Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

Really? Just goes to show how much I know about Islam... I always assumed theirs wasn't the same. Why are the names different though?

Allah is simply Arabic for God, however the Abrahamic god (as shared by Judaism, Christianity and Islam) has had a good few names.

You learn something new every day, I guess. .

Always a sign of a good day.

 

[GBO Possum]

Absolutely I do. One look at the complexity of the universe we live in and the complexity of all life, especially human beings should be enough proof that something far more complex than us created us and I don't buy into the argument that we evolved from primates, otherwise why would we still have monkeys, they would all be humans now.

By this logic, the only living thing on this planet would be humans. No other animals, plants, single celled critters, bacteria, viruses etc. We all came from a common ancestor.

Since a human body is composed mainly of non-human living cells, we could therefore not exist.

 

[Dagger311]

Language difference, nothing more I'd think. Allah is Arabic for 'god'.

Ah, okay. Makes sense. My book was writtin in Hebrew, there's was in... Aramaic? Makes complete sense they would have different names than us.

Allah is simply Arabic for God, however the Abrahamic god (as shared by Judaism, Christianity and Islam) has had a good few names.

That always confused me when I was young. Mom would read to me, and I'd get confused about which one of the five names she'd said was really God. One day it finally made sense, and I realized they were all the same entity.

Always a sign of a good day.

Depending on what you learnt.

 

[montre3]

Lynchings?? They still happen?

Yes

 

[Scaff]

Ah, okay. Makes sense. My book was writtin in Hebrew, there's was in... Aramaic? Makes complete sense they would have different names than us.

Old Testament/Torah - Mainly Hebrew, tiny bit of Aramaic
New Testament - Greek
Koran - Arabic

 

[Danoff]

Old Testament/Torah - Mainly Hebrew, tiny bit of Aramaic
New Testament - Greek
Koran - Arabic

The Book of Mormon - English (same thread)

 

[GBO Possum]

.....You could go on and on if you believe in the theory of evolution. ....

Theories are not something to "believe in".

Theories are well-tested hypotheses which have graduated to the level of being accepted as a highly credible explanation for something.

And whether you believe in a theory or not doesn't matter, as others have said. It is still regarded as the best explanation by those who have the expertise to evaluate these things.

Theories only get to be promoted to the exalted class of "theory" by being put through a torture test of skepticism. Religious literature often precludes that process, by asserting its divine truth. That's a massive difference.

 

[GBO Possum]

What are these problems which you speak of?

Also, by "immense destructive power", I'm assuming you mean weapons of mass destruction?

Floods which wipe out humanity are more effective. (If you accept the flood myth as fact).

 

[DK]

Are you implying that Americans and Eurpoeans are drastically different in their evolution and intelligence? Poor example you chose I'm afraid.

Europeans and white Americans would have common ancestry, as do apes, monkeys and humans, but over a much longer timescale than Europeans and white Americans - we're talking at least hundreds of thousands of years and tens of thousands of generations.

 

[RalliArt/////]

Two major arguments put forth in those links - that the bible was mistranslated, and that when god said "let there be light" that doesn't mean it happened in the order it was written

Point to the specific time in the video to what you're talking about, because I don't hear anyone saying that.

The second argument is more pathetic than the first, since the second argument basically argues that genesis is not a progressive account of the creation of the universe, even though everything about it indicates that it is so. It goes big to small, vast to detailed, and follows a logical progression. The only thing wrong with it is that it looks like it was written by someone who didn't know anything about the solar system (it was), and so the logical progressive account of the creation of the universe doesn't actually make sense.

I wasn't using that page to respond directly to the "contradictions" you posted. That's why I said "This site also answers some specific “contradictions” in Genesis & other books". Whether you agree with that page or not I don't care. It was meant to give some background information before you read the answers to the "contradictions" - but it doesn't look like you've done that.

it looks like it was written by someone who didn't know anything about the solar system (it was)

it looks like it was read by someone who didn't know anything about the solar system (it was)

If I posted stuff that thin, I'd expect it.

If you posted stuff "that thin" I wouldn't have to keep asking you to address the answers.

