Yes or No. Is the universe 12,000 years old? Dont hide behind your bible. No but

[John Dibble]

No. Evidence points to it being much, much older than that. Even if God created the universe only a few thousand years ago, it has the appearance of being older. So logically, even if that's the case, then we must treat it as such since we are left with no evidence to indicate otherwise.

[John Dibble]

No. Evidence points to it being much, much older than that. Even if God created the universe only a few thousand years ago, it has the appearance of being older. So logically, even if that's the case, then we must treat it as such since we are left with no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Can you define what you meant by "we must treat it as such"?  How does a young-earther "treat" the universe differently from someone who believes the earth is 12 billion years old?

I'm talking about a scientific standpoint. The evidence points to the universe being billions of years old, so all related science should act on that rather than the idea that the universe was created 12k(or whatever number you subscribe to) years ago by a supernatural force which has no evidence.

[John Dibble]

Science is the only thing that can beat religion and free the millions of lost minds.

But science itself has determined the laws of the universe require a Creator.

Not this again.

[John Dibble]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

No, it's not - science is about finding the facts, not majority opinion.

[John Dibble]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

No, it's not - science is about finding the facts, not majority opinion.

democratic - i mean we are all here to discuss various ideas and principles. Science wants to listen to ideas and theories that have scientific backing.

But democracy is simply about majority opinion, not fact, and can be quite against discussion. There's no democracy in facts - they are what they are whether people like them or not.

[John Dibble]

What does it matter from your point of view?  If there is no God, then everything is meaningless and has no consequence.

If there is no god, nothing is meaningless. In fact everything around us would take on more significance if it was discovered that there was nothing involved in its process.

Knowing that science believes the universe will decay into a pool of heat, I don't see how you find any significance in anything going on the universe, since ALL actions end in the same result.  You would have no purpose and no hope.  And without hope, I don't know how you find significance in your existence.

You're basically embracing hopelessness.

But one could give themselves their own purpose, completely free to decide it as they wished - I don't know if there's a God or not, so that's why I do, and I've got plenty of hope.

[John Dibble]

only one republican has got the guts to answer the question.

That's not going to get them to vote, it will probably drive them to attack you or not answer the poll.

And considering only two republicans have voted in this thread, which hasn't even been here a full day, I don't see why she's bitching.

[John Dibble]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

Religon is anti-democratic; its about control.

How is science about debate?

New theories.

Sad thing is, new theories aren't always debated seriously, even if they are valid theories. Just a couple examples:

Ignaz Semmelweis - the man discovered that by by washing his hands before delivering babies that the puerperal fever among the babies birthed was drastically reduced(and thusly deaths as well), indicating it was a contagious disease. This went against the scientific idea that diseases were caused by an imbalance in the four 'humours' in humans, and thus the idea was initially rejected by the established doctors even though he had statistical evidence backing his findings. Further, doctors didn't want to admit their poor hygiene had caused unnecessary deaths.

Alfred Wegener - the man came up with the theory of continental drift, the precursor to today's theory of plate tectonics. He showed that the continents had likely once been together through fossil records, continents with boundaries that were almost like matching puzzle pieces(such as Africa and South America), and other things. Many geologists rejected the idea outright because it lacked a mechanism for the continents moving. As more evidence turned up though, it fortunately becamed a subject of serious debate.

A big problem in the scientific community is that many established scientists have big egos, and don't like it when someone comes along and presents something contrary to what they've worked on for years(they don't like the idea of being wrong). These types will use their influence to shut out debate on a subject, which is terribly unfortunate.

[John Dibble]

I can not say I take the 10 commandments any more seriously than I take the words of Santa Clause in a bed time story - but are you not supposed to.

I myself prefer George Carlin's reduction and revision of the 10.

1. Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
2. Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

[John Dibble]

Empirical evidence. I need empirical evidence for zinggy stuff, not words on a page.

Well, since Christianity exists today, when and where does your empirical evidence suggest it started?

I think he's talking about empirical evidence of things like the great flood, the 7 plagues of Egypt, a guy having a burning bush talk to him - that kind of thing.

