Comments by LeeC

351. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38406 by LeeC on May 8, 2007 at 3:02 am

Gee... I thought it was just me posting big this week.

Thanks Mark,

I now have a lot to read.

Cheers

Lee

352. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38134 by LeeC on May 7, 2007 at 5:05 am

Hi epeeist,

With all my writings I forgot to say welcome... glad you are here to add some logic to the debate.

See ya

Lee

353. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38131 by LeeC on May 7, 2007 at 4:41 am

It was rather a long sermon…. can you tell I have been waiting a while for such a debate?

That was a GREAT post! Very well-argued and put together.

Thanks JC, from you this means a lot… now all I have to do is improve on my grammar and spelling… but I did Physics not English so you would expect a few mistakes? I tried to fix up a couple of obvious ones… but it is good enough for blues.

An aside, one of my favourite moments at a university lecture was when our Professor (yep – no mere doctor, the head of the High Energy Astrophysics department) was describing the evolution of a star's life - he drew a large circle on the blackboard for the star and wrote "Ded core" … he noticed the looks on all our faces, turned back to the board – could not see what was wrong with any of the equations and so proceeded with the lecture. This was the day I burnt my dictionary… answers many things.

Billy,

Thanks for the links… I have not seen Kenny E for a while – genius (although my wife came in while I was watching it and just said "oh no…" - cannot please them all the time.)

Now we wait for Theo… I doubt I have converted anyone, but I do look forward to the debate…

However, when you have blind faith, you cannot see the light…

Lee

354. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37871 by LeeC on May 6, 2007 at 4:18 am

RE: 1050. Comment #37193 by Theo

Hi again Theo,

I really enjoy talking to you… although it seems we are both "stuck in our ways".
Hope one of us is right – it would be embarrassing if we are both wrong!!

All good fun though…

Again I ask, did you read the information I linked to you?

Sorry, which information was that…? I remember you pointed some links to me about biology, but I have to admit I get a little lost with biology, too many long words for me and not enough maths.

Please post them again and highlight the important bits and I will try and give it a go again – maybe I could get Billy S to help me out with the complex bits?

An atheist, rather than scold the theist for not accepting insufficient or no evidence, should wait until sufficient evidence is amassed before engaging the theist. Anything other than this is to expect that a theist will simply accept weak atheistic arguments.

Hardly weak arguments… it's just that a theist ignores them altogether unless science is able to give a 100% complete "arguments" – whatever that is?.

100% evidence… why? You do not need 100% proof to convict a criminal of a crime in a court since it would be impossible to have 100% proof, just guilty beyond reasonable doubt since there will always be a gap in the knowledge at some point – so long as we have enough clues to point to the smoking gun and the hand that pulled the trigger, and that is enough.

On your line of logic we should ignore Newton laws on gravity since we do not know how or where his constant G comes from… his theories must be useless and explain nothing in your book since Newton could not explain his constant G in the equations or where it came from - he had insufficient evidence… it's all must be rubbish?

Also, unknown to Newton at the time, his theories cannot explain very fast or massive object – PROOF he was an idiot right!!!

Lets throw science away since the bible has much better and cleverer answers – god did it? With no evidence or proof required?

Science is able to answer a hell of a lot of questions, and "box in" many areas too. What I mean by this is that although some (many?) of scientific theories are incomplete, they give predictions and answers to observations that any replacement theory has to incorporate. Evolution might not be the final theory, but any new theory has to answer everything that evolution already does. Newton's laws were not complete, they have since been superseded by Einstein's; these are not complete and will be replaced by…. God knows… superstrings? Maybe, maybe not…

I mentioned QED and it's ability to predict scientific experiments down to 1 part in 10 billion… now the theory may not be complete, but it is bloody good in my book.

How can you use god to make such predictions? Can you offer any proof or evidence?

God answers nothing! You say science's argument is weak, yet you have given me nothing that can improve on them… the only thing you offered so far is "because you can not answer X, something I have never seen, never heard, have no idea how it got there, do not know how it could work or whether it actually exists, or even able to give a clue might exist – did it… God did it all"

Now this sounds really weak argument – I will put it along side my childhood belief that Father Christmas brought me my presents if I was good.

All the Laws that were discovered by scientists did not point away from a creator since in order for a law to exist there must be a lawgiver.

I would not say point away… I would say they leave less for him to do.
I have no need for him… god is not required.

As for the "lawgiver"… who says?

Do I need a lawgiver for a circle? No… a circle is a circle.
Do I need a lawgiver to know Pi - the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter? No… but we get a weird number 3.14…….etc.
Was Pi created by a lawgiver? NO… it is just the way it is.

Or do I need your god to understand circles? I assume you say it was god who created this wonderful number Pi?

Don't know, who were those silly theists who objected to the study of the sun?

I did not say "objected to the study of the sun" that would be silly – although the church does have a long history of not allowing the study in many areas that question god – just ask Galileo – but that was a long time ago right?

I was referring to the theist that would have used the "fact" that physics did not know how the sun could be older than a few million years as "proof" of a young Earth and that evolution did not have enough time to work.

You want names… I think every creationist at the end of the 1800's would have done this but you want a name erm… how about Lord Kelvin – and his was the physicist who proved the sun was only a few million years old? Maybe I could look up some names, but it is not that important.

There is no evidence of something coming from nothing unless something was driving the process.

Can you help me understand what "nothing" is, and where it came from? Then I may be able to explain how the universe came from this nothing

Just kidding - although it is not that simple is it – but we would just be talking about words right?

Within the universe we have "laws" that stop things coming from nothing… unfortunately (?) at the quantum level the universe breaks it's owns laws (or is it's gods?)… so long at the time is short enough so that overall universe (or god) does not "notice" and that everything is nice and "balanced" at the end of it…

Within the universe, in a vacuum of zero particles, you will have particles coming into and out of existence all the time…. This is gives raise to the energy of the vacuum, and the possibility of "dark energy" that is causing the universe to accelerate… interesting stuff, but it would take too long to discuss this here.

So you say "nothing can come from nothing"… but at the same time you think god can come from nothing?

Sorry, you said before, god was always there… erm, but where did god come from – the question remains for me, you just ignore the question or claim it does not make sense.

If you cannot accept "simple" energy coming from nothing (and why should you?) how can you accept god came from nothing… he must have come from something right? (Ops - we are on your circular logic again – he was always there?)

This really forms the rather bigger question of "where did the universe from?" A big question in physics… we can explain rather well everything from the start onwards… just the getting the energy to start everything off is the issue. This is what the theist "loves" to point to… another "gap"

Could the energy have "always been there"? (If you can accept an infinite complex being always being there, surely just thinking about energy is a lot easier to accept and is more probably)

No need for god… give me a bucket of energy and our Universe can form from that…. Of course, being a scientist I still would want to know where this bucket came from (and more importantly - what colour the bucket was – would the universe be different if the bucket was blue or red?)

Maybe god gave the universe a green bucket of energy and took a nice long holiday?

His work was done so he rested and did nothing else – let physics do the rest?

Erm… I need to work on this theory – I do not like this god part… no proof for his existence and is more complex than the problem I am trying to answer, so it must be something else.

How about a purple bucket??

Nice joke, because "made by God" on DNA can be attributed to chance. Remember, nothing is impossible with atheism. ("Made by God" is mind bogglingly simpler than the information that is actually encoded on it)

A lot is impossible for an atheist…we have physical laws… unlike for a theist where god can do "anything" – it's a miracle!!!

It is impossible for an atheist to accept that the moon could "over night" just change direction and orbit the other way around the earth… we have no physics to explain such a thing… but as a theist, you believe god could do it if he wanted to - at anytime.

However this would of course prove god exists, and therefore he will not do it, because god does not want to give evidence. Why is this?

However, your question was for the simplest form of life, how about if man was designed?

I think if we found written on our bones "Made by God" or "Insert soul here" on the inside of our skulls… it would be all the proof I need for a god.

Evolution could not explain that… this would be impossible for an atheist to answer.

And what would be really clever (and of course your god is really clever right?) the wording on the bones would be in the local language, so a Frenchman would have "Fait par God" and a German "Gebildet durch God"

How about that for proof?? This is proof of design for me…

So no joke… why didn't god do this? It would be excellent evidence… no doubt, 100% proof…

Therefore my question remains unanswered, try harder Lee!

I did try to answer your question the first time (and have expanded on it again above for more complex life like man), but you have now changed the question.

You started by asking the question:-

Question: if the simplest life form was indeed designed, what would it look like?

I replied to this (you thought I was joking?) and then to my response you answer: -

Why would God make life to look as though it was apparently
designed by Him?

So what actually is your question? You say your question "remains unanswered" but this is because you have changed it when I did try and answer it.

To respond though to your new question, why would god make life look like it was done by evolution?

But back to your original question "if the simplest life form was indeed designed, what would it look like?"

