Creation According to Genesis

[Muravyets]

Nope, why do you think God makes such use of it? It's an excellent way to keep your followers mystified.

Only for people who really enjoy running in circles.

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

Bullshit. Sorry, but there's no better word for that statement. It is too full of bias, insults against people who believe differently than you, ignorance of how science works, ignorance of what scientists believe, and ignorance of what "cherrypicking" -- as well as a defensive tone of trying to claim that you are justified in using invalid means to make a bad argument on the grounds of "they do it too!" (which they don't).

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

[Blouman Empire]

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God

I've read them all and they all fail for one simple reason.

1) Stephen Hawking has shown that it is logically possible for there to be a universe without a god.

2) A universe without a god is logically simpler than a universe with one.

3) Therefore, there can be no proof of god on the basis of pure logic. To show that god exists, you must present empirical evidence.

Occam's Razor?

[Maurepas]

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God

I've read them all and they all fail for one simple reason.

1) Stephen Hawking has shown that it is logically possible for there to be a universe without a god.

2) A universe without a god is logically simpler than a universe with one.

3) Therefore, there can be no proof of god on the basis of pure logic. To show that god exists, you must present empirical evidence.

Occam's Razor?

Considering that, A) That is also untrue, as that is not always the case...and B) the Number of natural phenomenon that would have to be denied and reexplained to make Genesis work literally, it is by far the more complicated position to defend, logically...

Although infinitely easier to defend illogically, of course,

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Occam's Razor?

Partially. The whole point was that one cannot prove god on the basis of pure logic, because nothing in logic dictates that god is necessary. Thus, the only way to show that god exists is to actually provide empirical evidence for god.

[Blouman Empire]

What did any of that have to deal with Genesis?

You do know what Genesis is right?

You know, rib-woman, talking snake, magical tree...ringin a bell?

Your image was directed at why the Christians believe Jesus came to Earth, that didn't really address the other posters post.

[Almajoya]

My comment regarding your emotion was in response to this post:

No, the only worshipper who needs to be wrong is you.

This is a personal attack, which is never used in debate. Trust me, I am well versed in detecting emotion.

A) No, it is not a personal attack. If you are so well-versed in detecting things, maybe you should try detecting some facts. If you're so concerned with what's true, maybe you should try being more truthful yourself. You made up the claim of emotionalism. And you are indirectly attacking me by suggesting that I am not telling the truth when I correct you.

B) You point to the existence of the Bible as proof of your claims about what other people thought about the Bible? I'm sorry, but you really do fail at this point.

A) When engaging in debate, one does not suggest that one's opponent is a liar. Everything outlined in red does not belong in this conversation. We are debating the accuracy of Genesis, not whether my facts are wrong. If you want to prove that my facts are wrong, you do that by introducing real evidence, which everyone in this thread has done but you. You are emotionally attached to this subject, whether you have ahd some experience with God or some Christian who hurt or offended you.

B) Yes, I do. If people did not believe the things that are written down in the Bible, why would they have written them down?

By the way, the Bible is relatively new. The books that comprise it are records compiled from other sources- letters, court records, geneologies, etc. The authors were not co-writing a book, they were writing down what they saw for the record (or in some cases, because God told them to).

[Blouman Empire]

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God

I've read them all and they all fail for one simple reason.

1) Stephen Hawking has shown that it is logically possible for there to be a universe without a god.

2) A universe without a god is logically simpler than a universe with one.

3) Therefore, there can be no proof of god on the basis of pure logic. To show that god exists, you must present empirical evidence.

Occam's Razor?

Considering that, A) That is also untrue, as that is not always the case...and B) the Number of natural phenomenon that would have to be denied and reexplained to make Genesis work literally, it is by far the more complicated position to defend, logically...

Although infinitely easier to defend illogically, of course,

Oh I thought UT was talking about the existence of God not about whether Genesis should be taken literally.

[Maurepas]

What did any of that have to deal with Genesis?

You do know what Genesis is right?

You know, rib-woman, talking snake, magical tree...ringin a bell?

Your image was directed at why the Christians believe Jesus came to Earth, that didn't really address the other posters post.

Part of the image was, the points I mentioned from it were directed at his posts, as they are impossible,

[Almajoya]

Nope, why do you think God makes such use of it? It's an excellent way to keep your followers mystified.

Only for people who really enjoy running in circles.

Also known as followers. I know I personally am in one hell of a circle.

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

Bullshit. Sorry, but there's no better word for that statement. It is too full of bias, insults against people who believe differently than you, ignorance of how science works, ignorance of what scientists believe, and ignorance of what "cherrypicking" -- as well as a defensive tone of trying to claim that you are justified in using invalid means to make a bad argument on the grounds of "they do it too!" (which they don't).

Everyone cherrypicks. Evangelists, scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, you, me. We see what we want to see, we remember what we want to remember, we reject what is unfamiliar or inexplicable for what supports our ideas and morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

[Blouman Empire]

Occam's Razor?

