Did Noah's Ark actually happen?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

#1: Bemuse me (on how the laws of thermodynamics requiring a creator).

1) the universe is not infinitely old (Entropy)

2) the universe could not have created itself (Conservation: energy cannot be created or destroyed)

therefore, the mere existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God:

Rom 1:20 "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

---

#2: As Dibble said, why should I care about Bible quotes, your argument is completely circular... to show the truth of the bible, you quote the bible and presume that it is true. There is no logic here.

Seeing that my argument agrees with the physical laws that you say you put your trust in, it seems my argument is more logical than your argument in that at least mine isn't self-contradicting

---

#3: God deceived man to believe what is opposite to the case seems to me a conspiracy. Though however outside of bible quotes you have given me no reason to belief it. So why should I?

there is no deception in the bible quotes - God simply promised Abraham that He would do something to change Abraham's/Sarah's physical abilities (to reproduce after the age of childbearing).  The "contrary to facts" part was that it was contrary to the facts of natural process.  Abraham believed God simply because Abraham reasoned that God had the ability to change his circumstance.

If God wasn't able to step in and change my circumstance, then I wouldn't need God at all for there would be nothing He could do for me.

---

#4: Repeat: Why should I believe you, Jmfsct? Why should I?

I am not saying you should believe the word of jmfcst, but I am saying you should believe the word of God.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

And if you haven't experienced yet that it could be bad to trust 100% biblical texts, the simple facts that it can put you away from what tell you your 5 other senses should warn you. Because, if you have a bad vision of what is the reality, you can't correctly deal with it, and you have more chances to be in danger, or to shut yourself to some constructive perspectives, because you can build nothing serious on a false vision of the reality.

For someone who places his faith in science, you sure spout a lot of conjecture.  Doesn't the logic of science stipulate that you should put your theory to the test?

Yes, yes, and I assume. I already said why I thought like that, and what should, according to me warn you. Well, now, for sure, you do the hell what you want.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And if you haven't experienced yet that it could be bad to trust 100% biblical texts, the simple facts that it can put you away from what tell you your 5 other senses should warn you. Because, if you have a bad vision of what is the reality, you can't correctly deal with it, and you have more chances to be in danger, or to shut yourself to some constructive perspectives, because you can build nothing serious on a false vision of the reality.

For someone who places his faith in science, you sure spout a lot of conjecture.  Doesn't the logic of science stipulate that you should put your theory to the test?

Yes, yes, and I assume. I already said why I thought like that, and what should, according to me warn you. Well, now, for sure, you do the hell what you want.

no reason to get mad.  it's not like I'm affecting you in any way.  Also, when you get a chance, I'd like you to review my test (the portion of my post you ignored):

For someone who places his faith in science, you sure spout a lot of conjecture.  Doesn't the logic of science stipulate that you should put your theory to the test?

So, when, over the last 16 years, has the word of God placed me in danger?  I admit that for the 1st two weeks after I was saved, I lived off of 2 hours of sleep a night before having to go to work, after which I literally sprinted from my car up to my apartment door on the 2nd floor, which included climbing the stairs and only touching every third rung...because I hungered so much to read more of the bible.  One could say that such a long frenzied pace of pure adrenalin was "dangerous", and that I ignored giving my employer a full eighth hours, but God never told me to run at breakneck speed for two straight weeks, I did that on my own.  That was me simply the result of me reacting to being found by God.

In fact, to be perfectly honest, when I first arrived back at work the morning after being saved in 1992, God's Spirit convicted me of my wasted opportunities at work.  The Spirit removed all the noise from my mind and opened the doors of opportunity of success.  But I wanted to do nothing but focus on the events the night before and read more of the bible.

So, even though I was "out of control", it wasn't God's fault.  God was overjoyed that I was overjoyed about him, but God was still prodding me to take control and focus on my responsibilities because he wanted me to be a witness to others, not by talking about God 24 hours a day and ignoring my responsibilities, but to be a witness by being able to manage my responsibilities while at the same time holding onto to the joy that I had found and expressing it to others.  And I had to learn that it's not for the sake of joy that God gave me joy, rather he gave me joy so that I could focus on serving others and in doing so to serve Him.

