billybob323

Yes, I'm very well aware of that. I didn't mention that at all. You claimed the Bible was originally written in Latin, which is irrefutably false. There is a Latin version, but it is definitely not the original language of the Bible.

Ummm, what? The Old Testament (basically what you called the "Jewish Bible") was mostly written in Hebrew (makes sense right? Jewish=Hebrew), other parts were written in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Koine Greek (this was before the New Testament was written) as it was the major language of the time. This version of the Bible is called the Septuagint (often abbreviated LXX). During the early years of the Church, various scriptures were translated into Latin. Collectively these are known as the Vetus Latina. But it wasn't until sometime about 382 AD that the entire Bible was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. This version is know as the Vulgate. Honestly, I don't know where you got the idea that the Bible was originally written in Latin. Also, there is no "9-headed immortal hydra" in the Bible. I think you're confusing Greek/Roman mythology for Christianity. To be fair, there is a 7-headed beast mentioned in Revelation, but that book is full of metaphor, allegory, and symbolism. And one last thing, I disagree with Chandra that the Bible describes a spaceship.

Ah, ok. That's good to know. Thanks.

I'm pretty sure you can start from any floor you have unlocked when you start again.

Don't log out. If your team is still in the dungeon, it let's you rejoin them. But if you're playing solo and log out, you lose all your progress. Major flaw in the system in my opinion, because you lose your progress if you get disconnected too, which means you don't get any XP no matter how long you've been in that dungeon.

Well, obviously, different religions are going to have different ideas of a god or gods, so "God in general" doesn't really work. And other than what I just posted, I really don't know what to tell you about why God would value those things. Maybe He just got bored? :lol: [joking]

I'm trying to avoid religious debates on TIF now, but since you claimed it's only out of curiosity... If you're wondering specifically about the Christian God, it's very simple really. He wants us to bring honor and glory to Him, simply by accepting His love, enjoying His creation, and thanking and praising Him for it. That's it. "But why humans?" you might ask. "Why let us turn out the way we did?" Well, supposedly God created angels long before He created the earth and humans. Angels know for a fact that God exists because they have personal contact with Him, and they must obey Him or be cast out. In a sense, angels have no free will. So, God made humans different. He gave us free will and created the universe in such a way that we can choose to love Him or not. Honestly, wouldn't you rather have someone choose to love you than be forced to be with you whether they love you or not? That's the whole point. You don't have to believe it, but you asked so there's your answer. Now, if you're wondering about the god(s) from another religion, you'd have to ask someone else.

Definitely the pathfinding update for me too. With my craptastic internet connection, I always ran 3 steps forward, 2 steps back.

Quick find code: 15-16-313-60056182

92-99 Strength is a lot of zombies. I have no doubt you'll gather enough charms for 50-57 Summoning. You'll probably get much higher than that if you collect all charms and not just blues or something.

I think it sent them pretty far back in time. So it was probably Dr. Rush's or Lt. Scott's remains that were found. That's how I explained it to myself anyway. :P I'm not a big fan of time travel in TV series, cause usually the plot ends up really confusing. My friends and I agree that there needs to be a recurring enemy, like the Ori and the Wraith were. It seem to be picking up pretty good since the first episode though, in my opinion.

That's fine. Apology accepted. I've read about the god of the gaps argument, and I agree it just doesn't fly. But in my opinion it's because it implies that the gaps should get smaller as our scientific understanding increases, thus giving us less and less need for a god. What I have found through some research is that the gaps are actually getting bigger. So my God can't be just a "god of the gaps" but must be God of everything. True, science will never be able to prove God 100%, but that's where faith comes in. Trust stemming from knowledge/evidence that you have gained. Like I said later in that post, my faith/belief in God is supported by evidence that I have found, but not dependent on it. I will say right now that, yes, I believe in God because it feels right to me. I have done, and continue to do, quite a bit of research and have gained what I feel is evidence in favor of God (that's the 'supported by evidence' part), and I also believe that I will never find substantial evidence to disprove God (that's the faith part). If you look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion, that's fine, that's your right, that's just how God created our universe- that we can have a choice. I'm not trying to force this on you or "pervert science", I'm just trying to explain my view and why I believe it. I don't see how it's a juvenile analogy. It shows that you examine the chair for signs that it can support your weight. If you find substantial evidence that it can support you, that's belief. Faith is trusting that it won't break when you sit on it. If you just believe that the chair can support you but never actually try to sit on it, then you have no faith in the chair. Yes, sometimes a chair will break when you sit on it even though you believed it wouldn't. That just means the chair was not worthy of your faith. But that doesn't fit into the analogy because God is worthy of our faith. He will never fail when we rely on Him.

