the bible provides proof that christianity is false

holodecker2
holodecker2: Anyone who really makes the effort to read and study the bible will eventually have to come to the conclusion that it is mythology. Just like every other man made religions in the world, Christianity is manmade. As one example, the first page of the bible has a creation story. Completely different from what science now knows about the origin of the universe, and the origin of life on earth. Digging a little deeper we read that on day three, god separates the oceans and land on earth. He also brings forth all the vegetation on land. The following day, god creates the sun the moon and the stars! Now, how many stars did god create on the fourth day? Well with the help of very powerful telescopes built by man from knowledge acquired through science, it is estimated that there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy. It is also estimated that there are more than 100 billion other galaxies in the universes each with hundreds of billions of stars. Therefore modern science estimates that there are at least 100 billion multiplied by 100 billion stars. Which is the same as 10 billion multiplied by 1 trillion. Ten billion trillion stars were created on day four. And these stars are really suns like our own sun. It is quite common for the stars to have planetary systems. Science now has the ability to find planets around nearby stars. Last time I read we have found over 1200 planets outside our own solar system. So it took god 6 days to create planet earth but on day four he created 10 billion trillion stars many of which have earth like planets, and it is just a matter of time until science has evidence that some of those planets also have life. So my point is that the creation story is mythological and scientifically inaccurate. But this is only page 1 of the bible, there is so much more evidence I could write a book on it. ...perhaps I should.
13 years ago Report
0
zawillia21
zawillia21: and yet the alternative is that all those stars you just described came about by an instance of pure chance, which seems to me to be more improbable than an all-powerful God, whose limits cannot be comprehended, creating them.
There are those in the Christian circles even who do not take Genesis 1 literally (at least in the sense of a literal 7, 24 hour days, especially because the sun wasn't created until day 4) and as a possible polemic against the creation mythology that existed in other cultures in that day, but that alone does not negate the authority or the truth of Scripture.
13 years ago Report
0
Qz
Qz: This could possibly be the STUPIDEST thread I have ever read on wire.
Congrats!
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: This thread isn't remotely close to being "the STUPIDEST thread" that I (StuckInTheSixties) "have ever read on wire."

holodecker2's figures are somewhat questionable, and some of the details in his "facts" aren't quite right, but in essence, the idea he's putting forth about the enormity of the known universe is quite valid. And while his logic is a little shaky, he's on the right track that science offers a much more plausible concept of the universe than Genesis does.

He has made one bad error in logic, though:

"it is just a matter of time until science has evidence that some of those planets also have life."

There is absolutely no evidence to definitively support that statement. The enormity of the universe strongly SUGGESTS that it MIGHT be the case, but no objective proof exists for that premise. It's entirely possible that we may never find definitive evidence of extra-terrestrial life. We simply won't know until we know.

While zawillia21's characterization of the scientifically derived concept of the universe occurring by "pure chance" isn't correct, and he seems to be speaking from a religious standpoint, his post isn't remotely close to the "stupidest" thing I've read in Wireclub. Not even close.

Actually, he exhibits a bit of intelligence in wording his opinion in such a way as to avoid being definitive, using the phrase "seems to me to be more improbable." It's a smart choice of words that doesn't commit to a specific defined claim. He's not claiming that the standard model of the universe used in astro-physics is wrong, nor the religious idea of an "all-powerful God, whose limits cannot be comprehended" is right, only that, in his opinion, the model used by astro-physicists "seems to ... be more improbable." He's leaning toward the God explanation, but not committing.

There's no shame in being ambiguous when it comes to stating an opinion on how the universe came to exist.

There are plenty of other threads that offer REALLY STUPID expressions of opinion on this subject, and from both standpoints, with users stating these REALLY STUPID ideas combatively with complete arrogance, and insisting that anyone disagreeing is a moron, idiot, etc.

I found nothing that zawillia said to be stupid. He obviously chose his words very carefully.