So, all your concern for my well-being is misplaced.  Because nothing could serve me better than gaining the ability to serve God by obeying his word.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

#1: Bemuse me (on how the laws of thermodynamics requiring a creator).

1) the universe is not infinitely old (Entropy)

2) the universe could not have created itself (Conservation: energy cannot be created or destroyed)

therefore, the mere existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God:

Rom 1:20 "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Neither #1 and #2 explain anything about how there is a need for god, additionally your use of scientific laws when you are seemingly attacking science is amusing to say the least. That the universe could not exist sui generis is a quite obvious fact.

Btw, let's be quite clear that I am not someone to holds onto a strong belief in the power of science especially theorhetical science which is often flawed, and can provide evidence if so desired. But what matters here is what hypothesis is the most likely? I agree that we can't rule out God as a hypothesis, but why should be based our facts on an arbitrary hypothesis. There is as much evidence, given the standard of what consists of evidence without getting into God-as-an-evil-genius-manipulating-the-universe-to-fool-man metaphysics for God's existence (and the Christian God at that..!) as there is for the hypothesis, say, that the universe is a dream wholly created a whole soliditary mind or life force or for Solipcism or for the hypothesis that the Universe was created out of the snot of Odin.. or any possibility. That there is entropy and that the universe can not be - it seems - a purely self-contained or self-created system, and there is still alot of science to be done on this, is not evidence for the existence of the creator. What it is evidence of is that there is some stuff we just don't understand, which of course doesn't mean we can't understand it in the future.

Why we should believe what I will now call the "Genesis Hypothesis" is never made clear by any of the illogical suppositions you make. And quoting the bible is not evidence of anything other than the fact you quote the bible, if I quoted The Origin of Species would that prove evolution? Would quoting The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe prove the existence of magic wardrobes that can enter other worlds? Only a mind unable to grasp any notion of evidence, analysis or comprehension would think that.

You will no doubt say that the Bible has been proven due to archaeology, historical data, etc which is a very selective use of facts, actually given that it involves the analytic method (well... Okay, most of the time) you seem to despise or dismiss so much by your conspiracy-metaphysics. Also that there was a King David, a Soloman's Temple or the Hittities does not prove that there was a great flood, a garden of Eden or the prophecies of The Book of Daniel. For instance take another classic text The Illad: there probably was a Troy and there certainly was a Sparta and possibly a war too, does that automatically mean that Achilles existed and was an invincible warrior except on his heal due to one of his parents being a god or that the war was won after the Trojans stupidity driving a wooden horse into the city thinking the Greeks had fled? Of course not.

And similiarily and finally using your conspiracy-metaphysics I could claim with absolutely no evidence what so ever that, say, Allah or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is manipulating the archaeological evidence or all the evidence that they point towards a Christian God (which is none whatsoever) in order to trick people into believing the false Christian God as a test, as you claim God is doing to us. What is the basis for my claim? None what so ever, which is the exact same basis for your claim that God is doing that to us other than a couple of quotes for the Bible which as far as I am concerned don't prove anything other than their existence and I don't see why on a subjective judgement such as this I should believe you or that your opinion is better than mine, what objective basis would one have for chosing your argument over mine except that you have "the word", which if someone made that judgement would be a completely arbitrary decision based on one's own perception (ie. that they might be believers too).

---

#2: As Dibble said, why should I care about Bible quotes, your argument is completely circular... to show the truth of the bible, you quote the bible and presume that it is true. There is no logic here.

Seeing that my argument agrees with the physical laws that you say you put your trust in, it seems my argument is more logical than your argument in that at least mine isn't self-contradicting

Yet as I have said already you use this laws if convient and that they don't prove your arguments in any way what so ever.

---

#3: God deceived man to believe what is opposite to the case seems to me a conspiracy. Though however outside of bible quotes you have given me no reason to belief it. So why should I?

there is no deception in the bible quotes - God simply promised Abraham that He would do something to change Abraham's/Sarah's physical abilities (to reproduce after the age of childbearing).  The "contrary to facts" part was that it was contrary to the facts of natural process.  Abraham believed God simply because Abraham reasoned that God had the ability to change his circumstance.