Partially. The whole point was that one cannot prove god on the basis of pure logic, because nothing in logic dictates that god is necessary. Thus, the only way to show that god exists is to actually provide empirical evidence for god.

Indeed but I'm not a big fan of the assumption that just because it is the simplest explanation means it must be true.

Where did the universe come from?

Applying Occam's Razor, God is the simplest explanation doesn't mean it is true.

But where did it come from?

[Maurepas]

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God

I've read them all and they all fail for one simple reason.

1) Stephen Hawking has shown that it is logically possible for there to be a universe without a god.

2) A universe without a god is logically simpler than a universe with one.

3) Therefore, there can be no proof of god on the basis of pure logic. To show that god exists, you must present empirical evidence.

Occam's Razor?

Considering that, A) That is also untrue, as that is not always the case...and B) the Number of natural phenomenon that would have to be denied and reexplained to make Genesis work literally, it is by far the more complicated position to defend, logically...

Although infinitely easier to defend illogically, of course,

Oh I thought UT was talking about the existence of God not about whether Genesis should be taken literally.

Being unprovable either way, it is beside the point...

Although, that being said, anything humans say about the unprovable concept cannot be taken as truth until proven to be so,

[Almajoya]

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

It does when everyone is on the same page regarding what gets picked and what doesn't.

[Almajoya]

Nope, why do you think God makes such use of it? It's an excellent way to keep your followers mystified.

So you admit to basing your beliefs on a logical fallacy then...I think we're done here...

Not quite. The OP asked about Genesis. My admitting that I'm a sheep does not end this debacle.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Everyone cherrypicks. Evangelists, scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, you, me. We see what we want to see, we remember what we want to remember, we reject what is unfamiliar or inexplicable for what supports our ideas and morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

We're well aware of the confirmation bias. What you're not aware of is that the scientific method is purposely designed to root out confirmation bias and plenty of other biases.

[New Kereptica]

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

It does when everyone is on the same page regarding what gets picked and what doesn't.

Because every scientist ever hates religion.

[Blouman Empire]

Being unprovable either way, it is beside the point...
Although, that being said, anything humans say about the unprovable concept cannot be taken as truth until proven to be so,

Indeed but my response was not a defence on Genesis being literally true.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It does when everyone is on the same page regarding what gets picked and what doesn't.

Do you honestly think that all scientists agree about things? Are you that ignorant of the scientific process? Hell, you can't even say that the overwhelming number of scientists are atheists.

[Maurepas]

Being unprovable either way, it is beside the point...
Although, that being said, anything humans say about the unprovable concept cannot be taken as truth until proven to be so,

Indeed but my response was not a defence on Genesis being literally true.

True, but, I was elaborating on the non-existence of god argument...

Saying that until proven, god cannot be accepted as real...similar to Big Foot, or Champ...

[Almajoya]

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

It does when everyone is on the same page regarding what gets picked and what doesn't.

Because every scientists ever hates religion.

Whoa, now, don't go putting words in my mouth.

Everyone cherrypicks. Evangelists, scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, you, me. We see what we want to see, we remember what we want to remember, we reject what is unfamiliar or inexplicable for what supports our ideas and morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

We're well aware of the confirmation bias. What you're not aware of is that the scientific method is purposely designed to root out confirmation bias and plenty of other biases.

I am very aware of this. Who developed the scientific method? Scientists. Your point is moot.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Indeed but I'm not a big fan of the assumption that just because it is the simplest explanation means it must be true.

Where did the universe come from?

Applying Occam's Razor, God is the simplest explanation doesn't mean it is true.

But where did it come from?

Logically speaking, god isn't the simplest explanation.

[Almajoya]

It does when everyone is on the same page regarding what gets picked and what doesn't.

Do you honestly think that all scientists agree about things? Are you that ignorant of the scientific process? Hell, you can't even say that the overwhelming number of scientists are atheists.

Agree about things? Of course not; I'm around scientists all the time. But there are some things that everyone is on a consensus about- ie, the Earth is round, the Moon's gravitational pull causes tides, and everything can be explained by science.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I am very aware of this. Who developed the scientific method? Scientists. Your point is moot.

So the Christian founders of the scientific method purposely created a method to root out confirmation bias except when it comes to religion? And these CHRISTIAN founders designed it just so that the confirmation bias that it had with respect to religion was against religion and against the existence of god? Really?

[Blouman Empire]

Indeed but I'm not a big fan of the assumption that just because it is the simplest explanation means it must be true.

Where did the universe come from?

Applying Occam's Razor, God is the simplest explanation doesn't mean it is true.

But where did it come from?

Logically speaking, god isn't the simplest explanation.

Why not?

[New Kereptica]

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

It does when everyone is on the same page regarding what gets picked and what doesn't.

Because every scientists ever hates religion.

Whoa, now, don't go putting words in my mouth.

You claimed that 'everyone' (meaning all scientists) were on the same page about cherrypicking. The cherrypicking regarded essentially discrediting religion. Thus, it logically follows that you are claiming that all scientists want to discredit religion. The simplest explanation for that is that they all hate religion.