 

[Danoff]

Point to the specific time in the video to what you're talking about, because I don't hear anyone saying that.

1:07

You're wasting my time (again).

I wasn't using that page to respond directly to the "contradictions" you posted. That's why I said "This site also answers some specific “contradictions” in Genesis & other books". Whether you agree with that page or not I don't care. It was meant to give some background information before you read the answers to the "contradictions" - but it doesn't look like you've done that.

Right here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-509#post-10043911

That's a direct response. And you didn't say what you claim to have said. You're wasting my time (again).

it looks like it was read by someone who didn't know anything about the solar system (it was)

If you're talking about me, that's absolutely astonishingly hilarious. My job is astrodynamics. I assume you're talking about someone else - maybe writer of Genesis. Hint: that won't help your argument.

If you posted stuff "that thin" I wouldn't have to keep asking you to address the answers.

There's an alternative explanation.

 

[dddsprayshop]

Please don't.



But you do feel that you can speak for me.



Facts require objective evidence, if something doesn't have that its not a fact.

I felt to speak for me, God is not a fact period.
And yes i knew you could, and would react like that.
But you are not the only one that is bothered by that "God is a fact".edit/ i'm bothered by that.
But you are, i think, one of many or few, that primairily, debates all those so-called "facts".
But that does not mean i can't give my oppinion.

So don't think like that, that you think i spoke for you, i spoke for me.

 

[Liquid]

Metro

The de facto leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, admits he sometimes has doubts over the existence of god.

 

[GBO Possum]

Metro

The de facto leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, admits he sometimes has doubts over the existence of god.

He said: ‘The other day I was praying over something as I was running and I ended up saying to God: ‘Look, this is all very well but isn’t it about time you did something – if you’re there?”.’

Well said, Mr Welby! On this we have 100% alignment!

He goes in to say this, which is when I get lost:-

He added: ‘It is not about feelings, it is about the fact that God is faithful and the extraordinary thing about being a Christian is that God is faithful when we are not.”

The bit about God being "faithful" troubles me. Words like absent, indifferent, remote, ochlophobic or agoraphobic, inconsistent, genocidal, violent, antisocial - yes. But "faithful"?

 

[Liquid]

He's saving face because he's the senior cleric of a major Protestant church.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Let him talk rubbish at his will, "Protestant Church" doesn't compute in the "major" category anyway

 

[PeterJB]

Metro

The de facto leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, admits he sometimes has doubts over the existence of god.

That hardly surprises me. There are very few Christians who never doubt God's existence.

 

[RalliArt/////]

1:07
You're wasting my time (again).

Two major arguments put forth in those links - that the bible was mistranslated, and that when god said "let there be light" that doesn't mean it happened in the order it was written

Nobody is discussing the order in which "let there be light" was written.
They're talking about the order in which God created the Sun given the order of the text.

Right here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-509#post-10043911

That's a direct response. And you didn't say what you claim to have said. You're wasting my time (again).

Again, you're mixed-up.
We were talking about this post, which you replied & I responded.

If you're talking about me, that's absolutely astonishingly hilarious. My job is astrodynamics. I assume you're talking about someone else - maybe writer of Genesis. Hint: that won't help your argument.

Right the first time.


Can you guess what you should have said after this...?

The only thing wrong with it is that it looks like it was written by someone who didn't know anything about the solar system (it was)

 

[Scaff]

Again, you're mixed-up.
We were talking about this post, which you replied & I responded.

And you seem to have missed the post in which I said....

I've not given the same response and using a member of staff to try and prove a point against another member is not a smart idea at all.

Did you seriously expect him to go and address all 300+ ones that you linked to? I suspect that you instead though it would be a quick and easy way to shut the issue down, well that will not fly here, so how about you explain to us how you explain some of the contradictions. Ensure that you are ready to actually debate the point you used (in case a quick cut and paste was the route you wish to take - if your going to use someone else's words then I hope you can explain them as well).

Particularly given that I didn't simply (and lazily) link to a wall of text on other sites, but rather asked you a small number of specific questions. questions that you clearly can't or won't answer.