If God wasn't able to step in and change my circumstance, then I wouldn't need God at all for there would be nothing He could do for me.

Which is a fantastic way of avoiding the question, of why God would fool us so to believe in things outside of his existence and furthermore, whatever argument you use which seems to involve self-referentially quoting from the bible (and thus is a pseudo-argument) why should I believe it? Or think that it may be? Why should I prefer "the word of God" over the perception of sensory data and the modern accumulation of knowledge (which of course can and does err, quite frequently).

---

#4: Repeat: Why should I believe you, Jmfsct? Why should I?

I am not saying you should believe the word of jmfcst, but I am saying you should believe the word of God.

I am unconvinced.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

#1: Bemuse me (on how the laws of thermodynamics requiring a creator).

1) the universe is not infinitely old (Entropy)

2) the universe could not have created itself (Conservation: energy cannot be created or destroyed)

therefore, the mere existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God:

Rom 1:20 "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Neither #1 and #2 explain anything about how there is a need for god, additionally your use of scientific laws when you are seemingly attacking science is amusing to say the least. That the universe could not exist sui generis is a quite obvious fact.

[I don't have much time...so I will review the rest of your post later.]

---

Thermo

Can’t tell if you agreed with me or not.  At first you seemed to dismiss it, then you seemed to agree

---


“Attack” on Science

I do NOT attack science, never have, never will.  I have no problem with the science of the here and now (things that are repeatable by experiment), but I have a problem with the ASSUMPTIONS that make up “scientific” theories about the origins of things.  The error being the assumption that everything today is the result of a continuous stream of physics interaction.  The assumption totally excludes the possibility of divine intervention.

Example:  The theory stating the moon was formed from a collision of a large object with the earth. 

Could such a collision explain the composition of the moon?  Absolutely!  Is there any evidence of such a collision?  ZERO.  Just because one process (a body collided with earth) is capable of producing the same results doesn’t mean that there aren’t 100 other process capable of doing the same.  In reality, the evidence is NOT conclusive, unless evidence is found of a totally unique nature (like a fingerprint) making the theory extremely likely.

In reality, the creation account of Genesis is extremely high level.  It starts off with the heavens and earth already created, alludes that the earth became formless, then dives down into the a broad account of the formation (or reformation, if it previously became formless).  Even the duration of the “days” is undefined (the sun and moon weren’t created until the fourth day and the 7 day was eternal).

So, the science I trust isn’t based upon assumptions.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with the first bit (but then if God is fooling us then how can we be sure of anything, isn't everything then an assumption) but the highest assumption at all is that God created the Earth and heavens, etc and what do we have to base that on... surely less than that of the Moon-collision hypothesis.

EDIT: Will post more later.

[© tweed]

jmfcst, there is plenty of evidence for the giant impact hypothesis, most from moon rock samples collected during different missions.  if there were no evidence there would not be a near-consensus within the scientific community.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, there is plenty of evidence for the giant impact hypothesis, most from moon rock samples collected during different missions.  if there were no evidence there would not be a near-consensus within the scientific community.

let's hear the evidence...the only "evidence" I know of is that it would explain the isotope composition of the moon and its lack of iron (from a glancing blow that didn't rip into the iron rich core of the protoearth)...the collision theory arose because scientists can't think up another way the moon would have "formed" with a lack of iron and an isotope composition matching the surface of the earth.

[© tweed]

what's wrong with that?  similar collisions have been observed/inferred in other systems.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what's wrong with that?  similar collisions have been observed/inferred in other systems.

nothing wrong with the idea, but it should be treated for what it is - a possible natural explanation.  To say, "this is how the moon was formed" is NOT science, it's conjecture - assuming one possibility is the ONLY possibility.

