It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faith VS Science & Athiests

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I can see now why people persecuted the christians so long ago.


How mature throwing out Ad Hominems rather than argue with facts.




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Results of study. Show me the numbers are wrong.




David Greenglass was a World War II traitor. He gave atomic secrets to the Russians and then fled to Mexico after the war. His conspirators arranged to help him by planning a meeting with the secretary of the Russian ambassador in Mexico City. Proper identification for both parties became vital. Greenglass was to identify himself with six prearranged signs. These instructions had been given to both the secretary and Greenglass so there would be no possibility of making a mistake. They were: (1) once in Mexico City, Greenglass was to write a note to the secretary, signing his name as "I. JACKSON"; (2) after three days he was to go to the Plaza de Colon in Mexico City and (3) stand before the statue of Columbus, (4) with his middle finger placed in a guide book. In addition, (5) when he was approached, he was to say it was a magnificent statue and that he was from Oklahoma. (6) The secretary was to then give him a passport. These six prearranged signs worked. Why?

[SNIPPED]

Bible Believers link

So basically the odds of one person fulfilling 48 of those prophecies is 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000.
edit on 13-4-2014 by Kandinsky because: Trimmed huge ex-text and added source link



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Those prophecies are either super vague or were written after jesus was born to make it look like he was the one, or the jesus account was altered to fit the prophecy. You can make it say anything when you are writing about the man after he died. Bible prophecy is a joke. If those prophecies had been proven so definitively, there wouldn't be any jews left since they all would have recognized him as their saviour.

And yes I've seen that study. You aren't the first christian I've debated with on those boards. The probability maybe extreme, but prove they were actually fulfilled first. Again your ONLY proof of this is the bible.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Those prophecies are either super vague or were written after jesus was born to make it look like he was the one, or the jesus account was altered to fit the prophecy. You can make it say anything when you are writing about the man after he died. Bible prophecy is a joke. If those prophecies had been proven so definitively, there wouldn't be any jews left since they all would have recognized him as their saviour.

And yes I've seen that study. You aren't the first christian I've debated with on those boards. The probability maybe extreme, but prove they were actually fulfilled first. Again your ONLY proof of this is the bible.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Written after Jesus? Many of them are contained in the Dead sea Scrolls, which are dated well before Jesus.


Have you ever heard of Rabbai Kaduri? 108 years old. Very well respected. Before He died He wrote a note revealing who he believed to be the Messiah. The note revealed the Yeshua.

If that Math doesn't do it for ya how about this one.

www.biblebelievers.org.au...
edit on 11-4-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: Forgot link



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


That's why I also said that the jesus account could have been altered to fit the prophecies. We know the gospeks were written after jesus died. Its not like he was around to contest those accounts. Heck the gospel talking about his birth was written like 80 ad. Yeah I'm sure THAT'S accurate.

I'm not concerned about the math. I'm sure its solid. I'm concerned that the prophecies were actually fulfilled.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


That's why I also said that the jesus account could have been altered to fit the prophecies. We know the gospeks were written after jesus died. Its not like he was around to contest those accounts. Heck the gospel talking about his birth was written like 80 ad. Yeah I'm sure THAT'S accurate.

I'm not concerned about the math. I'm sure its solid. I'm concerned that the prophecies were actually fulfilled.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


That link has nothing to do with prophecies. It has to do with the mathematical system hidden behind specific parts. Usually parts referring to Jesus. This is pretty new information to me as well. You throw the Bible out as an ancient record simply because it claims to be written by God. You like to ignore that it to is a record of those times. It is remarkably accurate to the geography of that part of the world.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Are we ignoring the parts of the bible that are impossible? Like living in the belly of a whale. Or the ark. Or the pillar of salt.


edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Are we ignoring the parts of the bible that are impossible? Like living in the belly of a whale. Or the ark. Or the pillar of salt.


edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Those things are not impossible if a being outside the system of our 4-D world interfered. Only if you first assume God is not real do those things seem ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Are we ignoring the parts of the bible that are impossible? Like living in the belly of a whale. Or the ark. Or the pillar of salt.


edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Those things are not impossible if a being outside the system of our 4-D world interfered. Only if you first assume God is not real do those things seem ridiculous.


You're one to speak of assumptions. You haven't proven that fourth dimensional beings exist, you haven't proven your god is one, and you haven't proven your god is responsible for these "miracles". Don't think your buzzwords are fooling anyone.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


That's why I also said that the jesus account could have been altered to fit the prophecies. We know the gospeks were written after jesus died. Its not like he was around to contest those accounts. Heck the gospel talking about his birth was written like 80 ad. Yeah I'm sure THAT'S accurate.

I'm not concerned about the math. I'm sure its solid. I'm concerned that the prophecies were actually fulfilled.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


And you are actually misinformed on when those books were written. Most of them where written prior to 70 AD

carm.org...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

AfterInfinity

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Are we ignoring the parts of the bible that are impossible? Like living in the belly of a whale. Or the ark. Or the pillar of salt.


edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Those things are not impossible if a being outside the system of our 4-D world interfered. Only if you first assume God is not real do those things seem ridiculous.


You're one to speak of assumptions. You haven't proven that fourth dimensional beings exist, you haven't proven your god is one, and you haven't proven your god is responsible for these "miracles". Don't think your buzzwords are fooling anyone.


Ok so lets say the original singularity was God as I predict, that means He is what gave rise to Space, Matter and Time. The creation account provided by Science proves that something gave rise to Space, Matter, and Time from nothing. Regardless of if it was God or Random Chance it is still proof that something is outside of the system. I don't believe God is a 4-dimensional being. A 4 dimensional being would still be within the dimension of time. God is above the 4th dimension, or whatever nonliving singularity that caused the Big bang is above the 4th dimension.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


You are now inviting speculation so far from being based in fact - or even plausible theory - that its essentially pointless.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


You are now inviting speculation so far from being based in fact - or even plausible theory - that its essentially pointless.