But I would ask zawillia if he does, in fact, believe in an "all-powerful God, whose limits cannot be comprehended," and if so, can he offer any objective, tangible proof of such.
13 years ago Report
0
SPIRIT-ONE
SPIRIT-ONE: all the Earthly religions are nothing more than a form of control for the LOST
13 years ago Report
0
holodecker2
holodecker2: QZ if you wish to respond to my post please take the effort to say something intelligent. All I am saying is that there are all kinds of things written in the bible that are complete nonsense, and if you take the bible literally, you need to give your head a shake. There are talking snakes, talking asses, a story about the sun standing still for 24 hours (which would require the earth to stop spinning on its axis by the way). The flood story is completely preposterous. Just for example I just read yesterday that there is a cure for leprosy explained in the bible. I have copied it and here it is to read for yourself.
Leviticus 14:2-9 (King James Version)
2This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
3And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;
4Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
5And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
6As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
7And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
8And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days.
9But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

Now there is plenty more nonsense in the bible. Google “nonsense in the bible” and read for yourself. Christianity’s biggest problem now is the power of the search engine and how it exposes the bible for what it is. The writings of primitive people who knew nothing about science thousands of years ago. Mythology, man made religion.
13 years ago Report
0
franklin1950
franklin1950: to have blind faith in a non belief is a questionable indication of an open mind.

a while ago there was a forum on " the law of attraction "
this law effects all aspects of life
the body , the mind and the spirit.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Explain, please.
13 years ago Report
0
franklin1950
franklin1950: sometimes

" Words can not describe everything . The heart's message can not be delivered in words . If one receives words literally , he will be lost . If he tries to explain with words , he will not attain enlightenment in this life. "
Ekai [ Mumon ]
1183 -1260
13 years ago Report
0
KanZ
KanZ: I can applause this man (it's ironical) because he discover that mithology means history where a God intervene or appear .
So, I admit that I don't believe in God not more I believe in, if his existence isn't proved why belive or don't.
I add another thing to say, I really hate people who want impose to other their religion, and it's the same for people who want impose their atheism, it's a closed-minded behavior, as children when they say "it's not true and anyway".
So let people believe in what they want, if it doesn't hinder the liberties of others, if it's the case ok you can speak, if it's not respect others like they respect your opinion.
Please.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: I have no idea whatsoever of what franklin is trying to say in his last two posts.

(shrugs)
13 years ago Report
0
djdan2
djdan2: If God does exist he/she is an absolute basterd for creating the red wasp which parylises a spider, lays its eggs in it for the offspring to feed on the spiders living body.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Not to mention five separate "extinction events" that are known to have occurred.

But then ... If you are believing in God in the conventional sense, stuff like extinction events far pre-dating the existence of humans, and parasitic animals like the wasp you speak of, have little relevance. It's all about the relationships between God and people, and the relationships between people and other people. *


*Hindus and Wiccans excepted
13 years ago Report
0
Koko_Krunch
Koko_Krunch: 'If God does exist he/she is an absolute basterd for creating the red wasp which parylises a spider, lays its eggs in it for the offspring to feed on the spiders living body.'

God is a bastard for creating a fly that lays its eggs in the eyes of young African children, so the larvae can be born to feast on the eyeball.
13 years ago Report
0
Sassy
Sassy: To me, it's just simply amazing how people can think that such phenomena are the will of a supernatural being.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: I've said numerous times, and I'll say it again:

If God is omnipotent, than God is a sadist.

If God is not omnipotent, than God is not a god.
13 years ago Report
0
Albert1711
Albert1711: I read the first post, and none of the scientific information the author gave proves that God did not create. We are talking about an omnipotent being with unlimited resources. I would actually argue that all of modern science vindicates the Book of Genesis. We now know the universe came into being a finite time ago. Genesis stated this back when the pagans were claiming that the universe was eternal. The Bible is not in the genre of mythology. It's in the literary genre of history. In "On Guard," by William Lane Craig, he gives four good arguments for the existence of the Christian God. This is easy to understand and introductory; and I highly recommend it.
3 years ago Report
0
Albert1711
Albert1711: StuckIn, you didn't give any argument for your assertion that an omnipotent God equates to Sadism. Not only can He defeat evil, but He will defeat evil. There is no such thing as gratuitous suffering.
3 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Science proves the Bible is to be understood in a different sense - not to be taken literally, albeit the named personages were actual souls.

The Bible uses familiar things to instruct on social conduct and spiritual wisdom. The premise is Cause and Effect - that is, whatever happens spiritually has a material effect. 'Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven".
3 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: That the OP uses the first few lines of Genisis as proof Christianity is false is insensible.

Albert wrote: "We now know the universe came into being a finite time ago"

That's not actually the case. Everything has a beginning and each beginning is founded on an ending. Science has tracked the beginning of our universe, understanding that what existed prior to the Big Bang was a single, very dense point.