[© tweed]

which is why it is the giant impact hypothesis

[© tweed]

unless your looking for everything in science to say "ok this is what we think happened but it may have been divine intervention" which would render the whole thing pointless

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

unless your looking for everything in science to say "ok this is what we think happened but it may have been divine intervention" which would render the whole thing pointless

there are MORE natural possibilities than the ones that have been currently thought up.  That's why throughout history scientific "claims" have been found to be bogus and replaced by better informed scientific "claims".

If science would just present the facts: "It appears..." instead of "This theory is fact..." and treat theories as what they are ("theories") instead of "fact".  The only scientific "facts" are experimental results.  But, all to often, scientists extend repeatable "facts" to their theories about the past and claim their theory is a "fact". 

Since the vast majority of scientific theories stated as "fact" have been proven to be wrong, you would think the smugness of scientists would be tempered.  But, alas, it is not. 

If the end result of science is truth, they why have the majority of past scientific theories proven to be false?  If scientists would be truthful, they would admit they are still only scratching the surface of knowledge.

2Tim 3:7-8 "They are always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth."

1Cor 8:1 "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."

[Tetro Kornbluth]

unless your looking for everything in science to say "ok this is what we think happened but it may have been divine intervention" which would render the whole thing pointless

there are MORE natural possibilities than the ones that have been currently thought up.  That's why throughout history scientific "claims" have been found to be bogus and replaced by better informed scientific "claims".

If science would just present the facts: "It appears..." instead of "This theory is fact..." and treat theories as what they are ("theories") instead of "fact".  The only scientific "facts" are experimental results.  But, all to often, scientists extend repeatable "facts" to their theories about the past and claim their theory is a "fact". 

Since the vast majority of scientific theories stated as "fact" have been proven to be wrong, you would think the smugness of scientists would be tempered.  But, alas, it is not. 

If the end result of science is truth, they why have the majority of past scientific theories proven to be false?  If scientists would be truthful, they would admit they are still only scratching the surface of knowledge.

2Tim 3:7-8 "They are always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth."

1Cor 8:1 "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."

Yes, yes, I agree with all that (except the bible quotes) and believe me I am well educated on the problems of scientific knowledge*, but you still haven't given us a reason to choose your particular metaphysical system which invokes the Christian God in a literalist intrepretation of the bible over any other particular one which tries to explain the whole reality. Personally I quite like the idea of a God who is the substance of universe (as opposed to a concious creator) which shifts and moves as according to the rules of that substance. Is that worse than your God? How so?

And you still haven't replied fully to my earlier comment.

* (Btw, alot of experimentation is flawed as well, not all of it obviously, but a significant degree of it, especially in Psychology - even if we consider that a 'science'.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That there is entropy and that the universe can not be - it seems - a purely self-contained or self-created system, and there is still alot of science to be done on this, is not evidence for the existence of the creator. What it is evidence of is that there is some stuff we just don't understand, which of course doesn't mean we can't understand it in the future.

Please.  The 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermo are in every single physical experiment ever conducted and the results have been consistent….which is why it is simply known as “Law”.

In thermo you have a realtime repeatable experiment that you can witness yourself, unlike evolution which can not be repeated and only speculates about the unwitnessed past.  Yet you believe in evolution which you have not witnessed, but you refuse to accept the absolute consistent and repeatable results of thermo that you can witness yourself because you feel you have “more to learn”!!!

I guess the irony of your position is lost upon you – you’re being purposely self-delusional. [place a book mark here…I going to refer to this in the following section]

---

There is as much evidence, given the standard of what consists of evidence without getting into God-as-an-evil-genius-manipulating-the-universe-to-fool-man metaphysics for God's existence …And similiarily and finally using your conspiracy-metaphysics…Which is a fantastic way of avoiding the question, of why God would fool us so to believe in things outside of his existence …

I don’t know why you keep putting up this strawman argument that I believe God is fooling or testing us to believe in evolution.  So let’s me say again, hopefully for the last time:  I believe God has made clear, from the fact that there is a universe at all, that he exists. 