Since you did not like my answer, how about a few more questions

Why would god need us to pray to him?
Why would god need us to believe in him?
Why would god need us to follow him in a certain way?
Why would god ask his people to kill people who do not believe in him?
Why would god come down to Earth as his own son (?), to kill himself on a cross, causing his "chosen" people to be blamed for the act for the rest of history, so that man can be forgiven for all his sins both past and future, including the original sin of eating a fruit of a tree that gave man knowledge which god put there as a test?

You tell me why… why indeed…

Why do we need god?
Answer… we don't – so why would he exist?

Theo's method (lol) what's a thread without pulling someone's leg!

Your just pulling your own Theo – you quoted blind numbers as odds just like every other theist… some idiots and fools may believe them and become theists. People who have their eyes open to reason and logic merely laugh at them. So I will thank you for the joke – I did "LOL" but not at the joke, but at the joker.

Lee, I may be going out on a limb here, but if something is outside the scope of science, can it be directly observed? You cannot directly measure the singularity so why do you believe it existed; it can't be evidence since apparently evidence is not enough (with God that is)

I already answered the singularity part (1056.) so will not repeat myself here.

If something is out of the scope of science so it cannot be directly observed (or indeed indirectly as is the case of black holes) then it has no interest for me and I would say science.

It also means by definition it can not interact with our universe… if it can not interact, it can not do anything to anything within our universe, it has no use or meaning within the universe – sorry, is this your god you are talking about?

So you want evidence of an eternal designer yet showing you his design is not enough, since you say it could have just assembled for itself (although there is no proof of this)

Yes I do… an eternal designer could have left clues, but did not.

Life looks like it evolved and it fits our theories. No design… show me proof that man was designed… I have suggested how god could have left such proof.

So… in summary
Science has a mechanism/theory that shows how simple life forms can evolve to complex life.

This theory has not been disproved, but it can at any time by finding any fossil out of place in the time-line… this has not happened – and you guys have been looking.

The theory of evolution is brilliant – and fits observations. Have you been able to give any evidence or proof where the theory is wrong? No… please provide some if you can, we all would love to see it.

So your challenge is to prove evolution wrong!!!!

If not, accept that life evolved from simple life forms to complex ones – including man.

But wait I hear you say – evolution does not give any method to how life started?

So WHAT!!!!

It does not have to… the theory describes how complex life evolves from simple life. It is the job of another theory to describe how life started.

I freely admit we do not have a great theory for how life started… but when it did (and we are proof of that), evolution answers how we go from simple life to man.

So god DID NOT create man… or can you prove otherwise?

So what did god do for us?

unless your "I believe anything can assemble by chance" attitude gets in the way

I do not… have not… and never will believe "anything" can be "assemble" by chance.

No scientist believes that… show me one that does - you just chose you believe that (but you can believe in god, so you can believe in what you like without evidence.)

You insult me… to have such crazy beliefs as you describe I may as well believe in an impossibly complex god who really can assemble anything at all, anytime anyplace anywhere (and in the dark if you believe the bible)

I freely admit that some steps require a lot of luck or chance, but not every step – evolution can take care of the more complex steps. And for this "unlikely" event I point you to a very large universe… a billion to one event will happen more than a billion times in our universe.

I have to go… I have been to long...


Lee

355. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37315 by LeeC on May 4, 2007 at 4:27 am

JC... great work once again. Great logic...

Great work team.... GO ATHEISTS!!!!

Sorry, silly mood...

Lee

356. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37314 by LeeC on May 4, 2007 at 4:25 am

Now we are cooking on gas...

I wish I had time to reply tonight, but you are doing so well on your own.

Theo,

So how did you do on your exams? Petroleum engineering wasn't it?

Did they ask the question where the oil and petrol came from?

Did you answer "God put it there!!"?

I hope not... not many people believe that in the real world of science.

I do not know how it could have formed in less than 10,000 years, do you?

Would cause a problem for someone believing in a young Earth like yourself?

One quick point on singularities.

You ask how I "knew" they existed... well I do not. It is just a theory. We know black holes exist, and we have no known physics that can stop the centre collapsing into a singularity...

Have to go...

See ya

Lee

357. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37006 by LeeC on May 3, 2007 at 5:47 am

So much to say… and so little time.

If we are looking at this from a probabilistic point of view, then it would be seen that a designer is more probable since even the simplest life form is incredibly sophisticated and cannot be satisfactorily explained by chance

I of course disagree… you know this. Unless you are saying that god is less complex than the simplest form of life, but what kind of god would that be.

I find it difficult to accept the idea that god is just there, was always there… to me this is just not answering the question of where did god come from.

You think this is not a valid question to ask where did god come from?

However, my problem with the god idea is not just his creation… it's the lack of evidence for him… Please feel free to give me some that I can test or observe.

In the beginning there was nothing….which exploded…. but you do not know exactly how… I am sure you would understand if I am a wee bit skeptical about this.

So science does not know 100% all the answers, maybe only 90% or 80%… so because of this little gap… it must be god?

Come on, you can do better than that.

And history is on my side if you play the "gap in knowledge game"… almost funny.

Go back just over 100 years and you could have had the pleasure of laughing at science with regards to the age of the earth and the problem with Geophysics saying they had rocks older than 1 billions years, and the evolutionists saying they need a few billion years for their theory.

Physics could not explain a sun older an a few million years… and that was it.

No Physics of the day could explain an older sun in the order of billions of years. So what happened? Did everyone say "That's it, it must be god?"

No, there is not good logic for that… no - science just said there must be another answer, and within a few years they discovered nuclear physics… do you want more examples of where the theist was wrong to trust in the gaps?

This is just one example… I could write a whole book on the stuff, and at every point in history you have a theist saying… "See, this is proof of god!!!"

How silly they look now… how silly do you think the theist of today will look in 50 years?

Although, maybe the theist is use to this now…

Well anyway let's go back to logic; something cannot come from nothing therefore, since something exists, something must have always existed. If there is design in life then there must have always been a designer since intelligence cannot come from nothing.

Can you prove or test anything in this statement of yours?

I gave you examples of particles coming into existence in a vacuum… at the quantum level a lot is possible so long as the time is short – the uncertainty of it all?

Maybe the universe has just always existed?
Maybe the universe starts with a bang and ends in a crunch and just "bangs again"… Maybe universes are spawned from other universes… so we have an infinite number of universes… maybe many things.

Look physics has a good explanation of the universe from the fractions of a second after the bang and give a very good picture for the next 14 billion years.

No god required in any of these theories… OK they are not complete theories, but I know where I will put my money…

I see no god… you have not given me any proof of a god… other than "You can not explain this 100%, so therefore it is god"

what rubbish… sorry, it is true, this is childish logic at best… no logic at all some would say.

If there is design in the universe and life, then it is a crap design and I want my money back.

Life is crap, life is poorly made and man is badly designed, and our DNA is mainly full of junk.

Ask any biologist to design a better version of man and they will give a far better version than the one we have today. You think man was designed by god, how than could man design a better version?

(I am saying design – not create – just a blue print.)

You want some examples of bad design?

Question: if the simplest life form was indeed designed, what would it look like?

Interesting question, you tell me?

If I were god, I would first write a little "Made by God" in the DNA code… I am god, so I could do this… most of the DNA in man is "junk" DNA, so he could use some of this to make his trademark.

I would not give the impression that life was just evolved. I would make each life form unique and different as proof that evolution could not do this.

Why not you give me some proof it was designed… every time a theist has tried, evolution can answer… so go on – try something new.

If the possibility of life was as likely as 13 million to 1, SG would have been plausible. But it's more like 1 with 13 million zeroes after it to one.

And you calculated these odds by what method?

You just made it up… You do not need real evidence when you can make up ideas to prove something to yourself. However, you are only fooling yourself.

It is much easier to look at the probability of something existing outside the scope of science than to push logic until breaks at absurd values of probabilities

Back to the beginning of our circle with this argument…. We have to move on to something new.

You have not got any evidence of anything outside the scope of science… maybe a singularity, but that is only within one, and by definition this cannot interact with our universe anymore… (The black hole can, but not the singularity within)

So lets look for some proof or evidence of god?

If you can not give me any, than without evidence god is nothing.

We do not have to prove god 100%, but lets just make he more likely then say the Physics solution.

Erm… shall we start with the age of the Earth? You have proof that it is 10,000 years old how?

Maybe you can show me something outside the scope of science - just point to it please – anything in the universe…

Also, as an aside - do you believe everything in the bible word for word…? Sorry, you do not want to talk about the bible… so do you have any other evidence for god.

Come on, this is all I want, some evidence…. it does not have to be 100% proof.

In all our discussion you have not given me any proof, merely "you can not explain this – so it must be god"

Maybe this IS your evidence? Hasn't history shown this is foolish logic?

But lets not point to gaps in science knowledge as proof, I freely admit we do not know everything… yet we can explain a lot.

Playing the gaps game as history has shown is silly.

