Messages

Nathan:

What's the evidence against being a literalist?  I assume your talking about things that seem to be biblical errors.

What about Pi = 3? But let's not get into that.
Are you a literalist?

I don't know what definition you use for literalist, but if you mean do I believe that the bible is 100% correct and that all the things that are said in it happened then yes I am.  Otherwise what meaning would the bible have, it would just be a collection of stories to teach people which while being good is nothing out of the ordinary and in no way is the bible an ordinary book.

A couple of all the animals of the world fitting in an old prehistoric boat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the book mentionig size of the boat

First of all, yes it does mention the size of the ark.  Genesis 6:15-16  "This is how you are to build it:  The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.  Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top.  Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle, and upper decks."

So yes it does give the dimensions.  As far as being able to fit every kind of animal on it, I would say that it would be possible.  IF I calculated right (and I'm not sure)  then that is 506,250 square feet per deck with a total of 1,518,750 square feet roughly.  Now, I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to fit every single kind of animal in the sense of different types of animals within a species.  For instance looking at dogs there are thousands of breeds I'm sure only one would be required and then natural breeding could take place and form many  many different breeds.  So it seems realistic to me that two of every kind could fit into the ark.  Although, I'm not sure how many animals would then be on the boat at that point since I'm unfamiliar with how many animals there were or are, but I do know that most belong to a much broader group such as housecats and lions are of the same species.  

My conclusion is this:  It would be possible for not every breed to have been brought on the ark and still have all the species and God would not have told Noah to build it to those dimensions if it was incapable of housing all the necessary animals with all the food.

Sorry for the double post everyone.  It was originally meant to be in one, not sure what I did.

a) currently, there is no deity neccessary to explain the universe, and b) assumptions are made that are inherently uncheckable - you try collecting evidence for the presence or absence of something that's explicitly stated to be undectable.

A)  I suppose that this is true but it really depends on how you look at it.  For instance one theory of how everything came into being with all of the laws of physics and such by Stephen Hawkings is that it all just popped into being and then there was the big bang from the material that just appeared.  My problem with this theory is why would these two giant masses appear for no reason with all of the laws of physics somehow ingrained in them, and even if that is what happened then why has no such thing happened again or did it for some reason magically happen. This seems to be a bit more of a stretch than God having created it.  The other theory of course is that God created everything.  So on both the sides of science and religion the ideas are based on an assumption and faith.  On science the assumption and faith that God does not exist and therefore something else had to do it.  On religion the assumption and faith that God does exist and created everything.  So while there is no 'need' for a diety it seems to be just as likely a theory as everything magically popping into existence.  So really how do you explain something that cannot be conceived except by an answer that is unexplainable in itself. (Wow that was a mouthful)

B)As far as it being uncheckable I would disagree. It is the same thing as a primary historical document.  It is a reporting of events.  You have to either take it on faith that it is correct or you have to look for corroboration.  There are many things that corroborate the bible as being historically accurate.  So while the claims in this particular historical book are much more incredible than the an account of a war or even of farm life in the 1600s it still bases it's assertions on first hand accounts.

I'm looking up that philosopher Akatosh he sounds interesting.

BUT, being a creationist and/or a literalist is something entirely different. To subscribe to one or both of these beliefs, you have to be utterly ignorant of a vast body of evidence and discoveries that flat out contradict either view.

What's the evidence against being a literalist?  I assume your talking about things that seem to be biblical errors.  I believe that if you read the bible closely then the contradictions make sense. (Sometimes you may have to look at  the original Greek or Hebrew. )  In any case if you can give me an example then I'll try to find out the answer and if I can't then I'll concede your point.

If you can define the question then maybe you are God?

Haha, your right, that would be arrogant to say that I can define it.  I cannot define the question of Science v. Religion but it doesn't even look like a battle to me.  It has always seemed to me that science is open to ideas that cannot be disproved, I've read a couple quantum physics theories... that I woefully did not understand at all.  

Let me present the instance of time:  Time has been accepted by many scientists as the fourth dimension.  Now time is something  that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted.  The only evidence for time is the effects that are seen to be caused by it.  I'm not pretending to understand it at all but it is the same as the case of God and Christianity.  These things cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched and yet the effects of them can be seen.  So why is God considered to be unscientific, whereas time which is equally unprovable is very much a scientific concept?

Can I ask a question?  What point exactly are any of you arguing because looking at all these posts all I'm seeing are insults and a refusal to look closely into the other sides point of view.  If your going to have an argument have it for the purpose figuring out something, and before discounting the other sides point of view look closely into it.

Before everyone starts saying that I think I am above everyone.  I am not, and I am sure there are plenty of people here smarter than I am but I have fallen into letting emotions rule an argument many times and I know that the only thing it breeds is dislike on all sides and a further rooting of people in their beliefs without justification.  

So either stop insulting and get back to actual arguing, or close this thread down because it's not helping this community and it's not helping any individual here.

If you want to continue arguing I would plead that you figure out what you are arguing about first.  Define the question then figure out the answer.