Well the Southern Baptists declared the bible a true factual word of God.

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

You've already made that point.

Sure, but it's a thought experiment.

Okay. There would be no way for me to know the point. A mortal mind cannot grasp the Creator.

Why couldn't this be a computer simulation? If it were a computer simulation then it could have been created 10 minutes ago.

Which would mean that none of this is real which would be logical.

My point still stands. We couldn't know.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

You've already made that point.

Sure, but it's a thought experiment.

Okay. There would be no way for me to know the point. A mortal mind cannot grasp the Creator.

Why couldn't this be a computer simulation? If it were a computer simulation then it could have been created 10 minutes ago.

Which would mean that none of this is real which would be logical.

My point still stands. We couldn't know.

We wouldn't exist.

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

You've already made that point.

Sure, but it's a thought experiment.

Okay. There would be no way for me to know the point. A mortal mind cannot grasp the Creator.

Why couldn't this be a computer simulation? If it were a computer simulation then it could have been created 10 minutes ago.

Which would mean that none of this is real which would be logical.

My point still stands. We couldn't know.

We wouldn't exist.

Okay.

 

[surada]

Reason number 1 why some on the left wants to get rid of the electoral college, they want to control the folks who don't believe what they do

In 2012 Trump railed against the Electoral College.

 

[DudleySmith]

Move on and get laws enacted...laws that we have to abide by or get jailed.

Ah so you're some sort of sociopath deviant who feels all oppressed n stuff. Most of the Jesus haters are.

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained."-Stirling S. Newberry

Of course, the Founders offer you no solace, either, even the 'Libertarian' ones don't like degenerates:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.


Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

 

[strollingbones]

Why are yall acting like this is current news

 

[surada]

so you are just repeating what your told,,

The creation stories were different. Judah's was not the same as Israel's.. they were written for Bronze Age people.

The stories were first cobbled together during the reign of King Omri when he was trying to reunite Israel and Judea.

 

[justaschmuck9]

Absolutely accurate in every aspect. According to Genesis the earth was created in seven days. That belief held for hundreds of years until geological evidence stated otherwise then they backtracked a little by saying things like..well maybe a day meant a million years. I mean nowhere in the bible are the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras even mentioned, each of which spanned millions of years. I mean which came first, Adam and Eve or the dinosaurs....Is the Bible Historically Accurate?

You cannot always take the Bible literally. The Original Church taught this, that there are many different styles of writing in the Bible.. or at least 4 anyway: the literal, the allegorical and.. frankly, I cannot at this time recall what the others are called but the point is that not all the Bible is absolutely literal.

Again, this is what happens when people go astray from the Original Church Christ founded (which has dealt w/ this kind of problem for centuries)

 

[Clyde 154]

Question? If God could create a man (Adam)..........fully developed with all the characteristics of a male human being that exists today as having gone through all the stages of human development in order to compare to present Adam as a full grown person.......why could this same God not not create "anything" other than a man with the characteristics of having natural development? In other words......either God has this capacity in being the Omnipotent, Ominscient, Omnipresent creator of the Universe and everthing in it and did create as described in the inspired book of Genesis, or you refuse to accept God as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator.....and place limits upon God as determined by the reasoning of man.

Its not difficult, you either accept God as the inspired source of the Word of God or you don't.........and attempt to rationalize the creation model described in Genesis (a literal 7 day event) as an allegory.......when the text is not stated to be symbolic in the least when read in context. Man attempts to make God fit man's ideology in attempting to mold theorethical science and scripture together by declaring everything that does not equal man's ideology with that which is stated in the Word of God....as allegorical, symblic, etc.,

God's ways and methods are way past the ability of any man to comprehend fully. The only will of God we understand is that which He has choosen to reveal to mankind. I prefer to take God at His word.....and accept that God has the ability to do as He wishes.......to determine the beginning from the ending, even before the worlds were created. (Isa. 55:8-9, Job 36:26, Deut. 29:29, Job 5:9, Job 11:7)

 

[themirrorthief]

Absolutely accurate in every aspect. According to Genesis the earth was created in seven days. That belief held for hundreds of years until geological evidence stated otherwise then they backtracked a little by saying things like..well maybe a day meant a million years. I mean nowhere in the bible are the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras even mentioned, each of which spanned millions of years. I mean which came first, Adam and Eve or the dinosaurs....Is the Bible Historically Accurate?

who makes you read the bible anyhow...just curious

 

[themirrorthief]

Any Blacks who worship a White god have to be retarded.

God is love, thats all you need to know...forget the dogma, it only gives preachers jobs, nothing more

 

[surada]

You cannot always take the Bible literally. The Original Church taught this, that there are many different styles of writing in the Bible.. or at least 4 anyway: the literal, the allegorical and.. frankly, I cannot at this time recall what the others are called but the point is that not all the Bible is absolutely literal.

Again, this is what happens when people go astray from the Original Church Christ founded (which has dealt w/ this kind of problem for centuries)

Poetry, metaphors, laws.

