It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It usually comes down to whether something is being interpreted literally or allegorically.
If Genesis is to be taken as literal truth then there are serious scientific blunders.
What would be sufficient evidence for you in order to warrant believe in Anubis?
Then you have Noah's Ark, the lifespans of early humans, Jonah and the Whale. All of which have implications very much non-congruent with science.
Believing in Jesus' sacrifice is not necessary for anything except for a belief in Christianity's version of salvation. That's all it comes with, belief in a certain version of salvation, nothing more. Jesus blatantly contradicts this line of reasoning on several occasions in the gospels, yet adherents to Jesus' sacrifice cannot and will not see it for fear of going to hell.
You're not going to find a cosmologist, religious or secular, that thinks the science supports all stars forming after Earth had already been formed.
Matthew 12:40 NIV For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
So sure you could say that event was a supernatural interference by god. How is that a scientific discussion? My point is that the Bible and science are in disagreement with each other
If the solution to these 'scientific blunders' is that god is all-powerful, then it stands to reason the existence of that god should be proven scientifically to begin with.
What kind of evidence would you need in order to believe in any being you currently lack belief in?.
I take it you believe it means all the stars were created then
So my question to you is what is your frame of reference for before getting to the creation days? What is your interpretation of what Genesis 1:1-2 means specifically the "the heavens and the earth?" Did something happen to earth to cause its condition in 2?
My point was is that this is not a scientific discussion.
You reject this as being possible not because of science but because of a philosophical bias, that being the God of the Bible doesn't exist.
Now I would like to take a moment and point that that you said it stands "to reason the existence of god should be proven scientifically to begin with." Science is the studies mechanisms, how things work.
I would need someone to show me that their worldview was more rational than my biblical world view.
I appreciate the effort you are putting in, to type a lot. But it seems you are just safeguarding your belief, while whipping others who don't agree, or you disagree with their views. Your post shows judgment, you are a Christian right?
Too many holes in a couple of your posts, to respond in an elaborate manner. Hmm.. thanks anyways.
BTW Christ/Messiah is still a title given to a man in regards to his state of being. Not sure where you were going with that :/
That's what it explicitly says. And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
1. Lots of stars were formed prior to Earth forming according to science. Yet the Bible says otherwise.
2. Fruit trees growing to maturation on what would be a frozen planet without sunlight since the Sun hasn't been made yet according to Genesis. I'd hope I wouldn't need to elaborate why this is contrary to science
You insinuated I was making a 'scientific blunder' by having the worldview I do aka being a non-believer. You made this a scientific discussion.
f we can disprove the religious descriptions then it's reasonable to disbelieve in that particular deity.
How would that be agreeable to science when the being itself has not been proven an objective truth?
His existence is far from proven.
I think I am doing just that. I fear no amount of rationality will sway.
He agrees loving others and God is greater than any sacrifice, meaning loving others and God is more important than his sacrifice. Believing in him does not mean believing in his sacrifice. He says that if you follow his commands (loving others and God) that you will remain in he and his Father's love.
Does God send those who love him and others to hell if they don't believe in Jesus' sacrifice? If so, your beliefs contradict the words of Jesus.
Jesus calls them friends, a.k.a. equals. Jesus did not see himself as superior to anyone, yet Christians see him as THE God. If you see yourself as superior to someone you are not their true friend.