Thanks gorgoroth. I know that no one arguing against me here is doing so out of curiosity, but with the sole goal of proving me wrong and themself right. It just makes me feel better that at least one person got a good use out of what I'm saying. A theory that is actually in the Bible. After eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve suddenly realized their nudity was shameful and tried to cover up.

That's exactly what He did. He created everything in such a way that we can attempt to explain it using the reasoning power that He gave us. He did this because it allows us to choose Him. I agree that it's pointless to answer a scientific question by saying "God did it." But that doesn't mean the scientific method can't lead us to the conclusion that God did it. You said it yourself that everything is created in such a way that god is not required, and that means he can be ruled out. Whoa, I DEFINITELY did not say that. I said that God created the universe in such a way that we can attempt to explain it without Him. Please do not shove words into my mouth. As for faith, I think you are defining it wrong. Faith is not a blind belief in something. Faith is actually just trust, and your faith is only as worthy as what you're putting that faith into. I like this metaphor that I found: As for my faith, my faith is definitely not a "blind" faith. But it's not dependent on evidence either. Rather, it is supported by evidence with trust mixed in. And I disagree that science can not lead us to the conclusion that God did it. Eventually it can get to the point that a supernatural being is the only logical explanation left. Granted, supernatural beings aren't testable, but if it's the only logical explanation left, why do you need to test it? I had a good, long chat with a friend of mine (we are both Christians, and he is studying to be a minister) a few days ago about faith and if it's possible to prove God with science. It got to the point where I asked him what's the difference between belief in something and faith in something. He just looked at me and, with all seriousness, said "Heaven and Hell." So, yes, faith is a very big virtue for me now.

That's exactly what He did. He created everything in such a way that we can attempt to explain it using the reasoning power that He gave us. He did this because it allows us to choose Him. I agree that it's pointless to answer a scientific question by saying "God did it." But that doesn't mean the scientific method can't lead us to the conclusion that God did it.