No, please give me evidence…. Anything you like…. A holy book maybe? A prediction?

Hey, if you believe in god, I assume he has spoken to you? So what did he have to say?

Have to go now - tired, not time to proof read this, so I hope you forgive my typos

Look forward to hearing from you.

Lee

PS Cool picture you have Theo BTW

358. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36724 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 5:15 am

RE 1035. Comment #36626 by Theo

Theo,

I have not got the time to fully reply to your post, I've only just notice my name got a mention.

The fame… the fame!!!

It is here that I understand Lee C when he said,"I believe in SG"; that atheism does not rest on science but on belief.

Sounds like something I would say…

I believe in SG (Damn – I said it again!!) but "believe" is just a word to me.

I think SG is correct…
I suggest that SG is correct.
SG could be correct.
Maybe SG is correct
I believe SG is correct

I believe in many things…

I believe when I throw an apple into the air it will come down…
I believe I will soon get shouted at by my wife for being on this computer for too long.

I have past experience to suggest that such things will happen. I can also make predictions.

The fact is though; I question this "belief" but have not found a simpler answer…

God?

Whose god? Which god? Why god? Which religion? Why so many religions? Could not god be clear on which religion?

If the bible, why the bible? Why not another holy book?

You said the theory of SG was not falsifiable, so I turned the question around.
i.e. SG did not happen!!!

So now it fits in with your theory that everything should be falsifiable.

So, if we can make life in the lab or find "alien" life on Mars that this means that SG did happen…

What is your test for God?

I see no reason for him… but of course, reason and questions have no place in religion.

Faith is all you need… and the more crazy the belief, the more faith, and the more faith the closer you are to god…

Wow… where do I sign up? I will just leave my brain at the door.

Have to go… I have the wife calling…

Lee

359. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36716 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 4:47 am

WOW... more posts?

I will be busy.

360. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36714 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 4:43 am

RE: 1034. Comment #36624 by Theo

And so it begins… again.

I totally agree that if everything had a beginning, God would indeed be less probable than simple life. I believe we can both agree to this.

Hooray!!! We agree on something… the exams did you good.

Oh, there was a clause in your statement… damn.

We will work on this… I will come back to it later.

I quite agree, for I understand that almost anything can happen in theory.

Two agreements so soon? Oh there's more…

But because someone creates a computer program to show that when a pen and paper interacts with the wind my full name can be written, does not mean that it happened or will happen. A computer program that explores all the ways a laptop can form by chance would not make me hope that one would form in my lap!

So are you saying, "Just because we can calculate the odds on something to happen, does not mean it will happen…"?

I think the chances of a laptop forming out of "thin air" is remote enough to not even to have to think about it… although we probably could calculate the odds of it happening, I doubt it ever will.

The point of my argument has always been that the simplest possible form of life to form "by chance" is more likely than god forming by change.

To which you have agreed...

Even though life starting may be "unlikely", with a billion-billion galaxies, with a billion-billion stars in each, given 14 billion years…. We may… just have that chance… the proof for me is life on Earth.

The chances of winning the national lottery is/was something like 13 million to one. Now I could go out and buy 13 millions tickets, and I may win – should win in fact.

However, I could also just go out and buy one ticket… and hit the jackpot.

So even though the odds are high it is possible, and therefore could happen tomorrow.

Life only has to start once…(although it probably happened more than once.)

To get something complex by chance would really be dreaming for the fanciful, however the most basic form of replicating chemistry is all I need… from there on in evolution and natural selection can kick in and get me to complex life forms…

On to the Emperor's new clothes… after I gave this as an example of how the theist's explains why science cannot describe god, it seems that Dawkins and others had already beaten me to it. No such thing as an original thought and all that…

Standing on the shoulder's of giants…?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

Firstly, this is the first time I am hearing someone using negative energy as a cause for the singularity, but I will go along.

I did not mean to use negative energy it to explain a singularity… not sure how it can?

Black holes exist… we can see them… (in a way) and at the centre of a black hole? While – I do not really know, we can not look inside - with the known physics you get a singularity.

All you need is enough matter in the one place and you get a black hole - easy! So what is the point of the question again?

Anyway, all I was saying is that something can come from nothing in Physics hence the "the energy in a vacuum" – particles coming in and out of existence.

Secondly, doesn't negative energy occur due to fluctuations of an already existing field at zero energy? So where did that field come from?

OK, my example was talking about particles within space… so the field is a physical quantity in space.

We are going deep into quantum theory (of which I am more than a little rusty – I just looked at an old text book of mine and I have no idea what the maths means any more – oh dear)

As you know we have not got all the physics yet to explain everything… although QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) are very good.

They still do not answer everything… however a theory that can predict an experiment result down to 1 part in 10 billion is good enough to prove we are on the right track.

How about that for a prediction?

How is god and the bible on predictions compared to that?
(Sorry, you do not want to talk about the bible… it has been a while)

When I said that a materialist is someone who believes that all reality is within the scope of science, you disagreed . . . Why?

Simple… I am not very good with words, and did not know what you meant by it.

I believe it is the aim of physics is to be able to calculate everything (or is that hope?)… Although we are way off actually doing this right now.

If we cannot calculate it now, then we do not know all the answers yet… it does not mean we will not be able to do it one day.

As for the blind watchmaker… I do not have the book anymore so I cannot confirm or deny… would be strange if Dawkins wrote something that went against his believes and evolution. Not his style.

So… do you still believe the age of the Universe is less than 10,000 years?

See ya

Lee

361. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36703 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 3:37 am

RE 1033. Comment #36618 by Theo

Hi Theo,

Glad you are back... hope the exams went well.

I guess this could mean I will be busy for a while…

The pretty picture?

You can do it by editing your profile.

Go to your profile (just click on your name from this page and it takes you to your profile…)

Now log in… (User/name stuff)… click profile, you can now edit.

The "Avatar control panel" is some way down the page…

I assume you can guess the rest…

Any trouble just ask…

Lee

362. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36388 by LeeC on May 1, 2007 at 3:03 am

Is it something I said? Still no posts?

Erm... guess I will just have to start talking to myself.

No worries

Lee

363. Archive Hour: BBC and Religion

Comment #35744 by LeeC on April 28, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Why do we need to be sensitive to religion...? You do not need to be sensitive to Newton's 2nd Law?

If it is right, it is right... if it is wrong - then throw it away.

We should not have to "dance around" and always be polite to religion.

It's not as if religion has a good history of being "polite" to other religions or non-believers. (A burning at the stake for following Jesus the wrong way? Bloody Mary indeed. Ancient history? How about a bomb in Northern Ireland for not thinking the pope has all the answers?)

The BBC has a tough job of trying to please everybody… enough sport on TV for some, enough soaps for others… but when it comes to religion, all should be the treated the same – wrong and fanciful until proven otherwise…

364. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35412 by LeeC on April 27, 2007 at 4:50 am

Time for one quick response since I was asked a question…

Not that any of the following has anything to do with disproving god…

RE: 1004. Comment #34064 by BillySands

I may be wrong here, but does the part of the moon facing the earth not change over very long periods of time anyway?)

Have to admit; from the top of my head, you got me there… Planets/moons did not (maybe surprisingly) play a major part of my degree – when I started my degree the total number of planets around other stars was zero so planets had little interest to Astrophysics...

I feel you are probably correct on this – but I have no proof or reference to hand to quote from… and I could find little on the Internet with my brief searches, so just a quick brief theory of my own that I will outline for fun below.

Of course, being just a theory I will be happy to be shown wrong – isn't that a great thing about science. We actually like to be proved wrong so we can learn more… shame the theist cannot say the same thing.

Pope says: "You know, I think you are right about this book in the bible – it is wrong, I can see that now with all this new science… lets remove it…"

Anyway…

As I mentioned (well – cut and pasted actually I was lazy at the time) the moon got "stuck" in its current rotation due to the gravitational forces of the Earth on the moon.

It obviously took a long time for the moon to have its rotation "locked in" this way, and if it was only the Earth and the moon we were talking about I would say (more than likely) that the side of the moon we see now will be the same "forever" or at least a very long time…

However, the reasons why I do not believe this – and hence I think you are correct Billy, is that the Earth and Moon is of course not a closed system.

It was the gravitational tidal forces of the Earth on the moon that caused this interesting rotation of the moon, but the sun also pulls on the Earth and the moon – which I suspect will "nudge" our little Earth-Moon system just enough to change the rotation of the moon a little.

The moon will still be "locked in" but maybe just rotated a little more so we see another "side" of the moon.

Also, the moon is moving away from the earth at a break-neck speed of something like 3 or 4 cm per year… (This next bit may take sometime) so obviously at some point in the future the moon could actually move far enough away so not be as strongly influenced by the Earth's gravity and so it's rotation may change…

I have ignored libration "of course" which is a different story - this was summarised very well by Mark in comment 1002.