They've called that point a singularity, for lack of a better term, because it's the seed of the universe. Science has proven that all things developing in nature are an "unfolding" from something smaller. So, we're speaking of transformation - not of a magical appearance out of nothing.

Ergo, the ripened seed for this universe implies that, like any seed, it sacrifices its life to the sprout. It also implies that something made that seed. With these principles in mind, indeed, the universe is eternal - just not eternal in one form. Nothing remains static.

3 years ago Report
0
Albert1711
Albert1711: Zanjan, not true. You didn't give any evidence for your claim. Science proves and vindicates the biblical teaching of creation. Genesis was written at a time when most people believed the universe was eternal. The Bible said differently. This is evidence of divine revelation. Modern cosmology shows the fine-tuning of the universe (design) for life (Anthropic Principle). And the scientific evidence we now have about biological organisms also shows design.

In your second post you contradicted yourself by denying my claim that the universe came into being a finite time ago, then proceeded to say "Everything has a beginning." That's my point. Everything in the finite universe has a beginning. There is no such thing as a prior dense point before the Big Bang. You have presented nothing but ideological fantasy; I am giving actual evidence.

Most astronomers and physicists today believe the universe is not eternal, but came into existence. Steven Hawking himself said most physicists believe the universe came into existence. We know the universe is finite from the radiation echo, the expansion of the universe, the second law of thermodynamics, the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem (2003), and it is implied by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Astronomer Robert Jastrow of NASA's Goddard Space Institute declared: "The radiation echo has convinced almost the last doubting Thomas." (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers).

A philosophical argument against an eternal universe is the fact that it is impossible to traverse an infinite series of moments. If the universe were infinite (or eternal in the past), this moment would never have arrived.

I don't continue to argue with people who are of bad will and blinded to truth and facts.
3 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: The Bible doesn't use the word "universe" because it doesn't talk about that.

Genesis discusses "CREATION". The Bible illustrates that *creation* is ongoing, that certain dynamics are cyclical, and that God is always active; nobody can stop Him from carrying out His Divine Plan.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Rev 22:13 )

This suggests that God always was and always will be, eternally; it's impossible to separate God from His acts because those are a product of His thoughts and Word. As long as God exists, so will His handiwork. To say that there was ever a time when nothing at all existed is to say there was no God.

All things have their being in spirit so it's not just the natural world we're discussing. No matter what happens, the souls in the next world won't be affected; they're with their Lord and will continue to do His bidding. To stop creation is to kill God and erase eternity. That's absurd!

What we can do is observe God's ways, which never change. He is the Lord of earth and heaven, and the Lord of all religions. He set all the laws in motion and those principles are reliable both on the physical and spiritual planes.
(Edited by Zanjan)
3 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: If you want to discuss the universe, you'll need sources from more recent scriptures. They reaffirm God's creation continues without end. His worlds are infinite in number but language fails to describe them.

By the way, I've read all the same scientific findings and maybe more: every astrophysicist knows the universe 15 billion years ago was a chaotic gas cloud, which they can't see past - it took eons for solid matter to form; it has always been transforming and moving. Stars begin and end, then new stars begin from the same material.

The age of the universe is taken from the furthest back that science can see. *Eternity* has nothing to do with time or space. The physical universe qualifies as an ongoing presence in whatever form God chooses to shape it into.

Surely you've had lots of beginnings and endings in your life as proof nothing remains static. Stephan Hawking was an atheist and is dead so take whatever he said with a grain of salt.

I bear no ill will toward you because I refuse to weaponize knowledge, turning it into a source of strife and division.
3 years ago Report
0
Albert1711
Albert1711: Your comments are ideological and not based on modern research. You need to get updated. You're out of touch. Oh, and Hawkings was an atheist because his mother was. He was raised an atheist. But he did believe that the universe came into existence a finite time ago. Andrew Kamal tested as the most intelligent person alive in the world today. He also believes the universe is finite, as do most astronomers today.
(Edited by Albert1711)
3 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Maybe it's you who's out of touch - Hawkings is probably the only atheist buried in a church, a Cathedral yet. I don't believe anyone whose integrity is questionable.
3 years ago Report
0
MJ59
MJ59: I like christians, couldn't eat a whole one though
3 years ago Report
0