Something tells me you didn't actually read the whole article. Yes, it makes agruments against the Quran and LDS scriptures, and yes no one on this thread has argued in favor of those. But it did not say the answer to "what caused the universe?" is "I don't know." It actually lists several claims that are in the Bible about the creation of the universe and explains how those claims have been proven true in recent years by astrology/cosmology. It then lists several claims that are in the Bible about the earth in general and explains how those claims have also been proven true in recent years by archeology, geology, etc. This is far from a simple "I don't know." Why can't "there must be absolute truth" extend beyond "the only absolutely truth is that there aren't any other absolute truths"? That's special pleading, and it doesn't make any sense. If there is one absolute truth, and that absolute truth claims that there are no other absolute truths, what makes that one truth an absolute truth among a myriad of non-absolute truths? About the idea that there could be grains of truth in other religions, yes there could. You could probably find a "grain" of truth in almost anything if you look hard enough. But if you're looking for a religion to follow, why would you choose one that you know is only partially true? After all, anyone looking for a religion would most likely know how important a choice it is and would want to be certain that their choice can stand up to many different tests. About the prophecies, you also haven't studied the Bible enough to really know about them, as you admitted in an earlier post. There are hundreds of prophecies in the Bible, some of them fulfilled, some of them not yet. By the way, an unfulfilled prophecy is definitely not the same as a false prophecy. But the most important prophecies in the Bible are the ones that are about Jesus, and all of those were fulfilled. Actually, a group calculated the possibility of all the prophecies made about the Messiah being fulfilled by one person, and it turned out to be much greater than the number of people who are alive and who have ever lived many times over. Yes, some people can accept "we don't know yet", but other people may prefer something that can and does offer a rational explanation. Actually, "atheism" by definition just says "no" about the existence of god, not even leaving open the possibility of "yes". But about your comment, you're right that atheism doesn't say much, if anything, about morality, and maybe you're right that that's not its purpose. But just ignoring it doesn't make the sense of "oughtness" that humans have go away. You know, the thing that tells you "I ought to help that cripple who tripped and accidentally threw his crutch across the room" or "I ought not beat up that old lady and take her money." You will never hear your pet (or any other animal) say "I ought not knock over that potted plant because I might get in trouble." That sense of "oughtness" is unique to humans, so where did it come from? Some people being reincarnated while others going to heaven/hell would mean multiple, often contradicting, religions must be true. As discussed elsewhere (namely the second article), this can not be true, on the premise of absolute truth. And what exactly do you think is silly about the law of non-contradiction? To accept contradictions as truth is to live in absurdity. Maybe I just lost track of all the quotes, but where did you prove it possible? I see where you've declared it, but not where you've proved it. Jesus fulfilled prophecies and performed miracles in order to prove to those around him that he is who he says he is. So, in a way, there is necessity. Actually, the article says Buddhism "provides no answers about the ultimate meaning of existence." Existence isn't necessarily the same thing as life. A piece of chalk exists, but it is not alive. That would make it wrong to anyone who believes heaven/nirvana/a good reincarnation is based on how many good deeds you did in your life, which is most other religions. Again... there can't. As it says in the article, "If there is 'no one right religion, way, or truth for all,' then why is this rule universal?" I saw the words "Some say that Jesus was a myth," I don't know where you saw "most non-christians think Jesus doesn't exist" in that article. I'm not familiar with the phrase "Chinese whispers" so I don't really know what you meant in that sentence. Archeology has proven that the four gospels that tell about Jesus' life were written no later than 70 A.D. and probably before, more than enough time for four men to have spent three years travelling with Jesus and then a number of years after the crucifixion/resurrection writing about their travels. The only laws I saw mention of in that article were the law of gravity (in the analogy, which I admit is a bit weird), the law that we are all going to die (if you would like to argue against that, be my guest, I will wait patiently), and God's laws (which, granted, if you are an athiest you will think are pointless anyway. But you have to admit- if everyone always followed all of the ten commandments, the world would be a much more peaceful place. Too bad that's impossible, except for God). But the point of the article was to show what each of four different religions says about death and what it offers after death. It is a fact that we are all going to die, and a lot of people are afraid of death so it is no surprise some seek comfort or a hope of a better life after death. Hinduism says we will all reincarnate and what we reincarnate as depends on whether we were good or bad. I can see how that could offer some comfort, but it's not much of a guarantee that you will enjoy your reincarnated life. Buddhism just says life and death are some kind of an illusion, which doesn't make much sense to me so I shouldn't comment on it. Islam says the number of your good deeds will be compared to the number of your bad deeds, and you will be sent to either heaven or hell accordingly. This, also, doesn't offer much of a guarantee. How are you to know you've consistently done more good deeds than bad deeds throughout your entire life? Christianity, on the other hand, is unique from all other religions in that it says no one is able to reach heaven by their own effort. The only way you can reach heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior and letting the Holy Spirit work in you, and if you do that, it is a guarantee. So I think you focused too much on the analogy (which I admit was a poor choice) and skipped everything it said about death and what different religions say will happen afterward.

The point of that article is to explain that not all religions can be true because most contradict each other and to show how the Bible does not contradict itself. That is why I posted three other links and not just that one. Which prophets are you talking about and what exactly did they get wrong? Edit: Out of curiosity, does he provide any credentials or any reason why we should believe he is experience in the subject?