......in particular this part "if your going to use someone else's words then I hope you can explain them as well".

So how about we try this again, and this time you explain why you don't seem them as contradictions. By all means use sources to back up your point, but not in place of one or as a tool to try and overload a conversation.

 

[Danoff]

Nobody is discussing the order in which "let there be light" was written.

Including me, so I have no idea why you're talking about it. If we were talking about that, it'd be a pretty short conversation since we could just look at genesis and figure out which words it comes after and which words it comes before.

They're talking about the order in which God created the Sun given the order of the text.

Again, you're mixed-up.
We were talking about this post, which you replied & I responded.

You're right. I thought you were referring to a different post.

Right the first time.

Ok. Since you're obviously wrong, I gather that you're going to go back and re-evaluate the thought process that led you to that incorrect conclusion.

Can you guess what you should have said after this...?

I could have said "... apart from all the other things that are also wrong with it."

 

[Famine]

Right the first time.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the first post - I figured awkward wording, because no-one who knows anything about @Danoff would suggest he doesn't know anything about the Solar System.

Let me know when you've plopped a tiny laboratory onto a 3,000 mile wide rock 500,000,000 miles away after a 2,000,000,000 mile journey and we'll have a chat about who knows what about the Solar System.

 

[DQuaN]

Off topic I know but is @Danoff involved with Rosetta?

 

[Danoff]

Off topic I know but is @Danoff involved with Rosetta?

I am not. Now stop guessing before I have to refuse to answer!

I'm in the process of leaving my job right now, I may be able to come out of the closet on this one soon.

 

[DQuaN]

Oh remember, it's classified or something right? Hasn't that been the case for a long time?

 

[Danoff]

No, it's not classified. But if it becomes well known here where I work, then I cannot directly comment on particular events or subjects without it being seen as representing the institution I work for. And they are rather particular about their representation to the public. The post I just made in the global warming thread, for example, would be impossible. I've been working there for almost as long as I've been a member here (but not quite).

 

[DQuaN]

Ah OK, well, what does astrodynamics have to do with the solar system anyway?!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You seriously don't see that it being the 'basis of existence' is totally and utterly different to it being used to provide 'proof of existence' is a difference on a huge scale and most certainly does change things (not just the outcome)?

In that example, there is nothing to see.
Once again, you can apply the standard at any point in time.
The results will be the same for the given point in time.
The motivation for application, is irrelevant.

Its not objective by your own standard either! (unless you have a very different idea of the difference between objective and subjective)

Its not considered objective, because there is no way for scientific standard to distinguish whether it is, or is not.
Again, that has no bearing on the fact, it can be.
My standard takes that reality into account, and therefore does not preclude testimony as non evidential, even though it is considered subjective.
Which BTW every court in the world does as well.
But we have already been there.

Came across this website which reminds me of the debate in this thread.
Interesting read.
http://www.integratedpost.com/2013/01/proof-and-evidence-are-subjective.html

Define physical?

Right out of the dictionary:
"noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter."

Your moving goal posts again, first it was just 'the holy spirit' (which all four have) and its still not unique. Nor have you covered how this clearly elevates Christianity.

No, not all four have it.
It originates with the Jewish covenant and promise, and is made available to all through Christianity, in the fullfillment of the promise.
And as I just stated, this was accomplished through Isaac, not Ishmael.
There is no moving anything.
That was, and is, the direct line for it.

Citation required, nothing so far has been unique and you certainly haven't defined what makes this unique factor stand out (and 'its obvious' or variations on that are not enough).

The New Testament explains all of that.

 

[Imari]

Right out of the dictionary:
"noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter."

Are you saying that all living beings are spiritual beings? I seem to recall you defining the spiritual world as "not the physical world".

 

[Spurgy 777]

Right out of the dictionary:
"noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter."

Don't know what dictionary you've been using.

 

[orimarc]

Google does:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical

physical

[fiz-i-kuh l]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

adjective
1.
of or pertaining to the body:
physical exercise.
2.
of or pertaining to that which is material:
the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3.
noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter.