32 minutes ago, KCDodger said:

He still hasn't proven instant fossils!

Who?

4 hours ago, KCDodger said:

He still hasn't proven instant fossils!

Maybe Yeet does not want to share the secret. Cause if one could form fossils at home instantly, one could get filthy rich, if not disclosing the secret. Stan the T-Rex sceleton sold for 31.8 million dollars.

13 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Who?

That Yeet dude.

1 hour ago, KCDodger said:

That Yeet dude.

Who?

Seriously, stop feeding trolls.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/experiment-fast-formed-fossils/

This proves nothing, but whatever! Vacation, sorry. The troll is out. And yes younger leaders would be nice.

14 hours ago, ImperialYeet said:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/experiment-fast-formed-fossils/

I had a browse of the site, out of interest. The one thing that stands out for me is that their Science defaults to what the bible says. Because it's a trustworthy, eye witness account of things. Which is obviously taken as categorical, rather than metaphorical.

The logic is, if I paraphrase a bit....

Did God make the world recently? Let's ask Science. Do we have an eye witness to ask? Yes, the Bible, it says he did.

Ok, so, can we make fossils really fast, to prove that? Do some kitchen science. Yes.

Right, so the Bible says he made it not long ago and we can make fossils fast.

Point proven. Earth young. Thanks Science!

I can logic my way into all sorts of things if I have an end point in mind and I'm willing to stop thinking before my mind gets all atomic.

People live their lives on belief, not on fact or truth. As I tried to indicate earlier, those latter 2 shift greatly depending on the fractional point of view the lone observer has. There is a bewildering array of things that people believe, in order to give themselves less of an emotional overload from just existing in this vast apparent craziness.

Feeling the need to treat your belief as truth, or fact, being driven to have it stand up in comparison to the beliefs of others, suggests a shaky foundation to me. The presence of an emotional equilibrium that is overly dependent on belief equalling independent fact. That the belief is not strong enough to carry it's own weight

Which is natural, since belief is simply something you opt into, to help you make sense of things. Because you have a mind that makes thoughts. Belief is something you have because you had questions that you couldn't find satisfactory answers to from just living your life. So you place belief in the findings of others on more abstract puzzles.

Belief in Science = fact and truth is similarly shaky ofc. Even Science has a tendency, a need at times, to build from a belief that what has been previously understood, has been understood as well as it can be. Things that once seemed complete and final are often rewritten thanks to new, contradictory understandings that show things in a different light.

I mean, even Maths. Which I thought was pretty cut and dried.

Recently, thanks to Quantum things, how our universe works appears to be dependent on the observers inclination....

Science can still only reveal answers that are within it's conceptual reach. Because thats how a mind works. But science does, at least sometimes, understand that it's a process of understanding, not necessarily a producer of hierarchical facts.

Confirmation bias is one of the single biggest factors driving modern society. My hope is that it won't take the general population too long to remember and recognise the pitfall.

The digging of our own holes. Deciding what our reality will be before experiencing it.

It's kind of in the bible, if you read it metaphorically. In us is the God that is all creation... blah, blah...In the present, we co-create our reality, within and alongside, our own creator, which is us and everything else. All is one and when we get that, we all banish the nonsense and live pretty awesome lives. So follow the path of least resistance, yada yada.

So yeah, the bible can be cool.

Basically. Our perception of the full spectrum of reality, that which creates us, as a species, is pretty narrow. So we just have to agree that a lot of the stuff around us is what we label it as, because it's the same to all of us. From there, we start getting creative and agree on all sorts of things. Like maths. And disagree on others.

But it's all just made up, creation, which is great and liberating. DWYWM.

At least the cutting edge of mainstream Science appears to be finally catching on to that.

There really is nothing to prove.

We exist. I'm not convinced belief is the best coping strategy. It seems to have been struggling for a little while.

Truth is Truth. Absolute.

However, human understanding of what is true is often susceptible to error. One can see that demonstrated in both realms of science and the Bible. So some humility is required...

IF the Bible is a Truth then it is in perfect harmony with Scientific Truth ... and all other Truth, if you will.

However, one’s understanding of either of these areas is not guaranteed to be so. In fact both of these areas of study can be a lifelong pursuit. And one can hardly claim authority in 20, 30, 40, 100 years of experience what has taken millennia to form. (Or even 10-20 thousand years). Let alone the perfect delineation of how the two interact.

Now, I believe in a Creator. I believe in a distinct personage as has been revealed to mankind as described in the Bible. It has been an exercise of both faith and logic, and appeals to my reason. There is evidence.

I personally agree and sympathize with the general consensus of religious folk here recently (past 100 years) who smell that “somethin’ ain’t right” with Darwin’s theory of evolution.

However, I generally disagree with the “proofs” of it’s error. More importantly, I think it is an irrelevant exercise as a whole. I think it’s misdirected.

In an effort to remove the timetables needed for evolution, we NEEDED the Bible to give a starting date of the world and to move the creative process along at a jaunty clip. I think this was not wise... if I can be so bold.

IMHO the Bible NEVER states an age of the world, the time table of creation, or the method by which it was created.

You must remember: the Bible is NOT a history book or a science book! It is spiritual treatise on the origin and condition of mankind particularly relating to the relationship with the aforementioned personage of an actual deity (not the silly contrivances of man made up in wood and stone).

Your understanding of what is scientifically meant (the actual literal process that occurred) when Genesis states YHWH spoke the world into existence is NOT the intended lesson to be given by the ancient text and is found nowhere else in Scripture. Rather it is easily seen as two foundational truths:

1) God is responsible for the existence of the physical realm (especially Man), and

2) The creation is Good (very Good)

THE POINT of this Jewish writing (God’s writing IF inspired) was to deny two commonly held truths of the ancient world: that the physical realm is evil and that it originated in CHAOS! 🤣 👍

Same place we still are today 😊 😊 The fundamental question: is our existence a matter of chaos or purpose?

So, yes, I believe in a God that could have made the world in 24 hrs... or 24 nano-seconds... or 24 million years. But for me to DEMAND of Him and rest my faith on a particular method seems unnecessary.

So, you have PROVEN to PERFECTION that Darwin-like evolution is TRUTH and silenced all the objections against it. Good. You are still no closer to determining whether or not you exist by an almighty hand or not.

Thus why I said earlier that I think the whole exercise is misdirected.

I salute you fellow seekers of truth! 😁 👍 Judge well.

PS - If you’re right, no biggie, we both turn to dust and our existence is forgotten in the crushing oblivion of chaos.

If I’m right... You go to **** and I go to heaven... for .... ever??? Lol. 😇 👿

PPS - I think the Earth is very old, but that Darwinism is rubbish.

If you are going to Pascel's wager, I will remind you there are thousands of gods. So to truly cyoa you need to believe in every god, not just cherry picking the Christian one.

8 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

If you are going to Pascel's wager, I will remind you there are thousands of gods. So to truly cyoa you need to believe in every god, not just cherry picking the Christian one.

Just because MAN has thousands of gods does not mean there ARE thousands of gods.

And yes, I’ll exercise my right (and judgement) to seek the god that I believe is legitimate. 😁 👍

But making cases for the Hebrew God was not really my main point, rather that the Hebrew God denies Chaos. And belief in/irrevocable proof of evolution does not disprove God’s existence.

But what if the right God was Ishtar? If you don't worship Ishtar and I do, I'll be in Sumerian heaven and you'll be in Sumerian ****.

You have nothing to lose if you worship Ishtar, and risk eternity in misery if you don't.

1 hour ago, All Shields Forward said:

If you are going to Pascel's wager, I will remind you there are thousands of gods. So to truly cyoa you need to believe in every god, not just cherry picking the Christian one.

This is the cool part about being a Pagan. I have my beliefs but I'm not about to say others are false.

6 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

You have nothing to lose if you worship Ishtar, and risk eternity in misery if you don't.

Not strictly true, since most monotheistic religions specifically say "worshipping any other god disallows you from saying you worship me".

(Or some Latin, Hebrew, Punjabi or Arabic version of the same sentiment)

So you are, in that sense, betting the farm on Ishtar - or at least, that if the 'right answer' is not Ishtar it's also not one of the Abrahamic faiths.

Ishtar is part of a pantheon. Polytheistic pantheons inherently require a god to allow for the possibility of you being a devotee of a different god (and for that matter many, such as norse and greco-roman have multiple pantheons).

7 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

IMHO the Bible NEVER states an age of the world

As a direct number of years, no. My understanding is the estimated age is usually calculated by assigning an estimated period of time to the theoretically unbroken genealogy, which runs from the 'sixth day' until ancient-but-dateable history.