Well, if you are truly interested and have an open mind, here are some links you can look through: Why Christianity? Why believe in Christianity over all other religions? to the Rational Skeptic Why Christianity vs Other Faiths As for the videos, I can't watch them because I have terrible internet connection. But I just wanted to say I seriously doubt it would "end this debate once and for all" because there will always be people who will disagree, or believe whatever they want, or claim there still isn't enough evidence, or claim there were misinterpretations or human error, etc.

I hope you're not implying that I said the big bang is not true, because I never said that. I do believe in the big bang. It's "before" the big bang where I differ with most people in this thread. Bible Says Pi = 3 Pi in the Bible? Does the Bible Contain a Mathematically Incorrect Value for "Pi"? Does the Bible Call a Bat a Bird? Is a Bat a Bird? Isn't the Bible Full of Errors?

Well, for one thing, because scientists/astrologists/cosmologists agree that the "time" dimension (and therefore causality) as we know it today was created by the big bang. Also, that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. There are theories that say a new and different "time" dimension is created with each "big bang/big crunch cycle". I was trying to explain why believing in an eternal God is rational. This, however, is exactly the point I was trying to make- that it is always a possibility. Thank you for catching it.

I dropped out of this debate a while ago because my posts were ignored by all but one person. But now I have a few points I would like to bring up that can hopefully be used by both sides at least somewhat. First, (I think someone brought this up already, but here it is again because it's important) the scientific method demands that a hypothesis is testable and can be repeatedly tested with the same result, and due to the nature of history, historical events (no matter how far back or recent you are trying to go) are not repeatable. For example (this is only an example so please don't go crazy over this), prove to me, using the scientific method, that Napoleon Bonaparte existed. The scientific method demands that Napoleon Bonaparte be repeatable in order to be proven, yet history is not repeatable and it is impossible to travel back in time. Sure you could dig up what you claim to be his remains, but I could easily just say those are someone else's remains. You could say that there are numerous historical writings about him, but I could say they were all written by superstitious and arrogant fools just trying to come up with a good story. You could say that almost everyone believes he existed because of all the evidence, but I could claim that's because everyone who believed differently was killed by some radical group. The point is, just because you say it happened or say it didn't happen, no matter how much evidence you provide, the scientific method demands it be repeatable and we can not know for sure unless we travel back in time, which is impossible. This leads me to my second point, something I brought up early in the debate but was ignored. It is very possible that in the sciences that make guesses about the past, most conclusions are just a different biased opinion from the same scientific data. For example, light has been observed to behave as both a wave and a particle. There have been many tests to prove this. Scientists concluded that the behavior of light is dependent on the test you set up. If you set up a test to prove light behaves like a wave, it will behave like a wave. Likewise, if you set up a test to prove light behaves like a particle, it will behave like a particle. Either way, light is still light and testing it to be a wave or a particle does not change what it is. Now, about the "where did God come from?" argument, allow me to give an explanation. There are a couple ways to interpret these. First is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence. Second is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created. Granted: if you are an atheist, you will not accept this. If you believe the Bible is a bunch of crap, you will not accept this. But you can not say that people who believe in an eternal God are irrational, as this is clearly sound logic. Also, I've noticed quite a few people call creationists close-minded. If you yourself are truly open-minded, you should at least accept the possibility of something being supernatural.

First off, I also respect your right to form and defend an opinion, and I would like to thank you for not turning this into a flame war (as often happens on the internet) and for challenging me (for if I was not challenged, I would not grow stronger). Now then, like I said you are the first to tell me about the big crunch theory so there are still some things that confuse me. I do not believe that the big crunch is an integral part of the big bang, as the big bang just states that the universe exploded from singularity. I've never heard anyone else say it also involves all matter being pulled back into a singularity. I understand thermodynamics, I understand conservation of mass/energy, I understand inertia. What I do not understand is how mass/energy after decomposing (per second law of thermodynamics) can regain "usefulness" or a higher form of energy after being reintroduced with other decomposed mass. Take a dead plant for example. A dead plant is composed of the same mass, cells, particles, etc of a living plant. Yet because it is dead, it can not grow and flourish like living plant, despite still having the cells that make photosynthesis possible. It can only decompose. Are you proposing that reintroducing this decomposed clump of matter with the sunlight and water that a living plant requires to grow will somehow cause the dead plant to un-decompose? No, in fact the moisture and sunlight only cause it to decompose faster. I'm sorry if I still misunderstand. Thermodynamics state that all mass/energy breaks down. Nowhere have I heard anyone logically claim that you can make a higher form by combining lesser forms. Please tell me the wars to which you are referring and I will tell you how they were far more based on politics and the foolishness of man than the will of God. Omniscience is simply the ability to know everything. God knows everything, including all the choices we will make. This does not mean He forces us to do something other than what we choose, He simply knows what we are going to choose. Agnostics believe that humans do not have the sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or denial of a proposition. I was trying to say that they are too sure that there can not be enough evidence.