[John Dibble]

The evidence from facts that 1)the universe exists and 2) its laws state that entropy can’t decrease and that energy can not be created or destroyed by natural forces…testify that the existence of the universe itself requires a God.

This again? This is you jumping to conclusions to satisfy your own beliefs, not empirical proof of the existence of a god. It could simply be explained by natural forces which we don't currently understand.

[John Dibble]

The evidence from facts that 1)the universe exists and 2) its laws state that entropy can’t decrease and that energy can not be created or destroyed by natural forces…testify that the existence of the universe itself requires a God.

This again? This is you jumping to conclusions to satisfy your own beliefs, not empirical proof of the existence of a god. It could simply be explained by natural forces which we don't currently understand.

The fact remains that every single experiment and/or process ever observed in the history of man has supported the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.  Even the newly discovered Dark Energy supports them.

So, I wish you good luck finding a way to invent yourself.

I never denied either of those, but the truth is we know absolutely nothing about the behavior of the universe before the Big Bang, so you are simply jumping to a conclusion with insufficient data.

[John Dibble]

I never denied either of those, but the truth is we know absolutely nothing about the behavior of the universe before the Big Bang, so you are simply jumping to a conclusion with insufficient data.

Well, since science believes space/time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, you're going to have a hard time finding "data".

No, science simply doesn't know what the universe was like at that time.

Because the universe as we do know it has a finite age (~13.7 billion years) we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.7 billion light years. This is our so-called horizon. The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon - space-time could well be quite different out there. Pre-big bang we might suppose that space-time as we currently know it did not exist, but we can not know for certain(at least not yet) that space-time in some different form did not exist.

Our understanding of the workings of the universe is too full of unknowns for you to be jumping to conclusions.

[John Dibble]

This should answer jmfcst's argument.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

That section is out of date....they no longer believe in the possiblility of the "Big Crunch"

Actually, it hasn't been entirely ruled out.

[John Dibble]

I believe that there are unseen "forces" behind the world's religion.  I just don't believe those other "forces" are telling the truth.  I believe they are demons.

And what evidence do you have that your 'force' is not among these demons? What evidence do you have that the other 'forces' are demons at all?

[John Dibble]

I believe that there are unseen "forces" behind the world's religion.  I just don't believe those other "forces" are telling the truth.  I believe they are demons.

And what evidence do you have that your 'force' is not among these demons? What evidence do you have that the other 'forces' are demons at all?

Well, if God has denied you evidence that he even exists, how can you ask for evidence that he is telling the truth?

Well, if you can't even prove the existence of these supposed 'forces' then how can you further claim that one of them is truthful and the others are demons? You've made a claim - back it up.

[John Dibble]

Well, if you can't even prove the existence of these supposed 'forces' then how can you further claim that one of them is truthful and the others are demons? You've made a claim - back it up.

And exactly how would you like claims about the unseen to be backed up?  How could a blind man in 1500AD expect those that see to "back-up" their claims that they are witnessing the sight of stars in the sky?

Don't blame me for asking questions. You're the one trying to peddle the unseen as incontrovertible fact - I'm asking for your proof that it's fact. If you have no proof that it's fact, then it obviously isn't incontrovertible, now is it?

[John Dibble]

And exactly how would you like claims about the unseen to be backed up?  How could a blind man in 1500AD expect those that see to "back-up" their claims that they are witnessing the sight of stars in the sky?

Don't blame me for asking questions. You're the one trying to peddle the unseen as incontrovertible fact - I'm asking for your proof that it's fact. If you have no proof that it's fact, then it obviously isn't incontrovertible, now is it?

Isn't incontrovertible the same as thing as undeniable?....And since you deny Christ, and since I have acknowledged your denial, how can you claim that I present Christ as undeniable?

To the contrary, I am saying that it is impossible to accept Christ unless you are called by God.

You're taking the word 'undeniable' far too literally. An incontrovertible fact is undeniable in the sense that the fact in question has so much evidence that it is indeed a fact that any denial of the fact would flies right into the face of logic, reason, and general sanity. For instance, I could deny that humans need to ingest nutrients to continue living, but that would be quite silly considering we know that people who don't eat anything die of starvation and that we can demostrate it. The definition of incontrovertible I am using here is 'necessarily or demonstrably true', not literally undeniable.