How is that speculative that's logic. If our four dimensions were created after the first Planck time logic dictates that whatever created them was in another dimension of space. That's not speculation the singularity was by definition supernatural.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Woodcarver

Visitor2012
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 





The important difference being... We CAN SEE the EVIDENCE of evolution everywhere.... We do not see the evidence of a god


For that, you would have to assume that God is somehow separate from the creation.


I deleted the rest of my post. Too much rambling...
edit on 9-4-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)
you are already assuming that god is real. With no evidence that is what you are left with. An assumption.


I'm not assuming anything. What I was saying is for someone to see God as a separate entity from the creation they would have to assume ALSO that he is separate from creation whereas other cultures see God as being everything, including you, me, the trees, planets, stars and so on.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


You are now inviting speculation so far from being based in fact - or even plausible theory - that its essentially pointless.


How is that speculative that's logic. If our four dimensions were created after the first Planck time logic dictates that whatever created them was in another dimension of space. That's not speculation the singularity was by definition supernatural.


Something beyond the four dimensions gave rise to the four dimensions. This much can be inferred from our current scientific understanding. At the very least, it is one logical assertion based on facts. And I thank you for that. Unfortunately, that's where it stops. If you venture any further, you have less and less fact to go on and more and more reason to reach further and further into the great blue yonder for any remotely plausible explanation given the right lack of context and a liberal helping of persuasive argument. Which is exactly what it sounds like you're aiming for. I'm not trying to be rude; I'm giving you the gift of perfect honesty. But if you feel you can convince me otherwise - and yes, I'm perfectly aware of the irony here - then you're welcome to try.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


That is not logic at all. That is all assumption as you point out yourself several times. Why are you assuming so much? If you would study science you would know so much more about what is possible and you wouldn't have to make assumptions on everything.

What bit of evidence leads you to assume there is a god?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


That's why I also said that the jesus account could have been altered to fit the prophecies. We know the gospeks were written after jesus died. Its not like he was around to contest those accounts. Heck the gospel talking about his birth was written like 80 ad. Yeah I'm sure THAT'S accurate.

I'm not concerned about the math. I'm sure its solid. I'm concerned that the prophecies were actually fulfilled.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


And you are actually misinformed on when those books were written. Most of them where written prior to 70 AD

carm.org...


You know, I can find links dating the gospels to later. Here is one that gives a range of dates for each one, and these ranges exceed 70 AD.

When Were the Gospels Written?


Matthew: 37 to 100 ad/ce
Mark: 40 to 73 ad/ce
Luke: 50 to 100 ad/ce
John: 65 to 100 ad/ce


In any case it doesn't matter. Jesus lived to be 33. That means that he died around 33 AD (give or take a few years since 0 AD doesn't line up exactly on Jesus' birth). EVERY single one of those accounts was written after he died. You can make them say anything.

The only author I could possibly give credence to, would be Matthew since he could have written his gospel shortly after Jesus died, but that is at the earliest. Once you start getting years or decades removed from an event, then your memories fade quickly. Couple that with a growing cult of personality around the man and it isn't hard to believe that embellishing could happen. It's not like they had quality control or book reviewers back in the day to corroborate the claims being made. I need to see alternate sources than the ones in the bible to substantiate the claims made.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


That's why I also said that the jesus account could have been altered to fit the prophecies. We know the gospeks were written after jesus died. Its not like he was around to contest those accounts. Heck the gospel talking about his birth was written like 80 ad. Yeah I'm sure THAT'S accurate.

I'm not concerned about the math. I'm sure its solid. I'm concerned that the prophecies were actually fulfilled.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


That link has nothing to do with prophecies. It has to do with the mathematical system hidden behind specific parts. Usually parts referring to Jesus. This is pretty new information to me as well. You throw the Bible out as an ancient record simply because it claims to be written by God. You like to ignore that it to is a record of those times. It is remarkably accurate to the geography of that part of the world.


When the Weekly World News reported the discovery of Bat Boy, did you believe that too since the cave they found him in, is a real cave in West Virginia? Because that is the same claim you are making about the bible. Since geographical locations line up in it, then the rest of it must be true.

I throw the bible out because it is one source that makes outstanding claims that aren't corroborated by any other sources. Just because some of the information in the bible is correct, doesn't mean that it is all correct and should be taken as a legitimate source. I'm sure you are aware that there is this whole genre of fiction called historical fiction, where the authors will use real events and places from a historical era but change them slightly or give their own interpretation on events. I place the bible in that category, historical fiction.

In order for me to consider something a valid source, it needs to be mostly true and not contradictory in the slightest, two accounts that the bible fails on. Religious types are always saying that parts of the bible are metaphorical, well that is another failing that prevents me from viewing it as a legit source since there is no way to tell what is and isn't metaphorical (as evidenced by the countless denominations of Christianity). If I want to view the bible as a legit source, ALL of it should be factual and there should be no metaphors.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
I throw the bible out because it is one source that makes outstanding claims that aren't corroborated by any other sources.


Actually every single creation myth and origins myth and religion on the planet makes similar claims to the other. Just because you are not familiar with corroborating sources doesn't mean they don't exist.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Skyfloating

Krazysh0t
I throw the bible out because it is one source that makes outstanding claims that aren't corroborated by any other sources.


Actually every single creation myth and origins myth and religion on the planet makes similar claims to the other. Just because you are not familiar with corroborating sources doesn't mean they don't exist.


The difference being that only one account comes with a complete bibliography of established scientists who have devoted decades to unraveling the mystery of our heritage using methods still heavily relied upon by today's leading researchers.
edit on 14-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join