BTW - Found some pretty pictures on the Internet that are "animated" to help illustrate libration - if any one is interested
http://www.pixheaven.net/geant/041200.html

See ya

Lee

365. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35403 by LeeC on April 27, 2007 at 4:25 am

What happened?

For days nothing… I kept coming back to this page to find no new posts… I nearly gave up… now I have nearly 40 posts to read…

Oh well… careful what you wish for – it will take me ages to catch up…

I am glad we have finally (?) moved onto the New Testament area (at least a little) since for a Christian this is the over-riding book. Find an "evil" statement from god in the Old Testament and a Christian just says "ah yes well, Jesus changed all that – we no longer think like that…"

I think the New Testament is just as poorly written as the Old – if not worse. For a start the writers had to "twist" the truth (or at least there stories) to fit the Old Testament…

Also I wonder if Jesus' disciples would recognise the Jesus described in the bible? It was Paul after all who "created" Christianity and he never knew Jesus…

Anyway – I have many questions (don't we all) about the bible and also I am repeating myself with what I have already written in post 964 and 966.

So on with the show… time to catch up.

Lee

366. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #32704 by LeeC on April 18, 2007 at 4:03 am

RE: 987. Comment #32580 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Excellent... keep it up, and keep us posted on the next instalments.

So it was you the link 977.

Lee

367. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #32688 by LeeC on April 18, 2007 at 3:11 am

RE 985. Comment #32555 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2007 at 11:31 am

Hi Q,

But the danger of the question being raised in that context is what the answer will be.

You are of course right – it's a tough one.

What to tell the kids? I do not want to preach to ones who are too young to think for themselves… The child's mind will accept a lot what is told by an adult without much question… and it can take years to teach that out of them.

I've always thought that one of the greatest appeals to all religion is the fact it offers the idea of an afterlife, that death is not the end, that all the loved ones you've lost are waiting for you on the other side.

That's their biggest selling point…

"don't worry that your life is rubbish and hard, it is just a test, in the next "world" god will make it all right…"

"you must fight for god, and if you die fighting for him, god will reward you in the afterlife.."

"Be good in this life, and god will be good to you in the next…"

"Do as I say… and I will reward you when you die"

The list goes on…

What can we atheists give?

Be good because you should…
Enjoy what you got, because that is it?
When you are dead, you're dead…

I think selling to snow to Eskimos could be easier…

Not everyone is like us, accept the truth, like it or not and be happy with what you have got… some people like to dream of fairies and unicorns… and if life is rubbish, god will make it better in the next… what a great sales pitch.

The thing is, to me, such people who believe in the afterlife can have this life all wrong…

Why not kill someone in the name of god? If he wants you too… who could say no?

Be good - because "big brother" is watching you… he knows if you have been naughty or nice…

Don't worry about enjoying this life, because the next one is going to be so much better…

The atheist life is a hard sell… glad it is not my job.

Getting a little deep for me now… lets talk about something a little lighter… the bible anyone?

Lee

368. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #32406 by LeeC on April 17, 2007 at 2:46 am

RE: 977. Comment #32002 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Thanks for the link…rather good – but I think most theists will not watch this, or if they do will close their ears and minds to the words.

Shame really

RE: 982. Comment #32019 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Where it not for childhood indoctrination, the Gods would have few followers indeed.

I have been thinking along these lines myself for a long time.

However, I am not sure if it is the whole answer – it will cut down their numbers. It is so much easier if you get them young enough. But the child also needs to know other "answers"

Get a child's mind to "block out" any thought against god and you have a mind for life (well – nearly, but it takes years instead of months to be converted to an atheist)

There is always a time when growing up you ask - why?

I guess around the age of a teenager - I say this age because a younger child is not really interested in the "big questions"– Father Christmas is all the answer a child needs for "where do the presents come from".

Only as a teenager will someone start to question.

It is at this point we need to show the young person other religions – in detail– yep I would teach them religion, all of them– Then ask them, which one is right?

If the person has not been "brain-washed" by the family or the community how can they chose one over another….

This worked for me, although it then takes years to learn enough to replace the void and truly understand why we need no god.

However, if the answer of god has already been given to them from "birth", and they are told, "do not question the word of god", then for most people this will be their way of life.

Of course, the age I gave will differ – a death in the family may raise the question "why?" much sooner… but I think my point is the same.

Lee

369. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31897 by LeeC on April 14, 2007 at 10:16 pm

More than 80 percent of Americans believe in God, after all, and many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality.

If the belief is right, then if should not make any difference if evolution is taught.

If the belief is wrong, and evolution helps to show this, then it must be taught. Besides, evolution on it's own does not mean god does not exist. Many Christians believe in both.

Just the idiots who believe 100% in the bible are worried about evolution... I could go on.

Lee

370. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31745 by LeeC on April 14, 2007 at 4:16 am

RE: 970. Comment #31708 by Mark Taunton

What have I done?? Did I prove god somehow? I missed it… always happens. What was it again? I should have paid more attention to what I was writing…

And sorry, what was that point of yours Mark that I proved?

I know I "cut and pasted" comments this morning that were not my own, did I leave the devil in the detail and missed it?

Oh… I get it, are you suggesting I killed a line of argument trying to "disprove" god…?

Not sure how, and of course it was not my intention, but excellent all the same – always trying to help – I guess?

Sorry Billy, Sorry Steve – didn't mean to do it… if it makes you feel better it also meant I disproved myself in 955. – oh well.

So Mark, are you saying then that the world is the way it is "just because"?

Just thought of something…

My original comment:-

But we have some physics that can explain this… god was not needed to make this happen. So no mystery…

Mark's reply:-

Thank you for making my point exactly, and even more concisely than I had supposed.

It looks a very strange reply from a theist when you put the two comments together like this…. I have some physics to explain the Universe, and a theist agrees?

Mark, are you moving to the dark-side? Come on – be an atheist – you know you want too…

My apologies and sorry, I know you do not mean it like that, but I am still at a loss at what I have done.

All good fun…

See ya

Lee

371. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31689 by LeeC on April 13, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Billy,

One last Question...

How do you get that little picture (avatar?) on every post?

Can you post me a link on how to do it?

Thanks

Lee

372. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31688 by LeeC on April 13, 2007 at 9:12 pm

RE: 963. Comment #31665 by J.C. Samuelson

This is my last post for the day… I've done enough, the more I write, the more mistakes I make anyway.

Hi JC,

I do so much enjoy reading your discussions on the bible (and everyone else's) and with your last post to Mark (hope you do not mind me listening in) I learn why you have so much knowledge on the bible.

You might find it interesting to know that about 5-6 years ago, I was still on your team, as it were.
...
I came to the conclusion that my faith in the Bible was misplaced, as I believe yours is today. Lot's of reasons, but mostly I think it's because I got to know the Bible so darn well.

May I ask, does this make you an atheist or just a non-believer in the bible?

It is interesting to me at least, that the more I read the bible, the more it proves to me it was written by man… you can read man desires in the bible, and their belief, but you can not find proof of god unless you already have faith in god.

I place the bible next to "The complete works of Shakespeare" on my bookshelf…

A collection of historical books, very interesting reading, (I still not read most of them), and the stories make great movies, but when it comes to facts and history, it is propaganda by the writer in the age it was written.

Sorry, did I just write about Shakespeare or the bible? Sounds familiar…

Have to go…

Lee

373. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31682 by LeeC on April 13, 2007 at 8:29 pm

RE: 959. Comment #31544 by Mark Taunton

So I don't expect any answer, especially as I didn't actually ask a question...

Sorry, but I have to say something, but since you did not expect a reply, I will just give you a cut and paste.

Your statement: -

If the earth's orbital period around the sun were indeed an exact number of earth days, I daresay a sceptic's consideration of that detail would yield a response equivalent to what you will now tell me, when I point out that the period of rotation of the moon about its axis exactly matches its period of orbit around the earth, i.e. it is 1:1 in the way you suggest a created earth "ought" to be exactly N:1, where N is an integer of your choice. That's why (barring the effects of libration) we see the same part of the moon's surface all the time.

But we have some physics that can explain this… god was not needed to make this happen. So no mystery…

"The basic reason for this phenomenon is the tidal force. The tide of the ocean is well known; less well-known but equally real is the tidal distortion of the entire planet --- the continents (and everything underneath) are deformed daily by the tidal force (of the Sun and the Moon), roughly by the same height as the tide of the ocean. A moon close to a planet is (relatively speaking) subject to a much greater tidal force than the Earth.

If a moon has two, diametrically opposed, permanent tidal bulges, then it's dynamically most stable if one is always pointed towards its parent planet.

This explanation is incomplete in that there is a lot of geophysics (structures of the solar system bodies) involved, something I don't know a whole lot on, but I think it gives you a broad overview.

Ask an Astrophysicist "

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980519a.html

Lee

374. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31679 by LeeC on April 13, 2007 at 8:14 pm

RE: 960. Comment #31581 by Mark Taunton


Mark,

Thanks for the post…

The original Bible texts are what matter. Translations vary, but the source words - in all their detail - are the key: the closer the English reader (or a reader in any other language for that matter) can get to them, the better he or she will understand what the Bible is really saying.

I would have to agree with you, that if you are to truly believe the bible is the word of god and each word is important, then you have to go back to the original texts…

Does this not give us a couple of problems though?

Firstly, most of us cannot read the old language of the bible and so have to trust the translators.

Mistakes must happen in translations, since some words can change their meaning… "Gay" is a good example of an English word that in 100 years has changed it meaning. How can we be sure we understand the bible correctly today with our English language? If I have a book that said, "That man is gay"… what does the writer actual mean?

Secondly, where are these original texts?

The books have been copied by believers by hand for hundreds of years… not only could mistakes happen during copying, someone could "lose" a passage they did not like, or add a passage to make it mean what they would it to mean.

Isn't this a historical fact with whole books being selected and rejected? A group of men chose which books were to go into the bible, and which were not… if it can happen with whole books, surely it can happen with a few passages here and there?

Even if I believe god wrote the original bible… every version we see today is based on a copied done by man… could not the true meaning now be lost?

Still more posts to read… busy, busy

Lee

375. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31673 by LeeC on April 13, 2007 at 7:44 pm

RE: 957. Comment #31532 by BillySands

Billy,

Thanks for the link on lectures… I am downloading some now for my mp3 player.

There are so many of them, can you recommend any?

At the moment I am downloading "The Undesigned Universe" 9th Jan 2007

Lee

376. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31672 by LeeC on April 13, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Now you are all tucked up in bed, I may be able to "get a word in edgeways" (LOL)


RE: 958. Comment #31534 by Mark Taunton

Please don't waste any more time on Horizon/rockets … I only ever used it as an analogy for a different issue; it's of no direct importance to the primary questions here.

Wasting no more time sir…. (however the wife believes I'm wasting my time here on this website so I guess I cannot win…!!!)

I will not go on about some TV show, but I will use your post to highlight a couple of my main issues (which was the real point of my first reply in 920.)

To base all of one's knowledge of the physical world on one (poorly?) written book is narrow minded… why this holy book and not any other?
(This I know is the point of all these current posts so I will not expand on it here.)

Secondly, science's knowledge, views and opinions are always reviewed, revised and re-written. This is not so with the bible.

I know that science may not be 100% correct (indeed some of it could be wrong), but I know science is working towards the right answer… whether we get to it in my lifetime, I doubt it… but we will be closer.

You cannot re-write the bible, so theists merely reinterpret the words, change the translation, or ignore passages all together – stating that we no longer believe in this or that passage any more, it has been replaced with another passage that we now follow and believe.

I stated in my first couple of posts that, in my opinion, discussions on the bible do not help with the proof of the existence of god; disprove one holy book and you have a hundred others to read and disprove…

I am looking for god; I have been for a long time…

Maybe I should rephrase that…

I am an atheist, I have been one for a long time, and I have been educated as a scientist, as such I will constantly review my position and question it (Can any theist really say that on their position?).

I can see a million reasons why the bible, when taken literally, is wrong. (The age of the Earth and Universe is something I will be happy to discuss with any theist who believes otherwise – but no one seems to listen for long?)

If you take the bible as a "guide" then way chose one passage over another? How can I, a man, chose which passage was written by god, and which is not… (Erm – didn't a group of men do just that at the start of the 1st millennium – choosing the books which fitted their own personal ideas and beliefs?)

However, if we are to talk about the bible…
(I do find it "enlightening", and great fun when a theist discusses with someone else who knows the bible well – I do not put myself in this camp at all, so I leave this discussion for others.)

…so if we are to talk about the bible (repeat) then I feel the New Testament is far more interesting than the Old. That is, the writers of the New have tried to write a book on Jesus that "proves" he was the messiah predicted in the Old Testament.

Show that New Testament is wrong, than you have "falsified" Christianity. (Still, you have not disproved god though – but I have already made this point.)

A web page for a starter for 10?

http://www.evilbible.com/jesus_false.htm

(I know Billy is aware of this site, he has posted it before – thanks)

See ya

Lee

377. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31513 by LeeC on April 13, 2007 at 4:26 am

What the!!!!

I make a couple of posts before I go to bed, and nearly 20 posts appear next day!!!

Nothing starts the fires of debate it would appear than the bible… wish I could join in with as much vigour, but my knowledge is not in the same league.

So many good points, I particular glad Steve B joined the debate since he has added some great points. Like the solar year question, wish I thought of it… so to follow that line of questioning – If god made the Earth, why is the Earth's spin slowing down? Could not god keep the spin constant? Why the "wobble" (precession)? I understand it in physical terms of course…but surely god doesn't need a wobbly earth.

RE: 933. Comment #31334 by BillySands
RE: 940. Comment #31347 by BillySands

The problem with literature like that is that it assumes the bible to be true and that there must be a god, which is the point of contention between believers and non believers

Yep… but I have a twisted sense of humour and find it funny that ALL the answers are in one poorly written book… and they have a hand-book to help them along.

I suppose the scary thing is they can sell this to the "unthinking" masses.


RE: 941. Comment #31350 by Mark Taunton

Lee: re Horizon. I'm no rocket-science boffin (I know you won't let the following fool you), but I think you picked the wrong part of the Horizon quote.

Sorry – I rushed into a response, I will not make this mistake again, so I will reply in full later.

Just to say now though, it was only a TV show… I do not watch Casualty and think I can be a doctor…

Just a couple of quick points…

The problem arises because the show does not want to qualify every statement, similar to my example on the speed of sound itself. The sentences get a little long and boring when you do.

My words:

It is just the comparison with the ratio of the speed of sound (in air, at sea level, at normal atmospheric pressures and temperature etc

To answer your point:

rockets don't in principle need to reach any particular minimum speed in order to get to the moon

You do to get off the ground… try throwing an apple up into the air if you do not believe me… I will come back in more detail about the Escape velocity if you like... I am of course no rocket scientist either.

I will be back… Have to go… I am being called.

Lee

378. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31338 by LeeC on April 12, 2007 at 4:26 am

RE: 924. Comment #31189 by BillySands

Thanks again Billy,

I just followed one of the links and came across all the answers in Astronomy my degree missed out on… this will be fun…

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-astronomy.html

No… I have to stop… the last comment I just read from this web-site (which is suppose to be an "argument" against the "Big Bang") just made me laugh too much.

Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth.

I missed this experiment… I wonder why they do not tell me any details of the experiments?

Have to go now…

Lee

379. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31337 by LeeC on April 12, 2007 at 4:13 am

RE: 924. Comment #31189 by BillySands

Thanks again Billy,

I just followed one of the links and came across all the answers in Astronomy my degree missed out on… this will be fun …

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-astronomy.html

Lee

380. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31331 by LeeC on April 12, 2007 at 3:29 am

RE: 924. Comment #31189 by BillySands

Thanks Billy for the links… I will follow them shortly.

I am always interested in knowing the argument of the "other side" – some time ago when I was at college (and way before the internet became the norm) I got my hands on a Watch tower's publication called "Reasoning from the Scriptures" – very useful for when the Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking at your door when you are a kid since it has ALL their answers – indexed and in alphabetical order, pointing to pages in the bible.

Basically the book contains likely questions they may be asked and how they should respond. It is particularly funny when you see them reach into their bag and pull out their copy in answering a question…

Oh, and before I forget… May I suggest sticking two pencils up your nose and to start wearing your underpants on your head – wibble!!

Glad you cannot stay away though… I just wish we could get some more theists, I feel sorry for Mark being on his own, but we will try and make him feel as welcome as possible.

RE: 926. Comment #31214 by Quetzalcoatl

I won't comment on your "Horizon analogy", since Lee has done a heavily (to me at least) irony-laden response that pretty much covered everything.

Thanks… I was in that kind of mood last night… you can say what you like about me and my beliefs, but I will not have a word said against Horizon and the BBC.

By the way, are you in America?

With my views??

No I'm not. I did work in America a couple of years ago – not for me, it can be a scary place. One time I was getting drunk in a bar and at around 1am another drinker started talking to me (no problem there) but he made it his quest to try and convert me to Roman Catholicism?? It's not safe to even go to a pub in America anymore…

I assume you ask because of the funny hours that I am posting… I'm English, but in Australia at the mo – and with the winter nights closing in it will be a depressing time.

RE: 929. Comment #31253 by Mark Taunton

I hope you don't think I'm ignoring you - it's not deliberate, honest! I will try to deal with some of your recent comments shortly.

No worries (damn – I've been "down-under" for too long)

You have a lot of posts to reply to, and I have raised a lot of points and so I am interested in your reply to them…

Time to go

Lee

381. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31134 by LeeC on April 11, 2007 at 5:24 am

920. Comment #31093 by Mark Taunton

Mark,

Oh dear… Oh dearie, dearie me…

I do not really have time to give a full post tonight, and I think maybe I should let Q respond himself to your comment since they were directed at him in reply to his post 901.

However, I just cannot let this one go without comment, so where to begin?

Q's post (901.) I believe, was merely to state the version of his bible, and to say:

if Christian scholars cannot agree on which translations are right, how can any of them, let alone the layman, be sure that what they are studying is correct?

Shouting down his version of the bible is stupid to say the least, since this reinforces his argument.

Using a bad, unscholarly translation (like the one from which you quoted, for Daniel 2) to obtain the Bible's meaning, is like using popular TV programmes, such as the BBC's "Horizon", as the sole basis for one's understanding of science.

Q is an atheist (I assume) so I doubt he puts much faith in the bible he owns, he is merely using it as a means of reference in these discussions. I own a bible, and as far as I am concerned they are all the same… and if they are not – then why not, why is one translation truer than another? What makes one "false" and another "true".


And now on to your point with regards to "using popular TV programmes… as the sole basis for one's understanding of science"

This would of course be stupid… to base the whole of one's knowledge and beliefs on only one source, without cross-referencing with other independent sources, this would be very narrow-minded indeed. I mean – what if that single source made a mistake, or indeed did not actually know all the answers? Could you trust a single source, what if they had an ulterior motive? What if that single source based it knowledge on a single document which they needed to translate into English from a different language?

we were told that rockets, to "escape the earth's gravitational field, must accelerate at a speed of 24,000 miles per hour – that's over three times the speed of sound". Will they correct that programme to put right the misleading wording? I very much doubt it….

Erm… firstly mistakes can happen, however the fact on the escape velocity of the Earth at 24,000 mph is correct (approximately), and this is the important part. It is just the comparison with the ratio of the speed of sound (in air, at sea level, at normal atmospheric pressures and temperature – need I go on?) that it seems to go wrong - but you knew this.

It is good that you noticed the mistake though; if this was a published book you could write to the publishers and have the next edition corrected.

Science is always reviewed, revised and re-written… Can we do that with the bible?

Yours

Lee

382. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31117 by LeeC on April 11, 2007 at 4:05 am

Hi Q,

Not got the time to add much to the discussion, just wanted to add one point, that maybe you knew – maybe not.

You mentioned the Big Bang and the religion around it…

As J C Samuelson said, there are a great many scientifically-minded Christians, who examine "God's Creation" by looking at the evidence of the world around us. And a great many of them agree that the world is older than 6,000 years. I went to school with people who believed that the Big Bang and everything that followed was God's mechanism to bring us into being. I have my objections to this, but it is still more plausible than what Genesis says.

I trust you know that it was a Roman Catholic priest who first muted the idea of the "Big Bang"… I think he even read the bible once or twice. (OK – Edwin Hubble also made a similar suggestion at around the same time, but both views are thought to be independent of each other.)

So religion (and Christian religion at that) is not against an older Earth and Universe.

Lee

383. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #30854 by LeeC on April 10, 2007 at 4:45 am

Hi Mark,

Thanks for not taking my (with hindsight, somewhat tetchy) last comment too hard. My frustration concerns the wording of your earlier question - about the "age" of the earth.

I never take offence, I'm too thick-skinned for that (or is that just thick)

Also, I did not wish to cause you frustration, but I do not know how else to phrase the question – How old is the Earth? What is the age of the Earth? How long ago did the Earth come into existence?

Can you help you help me phrase it better?

Again I would ask you to consider the issues I raise in my response 860: I don't think you've really engaged with the key point thus far. If a creator has been at work in the way the Bible describes, then there will inevitably be a difference between the perceived age of things, when you use a set of naturalistic assumptions as your basis, and the time that has actually elapsed since his acts of creation.

I did try and take on your views in my response in 862…. But taking this view only left me with further questions.

For the sake of argument though (as you have put it) I will for the moment accept your age of the Earth (you mentioned heavens, can I take that to be the universe?)

OK… God created it all 6,000 years ago…

I take your point about Adam, if this one man was my foundation of ageing the Earth I could be wrong…

I would agree that I could be making a mistake by "guessing" his age just by looking at him (let alone if he was created or not – some people just look older or younger than others.)

However, now my question for you, Mark, is this…

Why did God leave around so many "puzzles and clues" pointing to a much older Earth and Universe?

However, I think the point of your argument is that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it just looks older…

Is this right?

If so, I bring you back to my earlier question, above - why did god leave so many puzzles pointing to an older Earth?

You say I have not "engaged with the key point thus far", could you please repeat it if I am still missing it?

Thanks

Lee

384. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #30623 by LeeC on April 9, 2007 at 4:07 am

RE: 911. Comment #30573 by Mark Taunton

Mark,

Sorry if I misunderstood your reasons for not entering into a debate on the age of the Earth/Universe. You are very busy replying to questions relating to the bible, which I personally appreciate. However, I stand by my statement, but just wish I could "tone down" how I said it so as not to offend.

I try and be open minded about god – I have been looking for him for a long time, I really have – but I (of course?) have not found him, or any reason for his existence… this does not mean though I have totally ruled him out, merely feel that his existence is unlikely and very improbable. I am happy to be proven wrong though, lets face it – if I am wrong about God, and after being given proof for him do not change my ways, what a fool I would be.

However, are you able to say something similar? If I can show you evidence of an older Earth and Universe would you think about it? I hope so… Many Christians accept an older Earth and Universe and still believe in god and the bible…

So, to your response in 860. I replied to this in 862… in which I thanked you for an honest reply, but I raised some questions to you.

My apologies if I missed your reply to this – I do not recall one?

However I was busy writing to Theo and yourself on other matters, so I could just have forgotten.

And so to my point in 910.

Unless you can show me an open mind when it comes to science, then I have to believe it is closed on the subject. (I really hope it is not, however.)

There has been a long discussion with Theo with regards to evolution, which I myself have joined in late and my point is evidence for evolution is pretty strong, but some still debate it.

Evidence for an older Earth is very strong - evidence with just physics alone is very strong, and we are able to give a date, but even without this, there are so many other observations that point to an older Earth, Sun and universe. I do not see any evidence for an age of 6,000 years. Please show me where – I have asked.

So to make a statement and to have a belief for a 6,000-year-old Earth, seems to be against all evidence and observations – but again, please tell me where I am wrong, this is my open mind working here.

Similar as you originally wished not to enter into a debate on science, I did not wish to enter a debate on the bible. Yet I am still here discussing it with you, and I am happy for this. However, the more I read and learn the more questions I have.

Regards

Lee

385. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #30446 by LeeC on April 8, 2007 at 4:24 am

JC (Can I called you this, or should it be Prof. J.C. Samuelson or something?)

You have been very busy, I personally am really glad to read your posts. I wish I could write with such conviction and knowledge on such a wide area.

I had been involved in discussing with Theo with regards to his pet subject of S.G. and tried my best to work on the argument of probability. However, this led me nowhere, but I persisted (for some reason – I guess I was enjoying it.)

However speaking with little knowledge on biology, it was hard to throw any real facts into the argument – plus Theo insisted on keeping science and bible out of the debate – so for the fun of it I agreed.

A throw-away comment during the debate though proved to me I was truly wasting my time. This related to the age of the Earth (and universe) – which Theo did not wish to discuss at first – so I started a new debate, and opened the question anyone who wanted to answer. (Comment 859.)

Theo and Mark's response was 6,000 years…

Now, this means to me that both Theo and Mark have the ability to ignore all scientific evidence. Neither seemed to want to enter into a debate on the science or where they thought it was wrong.

This is particularly interesting with Theo, since he is studying "petroleum engineering". I wonder where he thinks all the petrol comes from? I thought it took millions of years to form so If he answers "god put it there 'cos Earth is only 6,000 years old" on his final exams – does he think he will pass?

So in conclusion, I love a science Vs god debate, but there does not seem to be one on this thread – well not with the theists anyway.

Shame really. I would love to know what the proof there was for a 6,000 year old Earth, and what evidence they would accept to disprove this belief.

Lee

386. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29837 by LeeC on April 5, 2007 at 5:06 am

RE: 898. Comment #29791 by Mark Taunton

Sorry, but yes, I still would like you to define what you mean by "clear", in an abstracted way. It is important to be able to agree on what is meant by that word, else we get stuck with subjectivity, which doesn't allow the discussion to advance.

You now have me confused by what you mean by "abstracted way", I hope we would not have to go down the path of definitions of words, I am more used to equations and formulae so normally leave the words to the philosophers. However, you are right that words can be confusing…

So from the Collins English Dictionary…

Clear:
Free from doubt or confusion
Precise:
Designating a certain thing and no other

So does that help?

Your proposed examples of "clear" prophecy raise various problems. E.g., how do you couch them in a way that is scientific and unambiguous, before the specific scientific terminology (e.g. atoms, planets, orbits), that they necessarily include, becomes understood and forms a regular part of whatever language is used to make the prophecy, with the right meaning?

This first point I find the most interesting… To mere mortals 3,000 years ago this could be an issue, but we are not talking about men writing the bible are we?

A god should not have a problem to "couch them in a way that is scientific and unambiguous" why should this be a problem? A God who can create the whole universe in 6 days should not have a problem with a dictionary. Remember, he can see the future so he "knows" all the languages to come. Some may say he even created the language we use today.

Explain to me why this should be so difficult for god to do?

However, to try and illustrate my point. I will try and write such a passage, "predicting" such an observation that is unambiguous… the only advantage I have over the writers of the bible is that I am writing from today's view point – which no man 3,000 years ago of course could do unaided, and this is my point.

But before I do, I must move onto your second point to make the exercise worth while.

On another tack, what is specifically miraculous (so as to demonstrate supernatural origination) about your examples? Men could in principle (have) discover(ed) those things at any time. By contrast, the sorts of things the Bible correctly predicted are not mere discoveries, amenable to scientific investigation under a microscope, or through a telescope.

The point that I made in 883, what to me is "specifically miraculous" is that if it was indeed written in the bible over 2000 years ago, before man had the technology or means to observe them, then this would be a true and miraculous prediction, since the knowledge was unknown to contemporary observers/writers.

Once written in the bible, an original document could be scientifically dated to prove that it was indeed written before the technology was available to make such planetary observations.

I would then be left to try and answer how the bible writers could have known this "impossible" knowledge. A lucky guess would be my best answer, but if this was backed up with further "impossible" knowledge… I could not explain this much luck, and so would start to believe in god. Simple really.

Such predictions, once proven, could not be debated… it is "binary logic" (to paraphrase you from 882.) If you can see what was predicted, then it is true… it is black and white. If two moons exist around Mars, then the prediction is true. No grey areas… it is "clear and precise", "Free from doubt or confusion", "Designating a certain thing and no other"

Most importantly, the religious followers can not have any influence on the outcome of this prediction, in any way.

This is unlike the bible predictions, such as the one you are currently debating; I think this involves people and governments. These are, by definition, highly influenced by man and religious followers. If I was to predict that one day my neighbour would see Jerusalem, this is something I could control and influence … I could for example buy him a plane ticket. I could not place a new moon around a planet… unless I was a god of course.

Also, as I have said repeatedly, the bible predictions are very unclear, just look back on this thread and see the debate your simple prediction has aroused. These predictions could mean many things, hence the debate… you need to explain what you think they mean, and then try and use them on some things you observe.

At the moment you and Quetz are debating what is meant by "kingdoms"… this hardly meets my definition of clear and precise.

Back to my analogy of a clear and precise prediction: two moons around Mars:

So God spoke to Bob 'Here is a fact about the heavens, although you are not able to see this yet, you will in time have the tools to confirm my truth. Around the sun the earth circles, it travels a complete circuit in one earth year. The earth is not alone on its journey around the sun; many more heavenly bodies like the earth also travel around the sun. Some quicker, some slower. The earth is the third such body from the sun. The moon, the earth's partner, circles the earth. This takes one month to complete its journey. The fourth heavenly body from the sun can be seen in the night sky, it shines orange, like a star. It has two partners, not one like the earth. Each of its partners is larger than a mountain and formed of rock, but both are smaller than the earth's partner.'

How about that? Is this clear, could it be translated into many languages and it's true meaning not be lost?
Is it precise enough for a scientist? Could a tribe in the desert unaided by god predict so much, so clearly?

Could I accuse the religious followers of influencing the outcome? At worst/best, such a prediction would merely accelerate the discovery, but not change its outcome.

Could god have written such a passage 2,000 years ago, and have his followers write it down clearly.

Hope to hear a response soon (or when you can) since I know you will be busy.

See ya

Lee

387. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29684 by LeeC on April 4, 2007 at 4:51 am

Is it just because it is coming up to Easter, or did this web site just become very busy… it will be hard to keep up.

RE: 889. Comment #29488 by BillySands

Hi Billy,

Glad you could pop in… as you see we have almost come full circle since I think we are back with the book of Daniel prophecies which you debated so very well a while ago.

Also appreciate the update on biology; Theo was getting me on my "gaps in biology knowledge", not that it matters now. Anyone who can believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and Universe ignoring all the hard scientific evidence was never going to be "won over" on any evolution debate.

RE: 890. Comment #29561 by Quetzalcoatl

Sorry I misunderstood you; it was getting late when I responded.

891. Comment #29565 by Mark Taunton

If I claim something is clear, as I have done here in the past, the sceptic tends to just say it's not. Of course that is all subjective, and doesn't get us anywhere.

If a prophecy takes years of bible study, and causes debate amongst scholars, then it is not clear and precise – how can it be described as such?

It is not just that a "sceptic tends to just say it's not"… if an intelligent well read person (which I like to think I am, as are the many other contributors to this site) cannot read a given prophecy and understand what it means, then how can it be clear and precise?

I gave an example of what I see as a clear and precise prediction/prophecy

I shall repeat myself again here…

How about if he predicted the structure of the atom, or the number of moons around a planet (not the Earth, this would be too easy – or maybe not… http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html)

"So god said to Bob, soon your people will discover that the planet called Mars has two moons… but you will not be able to see them until your sons discover the way of optics… oh… first you have to discover the planet… then the moon Oops"

How about that?? Pretty clear? The writers of the bible could not see the moons, so it would be a good prediction. Of course, I could say it was just a lucky case, but if God followed up this pretty good and simple prediction with others, then I would believe… REALLY believe.

So to repeat myself, why could God not write a clear and precise prediction – (do I really need to define what I mean by this further)?

Also, by the way, the word in Hebrew in Daniel 1 is actually "seeds", i.e. pulse, so I don't think cabbage really qualifies – keep on eating it, you know it's good for you! :-)

I had high hopes for my curry diet… but, upon re-reading, I'm not sure myself… maybe it was about roast beef and Yorkshire pudding?

It is clear that vegetables (like lentils as you said) make you "fatter in flesh" than the rich food. So Eat meat… it is good for you, so the bible predicted the Atkins diet, erm maybe this is the clear and precise prophecy I needed?

"So he hearkened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. At the end of ten days it was seen that they were in better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king's rich food. So the steward took away their rich food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables."
Daniel 1.14-16

Maybe not… it is hardly a prophecy, but good stuff all the same.

RE: 895. Comment #29638 by J.C. Samuelson

Welcome back… I am glad you are online again… but it will take me some time to read your post.


Have to go, so much to read

See ya

Lee

388. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29482 by LeeC on April 3, 2007 at 4:20 am

RE: 884. Comment #29315 by Quetzalcoatl

So, never mind what I said about waiting- I've been sucked back in to the debate for fear of being left behind!

Sorry if this was my fault, I could not wait for the full post to add my comments.

Glad you are back in the debate though, your knowledge on the bible is far greater than mine.

I hope I haven't gone over stuff already mentioned in the comments LeeC pointed out. I'll try and read them when I have the chance.

Nope… you are able to quote the bible better than me, all I have learnt so far from my reading last night is that I should go on a rich curry diet, since eating vegetables get you "fatter in flesh" (Daniel)

But I am sure I am misreading this somehow…

My main point, not aimed at yourself of course – but to the theists on this thread, that I am repeating until I hear a satisfactory answer, is why are the prophecies not "clear and precise" if they are truly written by god?

My only answer so far is this…. "The bible was written by man."

I am yet to read anything to prove otherwise… but I am waiting, and happy to be pointed to the right page in the "good book" or anywhere else.

I suppose I could also repeat my question with regards to the age of the Earth and the Universe, but I think it has gone all quiet on that topic.

I wonder why? Lack of evidence?

Shame really, I have so many books on Physics and they do me no good on this web site.


Lee

389. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29474 by LeeC on April 3, 2007 at 3:47 am

RE: 886. Comment #29436 by Mark Taunton

Hi Mark,

For information, last night I opened my bible again and started to read Daniel... the introduction in my version I found rather interesting, I will type it out in full if you would like me to, however the bit I found interesting was this:-

… it was not until Porphyry's day (ca. AD 260) that doubt was cast upon the traditional view. Many critical scholars object to a sixth century date, claiming that the book must have been written after the events described took place, not before, since the predictions were so specifically fulfilled by the time of the Maccabean struggle for independence (165 BC).
(Study Bible: Revised Standard Version. Cambridge)

And these words remember are not from an atheist website, but from a published version of the bible as an introduction to the Book of Daniel – interesting I am sure you would admit.

As for the book of Daniel itself, I have to admit I am finding it hard going, but will still give it a go, not sure what all these "rich meals" and name changes are all about…. It seems to say that a diet of vegetables can get you "fatter in flesh" than the rich foods. No more cabbage for me then… I am on a rich diet of curry from here on in? But, I guess these are political statements rather than religious (or dietary) ones.

