspective, in interpreting Genesis 1-3. In a nutshell, the encyclical states that biological evolution was compatible with the Christian faith, but God’s intervention was necessary for the creation of the human soul.
Link: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
See also: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_012.htm
Also relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
>but God’s intervention was necessary for the creation of the human soul.
by which they mean, 'moral inclination' i presume
>by which they mean, 'moral inclination' i presume
"Moral inclination" - not sure what that means.
>For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Humani Generis, para. 36.