Have you never heard that the mere observation of an experiment changes its outcome? Ahh, the quantum theory... I'm glad you're at least open to the factor of human error.

Agnostics and skeptics are also too sure of themselves, in my opinion. In a way, yes, I suppose. There are other options and possibilities. However, what really matters is what we choose to believe before we die. And if proving God becomes successful through arguing for intelligent design, it is usually only a few more steps to convince that God is worthy of our love and praise. Because God created us to love Him. And you can't truly love something unless you choose to love it. This is why God gave us free will. If the Bible had been written in such a way that no one could ever possibly hope to argue against it, how would that be choosing to love God? I disagree. If you look at all possible explanations of the existence of the universe rationally, you will find that because something exists now, there must be at least one thing that has always existed because something can not be created from nothing. What that thing is differs with different theories, but as I said above: if proving God becomes successful through arguing for intelligent design, it is usually only a few more steps to convince that God is worthy of our love and praise. Again, as I said above: because something exists now, there must be at least one thing that has always existed. It is perfectly rational that something is self-existent, as opposed to something that is self-created which is absurdity. This can be traced all the way back to at least Aristotle and his theory of "the unmoved mover." Also, there could never have once been nothing, something can not be made from nothing: ex nihilo, nihil fit. I suggest you read up on two things: Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am") and something called "the basic reliability of sense perception." Key word in the second is "basic." I partially disagree. Good and evil does not exist in the "wild of nature" because animals were not given free will and act solely on instinct. I disagree that the concept of good and evil is human invention. As Drags8696 pointed out a while ago, sin existed before the fall of man and most likely even before the creation of man when Satan rebelled against God. If you do not believe in God, however, I can see why you would think evil is a human invention. Is it not possible in the sciences that make "theories" and "guesses" about the past based on what we see today that all conclusions are simply a different biased interpretation of the same scientific data? I have long believed that it most certainly is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the entire big crunch theory is based on the notion that gravity is continuously trying to pull the universe back into the point of singularity. This is obviously something that can't be tested, and we obviously can't see it now because the universe is currently expanding and it will likely be (should this theory be true) another billions of years before it begins to contract. I must also say that this is the first time I have ever heard of the big crunch theory, so I am simply not experienced with it enough to debate any further. Even if I could, however, you seem to be very firm in your belief. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to agree that because something exists now, there must be something that has always existed. Obviously this something is not man or anything that man can build or any tangible body in the universe, based on the second law of thermodynamics. But I think we agree that there must be something that keeps this all going. Is it not possible, then, that I simply call this something "God" and you call it "Matter X" or whatever? If that's the case, then we are simply arguing semantics. I do challenge you, however, to show me one thing in this universe that is eternal and is not "the universe itself." If, as the law of thermodynamics says, all matter decomposes into something completely useless before the next big crunch, what then does the next big bang have to work with? Infinite simply means it has no beginning and it has no end. In reference to the universe, you said yourself that this universe had a beginning about 15 billion years ago, so this universe is not infinite. The infinite cycle of universes is another matter though. Also, I never said God exists "outside" the universe. God simply transcends the universe, which means he is on a higher plane of being. That subject, however, is a matter of ontology. Simply because He created us in His image for the sole purpose of loving and glorifying Him. But seeing as you do not believe in God, I can see how you would have trouble understanding this.