Which leads me back to my earlier point…

The problem, as I said before, is that the reader needs to know the context and history of the writing to make sense of it. Reading any article or passage out of context can be misleading– (which I guess is one of your points that I should read the whole book).

However the couple of web links, which I have re-posted, try and put each passage in context… in a historical sense, and this is when Daniel (to them at least) falls apart.

Thanks though for answering one of my questions, but I did state "clear and precise" prophecies, so I think you missed my point…

So quoting myself from 883.

My problem with these, and all the "true" prophecies (that is, ones that really try to predict the future – not that their predictions are true.) is that they are too vague…

… (edited) …

The very fact these "clear and precise" prophecies have been debated in such depth though proves to me that they are anything but clear.

And this is my problem…if god wrote the bible, why are the prophecies not clearer, and not open to ANY debate.

God could have chosen any prophecy and one that was not a self-fulfilling one on the part of the religious followers.

I also gave an example of what I thought would be a good prophecy god could have used….

Have to go… I need to read the earlier posts which I missed since I jumped to the end.

See ya

Lee

390. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29208 by LeeC on April 2, 2007 at 5:03 am

RE: 882. Comment #29048 by Mark Taunton

Hi Mark,

You may find it hard to believe (maybe not) that I actually have my copy of the bible on my bedside table at the moment, and I do try and read it at night.

Unfortunately I have too many other books on the go, and so at the moment it is under 4 other books (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman; The Wars Of the Roses - The Soldiers' Experience; Peter Kay Autobiography - The sound of Laugher and just given to me today Douglas Adams - Salmon of doubt.)

Also I find myself on this web site most days so I have a lot of Internet reading to do.

The fact is though; I am trying to read around the subject, I never trust one source, even if it is the bible… (As proof of my thinking, I can find 5 books on my shelf all called "The Wars of the Roses" by different authors… everybody has a different view on the subject – so I have to read them all - it is the same on the bible)

The problem with the book of Daniel has been discussed at some depth already on this thread…. Most seem to be between yourself, Shaun and "BillySands".

A pointer for anyone joining the debate late…

Comment entries: 253. 335. 345. 356. 398. 505. 525. 579. 607….

I do not recall though anyone accepting a conclusion, which is summed up on the atheist camp by the following comment

610. Comment #16553 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Gee ... are you guys still at this.

(I edited this comment, to remove the "worthless" content.)

I did discover another useful website though, going back over these threads, but I trust you have already read it: -

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html

As a "neutral", from reading your discussions with BillySands and others, the evidence for the book of Daniel being written around 160 BC and NOT the sixth century BC the book claims, seems to support a strong case.



However, the reader needs to know the history of the period well, which I do not. So I need to "trust" the historian (or the bible?). This is a problem – who to trust and why?

To quote from the web site I just posted above with regards to dating the book of Daniel.

"To summarize, he made errors regarding events in the distant past (6th century BCE), was remarkably accurate in describing details of the events leading to the desecration of temple in 167BCE and then made errors about events after that. Thus it is obvious that Daniel must have been written at a time after the temple desecration but before the death of Antiochus IV. In short between 167 and 164BCE"


Back however to your post.

I believe there is really a binary choice to be made. Either Daniel is a forgery, written in 165 BC, in which case the sceptic seems to win the case (except that he still can't explain why Daniel's prophecies of yet later times came true in such detail!).

Erm… what are these clear and precise prophecies?

If it is the state of Israel post WWII, then this too has already been discussed on this thread.

My problem with these, and all the "true" prophecies (that is, ones that really try to predict the future – not that their predictions are true.) is that they are too vague…

I have read your earlier posting on the subject (More comment entries? 696, 698 … it goes on. It is hard to search this web-site so I know I have missed many - sorry. If you can point me to some more, I will re-read old postings.)

The very fact these "clear and precise" prophecies have been debated in such depth though proves to me that they are anything but clear.

And this is my problem…if god wrote the bible, why are the prophecies not clearer, and not open to ANY debate.

God could have chosen any prophecy and one that was not a self-fulfilling one on the part of the religious followers.

How about if he predicted the structure of the atom, or the number of moons around a planet (not the Earth, this would be too easy – or maybe not… http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html)



"So god said to Bob, soon your people will discover that the planet called Mars has two moons… but you will not be able to see them until your sons discover the way of optics… oh… first you have to discover the planet… then the moon Oops"

How about that?? Pretty clear? The writers of the bible could not see the moons, so it would be a good prediction. Of course, I could say it was just a lucky case, but if God followed up this pretty good and simple prediction with others, then I would believe… REALLY believe.

So the question remains…. Why are the prophecies written about the future (after the bible was really written, say After 400 AD?) vague at best, or plain wrong at worst?

Lots of reading to do… must go.

Thanks

Lee

391. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #28966 by LeeC on April 1, 2007 at 12:40 am

RE: 878. Comment #28774 by LeeC
880. Comment #28801 by Mark Taunton

Hi Mark,

Thanks for reading the link…

I can of course only read such links and judge them with my current knowledge. So a lot on the site seems reasonable to me.

The reason I posted the link was mainly to prove that there are other opinions out there, and that I am the type of person to read both sides. I try and question everything given to me, even if "deep down inside" I may actually believe it. Since just because I believe in something does not necessarily make it right.

If I cannot be given "100% proof" on a subject then I try and find which answer is "more likely" and more probably.

I am not saying that the web-site I posted is correct, but the site did raise an important question to me.

That is, (according to the web-site's evidence) the accuracy of the book of Daniel is not very good on the details that should be "known" as recent historical events to the writers… yet the book is very "precise" on the details of "future" events, closer to the proposed time the web-site states the book of Daniel was written.

The conclusion being that the book of Daniel was not written when the it suggests it was and so therefore the "prophecies" mentioned are in fact a report of history.

Still, I have much to read on the subject…

Thanks again.

Lee

392. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #28781 by LeeC on March 30, 2007 at 7:29 pm

RE: 876. Comment #28705 by Helian

AHA!! The British "incipient theocracy" is on the march. And you don't even have a firewall against it in your Constitution. Why, correct me if I'm wrong, but you still have an established church, don't you. When religion becomes the fashion again in Britain, as in the days of Cromwell, you'll be as sheep led to the slaughter. The "British Taliban" will just step into their accustomed and tradition-hallowed role in their very own established church. Then it will be a mere matter of finding another Queen Mary (and, perhaps, a King Philip) to "restore order" among the atheists.

I take it you are from America? You do not say… why is that?

I do not worry about Christian church's in England… the C of E are very good at keeping order. More happy for tea and biscuits than revolution… besides this all been tried before.

You blindly quote 3 names out of history. All have something in common, they failed to establish their beliefs onto the country.

Elizabeth followed Mary, no more Catholic church in power – ever!

Philip failed in his attacks against England. (The seas and god must have been on England's side that day?)

As for Cromwell, I like him, you know parliament actually offered him the position of King of England to try and reduce his control and power? Anyway, he died and the rest is history. The good old Church of England survives…

It is interesting though that indeed England does not have a constitution to keep church out of government (That I am aware, although I do not think we can have a Roman Catholic as prime minister?),

Even so, the church has little political power in the UK.

Yet in the US, there is a constitution to keep church and state separate… but the church's power there is over whelming and scares the rest of the world (at least it scares the hell out of me…)

Church and religion should not have power in government; America knew this when it's founding fathers created its constitution. Yet every religion seems to want to control; be it the minds, the souls or the government. After all, it is the government who tax the people and have the money. This is where the true power is.

Are the Christadelphian's different? Mark says they do not take any interest in the government of countries, only the kingdom of god… this then is good and I believe him.

Does a Christadelphian try and convert other people to their belief?

Is this another form of control – the mind?

Am I trying to convert people to atheistism? Can an atheist control the mind of another?

This is a different discussion... I wish I did not say anything now.

Anyway… I am not here to talk politics that much I am sure of. I believe your comment was merely shouted at this site without much thought of who you were talking to.

I suppose your reply (if any) will prove this one way or another.

Please join in the discussion, it has changed a little over the course of time, but I believe it is still discussing the existence of god, the evidence for and against him, and is the bible the true word of god.

The religious view is mainly that of the Christadelphian, since this is how the thread started.

(Am I right on this? - Maybe I am on the wrong web site? Correct me if I am wrong)

Not sure if we have room for the politics of nations or a History of England (although I personally like to add a little history when I can), and since this thread was started under the banner of Christadelphians, their position on politics has already been stated and therefore has little scope for further discussion.

Good day to you

Lee

393. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #28774 by LeeC on March 30, 2007 at 6:21 pm

RE: 874. Comment #28334 by Mark Taunton

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the posting…

I will need to do some reading on this matter, since as you know I am not that well read on the