You peddle your beliefs as incontrovertible fact in the sense that you say anyone who denies your beliefs as being facts is a fool. Yet, at the same time you cannot prove your beliefs as facts. How is it that people can be fools for being skeptical about something that is unproveable?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Easy - he knew he had a handicap that didn't allow him to perceive things that others were able to. However, there were numerous enough people, who varied in beliefs, that told him that they could see the stars. Seeing as there would be logically no reason for them to lie about the existence of stars, he decided they were telling him the truth. He couldn't know with 100% certainty of course, but using reason he determined that there were stars that other people managed to perceive.

[John Dibble]

I am not going to say what I believe, because y'all will just bash me and put me down for it.

I'm fine with other people having faith, I just don't like being told I'm a fool who's going to hell simply for not believing in it myself.

[John Dibble]

So, you're saying through the TESTIMONY of others he believed in what he couldn't measure?

How is that any different from what I am saying?

"You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8 )

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."  (Heb 12:1-2 )

Testimony is not a complete proof, nor did I assert it was - as I said, he couldn't be 100% sure that everyone wasn't just lying to him, but that there would be no profit or motive for so many people to lie to him. Further, it is likely there was no conflicting testimony, as I seriously doubt anyone who could denied the existence of stars to him, and thusly he could reasonably assume that the testimony was accurate. With religion on the other hand, there is motive for people to lie, such as the testimony of false prophets in order to rally followers, influence, power, and wealth. Furthermore, there is vastly conflicting testimony in regards to religious matters - you've outright indicated so yourself. Since there is so much testimony that contradicts with regards to religion, and since not one of the testimonies has been sufficiently backed or disproven by empirical evidence, the testimony of almost every one of these religions is insufficient to draw many conclusions. They all claim to be the truth, but they can't all be absolutely true given the number of contradictions between them, so without more to go on I can't make a decision. There's also the matter of determining whether testimony seems realistic or plausible in the first place.

In short, testimony can be valid, invalid, or somewhere in between, and to determine where it lies we must use reason, logic, and (when available) outside evidence. If there's not enough to go on to establish

I'm fine with other people having faith, I just don't like being told I'm a fool who's going to hell simply for not believing in it myself.

And what is your point?

Do you think I like being told I'm going to hell unless I overcome my sinful nature?  Doesn't the bible state that the judgment of God starts with believers like me?

1Pet 4:17-18 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" (Peter was quoting Pro 11:31)"

So, you and I are in the same boat, but my turn to be judged by God will come before the judgment of unbelievers....but consider the second part of Peter's statement - if believers are going to be judged, what will happen to unbelievers?

No, you and I are not in the same boat - you and I are in entirely different boats. You are given a free pass simply for believing what the Bible tells you, but I'm going to hell for questioning the validity of the book. It's not being judged for being good or evil I despise from your god, it's the fact that for some unexplained reason he needs us to worship him - not respect, worship and fear. And as a side note, I disagree with the idea that man is sinful and evil in nature - society just wouldn't be possible if people were naturally evil, and I've seen too many acts of compassion and caring from both the religious and secular to thing that.

Your god demands people get down on their knees, fear him, and grovel. Yet, at the same time he claims to love us like a father - last time I checked, you shouldn't have to fear a person who loves you. I have yet to have you answer this question, so I'll ask again: If not to simply to satisfy some sort of narcissism, why does your supposedly all powerful and all knowing god demand the worship of those who are as insects? Why does he have to threaten us with eternal torment to gain our worship?

If I had all that power, I frankly wouldn't care whether I was worshipped or not, simply that people tried to live in a good manner. To me, to love is not to demand unquestioning obedience, fear, and worship - to demand those things are to serve the self, to serve greed and vanity, not to love - rather, to me love is the spirit of devoting one's self to another, even if one receives absolutely nothing in return. It appears to me that your god doesn't love us, he loves only himself.

You peddle your beliefs as incontrovertible fact in the sense that you say anyone who denies your beliefs as being facts is a fool.

I am not the only calling you a "fool", rather the bible is:

Psa 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

But look at the part of that verse not bolded...doesn't that also point the finger at me?  So, how have I singled you out?

Yes, the Bible says that - but the Bible isn't proof. Further, you can't use the Bible to prove itself because that's circular logic. If the bible is a lie meant to deceive then of course it's going to try to claim that those who don't believe it are wrong, just like pretty much every one of the other religions you claim are run by demons. Again, how do you know you haven't been deceived, that one of the other religions is instead the truth, or that every religion is run by demons and God just doesn't care who you worship so long as you're a good person? After all, if you're being deceived by demons would you know it?

But furthermore I have never said "There is no God" - I only said "I don't know whether or not God exists, much less the specifics of the nature and motivations of that being(or beings), for I lack the evidence to come to a conclusion". To assert that there is no god or gods without sufficient evidence is just as foolish to assert there is without sufficient evidence - hence the reason I'm agnostic. If your god was reasonable and just, he would understand that I choose to employ the gifts I was given instead of demanding that I abandon the use of the brain he created me with and bow down in fear.

[John Dibble]

True, but that comes as no surprise:

2Cor 11:13-15 “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.”

And how, pray tell, do you tell that Satan isn't fooling you? That the bible isn't a book of one of the demon religions cleverly constructed to keep you off the right path?

Oh, and let's suppose you're right for a minute about the demon thing in the other religions, and that you're also right that your religion is the correct one. If those two things are the case, why does god not choose to reveal himself to those being deceived by demons and guide them to the path of righteousness as he did with you? Why does he allow them to be dragged into the darkness of the second death by deceivers(who you would admit are convincing them they are doing good, that they are pleasing their creator, just as you try to do) if he loves them? Does he love them less? What has made them unworthy, why are they abandoned and never chosen?

And it also seems that a disproportionate amount of these people aren't white - Arabs, blacks, asians, and those that tend to inhabit non-Christian countries - is your god a racist or something?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll leave this as disagreement - what I've seen in humans is that they're more of a clean slate than having a nature inclined one way or the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the fear has to do with punishment, punishment for not giving in to self serving demands - he demands worship, which only serves him. If the standards were a bit less self-serving it might be another matter altogether.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last time I checked, it was Adam and Eve, two individuals, that went astray, yet your God blames the rest of us for it. The sins of the father do not pass unto the son, but your god seems to think they do.

Besides, if your God didn't wish us to stray, why did he give us temptation in the first place? Why did he put the one thing, the tree with the special fruit, within their reach? If he was all knowing and wise, surely he would have known that the devil would come and tempt Adam and Eve into eating the fruit and straying from him! So then, why did he not take that the simple precaution of not putting the tree there?

And once again, why does an all powerful being feel the need to be the center of attention? He's all powerful for crying out loud! You'd think he wouldn't need his ego stroked. You'd also think, being all powerful and all, he could give us a guiding hand without having to have us worship him, wouldn't you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What kind of parent would he be if he didn’t warn us of consequence?[/quote]

Last time I checked, my parents don't demand that I worship them. My parents were quite reasonable about what was and wasn't acceptable to them, and quite reasonable about what the consequences were.

As a side note, I think a 'karma' system is the most reasonable kind - you basically receive what you dish out. There would be no one heaven or hell, rather the afterlife would be forged for each individual by the quality of their soul, the very core of who they are. People who are exceptionally good would be given an exceptional paradise, those who are extremely evil and remorseless would be placed in a hell fitting of their misdeeds, and those in between would receive something close to their own alignment. Of course, I don't think that it should be eternally the same - for instance, someone who receives a hellish place could change it if they come to understand that what they did in life was wrong and would undo it if they could(not out of detest of the punishment, but out of true remorse and desire to change). Consequences and forgiveness shouldn't stop so long as we're capable of changing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree. Your source for this notion that nobody is good except god comes from the Bible, which once again, is not a proven tome. Besides, if he was truly a wise and understanding being wouldn't he be satisfied with us attempting to resist our supposed sinful nature instead of giving into it, even if that didn't involve worship? He knows we're not perfect, after all, but striving to be good should be rewarded whether or not one worships the correct man in the sky, should it not? Why should, say, a Hindu or a Buddhist who dedicates his life to helping his fellow man at great sacrifice to himself be sent to eternal torment simply for not being a Christian?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's demanding worship - obviously he doesn't have that, and clearly he wants it. He didn't make a selfless sacrifice if he's making a demand in exchange for the fruits of that sacrifice. And no, he didn't give his life - if he's an undying, immortal being so he can't die, period. Perhaps give the appearance of death, but if he's truly eternal a false death is not a real sacrifice.

[John Dibble]

I can test the spirits - the spirit that acknowledges Jesus is from God.

And how do you know that? You're making the assumption that Jesus isn't a prophet of one of the demon religions - if Christianity is one of the false religions, then asking if the spirit ackowledges a demon prophet isn't exactly an adequate test, now is it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rom 9:22-24 "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called?"[/quote]

So, in other words, your god doesn't love them, he'll just abandon them to be deceived when he has the power to show them the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, I highly doubt the majority of Christians are white.  Second, the gospel is going out to all the world.  Third, the gospel was first preached to the Jews, who are not white.[/quote]

That was a joke, hence the smiley.

A little bit of sin is still sin.  You can't get a little bit pregnant.

A baby is born with no sin. As I said, clean slate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He died for me, therefore I give my life to him.[/quote]

The way I see it, he died to get you to worship him, not for you. It wasn't a selfless act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm claiming that I shouldn't be held accountable for the sins of others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why not offer the fruit freely? Why go through an elaborate scheme and call it a sin when it would be what he wanted?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should we have to worship anything? All I'm asking is why an all powerful being would feel the need to be worshipped - if I had that much power, I certainly wouldn't care if a bunch of lower beings wanted to worship me or not. Of all the things I could judge them on, that would seem to be a rather petty and inconsequential thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course they gave me rules - I said they did. However I wasn't talking about the presence of rules, I was talking about the rules being reasonable. Your god demands worship, and I can see no logical reason for that demand, and therefore I find it to be an unreasonable rule.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If karma is the cat's meow, then why are you still searching?[/quote]

I said a karma type system is how I would like it to be and would be reasonable, as it rewards and punishes accordingly to the weight of your sins and sacrifices, not that it is the system in place. I honestly have no clue what, if any, kind of system is in place. I continue to search because I have a mind that desires to seek the truth. Currently, I lack enough evidence to draw conclusions on the truth of spiritual matters, so I seek evidence in order to be able to draw well reasoned conclusions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then find me any functional person that has never told a lie.[/quote]

Lying is neither inherently good or inherently evil - it is a tool like any other and can be used for both. If you lie to trick a murderer in order to save a life, it's good. If you lie to steal from someone, it's bad. But this is besides the point - you hold to the notion that anyone who has done any act of evil is not capable of being a good person. I disagree with this idea. People aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they can't be good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only sacrifice acceptable to God is a perfect sacrifice. And he provided it himself and offers it as a free gift. You're basically asking to crash God's party without being willing to accept a free inventation.[/quote]

How can it be a free gift if you must make a sacrifice to pay for the gift? That's a blatant contradiction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I pose the opposite question - why does he have the right to demand worship? Seems to me he would have no need for human worship if he's indeed all powerful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mortal death isn't quite the same when you can simply bring yourself back to life, now is it? For us, mortal death is permanent, irreversible. For the being you describe, it is fleeting and can be taken back, as displayed by the supposed ressurection - hardly a sacrifice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All I ask is that he not make outrageous demands and use his power in a reasonable manner. An all powerful being has no need for worship that I can tell, so it seems rather unreasonable and tyrannical that he demands it on punishment of eternal torment. Heck, I don't even require he bring non-worshippers to heaven - an Earth-like afterlife that isn't a heavenly paradise but isn't hell either would be fine with me.