'Days' 1 to 5, if you're declining to take them literally, give you no other timeframe.

7 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

Truth is Truth. Absolute.

This one I....sort of disagree with. I mean, it is axiomatic and therefore correct, but unless you can ever know for certain if you've got Truth without error or misunderstanding, it's also meaningless.

For science at least, there is only ever "theory we haven't managed to break with credible observed or mathematical evidence yet, but we're working on it" and scientific 'laws' are just the ones most useful to make predictions about the world - either the ones which have had least holes shot in them generally, or the ones which fit better the specific use you want to put them to.

That's not to say that people don't act like there are fundamental scientific truths, but that's dogma rather than reasoning.

The same is also true in religion - if you start from the principle "[divine being] exists", I think the argument that anyone directly inspired (prophet/incarnation) can be considered absolutely correct, but we're separated from them by time, cultural context, language, and generations of reinterpretation by people with their own biases and, in many cases, agendas.

Added to this there is no major religion I know of which has (if you'll pardon the 40k reference) a 'book of Lorgar' - namely a written tract generally accepted to be written by the founding figure of the religion rather than about them.

Which again means whatever guidance may be available, religious faith ultimately boils down to a personal search for meaning, and barring divine intervention it's hard to imagine how you can ever know anything is 'right' absolutely.

20 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Not strictly true, since most monotheistic religions specifically say "worshipping any other god disallows you from saying you worship me".

(Or some Latin, Hebrew, Punjabi or Arabic version of the same sentiment)

So you are, in that sense, betting the farm on Ishtar - or at least, that if the 'right answer' is not Ishtar it's also not one of the Abrahamic faiths.

That's not what the bible commands. It's though shall not worship gods above me.

So the Bible both allows polytheism and clarifies that Yahweh is not the only god.

Respectfully, that is an interpretive and not universal reading of that commandment. Many translations render the commandment as "No other gods beside me".

Other references from other books of the old testament around the same points in the narrative are a lot less open to opinion:

"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed"

Exodus

"Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them."

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death."

"Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land."

Deuteronomy

Those other translations are modern fakes

3 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

Those other translations are modern fakes

This is like, one of the many reasons I left Christianity.

16 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

Those other translations are modern fakes

Quoth the founding member of each box. . .

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Quoth the founding member of each box. . .

It's all appropriated stories from older religions. Kinda like Twilight is a fanfic of 50 shades, Christianity is fanfic of Canaanite and Sumerian religions. It started off as a copy and evolved into something bigger.

I'm in camp "Epicurus definitely disproved a benevolent omnipotent god ca 300 years before Christianity was even founded."

See: problem of evil. Religious apologists have had over 2 millenia unsuccessfully attempting to poke hole in it, to the point where that is its own field of philosophy(theodicies), I call that pretty thoroughly tested.

2 hours ago, Cerebrawl said:

I'm in camp "Epicurus definitely disproved a benevolent omnipotent god ca 300 years before Christianity was even founded."

See: problem of evil. Religious apologists have had over 2 millenia unsuccessfully attempting to poke hole in it, to the point where that is its own field of philosophy(theodicies), I call that pretty thoroughly tested.

The problem of evil is essentially the 13 year Olds first atheist epiphany and subsequent ammunition against their parents. Assuming a benevolent God, evil exists to provide context for good. It's literally that simple.

There's dragons and unicorns in the bible... It's clearly a faery tale. It's full of contradiction and scientific inaccuracies. It's morality tales often doesn't make sense when mentally developed further, and shouldn't be treated like the definitive treaty on morality.

It's just a collection of outdated morality tales for desert nomads that got rewritten by those in power to enforce their own beliefs.

4 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

There's dragons and unicorns in the bible... It's clearly a faery tale. It's full of contradiction and scientific inaccuracies. It's morality tales often doesn't make sense when mentally developed further, and shouldn't be treated like the definitive treaty on morality.

It's just a collection of outdated morality tales for desert nomads that got rewritten by those in power to enforce their own beliefs.

That's just rude, you know.

Can non religious folk really just, not dump all over theists constantly for once..?

9 minutes ago, KCDodger said:

That's just rude, you know.

Can non religious folk really just, not dump all over theists constantly for once..?

Not when those views are influencing the laws of the country.

Oh boy, I get to dust this off again.