 

[surada]

Question? If God could create a man (Adam)..........fully developed with all the characteristics of a male human being that exists today as having gone through all the stages of human development in order to compare to present Adam as a full grown person.......why could this same God not not create "anything" other than a man with the characteristics of having natural development? In other words......either God has this capacity in being the Omnipotent, Ominscient, Omnipresent creator of the Universe and everthing in it and did create as described in the inspired book of Genesis, or you refuse to accept God as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator.....and place limits upon God as determined by the reasoning of man.

Its not difficult, you either accept God as the inspired source of the Word of God or you don't.........and attempt to rationalize the creation model described in Genesis (a literal 7 day event) as an allegory.......when the text is not stated to be symbolic in the least when read in context. Man attempts to make God fit man's ideology in attempting to mold theorethical science and scripture together by declaring everything that does not equal man's ideology with that which is stated in the Word of God....as allegorical, symblic, etc.,

God's ways and methods are way past the ability of any man to comprehend fully. The only will of God we understand is that which He has choosen to reveal to mankind. I prefer to take God at His word.....and accept that God has the ability to do as He wishes.......to determine the beginning from the ending, even before the worlds were created. (Isa. 55:8-9, Job 36:26, Deut. 29:29, Job 5:9, Job 11:7)

I think the story of Adam and Eve is about when the hunter-gatherers stopped depending on God's providence and became agricultural societies. In Islam God forgave Adam and Eve so there's no original sin.

 

[justaschmuck9]

God is love, thats all you need to know...forget the dogma, it only gives preachers jobs, nothing more

not at all true. And there are as many definitions of "love" as there are people in the world.. We humans cannot even comprehend what human love really is.. much less the love of God.. except taht Catholic experience it in a tangible (very real ) way when in the Presence of Christ, as provided through
Transubstantiation (Mt 28:20... Jn 6:27-)

 

[justaschmuck9]

Poetry, metaphors, laws.

mataphors maybe... not sure about the others

 

[surada]

mataphors maybe... not sure about the others

Song of Solomon is poetry. Jonah is a comic novella. Daniel is a history of Antiochus IV Epiphanies and the Maccabean revolt.

 

[Clyde 154]

I think the story of Adam and Eve is about when the hunter-gatherers stopped depending on God's providence and became agricultural societies. In Islam God forgave Adam and Eve so there's no original sin.

As I stated.........you either believe in the God of Creation and accept His divine word as truth (literally) or you do not, its that simple. Do you know what happens to the "luke warm" who attempt to serve both man and God? "So then because you are lukewarm; and neither hot nor cold; I will spue thee out of my mouth." -- Rev. 3:16

As the Aposlte stated, today we are experencing this divine prophecy from the Holy Spirit of God made in the 1st century, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God -- Romans 10:17, thus sound doctrine is established by one source, the word of God, again scripture is described as a source of doctrine, 2 Tim. 3:16-17)...........but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves, teachers having itching ears; " -- 2 Tim. 4:3

Anyone: Present the TEXT found in Genesis (in any acceptable translation) that defines the creation model as described in context........as being alleghorical or symbolic, as do other sections in scripture that are self defined as "signified"/symbolism.....or parable in nature. There is no such text in Genesis.

If is my God is capable of Creating the first man in a fully developed adult state..........just what would stop Him from creating an adult earth after a short creation period of time? After all........we all find our existence within the God of creation. God does not live in us.........we live in God, and we reflect His image thru the spirit that He has given us in being able to determine truth from fiction, right from wrong.....etc., we are the offspring of God, not nature. God is never far from any of us, regardless of where you grope and search. (Acts 17:26-28)

 

[surada]

As I stated.........you either believe in the God of Creation and accept His divine word as truth (literally) or you do not, its that simple. Do you know what happens to the "luke warm" who attempt to serve both man and God? "So then because you are lukewarm; and neither hot nor cold; I will spue thee out of my mouth." -- Rev. 3:16

As the Aposlte stated, today we are experencing this divine prophecy from the Holy Spirit of God made in the 1st century, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God -- Romans 10:17, thus sound doctrine is established by one source, the word of God)...........but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves, teachers having itching ears; " -- 2 Tim. 4:3

Anyone: Present the TEXT found in Genesis (in any acceptable translation) that defines the creation model as described in context........as being allegorhical or symbolic, as do other sections in scripture that are self defined as "signified"/symbolism.....or parable in nature. There is no such text in Genesis.

I think you should wear your faith like a loose garment. ... Scripture was never meant to be taken literally.

 

[justaschmuck9]

Song of Solomon is poetry. Jonah is a comic novella. Daniel is a history of Antiochus IV Epiphanies and the Maccabean revolt.

I say Jonah happened/

In the 1860s a man was found alive in the belly of a whale..

 

[justaschmuck9]

I think you should wear your faith like a loose garment. ... Scripture was never meant to be taken literally.

not true

most of it was meant to be taken literally