Numeric Argument Against the Existence of God

[DeletedUser50332]

Thirdly, "and forced people to believe in science." There is a huge misunderstanding on your part here. Science isn't something you believe in. That's the whole purpose of science, its essence, to no longer believe in anything but proof it. Provide evidence for your claims, falsifiable proof. The entire modern world is build upon this concept, it's how we progressed as humans. It's what sets us apart from the barbaric people from the old ages.

It is interesting to note how many scientists are also religious. I only mention this within a context of highlighting that belief in the two are not, necessarily, incompatable.

 

[DeletedUser31385]

Evolution conflicts with what the Bible says is the problem. Anyways... numbers had to of been defined by God

 

[DeletedUser33530]

It oftentimes stirs up a great debate which exceeds the base question whether a deity exists

moral and ethical arguments that come from this kind of stuff are pretty interesting

People are being taught to believe in evolution even though there is no proof to back it up. By decline of society, I meant that people used to be taught to respect others. Nowadays kids do all sorts of illegal things.

Look i REALLY don't want to debate this. I seriously have no desire too. But I just have to say this. Evolution is not taught as a fact. It is taught as a theory. A theory is not a fact. Anyone who calls it a fact is simply ignorant.

"People used to be taught to respect each other", that's such bs. I'm sorry that is just some major bs right there. You basically ignore, all of human history in that.

Anyways... numbers had to of been defined by God

http://forum.en.grepolis.com/showth...istence-of-God&p=952410&viewfull=1#post952410

 

[DeletedUser]

People are being taught to believe in evolution even though there is no proof to back it up. By decline of society, I meant that people used to be taught to respect others. Nowadays kids do all sorts of illegal things.

It's actually impressive how much misinformation you can pack in such a short post.. lol.

Firstly, regarding evolution, I'll keep it short... You're wrong. Utterly wrong. Case closed. Feel free to create a new thread in DnD with any arguments you can conjure up against evolution and I will gladly rip them to shreds there. For here it's a bit too much Off-Topic.

Secondly, what? Crime rates are at the lowest in history, and they are even lower in secular states with high atheist populations. You can't make claims like that without backing them up.

It is interesting to note how many scientists are also religious. I only mention this within a context of highlighting that belief in the two are not, necessarily, incompatable.

This is true. Scientists are people though and science is not. When I finish uni I'll be a scientist, doesn't mean what I believe has any basis if I don't proof it. No religion has any scientific footing and I don't see that changing anytime soon. You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to make it more than it is, a belief.

Evolution conflicts with what the Bible says is the problem. Anyways... numbers had to of been defined by God

The Bible conflicts with the bible. Even disregarding that, the bible is a work of fiction and should not be seen as more, most christians even agree with that. Fundamentalism is oudated, get with the times.

Look i REALLY don't want to debate this. I seriously have no desire too. But I just have to say this. Evolution is not taught as a fact. It is taught as a theory. A theory is not a fact. Anyone who calls it a fact is simply ignorant.

I like your sentiment but you're actually wrong too

Many people think that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty: above a mere hypothesis but below a law. However, in science the terms are used differently. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is nothing more than a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution, or the atomic theory/theory of relativity for that matter, they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Additionally, evolution is a fact. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
Fossil records and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those macro-transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

 

[DeletedUser]

"Theory" simply acknowledges that it could be wrong.
That is simply how our logic works. No amount of evidence can prove something to be a "law", if you will. One piece of supportive evidence the other way can prove something to be false.

However, based on all of the information we have at current time, there is nothing to suggest that the theory of evolution is not a fact.

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Secondly, what? Crime rates are at the lowest in history, and they are even lower in secular states with high atheist populations. You can't make claims like that without backing them up.

This is true. Scientists are people though and science is not. When I finish uni I'll be a scientist, doesn't mean what I believe has any basis if I don't proof it. No religion has any scientific footing and I don't see that changing anytime soon. You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to make it more than it is, a belief.

The Bible conflicts with the bible. Even disregarding that, the bible is a work of fiction and should not be seen as more, most christians even agree with that. Fundamentalism is oudated, get with the times.

Does crime rate necessarily matter? I mean the crime rate can only account crimes that are reported, couldn't it just be that less crimes are reported? Hypothetically speaking I can also that less crime doesn't matter, as maybe these are more severe crimes that hurt more people, like say terrorism which has been on the rise since 1995 when that graph was originally made. This is not my view on the crime rate, but it can kind of serve as a counterargument to the crime thing.

As for the bible contradicting itself, well it really comes down to reading comprehension. For people to say it conflicts, and have never actually held a bible or read one makes it hypocritical. It was a pic and it has a lot of questions and references about the bible. I skimmed through and immediately saw that #105 reads "How did David kill Goliath?"

Here are the bible verses it references "49 David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the head. The stone embedded itself in his brow and he feel prostrate on the ground."

Ok so in the first sentence, David is acting like a grepo slinger and hurls a stone with a sling. It hits Goliath and he falls face first into the ground.

Next line: "50 Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone; he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword."

Ok so this is basically praising David for being successful in a 1 on 1 against a great warrior, Goliath, who had defeated the best from the opposition.

Last Line and the one that contradicts supposedly: "51 Then David ran and stood over him; with the Philistine's own sword [which he drew from its sheath] he dispatched him and cut off his head."

Goliath is still lying face first in the ground, and David uses Goliath's sword to behead him.

^I fail to see what the atheist who made this found contradicting, that was pretty straight forward English.

I also looked at #100 which asked if God would curse the Earth. Then the bible reference it gave doesn't exist, there is no chapter 4 of Malachi. In Genesis 8:21 it says that God will never punish people again as we are naturally imperfect. So the contradiction just isn't there.

After looking at two of the ones that caught my eye while skimming, and seeing that both are incorrect, I would like to question the credibility of the source

I can agree that some of the stories are fictional, that is pretty obvious. It isn't a history book, it is a book about morals and how they derive from God. To call it fiction is probably not right either, as it is a series of stories made by many different authors. There are historical figures in the Bible, along with some facts on what they did and how they lived.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

the old testament (minus all the miracles for this argument) is actually a pretty decent history book of the Jewish people. It's not perfect of course (but what history book is). For example, the whole exile to Babylon definitely happened. The slavery and then escape from slavery in Egypt probably happened but some dates and names are off depending on which historian you ask. All the wars with the Philistines definitely happened too. The whole David and Goliath was probably an exaggeration though cause what war story isn't.

 

[DeletedUser]

Does crime rate necessarily matter? I mean the crime rate can only account crimes that are reported, couldn't it just be that less crimes are reported? Hypothetically speaking I can also that less crime doesn't matter, as maybe these are more severe crimes that hurt more people, like say terrorism which has been on the rise since 1995 when that graph was originally made. This is not my view on the crime rate, but it can kind of serve as a counterargument to the crime thing.

Yes crime rate matters when I argue against the statement "Nowadays kids do all sorts of illegal things."

And yeah it could be that fewer crimes are being reported or that more people are getting hurt by each individual case but if you claim that you should at least give some indication on which you base those assumption. Otherwise you can claim anything.. What if people are reporting fake crimes? (false accusations are a thing) What if some crime reports are duplicated in the system?

As for the bible contradicting itself, well it really comes down to reading comprehension. For people to say it conflicts, and have never actually held a bible or read one makes it hypocritical. It was a pic and it has a lot of questions and references about the bible. I skimmed through and immediately saw that #105 reads "How did David kill Goliath?"

Here are the bible verses it references "49 David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the head. The stone embedded itself in his brow and he feel prostrate on the ground."

Ok so in the first sentence, David is acting like a grepo slinger and hurls a stone with a sling. It hits Goliath and he falls face first into the ground.

Next line: "50 Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone; he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword."

Ok so this is basically praising David for being successful in a 1 on 1 against a great warrior, Goliath, who had defeated the best from the opposition.

Last Line and the one that contradicts supposedly: "51 Then David ran and stood over him; with the Philistine's own sword [which he drew from its sheath] he dispatched him and cut off his head."

Goliath is still lying face first in the ground, and David uses Goliath's sword to behead him.

^I fail to see what the atheist who made this found contradicting, that was pretty straight forward English.

As you said it's about reading comprehension, and it's quite obvious, to me at least, that dispatched in the second passage is an euphemism for killed, which suggests a different cause of death than the first passage.

I also looked at #100 which asked if God would curse the Earth. Then the bible reference it gave doesn't exist, there is no chapter 4 of Malachi. In Genesis 8:21 it says that God will never punish people again as we are naturally imperfect. So the contradiction just isn't there.

After looking at two of the ones that caught my eye while skimming, and seeing that both are incorrect, I would like to question the credibility of the source

Check your bible version? The image is based on the King James Bible

In which mal 4:6 does exists and does indeed contradict that 'god will never punish people again as we are naturally imperfect.' with a threat: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

So yeah, the credibility seems fine to me. Nevertheless, the inconsistency of the bible was not the main point of my argument, just a somewhat comical sidenote.

I can agree that some of the stories are fictional, that is pretty obvious. It isn't a history book, it is a book about morals and how they derive from God. To call it fiction is probably not right either, as it is a series of stories made by many different authors. There are historical figures in the Bible, along with some facts on what they did and how they lived.

As far as I know nothing in the bible has been verified as truth? I do believe some of the characters have been confirmed to exists at some point in the past, and that some of the passages are based on real-life events, but that doesn't been the authors' stories are accurate in any way. Point is that you can't use the bible to prove those things, specifically the supernatural stuff.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

As you said it's about reading comprehension, and it's quite obvious, to me at least, that dispatched in the second passage is an euphemism for killed, which suggests a different cause of death than the first passage.

I'd honestly like to say who the hell cares but to explain this, I'm going with either translation error and/or they couldn't tell if he died right away (for obvious reasons) so they said dispatched as David was making sure he was dead.

Check your bible version? The image is based on the King James Bible

In which mal 4:6 does exists and does indeed contradict that 'god will never punish people again as we are naturally imperfect.' with a threat: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

I could show alot of reasons why that isn't a contradiction but I'm going to start with the fact that you are using a line that was excluded from the mainstream bible to show the mainstream bible contradicts. That's like using a deleted scene from a movie to show how the movie makes no sense.

actually you could decently argue that that is a mainstream bible version. So instead ill just show how it's not a contradiction. We have "god will never punish people again as we are naturally imperfect". Then we have the out of context "threat". How is threatening punishing? I can tell you I'm going to punish you all I want but until i do it you have not been punished. Also more importantly this isn't even a threat. In context is basically just God bragging about how awesome Jesus will be. Sort of like saying "this will happen or I'll eat my hat". God is essentially saying "Jesus will do all this or I'll contradict myself". He can't contradict himself he's God, that's just showing how certain he is.

As far as I know nothing in the bible has been verified as truth? I do believe some of the characters have been confirmed to exists at some point in the past, and that some of the passages are based on real-life events, but that doesn't been the authors' stories are accurate in any way. Point is that you can't use the bible to prove those things, specifically the supernatural stuff.

i agree with the main point here but alot of history and people of the bible are real. Especially the old testament. New testament doesn't really have any history in it given it spans like 40 years.

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Yes crime rate matters when I argue against the statement "Nowadays kids do all sorts of illegal things."

And yeah it could be that fewer crimes are being reported or that more people are getting hurt by each individual case but if you claim that you should at least give some indication on which you base those assumption. Otherwise you can claim anything.. What if people are reporting fake crimes? (false accusations are a thing) What if some crime reports are duplicated in the system?

Ok but kids do illegal things all the time, I go to a school where there are plenty of kid who are doing illegal things. The only thing is that they are not getting caught, or the people who see them do these things are turning away and pretending its not happening. For example smoking is illegal if you are under 18, I know kids that have been buying cigarettes from adults off the street since 13. In that case the person selling, and the kid smoking are both doing something illegal. I also know kids who have been drinking since 8th grade, or doing drugs by that time. Kids also have races, in which they drive over 60 mph (sorry I don't know the conversion for our Europeans) on local streets. Not to mention stealing and the more typical things. But I am rambling to much off topic so I am sorry for that pebble.

As you said it's about reading comprehension, and it's quite obvious, to me at least, that dispatched in the second passage is an euphemism for killed, which suggests a different cause of death than the first passage.

Check your bible version? The image is based on the King James Bible

In which mal 4:6 does exists and does indeed contradict that 'god will never punish people again as we are naturally imperfect.' with a threat: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

So yeah, the credibility seems fine to me. Nevertheless, the inconsistency of the bible was not the main point of my argument, just a somewhat comical sidenote.

lol The death was all in one passage/story, the supposed contradiction was a line after the first statement. The first time it said he feel to the floor. Sure he wasn't getting up, but that doesn't mean he is dead. He very well could have been stunned and knocked unconscious. Seeing him on the floor, a person would not really know whether he was dead or not anyway if I go with your interpretation. So it could have been precautionary, or it could have been a statement to scare the other Philistines away. I don't interpret it as Goliath being killed in two different ways, unless I see something that makes me see things differently which I really don't in this case.

No I wasn't looking at a King James Bible, so maybe that was my fault. I am pretty sure that isn't a Catholic bible, as the one I was looking at was so I guess that is why it is omitted. Looking at the quote it is referencing the prophet Elijah. It really seems to be Elijah telling people to love one another, and about the suffering a person brings onto themselves when they chose to do evil. I see that as him saying that if you can't love then you will not reach heaven. There are a few good interpretations here.

At the moment I still stand that those two situations were not contradictions. The Old Testament has historical figures, as does the old testament. History recognizes Jesus for starting Christianity, which is something that can also be seen in the bible. Pontius Pilate really was the prefect in Judea and he did have Jesus crucified for treason. I can't think of more off the top of my head, but there are instances that are historical facts. Actually Cheater did a good job finding the history aspect so I guess you can refer to his.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

No I wasn't looking at a King James Bible, so maybe that was my fault. I am pretty sure that isn't a Catholic bible, as the one I was looking at was so I guess that is why it is omitted.

The King James Bible is an Anglican translation done in 1611.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

The King James Bible is an Anglican translation done in 1611.

Yeah and they actually did a great job with it too. Of course it was edited to agree with the new church of England's beliefs but the edits were minor..

 

[DeletedUser]

Kids also have races, in which they drive over 60 mph (sorry I don't know the conversion for our Europeans) on local streets.

Pretty slow if you ask me. Not even 100 km/h.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Pretty slow if you ask me. Not even 100 km/h.

Yeah I got to agree. Those are some weak drag races.

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Pretty slow if you ask me. Not even 100 km/h.

Pretty fast on a small local street, and 60 was putting it lightly. It is usually more like 80 and above, which on a small local street with kids who don't have or just got their license. Yeah it is fast for people who don't know what they are doing, cars have flipped over in the past and gotten wrecked because of these races

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, I've done about 130km/h on local town streets. 80 mph is more reasonable for a race, even if it's in a town.

If it's literally your first time sitting down in front of a wheel, 60 mph is fast.
If you're a 16 year old guy and you've been driving everyday or at least frequently for 6 months or a year, 60 mph is grandma speed.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Pretty fast on a small local street, and 60 was putting it lightly. It is usually more like 80 and above, which on a small local street with kids who don't have or just got their license. Yeah it is fast for people who don't know what they are doing, cars have flipped over in the past and gotten wrecked because of these races

call me when you get to 100 mph and you're running through five houses and six unlucky pedestrians (that definitely had it coming) to slow down

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Not very easy to go 100 in NYC, hard to drive anywhere here that fast with all the traffic. Unless it is night time then maybe, but finding 6 pedestrians to hit in the wee hours of the morning might be the bigger challenge Also I don't race, no need to put others to shame when they are left in the dust against me

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Not very easy to go 100 in NYC, hard to drive anywhere here that fast with all the traffic. Unless it is night time then maybe, but finding 6 pedestrians to hit in the wee hours of the morning might be the bigger challenge Also I don't race, no need to put others to shame when they are left in the dust against me

ok yes 100 mph in NYC is impossible but finding 6 pedestrians at any time of day in NYC isn't hard.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you want to have a light discussion on going fast, talk to me when you've driven 185 km/h+ (115 mph) for any length of time.
For any kind of serious discussion, talk to me after 250 km/h+ (155mph) for a good length of time (longer than just peaking and breaking or coasting).