If we are “fooled” in any way, the deception doesn’t come from God or from physical evidence; rather it comes from a deliberate thought process that deliberately removes God from the equation…and sometimes, men are so desperate to remove God from the equation, they ignore direct physical evidence  of God (e.g. your self-delusion statement bookmarked above)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Way to fail to read. I didn't question the laws of Thermodynamics, I merely affirmed that there is entropy and that the universe can't be a purely self generating system.. point of which confirm your point. My point was that you can't put that down to God, the amount of potential causations is infinite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I'm not denying the laws of Thermodynamics, and I agree that Evolution is a hypothesis, though one which seems the most plausiable (even though I have a strong distaste for many evolutionary theorists viz. Dawkins). So what are you arguing about?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

#1: Ah, but you hinted at that in your previous post which I quote earlier
#2: Again the amount of potential hypothetical causations for the universe are infinite and in a rational system have all equal value (that is, we can't know one is more correct or less correct than the other) so the existence of the universe doesn't prove God at all, least of all the Christian God. Unless you wish to argue, like I hinted earlier at, that God is the Universe, but that may sound a bit too like Eastern Mysticism to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That evidence of God being what...?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Way to fail to read. I didn't question the laws of Thermodynamics, I merely affirmed that there is entropy and that the universe can't be a purely self generating system.. point of which confirm your point. My point was that you can't put that down to God, the amount of potential causations is infinite.

such as...

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

#1: Ah, but you hinted at that in your previous post which I quote earlier

No, I flatout rejected the idea earlier, as I did in my previous post, as I am now.

---

#2: Again the amount of potential hypothetical causations for the universe are infinite and in a rational system have all equal value (that is, we can't know one is more correct or less correct than the other)

all have equal value?  then why are you even debating? 

As the band Rush once chimed: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

---

Unless you wish to argue, like I hinted earlier at, that God is the Universe, but that may sound a bit too like Eastern Mysticism to you.

If "God" is the uncoinscience physical universe limited by physical laws, then he would be more useless than a dog, for my dog is limited by the laws of physics, but he is conscience and can at least fetch me the newspaper.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Zeus, Jupiter, Osiris, The Tao, a powerful ideal mind which shapes the universe and is the universe simultaneously, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the congealed remains of Odin's Snot, The mental configuration of my mind transposed onto nothingness, A mad computer machine, beings from another universe which created this universe out of some unknown substance only accessible to themselves, Satan, some unknown 'being' like a God but unknown to the human religions, a delusion of the mass human mind as to prevent it from going insane, Spinoza's God as unitary life force, a fourth form of matter which includes all the elements of the other three and so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, you are contradicting yourself?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm arguing the fundamental nature of the universe is unknowable given our current tools of knowledge, that is all. Any hypothesis is just that a hypothesis, and much harder to show than 'evolution'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have made my choice. Consider me one who likes popping pretensions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

God here is a thing which acts as a universe or the universe, it has no will, it is totality, it is just 'there'. (Why do we believe that there must be someone behind all this? Why can't we see what is there?)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Way to fail to read. I didn't question the laws of Thermodynamics, I merely affirmed that there is entropy and that the universe can't be a purely self generating system.. point of which confirm your point. My point was that you can't put that down to God, the amount of potential causations is infinite.

such as...

Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Zeus, Jupiter, Osiris, The Tao, a powerful ideal mind which shapes the universe and is the universe simultaneously, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the congealed remains of Odin's Snot, The mental configuration of my mind transposed onto nothingness, A mad computer machine, beings from another universe which created this universe out of some unknown substance only accessible to themselves, Satan, some unknown 'being' like a God but unknown to the human religions...

yo, Dorthy, you forgot the Wicked Witch of the West

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Way to fail to read. I didn't question the laws of Thermodynamics, I merely affirmed that there is entropy and that the universe can't be a purely self generating system.. point of which confirm your point. My point was that you can't put that down to God, the amount of potential causations is infinite.

such as...

Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Zeus, Jupiter, Osiris, The Tao, a powerful ideal mind which shapes the universe and is the universe simultaneously, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the congealed remains of Odin's Snot, The mental configuration of my mind transposed onto nothingness, A mad computer machine, beings from another universe which created this universe out of some unknown substance only accessible to themselves, Satan, some unknown 'being' like a God but unknown to the human religions...

yo, Dorthy, you forgot the Wicked Witch of the West

Indeed I did, just where does the time go, now why tell me is that more absurd than God. Personally If he did create the universe, the Christian God has got alot of explaining to do.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Indeed I did, just where does the time go, now why tell me is that more absurd than God. Personally If he did create the universe, the Christian God has got alot of explaining to do.

why does God need to give you an exhaustive explanation beyond what the bible has already explained?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Indeed I did, just where does the time go, now why tell me is that more absurd than God. Personally If he did create the universe, the Christian God has got alot of explaining to do.

why does God need to give you an exhaustive explanation beyond what the bible has already explained?

Because I have no reason to follow the bible... on your logic what makes the Bible better than the Qu'ran precisely?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Indeed I did, just where does the time go, now why tell me is that more absurd than God. Personally If he did create the universe, the Christian God has got alot of explaining to do.

why does God need to give you an exhaustive explanation beyond what the bible has already explained?

Because I have no reason to follow the bible... on your logic what makes the Bible better than the Qu'ran precisely?

66 books
1189 chapters
23,214 verses
774,756 words

that's a boatload of explanation.

The holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

the bible is the word of God.  the Qu'ran the invented words of man.

[pbrower2a]

Indeed I did, just where does the time go, now why tell me is that more absurd than God. Personally If he did create the universe, the Christian God has got alot of explaining to do.

why does God need to give you an exhaustive explanation beyond what the bible has already explained?

Because I have no reason to follow the bible... on your logic what makes the Bible better than the Qu'ran precisely?

66 books
1189 chapters
23,214 verses
774,756 words

that's a boatload of explanation.

The holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

the bible is the word of God.  the Qu'ran the invented words of man.

So it is the authority of sheer volume of verbiage? What a joke!

By the way -- the Qu'ran is a literary masterpiece even when translated into English; its literary majesty is often held as evidence of its Divinity. It is heretical to claim that Mohammed wrote it.

The current edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica comprises far more words than the Bible, yet its publisher hardly pretends that its latest edition comprises all useful knowledge, and does not claim that its word is the final truth. Even so one can learn much from it.

The complete works of William Shakespeare are as a rule far better than the Bible as literature. If I had to choose between knowing the whole of Shakespeare than the whole of the Bible, then I would choose Shakespeare because even without the aesthetic and entertainment value I would know more -- far more -- about the human condition. Never mind that nobody claims that Shakespeare was divine in any theological sense.

...

Jews reject the New Testament as (at the most charitable) irrelevant. Are they less moral as a result?

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Indeed I did, just where does the time go, now why tell me is that more absurd than God. Personally If he did create the universe, the Christian God has got alot of explaining to do.

why does God need to give you an exhaustive explanation beyond what the bible has already explained?

Because I have no reason to follow the bible... on your logic what makes the Bible better than the Qu'ran precisely?

66 books
1189 chapters
23,214 verses
774,756 words

that's a boatload of explanation.

The holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

the bible is the word of God.  the Qu'ran the invented words of man.

So it is the authority of sheer volume of verbiage? What a joke!

By the way -- the Qu'ran is a literary masterpiece even when translated into English; its literary majesty is often held as evidence of its Divinity. It is heretical to claim that Mohammed wrote it.

The current edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica comprises far more words than the Bible, yet its publisher hardly pretends that its latest edition comprises all useful knowledge, and does not claim that its word is the final truth. Even so one can learn much from it.

The complete works of William Shakespeare are as a rule far better than the Bible as literature. If I had to choose between knowing the whole of Shakespeare than the whole of the Bible, then I would choose Shakespeare because even without the aesthetic and entertainment value I would know more -- far more -- about the human condition. Never mind that nobody claims that Shakespeare was divine in any theological sense.

 

you missed the point of all the numbers - he said God had a lot of explaining to do.  So I cited the volume of the bible, not to prove its origin, but rather to prove enough explaination has been given.

Ecc 12:13 "Now all has been heard;
       here is the conclusion of the matter:
       Fear God and keep his commandments,
       for this is the whole duty of man."